Quote:
Originally Posted by astronaut x
And I agree. However, I don't see the point for calling someone out for using the term. If by using the term, it lights a fire under someones ass and they click on your sig, why would you have a problem with that? Are you saying Lions are not "majestic?" Are you saying rats are?
When an orangutang walks, would say he walks "majestically?" Its simply a term used as a description. It's not going to make the rats endangered.
By the way, using your method of thinking... you should change the picture in your sig, to lets say, maybe a rat? I mean, by focusing on your chosen animal, people will forget about the other animals and they might become extinct or something. 
I'm not going to argue with you. It would be more productive to agree that we are on the same side of the issue and move on. No need to nitpick about things that really make no sense. Majestic, beautiful, graceful, clumsy, wonky, dorky.... cute. Descriptors of the English language. |
It wasn't about "majestic" per se if you didn't get it. It was about how this kind of classification is nonsense in conservation. I just replied to what L-pink wrote; I don't know his whole view into this and as this is a forum it wasn't reply just to him, as hopefully can be seen from the message too.
In this thread you can see very sadistic and cruel people replying to this subject (wishing all kinds of shit for that dentist). I don't think that development of that kind of behavior or people altogether is good for anyone. People alienating from nature isn't good for conservation.