Thread: If animal cruelty laws prohibit bestiality, why don't they prohibit factory farming?

Originally Posted by Dianeva

It's illegal because we find it distasteful, the same reason almost everything is illegal. Not for any rational reason. I'm not saying it goes against reason, it's just a desire like all the others that are the basis for any action. People like to pretend we have rational reasons beyond the fact that we just feel some things are right and others are wrong, like needing certain laws for society to function, but I think those are mostly excuses.

Pretty much this, and that there isn't a serious campaign against it. I've commented on the inconsistencies of such laws in the past.

In fact, I'm still very uncertain about the matter. I haven't heard any especially good arguments for banning it, but I haven't really heard any good reasons on why it should be allowed either.

Originally Posted by mooseantlers

Thank you OP! Somebody that agrees with me, even if you factor in the consent thing though, animals don't consent to anything else, they aren't citizens. With that being said, have you ever had a dog fuck your leg? Yeah, it's having sex with you. I am not a zoophile, but I defend zoophilia rights, because it's a preference that doesn't hurt anybody else. And as far as the animal goes, if there's injury to the animal, animal cruelty laws apply, because we have those, you know.

Pretty much just this.
When farmers check up their horses and cows, they literally stick their entire arm up the animals' ass. I think it's only an issue when there's actual harm going on.
If consent in this context is a thing, then there's hella lot of things we're gonna have to get rid of. Domesticated animals and meat eating. Personally I believe that we should focus more on actual harm versus harmless. And this opinion of mine indeed does extend into the discussion about meat eating. And I don't think eating meat is necessary.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

I never said eating meat is necessary, just that for humans it's natuural. Yes, we can live on a purely vegetarian diet, but that's a whole different discussion. We do have the necessary apparatus to eat meat and it does appeal to us, so it's completely natural to do so. Therefore it's no surprise that the institutions of animal farming and hunting came into existence.

We also have the necessary apperatus to have sex with animals, and it appeals to some of us. So doesn't that make it completely natural for some of us to do this?
Natural versus unnatural does not equate good versus bad. Something being natural does not automatically make it okay, which I think is the case when it comes to slaughtering animals. Not to mention that "natural" doesn't have an antithesis, since "unnatural" isn't really a thing. (Buildings? Tools? Speech? If human structures are unnatural, why aren't bee hives?)

But no institution for having sex with animals ever came into existence - in fact it's taboo everywhere as far as I know, because it isn't natural. It's far more natural to have sex with other humans, masturbate, or abstain.

And something being taboo doesn't automatically make it bad either. There's been plenty of taboos in the past that turned out to be totally okay. And like I said before, I don't think natural vs unnatural is a real thing.

And about bestiality not being necessary? We do a lot of things to animals that aren't necessary. We keep them as house pets and teach them tricks, we basically brainwash them into being our little friends. And you know, I don't actually oppose those things generally, because they don't cause any harm regardless of necessity.

EDIT: Actually, here's something I've heard from a teacher, so I can't claim that this is necessarily true;
But anyways, in my country, Denmark, bestiality is actually legal. This teacher claimed that there actually are markets for the bestiality thing. Which is to say, farmers that offer their animals for money. I think the reason why this is unheard of, has much more to do with the fact that in the past (and present), there's always been a much larger demand for animals as food, whereas only a minority of people have wanted to have sex with animals. Not to mention that farmers probably just did it by themselves in the past... (And that sex has always been ridden with issues of shame and taboo)
I think this kind of thing is potentially a lot worse than if it was just not taboo. The idea of this being turned into an underground secretive business seems far worse and much more potentially harmful than if it was just something people did with their pets in a respectable manner. (Uh, that's a rather subjective thing to say but whatever. I guess I mean a harmless manner.)

Totally agree with you Maeni, people here have said stuff like "Bestiality serves no purpose" (Warheit I think), but actually if you are sexually attracted to animals then its purpose is pleasure. Like you said, we do much worse unescessary stuff to animals, and if neither party is getting hurt then it should not be so taboo.

Mmmhm, purpose doesn't seem like a good argument to use in my eyes. It implies that everything must serve a purpose in order for it to not be bad. And that's sort of a weird stance considering that we do a whole shit load of things for pure entertainment and pleasure. And that's not even mentioning that you could argue whether or not entertainment and pleasure are purposes.

Anyways, apologies for latching on to two specific early posts before I read through the entire thread...

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

So I guess when I used the word natural I really meant "normal according to human evolution". Incidentally, homosexuality has always been a part of human nature, even though it doesn't propagate the species.

I know this was answered too, but I'd also like to say that this, I don't think really changes anything. Personally I feel exactly the same about "normal" as I do about "natural". They're basically non-existant. And even if we assume that they exist, there's nothing inherently good about being normal. Plus, as Abra pointed out, bestiality has probably been here just as long as any other sexual practice and sexual deviance.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

I think this has already been said, but eating the flesh of a dead animal doesn't hurt it. Every living thing dies - so that means we're getting into the whole mishmash about how the animals are treated while alive, and of course letting them live wild doesn't ensure a healthy pain-free existence.

Now this is interesting methinks. This touches on the real issue as I see it. We should be trying to treat every living thing in the way that causes the least harm. Everything else are simply means to get there, whether they can provide consent, whether it is normal, whatever. All of those concepts are just guidelines that should try to get us towards the goal where we do things the least harmful way.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

I already clarified my stance on this, but I;ll do it again... homosexuality WITH CONSENT is ok - you can't get consent from an animal.

But isn't that exactly what this thread is about?
If that is the deciding factor, why can we kill them and domesticate them?
As I said, I think they are only guidelines. And honestly, I don't think they're very good guidelines. Indeed, leaving animals in the wild may be even more harmful than not, but if we take them in, aren't we treading on the issue of consent, since we can't clearly communicate with them? I don't think so, since animals seem to be capable of living happy lives even when they are domesticated without their consent. So it's about harm, overall. And I don't think bestiality causes harm unless there is physical violence and force involved.

Originally Posted by Abra

Letting them live wild doesn't ensure a pain free existence, but it gives them a better, more natural life.

Of course, we may be using different definitions of what makes something 'natural.' (You never gave me the criteria.)

Again with the "natural" stuff, heh. Personally I just think that, well, usually a life in the wild is probably the best because that's, I guess, what they're evolved towards and as such I guess you can assume that's also where they're the most comfortable? Honestly I don't know, it seems to me that animals can be happy either way, as long as we don't treat them badly. Basically, I think, what we need is not a view that says "We must never get involved in animal business because we cannot communicate with them, thus they cannot consent, so we leave them in the wild.", but rather we should try to get better at actually understanding animals in order to better know when they are uncomfortable and in harm, and when they are happy and at ease.

Originally Posted by Abra

But that natural's ok too. There's a natural compassion for animals most humans have. We evolved this altruistic sense. We didn't evolve to let the animals we domesticated for thousands of years suffer. We needed to keep them healthy for food.

Despite being used to argue for a stance I agree with, I still don't think using evolution, normality and naturality are good arguments neither for or against anything I think it's good that we care for animals, but not because we evolved that way.

EDIT:

Originally Posted by Warheit

Do you know how we account for the difference in these numbers?

I think it's pretty weird to suggest that brain size indicates smartness in any case... Don't blue whales have gigantic brains? I'm not under the impression that they are that much smarter than us...

And, I asked you to justify why you believe having sex with animals is normal. The burden of proof is on you.

If you insist on discussing the normality of something, we're going to need a framework for it.
As far as I know, normal merely means something which conforms to the standard, the average, the expected outcome. So basically, if our framework is "normal for humans", that means if 50% or above people are part of the thing we want to determine, then it is normal. If there's less than 50% of them, then it is, by definition, abnormal.
This makes a lot of things abnormal, including homosexuality as far as I know?

This is why I don't like talking about normal things. Whether something is normal or abnormal, it has nothing to do with whether or not something is right or wrong.

EDIT:

Originally Posted by Alric

Secondly animals can consent to sex. Animals can even initiate sex, and if they start it then obviously they want it. In fact some animals can even rape people. If an animal rapes you, are you being cruel to the animal? That entire line of thinking is stupid, and people can use common sense to very easily tell what an animal wants.

Totally agree.
Personally I think the argument about consent is often not a very well thought out argument. By the logic that consent is the end-all factor in deciding whether sex is acceptable, you could rape a bucket...

Originally Posted by Maeni

I think it's pretty weird to suggest that brain size indicates smartness in any case... Don't blue whales have gigantic brains? I'm not under the impression that they are that much smarter than us...

I wasn't the one who suggested that, Abra was. I gave the evidence that Neanderthals had larger brains than modern humans, but did not have the same level of intelligence or ability to learn. If you actually read the numbers and what I stated, you wouldn't have whiffed again.

My original statement:

Larger cranial capacity is not indicative of capability re: higher intelligence.

To which Abra responded:

Hominin evolution would like to have a word with you.

Then I responded, showing that the cm3 for H. neanderthalensis was larger than H. sapiens.

How could you have completely misinterpreted that dialogue?

I originally meant, since we were talking about humans, that when it comes to human evolution, larger brain capacity is correlated with higher intelligence. That doesn't actually mean I'm saying neanderthals were smarter than us, only that they could've been. I actually only said that they have a larger brain volume than us, not that they were smarter. Then I said they'd be held in equal regard in society... Oh, I see. I was assuming they'd have equal or near-equal intelligence. I thought, what with the art and the flowery burials and stuff, they were pretty different from the earlier Homo.

Despite being used to argue for a stance I agree with, I still don't think using evolution, normality and naturality are good arguments neither for or against anything I think it's good that we care for animals, but not because we evolved that way.

Oh yeah, I was just coming at it from the evolution standpoint, since that was the one he wanted to use. But if we listened to what's evolutionarily 'right', we should not allow anyone with genetic disabilities to breed. Y'know, if we were to take this to the extreme.

Honestly I don't know, it seems to me that animals can be happy either way, as long as we don't treat them badly. Basically, I think, what we need is not a view that says "We must never get involved in animal business because we cannot communicate with them, thus they cannot consent, so we leave them in the wild.", but rather we should try to get better at actually understanding animals in order to better know when they are uncomfortable and in harm, and when they are happy and at ease.

Also, Maeni, it appears you believe that altruism should form the basis of these laws. WHAT AN IDEA.

Originally Posted by Warheit

I wasn't the one who suggested that, Abra was. I gave the evidence that Neanderthals had larger brains than modern humans, but did not have the same level of intelligence or ability to learn. If you actually read the numbers and what I stated, you wouldn't have whiffed again.

My original statement:



To which Abra responded:



Then I responded, showing that the cm3 for H. neanderthalensis was larger than H. sapiens.

How could you have completely misinterpreted that dialogue?

Yes, sorry about that, I didn't think to make it clear who I was agreeing with, but I didn't mean to argue against what you were saying, I was actually agreeing with you there.
How awkward.

Originally Posted by Abra

Also, Maeni, it appears you believe that altruism should form the basis of these laws. WHAT AN IDEA.

It almost sounds like a benevolent society!

No worries Maeni, we have all been debating a lot lately. So much going on, it is natural to make some mistakes. That is what humans do.

Maeni, you seem to be arguing for whether bestiality or meat eating are right, which wasnt the original question. The question was why is bestiality illegal (which it actually only is in some places) and not meat eating? With my responses I was trying to understand the reasoning behind our forefathers' reasoning in those choices (which is not the same as saying whether they were correct morally or not).

For one thing, industrialized factory farming didn't exist when those laws were made - therefore it's really outside the scope of the original question. That's why when the conversation started veering that way I suggested it might be time to start a new thread - I didn't realize that might be what the thread was aimed at. I think a better title might be "If animal cruelty laws prohibit bestiality, why don't they prohibit meat eating?" (which was suggested by IndieAnthias' post earlier).

It's understandable why you would have different ideas about bestiality than most of us - in fact when I first saw this thread I thought about your recent thread on pedophilia. I suppose you've done a lot of thinking about what's normally considered "deviant" and the real reasoning behind it... at this point I feel like it's time for me to sit back and learn by reading your thoughts.

However, I would like to point out a couple of things...

I don't agree that domesticating animals is necessarily cruel. In fact, we're not really domesticating them anymore... dogs for exampe were domesticagted long ago, now their offspring are born domesticated. They really can't survive in the wild, and we have an obligation to take care of them. I assume the same is true for cattle and other farm animals - I think they've been domesticated to the pojnt where they can't really survive in the wild if turned loose. In fact I'd say that turning domesticated animals loose in the wild would itself be cruel behavior. I also suspect animals that live in decent domestic conditions with access to vetrinary care when needed live much better lives in many ways than their wild counterparts, who often die very young or live with crippling diseases.

But you have made me realize that I was just having a knee-jerk conservative-style reaction to the idea of bestiality... "It's just wrong dammit!! And I don't need to explain why!!"

As for nomal meaning 50% of the population does it... that's not the only way to look at it. It's always been normal for homosexuals to exist, in human societies and in animal societies. In small numbers, but still normal. And I suppose by that standard, bestiality is normal too. It's just subjected to even stronger taboo than homosexuality.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

For one thing, industrialized factory farming didn't exist when those laws were made - therefore it's really outside the scope of the original question. That's why when the conversation started veering that way I suggested it might be time to start a new thread - I didn't realize that might be what the thread was aimed at. I think a better title might be "If animal cruelty laws prohibit bestiality, why don't they prohibit meat eating?" (which was suggested by IndieAnthias' post earlier).

That isn't true. It might be in some cases, but a lot of states didn't pass laws until well after industrialized factory were in full swing. In fact some places didn't start banning it until very recently, such as 2005 when it was banned in Washington. So many places likely placed the bans well after you were born.

Originally Posted by Alric

a lot of states didn't pass laws until well after industrialized factory were in full swing.

Which laws? About bestiality?

I was assuming animal cruelty laws had been around for like 100 years or so... but I really don't know.

Originally Posted by Alric

In fact some places didn't start banning it until very recently, such as 2005 when it was banned in Washington.

(You either added this part after I wrote that, or I completely missed it!)

Wow, really? That recent? Well then that implies that big (farming) business might have managed to get factory farming excluded from such laws, doesn't it?

Tired mode engaged.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Maeni, you seem to be arguing for whether bestiality or meat eating are right, which wasnt the original question. The question was why is bestiality illegal (which it actually only is in some places) and not meat eating? With my responses I was trying to understand the reasoning behind our forefathers' reasoning in those choices (which is not the same as saying whether they were correct morally or not).

Hmm, yeah, true.
I think when I argue about laws, I tend to just automatically go there. It seems to me that if they are both right, they should both be legal, and if one is right and the other is wrong, then the law should reflect that and vice versa. The question was indeed, why is it like this. My view is that, well, probably because of taboos, meat being a big market and so on. But that it shouldn't be so. I jumped from "it is like this because" to "we should change it because"...

For one thing, industrialized factory farming didn't exist when those laws were made - therefore it's really outside the scope of the original question. That's why when the conversation started veering that way I suggested it might be time to start a new thread - I didn't realize that might be what the thread was aimed at. I think a better title might be "If animal cruelty laws prohibit bestiality, why don't they prohibit meat eating?" (which was suggested by IndieAnthias' post earlier).

Yeah, perhaps the topic could have been specified. But to be honest I think it is a clusterfuck either way. The discussion kind of naturally brings in slaughter of animals. Even if meat eating hadn't been mentioned in the OP, I still think it's a good point that will inevitably appear in a debate about zoophilia...

It's understandable why you would have different ideas about bestiality than most of us - in fact when I first saw this thread I thought about your recent thread on pedophilia. I suppose you've done a lot of thinking about what's normally considered "deviant" and the real reasoning behind it... at this point I feel like it's time for me to sit back and learn by reading your thoughts.

Hehe, yes... My thoughts on this subject seems to reflect my thoughts in a few regards...
Funny enough, the last thread I made about pedophilia was created in 2009, all other threads that I've appeared in have been others'. The one that has been recieving a constant treatment of necromancy initiated by myself is actually pretty old too.
But yeah, I've spent a lot of time discussing these things, both with other deviants, and antis...

However, I would like to point out a couple of things...

I don't agree that domesticating animals is necessarily cruel. In fact, we're not really domesticating them anymore... dogs for exampe were domesticagted long ago, now their offspring are born domesticated. They really can't survive in the wild, and we have an obligation to take care of them. I assume the same is true for cattle and other farm animals - I think they've been domesticated to the pojnt where they can't really survive in the wild if turned loose. In fact I'd say that turning domesticated animals loose in the wild would itself be cruel behavior. I also suspect animals that live in decent domestic conditions with access to vetrinary care when needed live much better lives in many ways than their wild counterparts, who often die very young or live with crippling diseases.

I'm not sure if I was unclear on this part but I agree
I totally think we should focus on what makes them happy, and not be so totally transfixed on the idea of consent. Consent is a good indicator, but not when you use it in an unhelpful manner that makes it possible to rape rocks because they can't consent. As Alric said, even if animals can't provide you with a signed contract or spoken consent, it's still pretty easy to tell when an animal wants or does not want something. And I think that's what we should go by. If consent is the all encompassing issue, then we'd indeed be forced to take all our domesticated animals and throw them back in the wild, never to interact with them again, because doing so would be doing it without their consent.
So yeah, keeping pets, cattle and all that, I'm totally for it, as long as the animals are actually happy. And sometimes I wish it was easier to tell whether an animal is happy or not. I guess farmers and pet keepers can tell.

As for nomal meaning 50% of the population does it... that's not the only way to look at it. It's always been normal for homosexuals to exist, in human societies and in animal societies. In small numbers, but still normal. And I suppose by that standard, bestiality is normal too. It's just subjected to even stronger taboo than homosexuality.

Yeah.. Indeed. As I've been involved in so many discussions about these things, I've heard arguments based on normality a lot. It... Has completely destroyed my understanding of "normal", and I no longer understand jack shit. The entire concept of something being normal does not make any sense to me. Like you say, homosexuality is normal. I think I agree. But not when I apply my cold, definition-based description of it. With that, it's quite abnormal. I think it gets weird because people tend to put a lot of concepts together. They like to take things like "appealing to me" , "ethically correct according to me" and "good" and then throw them into a box and calling it "Normal". But it seems unhelpful to me... What is 'normal' is pretty much decided by general opinion and taboos.
And, damn, true. Even using the cold hard number-based definition of "normal" is quite ambiguous. My example took "normal for humans right now" as the basis, but I guess if you ask "is it normal historically" then it becomes a different thing. Then it would be more like... "Has this occured for more than 50% of the time? If so, it is normal."
Hey, presto! Homosexuality is now 100% normal!

I'm glad some of what I say gives some insight... That's, well, my thoughts on this.

Thanks for such a lengthy and well thought-out response!!

I admit, I'm sometimes guilty of not paying enough ettention to exactly what somebody actually said and just using what I think they said to argue my own points. I think I did a little of that here, and I aplogise. Heh, sorry I accused you of saying things you never said, about domestic animals and whatever else.

And I'm also well on my way down the road where the words normal and natural are losing all semblance of meaning!

That's one thing about hanging out on this website - especially in ED or some of the other 'serious' sections... you really learn a lot along the way, and long-familiar concepts start to seem meaningless. I think I've learned more in the 2 years I've been here than I did in my life previous... at least when it comes to important stuff!

But yeah, forget what I said about "The original question is about legality, not morality"... obviously it was aimed at morality. When I said that I was only explaining why I answered the way I did (I admit to not fully understanding what the OP was getting at in the beginning). But all that said - the morality is of course the important aspect of it all.

Now that we've answered (to my personal satisfaction) what the thread is really about and got a few of the semi-related side issues out of the way - I guess the best title for the OP should be "If animal cruelty laws prohibit bestiality, why don't they prohibit factory farming? - And what should be done about it?"

I was speaking about bestiality, some were passed very recently. Some states still allow it. There is no federal laws concerning it as far as I know. There is a federal law on cruelty to animals, it passed in 1966 but has been constantly updated all the way up until 2007. It got changed 8 times between 1970-2007 and during that time they never added anything in regards for treating animals in factories. The early ones dealt with pets and stuff and the later ones on animal experimentation.

The industrial revolution happened in 1850, so laws regarding both subjects are still fairly new. I think treatment of animals for food is exempt because we like eating meat and its cheap when you don't care about the animals, and we hate bestiality because we think it is disgusting.

Though that opens another interesting thought, that cruelty to animals has federal laws banning it while bestiality as only state laws.

PM'd a mod to alter the title and a little of the OP.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

But yeah, forget what I said about "The original question is about legality, not morality"... obviously it was aimed at morality. When I said that I was only explaining why I answered the way I did (I admit to not fully understanding what the OP was getting at in the beginning). But all that said - the morality is of course the important aspect of it all.

I think the laws themselves are incredibly important. Animals are constantly being abused. Millions replaced shortly by millions of them. And it's ironic that nobody in this thread has pointed to the reasons why we don't have laws to protect them. Scratch that, Maeni did say "because meat's a big market." I want to expand on this (if no one else will). But I still need to back it up with glorious raw data, which could be hard to find. *Abra starts looking*

However, I am eager to discuss, after making and watching this thread, specifically the role morality plays, or should play, in law-making (God that was a lot of commas). Anyone up for it?

Originally Posted by littlezoe

Abra, you can still do it with your birds (or other animals) if that's your desire, even if it's illegal. Just make sure nobody gets to know it...

I see that you guys are already in a heated discussion, but when you find a break from it, be sure to tell me how this would work out.

I want to know.

Originally Posted by slayer

I see that you guys are already in a heated discussion, but when you find a break from it, be sure to tell me how this would work out.

I want to know.

I just shove the bird in and out of my vagina until it wears out, then I toss it and buy a new one.

Originally Posted by Abra

I originally meant, since we were talking about humans, that when it comes to human evolution, larger brain capacity is correlated with higher intelligence.

Not the context I saw with how you quoted what I said, but backpedal if you want. My point originally was: Humans don't have bigger brains than Neanderthals and somehow found that disagreeable. Either way, we are past that.

That doesn't actually mean I'm saying neanderthals were smarter than us, only that they could've been.

But they weren't. The parts of the brain we have that correlate to intelligence, capacity for language and others are significantly different than theirs. A lot of it has to do with environmental factors. They were no slouches though, even though portrayed that way in the media. Neanderthals are greatly misunderstood. Very advanced peeps.

I actually only said that they have a larger brain volume than us, not that they were smarter. Then I said they'd be held in equal regard in society... Oh, I see. I was assuming they'd have equal or near-equal intelligence. I thought, what with the art and the flowery burials and stuff, they were pretty different from the earlier Homo.

I was the one who stated that said larger brain capacity did not equate to higher intelligence, and you stated that hominin evolution would like to have a word with me. Not sure why you would have said that had you actually known Homo sapiens CC/cm3 is less than Neanderthals. And yes, Neanderthals really developed a concept of "self" and "identity" which wasn't as evident in earlier parts of the Homo genus. They were very different.

Anyhoo, good talk bud. *pats on back* I'm a see you next time. I gotta sleep and take my ma to the doctor tomorrow for her MRI's and I have a check-up myself. Cheers n' Beers.

Originally Posted by Warheit

But they weren't. The parts of the brain we have that correlate to intelligence, capacity for language and others are significantly different than theirs. A lot of it has to do with environmental factors. They were no slouches though, even though portrayed that way in the media. Neanderthals are greatly misunderstood. Very advanced peeps.

How do we know about parts of their brain? I thought we just had skulls?

I am aware of two evolutionary leaps at the start of and during Homo that occurred with neurons, and how they connect with other neurons. I wish I could remember more so I could google it.

Anyhoo, good talk bud. *pats on back* I'm a see you next time. I gotta sleep and take my ma to the doctor tomorrow for her MRI's and I have a check-up myself. Cheers n' Beers.

G'night~

Originally Posted by Abra

I just shove the bird in and out of my vagina until it wears out, then I toss it and buy a new one.

bird dildos

you could make some money off that

Originally Posted by slayer

bird dildos

you could make some money off that

And it would actually save me many thousands of dollars in the long-run, too.

Originally Posted by Abra

And it would actually save me many thousands of dollars in the long-run, too.

too late copyrighting it right now

Originally Posted by slayer

too late copyrighting it right now

>:U

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Thanks for such a lengthy and well thought-out response!!

I admit, I'm sometimes guilty of not paying enough ettention to exactly what somebody actually said and just using what I think they said to argue my own points. I think I did a little of that here, and I aplogise. Heh, sorry I accused you of saying things you never said, about domestic animals and whatever else.

And I'm also well on my way down the road where the words normal and natural are losing all semblance of meaning!

That's one thing about hanging out on this website - especially in ED or some of the other 'serious' sections... you really learn a lot along the way, and long-familiar concepts start to seem meaningless. I think I've learned more in the 2 years I've been here than I did in my life previous... at least when it comes to important stuff!

What a great post thank you for making my day!

We need more people like you around here...