Through means never fully explained (unless you buy the comics and video games), the ring getting destroyed was all part of Sauron's master plan. The villain for the first two sequels is Samwise's son Bobbit, who Sam tried to kill when he learned he was dabbling in dark arts. He's redeemed by our hero, an orc that broke rank with Sauron after learning about his plan to, IDK, blow up the whole world or something, but he's killed anyway to make room for our third movie reveal that Sauron was behind it all. Our brave orc hero must meet up with a haggard looking Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas to painstakingly re-enact the events of the Fellowship of the Ring, wander around with Gandalf and learn how to become a wizard, then kill Sauron and take the last name Baggins.
chetradley
In a press release issued Wednesday by Arab Americans for Peace, the group said its members “appreciate the president’s offer to clean and rebuild Gaza” but “take issue with the president’s suggestion of taking over Gaza and removing its Palestinian inhabitants.”.
By "clean up", he literally means removing the Palestinians you absolute fucking morons.
I'm sorry, what did y'all think "Boston cream" was?
It's a pretty scary thought that with enough brain damage anyone can go MAGA.
Add a CRT with a GameCube and a couple of madcatz controllers.
Likewise, have a great day.
I've actually been quite clear in the definition of life span I'm using. You appear to be intentionally misunderstanding my point.
The limits of the life span of each species appear to be determined ultimately by heredity. Locked within the code of the genetic material are instructions that specify the age beyond which a species cannot live given even the most favourable conditions.
https://www.britannica.com/science/life-span
Can you at least be consistent in your argument? On the one hand, you say that a species' lifespan in captivity can't be an indicator of their natural lifespan, because they wouldn't survive as long in the wild. On the other hand, you say that a livestock species' lifespan is dictated by when humans choose to slaughter them. Can you explain how these arguments don't contradict each other?
I'm happy to engage in a good faith conversation with you on this if you're interested.
Kind of a moot point since dairy cows, like the majority of animals raised for food, are man-made breeds and wouldn't exist in the wild anyway. But you knew I meant when I said natural lifespan, as in how long they'd live if they weren't killed as juveniles.
Tale as old as time.
Yes, thank you for making my point! When compared to the same animals living out their natural lives in a sanctuary, they're only kept alive for a miniscule fraction of the time:
And looking at the conditions a vast majority of these animals are raised in, it's hard to argue we're doing them any favors.
Not breeding them into existence just to kill them at a fraction of their natural lifespan is much better.
Nice bait, but if you seriously have a problem with people enjoying things with no impact to you, the burden of proof is on you to explain why that's actually a bad thing.