2008-04-09 [Trist]: i'll support this cos im an environmentalist. animals = love.

2008-04-10 [Byne]: Sharks = <3 love. XD

2008-04-10 [Trist]: sharks = animals,  man this is like math in motion!

2008-04-10 [Tickle Me Emo]: Environment = love, but
Environment doesn't = animals. Necessarily.

2008-04-10 [Trist]: of course  sharks --> animals  but  animals -/-> sharks. just want to clarify that.

2008-04-10 [Ramirez]: -flails about- I see equations, and = signs. -cries and hides-

2008-04-10 [Tickle Me Emo]: As long as it's not *, +, or a division sign, I'm good, haha

2008-04-10 [Trist]: sharks / animals = environmentalism ^ love?  i'm makin this shit up.

2008-04-10 [Trist]: lol, ^love.

2008-04-10 [Ramirez]: -brain explodes-

2008-04-10 [Tickle Me Emo]: Nah, I think it would be more like animals^sharks + environmentalism = love

I think (animals^sharks) would be a pretty powerful figure, although (animals^sharks) < love.

2008-04-10 [Byne]: XD XDDD........... -Giggle snort.-

Sharks+animals+environment = Happy robine.

2008-04-10 [Trist]: at any rate, we've got the numbers. the math says save the sharks motherfucker.

2008-04-10 [Tickle Me Emo]: Yes, but unfortunately detrimental shark activity = $
So, really, it's how this equation pans out that decides whether sharks are saved or not:

shark hunting >/=/< environmentalism

Because people who run shark businesses are typically wealthy, and, let's face it... environmentalists? Not so much. In this capitalistic society, money wins out. What group has the brains, on the other hand, is another issue entirely :P

2008-04-10 [Trist]: yeah, but if you can show them that activities like diving with sharks can be a profitable business venture, not only = $ but also maintaining the shark population can = more $ in the long run.

2008-04-10 [Tickle Me Emo]: I have no doubt maintaining strong shark populations would prove lucrative on many levels, it's just overcoming big, established businesses that is the problem. If shark hunting were to be curtailed, not only would it increase shark numbers (and therefore provide more opportunities for shark-related activities), but it would also reduce the supply of shark products, which would increase the price of the products and bring in a larger profit. However, such ideas struggle against years of predefined shark industry convictions and a resentment of people toward the ostensible aggression of sharks that, unfortunately, still lingers.

2008-04-11 [Byne]: ...At least half of the shakr finning that occurs, is actually illegal. But Tickle is right. A lot fo people could careless about sharks because they see them as frightning, evil creatures, even though on 0.2% of the less than 70 attacks each year are fatal, and almost all of the attacks are provoked attacks. On average, there are only 5 unprovoked attacks, and people need to remember that htere are over 6.6 billion persons on the planet. Over 3 billion of them have access to waters inhabited by sharks.

2008-04-11 [Tickle Me Emo]: I think there's a lot of exaggeration about how much people dislike sharks, though. It may just be that I live in environmentally-conscious Seattle, but I've never really encountered people who are scared of sharks I know that people are, but at least in the area I live in, it's not that common of a sentiment.

And industries don't have to be legal to have supremacy <.< >.> 0.0

2008-04-11 [Trist]: i bet there's more dog attacks, and people love dogs. and i KNOW there are way more human attacks. if you want an animal to be scared of, man, HUMANS, they are fucking vicious.

2008-04-11 [Tickle Me Emo]: Yeah, but when was the last time you heard about a human having a serious relationship with a shark? Humans are dangerous to other humans, but at least they're nice as well.

2008-04-11 [The Monochrome Rainbow]: I saw an exhibit at a zoo once, it was in a building, behind a curtain. Above the curtain was a plaque that said "Most dangerous animal on earth" behind the curtain was a mirror.