[Ravenblade]

Im sure there is probably a topic on this somewhere but it isnt in current issues/debates at least.

Basically, I was watching TV recently and their was an advert for saving some donkeys in Africa or something - and simply put, it disgusted me. This charity was bringing water to donkeys in the kind of community where people were dying of thirst.

My query is, are animals as important as people, or should we, in an ideal world, shut down all animal charities and give the money to human charities cos in fairness, people are more important. Once all the worlds people have been saved then we can try and save the animals left.

Another thing that gets me is mass produced chickens. In the UK there has been this outcry about chickens living in crappy conditions so that they can be sold cheaply in the almighty Tesco.

I have seen the pictures, the conditions are awful. I wouldnt stop the stuff though, cos i buy that chicken as it is a whole 2 or 3 pounds cheaper than the other stuff! I resent middle class England trying to tell me whats right and wrong when they have money and I do not.

While we're at it - though i would disagree with animal testing for cosmetics, i agree with it for medical things that could lead to the saving of peoples lives.

Ok so..opinions?

[Mallick]

http://www.peta.org/ !!!


Really though, it depends on the circumstances.

[Ravenblade]

What circumstances in particular then? I also feel the need to now say that i do not support animals being run to death for sporting purposes or otherwise.

[Split Infinity]

People will always view animals as an inferior species, since they do nothing to speak out against us. While I think humans should always be put before animals, I don't agree with neglect or senseless violence against said animals. It's bad enough that we have to slaughter so many of them just to feed our ridiculously large population.

[Mallick]

Err, run to death?

[Ravenblade]

@anonymous - the horse in that link you gave me - next to it the title mentions horses being run to death..?

@Split: Medical testing?

[Split Infinity]

Depends what kind of medical testing.

[Mallick]

You've never heard of PETA? They used to have good intentions, but they're extreme creeps that put animals in the wild that know nothing but captivity, or kill them.

My sister is a groom at a race track, though, and the care they give the horses is top notch. Most race tracks require vet checks before and after races, etc.



http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn191/Mallicklocal/new/newnew/1210162732592.jpg

[Ravenblade]

I have heard of them but thats as far as my knowledge goes - are they extremists animal rights people then? And how can they justify putting animals to death..

@Split - does it matter? the kind that enables us to treat Parkinsons disease or cancer or whatever

[Mallick]

To put them out of their misery - most of the time though, the animals aren't miserable. XP


And the horse story on the front page is about a filly that snapped both her legs in the kentucky derby this year. She was fine in the vet check, but most horses that race that far are really competitive, usually to the point where something like that is bound to happen. I guess that could be a reason in itself for not allowing races and the sort.

[Split Infinity]

@Raven: Well if it could potentially save millions of lives, it can't be that bad?

[Ravenblade]

@Anonymous (Why do i keep wanting to type 'PDM' for your name?) I cant pretend to have any knowledge of horses and such but i would say that I would expect most competitive horses are very well looked after. Kinda sucks that its legs snapped though..

Split, does that mean you would agree with it then? Therefore as you said, you must believe people are more important. So...as for the charity issue, we should stop with animal charities? It would save lives..

[Split Infinity]

There are animal charities? :P

We can't even take care of our own species, let alone others.

[Ravenblade]

Donkey Charity

I think that's the charity i saw on TV..

[Laharl]

Peta released a lot o Minks into to the wild a few years a go over here, which promptly wreaked havoc with the local ecosystem before they were all killed. A Peta spokeman said "It was better for them to have a moment of freedom than a lifetime of captivity".

Animal rights extremists should be put to death.

[Caael]

Yeah, Raven i saw that ad on TV. Was horrible, yet I still dont take it seriously because it's about donkeys, probably the most un-serious animals ever apart from monkeys.

[Golden Legacy]

Split summed up my views well.

Split Infinity, on May 14 2008, 09:52 AM, said:

While I think humans should always be put before animals, I don't agree with neglect or senseless violence against said animals. It's bad enough that we have to slaughter so many of them just to feed our ridiculously large population.

[Ravenblade]

Caael, just so i know that we're on the same wavelength - i think its disgusting that they were trying to gain money to give donkeys water when there are people dying from a lack of it even when they're in the same area. Donkeys dying is unfortunate, but at least they're being used for good reasons.

What would everyone think of shutting down said charities and throwing all the money towards human needs then? I think animal charities are just there to make a lot of us feel like we're doing something to help something else..

[Caael]

Yeah, I agree with Raven. It's not like animals dont deserve charity, but humans should come first because we're better.

[Ironsight]

Caael, on May 14 2008, 10:22 AM, said:

Yeah, I agree with Raven. It's not like animals dont deserve charity, but humans should come first because we're better.

QFT

Laharl, on May 14 2008, 07:20 AM, said:

Animal rights extremists should be put to death.

Also QTF

[Eugine]

Yep. Humans should always be top priority, BUT endangered species should be given special attention also >_<

[Caael]

If it weren't for humans, animal charities wouldnt exist :P

[kate]

How am I the only one who voted animals are more important than humans?

Oh god something tells me I'm not going to like this topic. Animals are far superior to humans in most ways, we only think we're better because we are human, I'd rather save a creature over a human any day, that's never going to change and it's why I'm becoming a vet so stfu. Byebye now.

[Ironsight]

Explain.

[kate]

*looks at 8 votes for humans are more important* hmm

*looks at my one vote for animals* hmmmm

no.

I would honestly explain, but only if you can all stay civil instead of going "omg noob wtf you're so wrong lololol here's why *bunch of facts that aren't really facts and make me seethe with rage*"

Really it is opinion though. Just remember, I would rather watch any of you die than my kitty :( <3

...or a random squirrel...or really you name it

[Ironsight]

I'm not a big fan of people either. But when faced between saving a dehydrating(sp) village or a pack of Donkies, I think I'd pick the humans.

[kate]

I think the donkeys would appreciate it if you spelt their name right while you were letting them die :( jkjk

Hey if I could save both I would, but if I could only save one...donkeys kick ***. (get it? hahahaha I'm so lame)

Mostly because a bunch of rich people would be singing songs somewhere in the united states to save the dehydrating peoples, whereas no one's looking out for the donkeys.

[Someone Else]

Yeah, I'm not a big fan of humans like DS said, but I'm interested in hearing your opinion, kate. I voted "Depends on the circumstances".

I think we should go out of our way to save endangered species, but the donkeys in Africa thing is a little extreme and silly.

On the other hand, it's disgusting and inhumane (irony) the way they treat some mass produced animals .

[Golden Legacy]

Wind Dude, on May 14 2008, 09:06 PM, said:

On the other hand, it's disgusting and inhumane (irony) the way they treat some mass produced animals .

I agree with this. While my overall consensus on the topic is to agree with Raven (humans as greater priority), I favor humane treatment of animals. As much as possible, as far as can be done. There's no justification for negative treatment of any living creature.

That said, I am also huge into saving endangered species. And also, Kate, I'm very curious to hear your points.

[Ironsight]

I could care less about what kind of life my chicken tenders lived.

[Caael]

...i'm starting to agree with Kate. I dont know which side i'm on here, i'm mixed.

[Laharl]

just wondering how many of the pro animal/borderline people are vegetarians

[Mallick]

Ravenblade, on May 14 2008, 07:12 AM, said:

@Anonymous (Why do i keep wanting to type 'PDM' for your name?) I cant pretend to have any knowledge of horses and such but i would say that I would expect most competitive horses are very well looked after. Kinda sucks that its legs snapped though..

Split, does that mean you would agree with it then? Therefore as you said, you must believe people are more important. So...as for the charity issue, we should stop with animal charities? It would save lives..

You fool! I am PDM!

It happens. She was the first filly to run in the Kentucky derby since like, the 70's. I'm pretty sure something bad happens to a horse at the kentucky derby every year, it's funny that PETA hasn't gone to amazing lengths to stop it from happening annually.

[Eugine]

DarkSword, on May 14 2008, 10:38 PM, said:

I could care less about what kind of life my chicken tenders lived.

You'll be surprised to know the conditions chickens are raised in are very important. It affects the quality and taste of your chicken.

That's why you shouldn't eat American chicken. Too much chemicals. Local chicken ftw.

[Ravenblade]

Mass produced chicken is cheaper therefore I will continue to eat it. And Im aware that makes me a horrible person =D But I cant be the only one or they wouldn't still be selling it. Put simply, I am not able to afford the other stuff cos im a student.

As for animals being more important..its ok for you to hate people generally, I see no issue with that, but the people you live around and come into contact with, are NOT the ones who need saving. They are westernised and greedy. The people who are dying have done nothing wrong but woken up into a world of starvation, AIDS, death, thirst, disease, war, rape and having their children taken away to be given AK47s and sent into tribal conflicts.

Even if you hate people, what have these people done to deserve this? Its far worse than anything anyone can do to an animal. As for animals being equal, the argument is kinda flawed. Animals make no effort to prevent widespread mistreatment of humans. Why? Cos they cant/dont understand. Why do animal rights people feel they should do it for them? Cos we are superior and appreciate the horrors of their lives in a way that they cant.

You cant save something without first being stronger than it.

I mean, in no way would I ever advocate causeless violence to an animal but, they simply aren't as important.

Kate - you and a kitten are dying of thirst in the desert. Who should i give my bottle of water to? The kitten?? I think not. But by your voting answer, I probably should x.x

EDIT - Also, if you would choose the kitten, my next question would be you and an ant dying in the desert - who to save? =/ I am convinced that everyone would choose the person in both these situations if they were ever in them. Therefore i put to the world that this choice is in existence every day, and every time you choose the kitten, you're letting a person die. That's probably a more or less accurate statement although is of course, unprovable by myself.

Just cos the person and the kitten are not next to each other in our every day choice, does not mean you should be able to block out the death of a person.

Oh and as a random bit of trivia - the UKs RSPCA has more money than it can spend (FACT) and so uses most of it on creating more and more expensive advertising campaigns. Meanwhile, we have people dying from cancer.

[Eugine]

That's where government should come in. They should tax the excess profits and put it to better use.

[Ravenblade]

You mean improving market trading systems to be fairer to poorer nations? Yeah you're right but then thats not what this is about =/ The fact is, governments dont do that cos if they did, we would all complain that everything was more expensive. Therefore, the only way to do anything is through charities.

Besides, is the US not hugely in debt and currently being supported by Chinese loans...?

[Eugine]

Kinda. Just use it better, even on its own people.

But yeah wow, developing countries have to go through lots of shyt because of developed countries >_<. They are so unfair o.o

That's why most developing countries are clinging to the Chinese. I honestly think they have alterior motives, but they're helping >_<
Western capitalism is over though, and Asia will dominate soon. They no longer take shyt from those Western developed countries (who did not develop fairly, but developed at the expensive of other people >_<)

[Ravenblade]

Unfortunately, you're 100% right about China. And eventually, their ulterior motives will become apparent (zimbabwe).

Western capitalism is, though, not going to go anywhere x.x China is becoming powerful because of it - it isnt eating the system, its aiding it.

Also, China is going to be blitzed with water and food shortages, along with lack of oil for its massive population. Very dangerous times lie ahead of it x.x

And...everyone develops unfairly - Everyone. Everyone has to exploit someone else to develop, and the Chinese are no better, believe me. Hell, the Chinese exploit their own people for development so they wont give a damn about anyone else's people.

[Eugine]

Yeah.
As much as I hate the Chinese government, I can't deny they're becoming powerful, and most likely will be the next superpower.

(lol, as much as I love Obama (he's going to be the next President also o.o), his economic policies will make USA an even easier target lolz. Raising taxes and increasing government spending during a recession? lolz)

I honestly liked the Chinese, but honestly they have royally fsked up the Cariibean, to the point at which I am so angry at them (much like how those Iraqi's were feeling about the USA?) I can never trust them again o.o

[Ravenblade]

While this is totally off topic XD China, great though it is, will never be a super power in the same way as the US. Powerful yeah...but for all its economic power, almost 1 billion Chinese live in poverty =/ A number that is not decreasing.

Anyway, on the subject of animal rights - China's record is horrendous XD Ive seen so many youtube videos dedicated to how 'evil' Chinese people are cos of the way they kill animals. Its ridiculous - the people are killing them in order to eat them! its not like its senseless..

I feel like I should make a separate topic about China as I am interested to hear about this Caribbean stuff..

[Eugine]

Animals in China probably have more rights than the humans there...

[Mallick]

Ravenblade, on May 15 2008, 05:46 AM, said:

While this is totally off topic XD China, great though it is, will never be a super power in the same way as the US. Powerful yeah...but for all its economic power, almost 1 billion Chinese live in poverty =/ A number that is not decreasing.

Anyway, on the subject of animal rights - China's record is horrendous XD Ive seen so many youtube videos dedicated to how 'evil' Chinese people are cos of the way they kill animals. Its ridiculous - the people are killing them in order to eat them! its not like its senseless..

I feel like I should make a separate topic about China as I am interested to hear about this Caribbean stuff..

The chinese eat what they kill though. nomnomnom

[kate]

I love how you ask that kitten question like I wouldn't say give it to the kitten in a heartbeat. Now of course, it also works on how well you know each creature, just like you'd give the water to someone you know over a stranger. So I guess the real question is...how close are you to that ant?

Meh, I don't care if you all eat meat and fish for sport, I've gotten used to the idea that I can't change people. And I'm not even opposed to meat eating in the first place, that's just part of life. Lions eat other animals too. I'm just saying if you and my kitten were staring down the barrel of a gun and I had to save one...yeah you're fscked.

[Ravenblade]

I watched a film once in class. It was about Vietnam - a bunch of Vietnamese people were on a boat and then got boarded and shot to death by the US troops. No one in the class said anything.

The marine picked up a puppy and threatened to shoot it. All the girls started squealing and calling for him not to kill it. With people - no response. A dog - OMFG HOW COULD HE?!

Im thinking it might just be a girl thing x.x Well...some girls. Cos im convinced most people who choose other people every time.

Still though, I find your response saddening x.x...what an apathetic world we live in.

[kate]

Did the dog pick up the kids and threaten to shoot them?

I think you're all missing my point. AIDs and things like that are tragedies. People killing other people gets no sympathy from me because that just shows the flaws of the human race. Animals kill for survival or territory or mating purposes, if they kill at all. Somehow I fail to believe a species that can derive pleasure from the suffering of others is superior to animals that only kill out of necessity or instinct. So yes, I would be more upset about the dog, because he was forced to live with those humans in a society that has propogated things such as boats full of people being shot. Of course that does make the boat full of people victims, and it shouldn't happen at all. Just the fact that it does it what makes humans inferior.

You may go ahead and call me "sad" now because of my confused misguided ways. It's just my opinion.

[Ravenblade]

What about all the good that people do huh?

What about all the people who love each other, all the people who go out of their way for their friends, all the people who give up their lives to help other people whether they're old, young, disabled, sick, hungry, whatever. The overwhelmingly vast majority of people are not responsible for the society that you hate.

People deserve love and compassion cos its the only way to change things.

Animals are unfortunate victims but frankly, they aren't as important. Oh and btw, some animals kill for sport. Dogs kill foxes. Cats kill birds for sport (not always but sometimes) as well as mice. Hamsters can eat their babies.

Its a sick world, but the answer isnt to turn away from it. Evil triumphs when good people do nothing. Choosing to save animals over people is tantamount to nothing, because the vast majority of people in this world are living in poverty and will see it as an insult to their plight.

Our species also mourns death more than animals. Even the clever ones like elephants. We feel more.

[kate]

The question was which is more important. My answer is animals. You people can skip around and hug each other and sing while people die from various terrors all over the place, I'll go ahead and help the animals. You kick the puppies, I'll fix them up. All kinda works out that way doesn't it? By the way I included instinct in my 'reasons animals kill'. It doesn't count as sport, they are attracted to small sporradic motions which causes them to go into hunt mode. If humans are so above animals then it's curious they still hunt, to me that just means they are misusing their awareness, something that doesn't get humans points in my book.

What really gets me though is that if a cat were to get a kidney transplant they would have to fly out to toronto (only place in canada that does them) and they would then have a 2% chance of survival. Meanwhile if I wanted a bigger chest size I could wander down to my doctor in st. albert and get one. Humans are focused on plenty, animals require some extra attention now, so why do you care if I give it or not?

[Ravenblade]

I care because the wrong people are focused on. The wrong people being you and me. Certain people in Africa cant get kidney transplants period. Their is no 'flying them out anywhere' and no chance of them being saved.

Actually, you've just made clear to me how sickening this really is...

What is wrong with our world if cats can be air lifted to hospitals and children die in their thousands cos we're all too busy getting kidney transplants for sick animals - not so much for their benefit but so that we continue to have their company.

You know we shouldnt really have domesticated cats either? Probably should be giving up that kitten huh? Its all self gratifying and...hopeless x.x

[kate]

When I was little I thought that way too. I actually almost tried to release my bird once because I thought it should be free. Then I grew up and researched into genetics and discovered that because domesticated animals have been bred this way for centuries, they no longer have all the proper genes to allow them to survive in the wild. If we released our pets we'd basically be sending them to their deaths. That being said, some creatures that we keep as pets do retain the ability to live in the wild and all this prancing them around is kinda sickening.

But yeah, you're right, there's no reason why people in africa shouldn't be able to get kidney transplants. I don't think we should take away research into animal technology to find a way to give it to them though. Maybe take away from some of the more frivilous research being done on things for people like you and me. So definitely, research into that is important, but so is research into animals. If you disagree on that, then fine, don't support it, that's your business.

[Ravenblade]

Ok, lets move this on a little since I dont think we're gonna back down on either side there.

What about testing for medical research?

Especially supposing said medical research could be used to cure other animals as well as people.

People have died through drugs not having been tested on animals before =(

[kate]

Testing's fine. I mean, they don't exactly give the animals a choice, plus they do use some relatively dangerous things that I don't approve of, but they also have voluntary trials that humans can participate in, so it's all kinda equal. Not that they let the people die.

Testing that results in animal death for like a new shampoo? Yeah no, not good. But if it's like a cure for cancer, then the need of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Do you have any idea what kind of experiments Pavlov and Descartes performed on animals? We're not nearly that bad now, so it's moving in a good direction.

...Who was the guy who tested that really important drug on some kid? It was like the first vaccine or something and he basically bought a kid and didn't care if it killed him or not. So really all kinds of testing sucked back then. Better now.

[Ravenblade]

Mm fair enough.

Do you think animals view us as equals? cats sure as hell dont. I owned cats and they felt superior to all of us XD

And we are more civilised and developed. Our accomplishments are far greater. Take morality out of the equation since its a variable, and the undeniable fact is that we are superior.

[kate]

It's a conditional superiority. We are superior brain wise, don't get me wrong, but I think we don't realize the intelligence that some animals have. Plus they are superior in other ways, if I tossed someone in a pit with a lion and had them fight they'd probably lose, unless they managed to think their way out of it. Horses are faster than humans, most predators are stronger, some can fly XD it really depends how you look at it. Our "accomplishments" are also laden with burdens and flaws. Yes we can travel all over the world, but we've also caused incredible amounts of deforestation and environmental damage that could possibly lead to the world's doom (but I don't think it will).

I suppose what really first bugged me was when someone claimed that animals don't have a soul. They argued that we're superior because God made us blablabla. I don't know how anyone can look at a creature and say it doesn't have a soul, but that's their business. Same goes for consciousness, although animals don't have the same higher level thinking that we do, until consciousness has a solid definition I don't think anyone can claim we are aware and they are not.

Anyways, I feel animals are superior because if left alone they would continue to survive and evolve and adapt and coexist with the world. We've let our intelligence get the best of us and have sorta steamrolled everything in our path. Yes we no longer have to forage for food or seek warmth and shelter at night, but it also means we can't adapt like we used to be able to. So really we're only superior in our niche. However we for some reason feel the need to control all other areas too, and when we do that we're sacrificing creatures that should be viewed as our equals for some small comfort and ease on our part. So since humans have collectively decided animals are inferior, I've decided that way of thinking makes us inferior. No a cat doesn't view us as superior, but if you define your territory they will respect it.

I'm going to go hug a tree now.

[Ravenblade]

I think I would disagree due to the fact that we are capable of making choices above our instincts whereas no other animal is.

We have evolved far beyond what is normal. We have infinite potential, and they do not.

Animals will always act according to survival instinct be it individual or survival of the species.

We will die for causes not linked to survival. We die for freedom, or for love. What animal would or could do that? Obviously we also die for a lot of dumb stuff, but the point is, we can act against instinct. We are the only species capable of that, and that is probably why we're so superior.

Yeah we havent got it worked out yet, but i truly believe that one day we will. Its not like such things can be expected to just happen over night. Killing each other is instinctive. For territory, for survival, whatever. Robbers steal cos they want better stuff (territory). Rapists rape cos they're driven by their baser instincts (sex/reproduction). Those in power fight wars to cling to their power (territory/alpha male leadership) but despite all of this, we continue to deem these things wrong and fight against them.

Name me another animal capable of that.

[kate]

hm. weird that you claim murder and rape is an instinct, yet fighting for love is not, it's a choice. Never seen a mother animal fight to defend her young? Yes hamsters can bite the heads off of their children, then again, there are mothers like Britney Spears XD well really, there are horrible human mothers too.

See what you're getting into now is whether humans are inherently good or evil, and if we as a whole are more prone to good choices then bad ones. The fact that you would take away from animal charities to give to human ones pretty much sums that up for me, no offense.

The point is you're not being clear enough on our "superiority". Too much can be wrapped up in instinct. Stick to science. Evidence of higher level thinking is our ability to imagine a world outside of our own. For instance, the fact that we bury our dead. Animals mourn the dead but they then move on and do not contemplate on ideas such as heaven (as far as we know). The fact that humans do, and that we have such things as "moral codes" would be the only thing that I would consider valid evidence of superiority. That being said, aren't we then ignoring those moral codes by causing harm to other organisms, thus lowering ourselves beneath our potential? So I guess I'll change what I previously said. Animals are only superior to those who would intentionally cause any creature direct or indirect harm. Soooo basically humans. Maybe mother theresa gets to be superior.

"judge a man not by the way he treats his equals, but by how he treats those he views as inferiors"

lol sooo round about now I would be hoping animals aren't inferior or there are a bunch of bad people in this topic XD

[Ravenblade]

That could just as easily be spun back at you for your treating of people as inferior x.x

And random quotes dont do it for me - what if i choose to disagree with that statement? That statement would undoubtedly have been directed at people being both equals and inferiors anyway =/

And Im afraid im not well versed enough in science to debate this in terms of relative intelligence so im sticking with the ability to overcome instinct.

Im not getting at humans being good or evil either..Im saying that we have developed the ability to choose. Whereas no other animal can claim that - everything they do is rooted in their innate instincts. And i meant love as in sex love. Protecting young is survival of the species.

Codes of morality are surreal controls. Our moralities are simply handed down by each generation and exist for no purpose other than to control everyone. In a sense, I suppose that is fundamental for us to remain superior, but I think its hard to judge superiority on that since we're just doing what we're told. Trained, if you will.

Choice though, overriding instinct proves choice - choice proves superiority. I would argue its not about what we choose, but the fact that we chose in the first place, that makes humans superior.

[kate]

I'm sorry, I suppose its because I am working in scientific terms, but how can an animal not choose? I guess I don't understand your definition of choice.

[Ravenblade]

Everything it does is dictated by instinct. There is no mental process to work things out, there is only risk assessment and then action or inaction. Risk assessment being a fundamental of survival.

I can choose to go and wander down my hallway right now for no reason.

An animal wouldnt make that choice. It would have to be driven by some kind of instinctive urge like being hungry or whatever.

I always think stuff like art is a good example of why we're better. What the hell is the point in art? Nothing pertaining to our survival, thats for sure. Art would be totally lost on an animal.

Creativity, a fundamental aspect of human life, comes from the ability to choose to do something. In this case, paint colours on rocks.

[kate]

LMAO ok that's actually so funny because just as I read that my cat got up, walked further down my hallway and sat back down. Freaky.

I do like that creativity thing though, the thought that obviously goes behind art is something we've yet to see displayed in animals. Of course we can't understand all of animals actions, and I still wouldn't say they are incapable of choice, or that we are above choice based on our instincts. That being said just because we are governed by our instincts doesn't mean our instincts aren't more complex than certain animals, which could be interpretated as superior. Once again though, this is all very subjective. You can't claim that because you paint a pretty picture you're superior to anything. Or are the artists of the world superior to those who use more logical thought?

It's kind of off the point anyways, isn't it. I mean, we haven't even bothered to set up a definition for superiority, and clearly we are using two different ones. What I'm curious about is whether you truly believe we should divert all finances from research for animals into aid for humans. Seems to me it doesn't matter then whether we're superior or not, it's still wrong =/

[Ravenblade]

Ok fair enough.

My issue was originally with the donkey charity - that seemed wrong. The fact that the RSPCA has more money than it can spend seems wrong, given other charities are desperate for money.

I feel like animals are more protected than people, and that this, ultimately is wrong.

I think my logic goes like this:

If we need X many years to save humanity, and Y many years to save animals with only R many resources shared between X and Y, then if we stopped sharing we could save humanity faster, and then save animals in what would essentially work out as exactly the same time period (for the animals) but with the advantage of reducing human suffering to a shorter time period.

Why humans first? Humans are much less likely to stand in the way of attempts to save animals if they have been saved themselves first, and thus the other way round would be impossible. As humans are the problem, the only logical thing to do is sort out that problem first. Surely?

[kate]

Er, except exactly when will humanity be "saved"? When everyone has enough food and water? What about other wars? What about epidemics? What about the fact that there aren't enough resources to go around and that we'll eventually run out of our non-renewable resources?

That's basically the same thing as saying "ok, we're all going to focus on zimbabwe until it's fixed, all other african countries can wait until after zimbabwe's good." It doesn't work that way. I honestly don't believe they have more money than they need either. You know who has too much money? Actual african aid charities. No seriously, what they really need are supplies and a safe way of transporting materials, but everyone just keeps giving money that they can't use. Now there are many charities that need support, but preventing inhumane treatment of animals is just as important as stopping inhumane treatment of citizens in dictatorships or any such thing. Yet you can still hunt deer and club baby seals, whereas the UN and amnesty international is all about human rights.

Really, I mean, yeah we have PETA, but they're a bunch of nutjobs. I will never support an organization that slaughtered thousands of show dogs in BC because they thought 'the dogs would rather be dead then have to prance around once a month'. I'm just saying that if you're looking at which there is more of, there's more aid for human problems than there are for animal ones.

[Ravenblade]

Ok, I dont know about African Aid charities, but there was a public outcry about the RSPCA being overfunded.

And i believe it will eventually be possible to develop the world. I mean, look at China. Its developed and is making loads of progress - eventually everyone will be able to. As long as we stick to capitalism x.x depressing as that is.

Im not saying all the worlds wrongs righted, im saying putting everyone on a level playing field, or a very nearly level one, so that everyone has access to water, and a decent standard of life.

After that - we save the animals.

The UN does animal rightsy stuff anyways I think. Its not as important as human rights though. It just isn't.

If you're willing to give up all your rights and live outside society on the street with no guarantee of food or drink, THEN you can claim that animals are more important. When you've suffered like the people im referring to. Up until that point, we have to believe poor people when they say that they are more important. Right?

[kate]

...did the poor people ever say they were more important?

By the way, us living on the streets is exactly what will happen anyways for everyone to be equal. They did huge amounts of research back in 2003 and came to the conclusion that there's no way we can live like middle class people, or even lower class. I mean, I'm sure there will be a way in time, but how many animals will die between now and then for that to happen? The point is it's people's choice who to give their money to, and so if there are people willing to aid animals, why should anyone have the power to take that away?

[Ravenblade]

Its a persons right to be able to live, why should anyone take that away? Its also a persons right to vote, but most people are actually too stupid to be allowed to vote. Which is why we end up with the GWBs of this world. Stupid people should NOT be allowed to vote. (Not saying everyone who voted for him was stupid, just saying a lot of people who vote have no clue what they're voting for).

Also, why should anyone have the power to stop people abusing animals in the first place. We descend back to the depths of what is right and wrong. Some people have the power to decide some things that are in the best interests of people in general - this could very easily be one of those things.

[kate]

Because whether you think we're superior or not, it is a fact that animals can feel pain. Pain like you and I feel. How exactly is allowing that to happen to any organism justified? I don't care if humans are superior, that doesn't make animals like ordinary objects, and we can't use them as such. They aren't tools, they aren't "resources" they are living organisms with 'feeling' (depending on how you define it). Which means if you're okay with doing harm to them, you're pretty much a sociopath (lulz generalisations). Actually that's one of the things they use to identify sociopaths, whether they harmed animals or not as kids.

So yeah, we have just as much right say that you can't be cruel to animals as we do to say you can't be cruel to humans. It doesn't matter which one can paint a picture, cruelty is cruelty. And it needs to be stopped in all forms.

[Someone Else]

kate, I can guarantee that a lot of the products you use everyday, or at least the materials that they are made from, come from a sweatshop or some other oppressive workplace. Particularly clothing.

Unfortunately, cruelty of that nature is just a fact of life. Where there's prosperity, it is most likely derived from someone else's pain. I don't like it either, but I guess that's what they call sacrifice? Don't call me selfish either, if I can help humans and/or animals, I will.

But er, don't let me intrude on you and Raven's debate here. Really interesting stuff.

[Ravenblade]

XD Please do intrude WD, i feel like we're hogging this topic something nasty.

Kate - not saying cruelty to animals is ok - just saying cruelty to humans is worse. Reasons why have been discussed. Saving people first and animals second means both groups will be saved a lot sooner. Its not possible to do it animals before people, it just isn't. People wouldnt accept it. Its only rich affluent people that feel sorry for animals, cos we're all bleeding heart liberals who have never actually had their lives depend on some foreign guy dropping food packages into our village from a helicopter.

I have heard the animal cruelty = sociopath theory and, funnily enough, i dont buy it anyway. I dont care how many bored scientists all gathered round a kid pulling the legs off a spider - that doesnt mean im going to believe everyone who had an incident of animal cruelty is 100% guaranteed to be a sociopath.

I could just as easily say the same for someone who hates the human race anyway. In fact, that would be more fitting.

@WD - but we in developed societies dont suffer so much right? So you could see the logic behind channelling all resources into the development of poorer nations until they were developed too? And then saving the freaking animals..

[kate]

Just save them at the same time. Money isn't exactly the issue. It doesn't have to be one before the other so why should it. And fine you can choose not to believe all my science stuff but that doesn't make a very good debate when you just deny facts. And I never said they were 100% guaranteed, I said it was a sign.

It's not only rich people who care about animals by the way, so stop saying it like it's some sort of crime.

And yeah wd there's crazy amounts of cruelty and it is the only reason we get to live our lives the way we do. Sooo what does that have to do with animals? If you're for saving humans I just don't see why you should be against saving animals unless it somehow directly conflicts with the first. Which it doesn't. Well, you say it does, but 'I don't buy it anyway'.

[Ravenblade]

I would dispute your comment about rich people only caring about animals. I wouldn't go so far as to say rich individuals, but I would say rich societies. In poorer societies it will be rich people who care. Fairly sure that would be the trend. Everyone else would be too busy trying to feed themselves.

And I already explained why it would make more sense to do humans first. There IS limited money (The US is one of the most debted countries in the world) and so you cant just throw money at the problem till it goes away. Saving people before animals would actually save both all the faster, cos right now everything we're doing is making no difference to either.

Development will bring the saving grace. Did we care about animals while we were developing? Did we hell. The problem is you're refusing to look at this through the eyes of someone who isn't you. I can see why animal cruelty upsets you, I really can - its not like I hate animals, I had my own kitten growing up too.

Saving humans first would be the faster salvation of both groups. Regardless of whether you believe that or not, if it were true, would you go for it?

And im not ignoring your random science - im taking the viewpoint that science tends to say things like this when really it has no clue. Like all the stuff about which foods people should and should eat which changes weekly. I remember reading a report one week saying wine was good for you and then one the next saying it wasn't.

The sociopath theory - The people who hurt animals whilst growing up and arent sociopaths disprove that theory to a point whereby it cannot be said as 100% true. Therefore I choose to acknowledge it, but respectfully disagree.

[kate]

...I think you need to review the definition of a theory hun. Yes I will agree there are facets of science that are based on false principles and unsteady logic, but we are aware of them and refer to them as "pseudoscientists". Food and dieting definitely falls in that category. Anyways we're not really here to debate about science...cause I'd win :P jkjk

If saving humans first meant that we could in a reasonable amount of time then save the animals entirely with the same devotion we showed to the humans then yes, I think that that's not only smart, but it's more practical since we tend to feel more attached to our own species. The only thing is you have no proof that that would do anything other than let the animals suffer while we vainly try to fix our problems from here to eternity.

And see that's exactly my point! you can't just throw money at it and hope it will go away. So how would diverting money from animal charities help anyone? What we need are more skills and more research and more methods of getting things done. That requires manpower, not money. So really shouldn't you be upset about all the actors in hollywood who get paid a ton of money to act when they could've gone to school and became researchers and used that money to further the solution? If you're going to be suggesting drastic changes to save humanity, I think we should start with taking away from the obvious wrongs in the world such as hollywood and pro sports, before we take away from creatures who would die without the support.

[Ravenblade]

It makes no difference what we do in this part of the world though - if people wanna be actors then fine - they were probably too unintelligent to contribute anyway =/ What matters is investment in poorer places. Money from animal charities could be taken away for this investment.

Look at China (I know I always bring this up but meh) and even Japan. Both were backwards societies stuck in the past, then came a load of investment and suddenly they're improving standards of life across the board and have more time to spend on environmental issues. Now, that is a fact.

Glad you agree though, it is by far and away the logical response.

As for my definition of a theory...explain what you're talking about and maybe I can clarify.

In layman's terms, a theory is something that could logically make sense to someone, but cannot or has not been proven. Otherwise it would have transcended semantics, to become a fact.

Thats what you're talking about right? Thats why this sociopath theory doesnt wash - its a theory, not a fact.

Pseudo-science is the very reason why its dangerous to trust full blown science. Cos in frankness, a lot of science is just made to fit around what we see around us. eg the God Particle. Science doesnt know what it is but is adamant that its there otherwise their system falls down. It probably is there - doesnt change the fact that science DOES make these things work to its own ends, and that it can be used to prove almost anything.

Scientists still debate global warming with facts from both sides. So science isn't just right by default.

I dont think this is especially worth debating any more however. Clearly the only real difference between us is really down to our ethical viewpoints, and since we both believe the other's to be ignorant, I dont see what there is left to be said =/

Ethical viewpoints themselves are a waste of time as they're constructed by environment and surrounding social conditions. I've seen first hand these people starving and living under the poverty line without hope or agenda, and so that's probably why I think the way I do.

Therefore, I respectfully concede^^

[Split Infinity]

Aaaand when every post is 500 words long, that's when I stop reading a topic. :P

[Eugine]

Um, is it worth reading kate's and Raven's argument? -__-

[Ravenblade]

kate's argument: Animals and people are the same, and should be saved as such.

Raven's argument: We have to save people before animals or both will die.

[Eugine]

Well, I agree with Raven's argument to an extent. I think endangered species should be given special attention though.

[Ravenblade]

That's probably the most objective way of looking at it. I would go so far as to say endangered animals must be a priority too.

[Golden Legacy]

Am I the only one who has been following Raven's/Kate's tussle closely? I actually find it fascinating, never thought it was possible to delve so deeply into this topic.

*watches intently for next round of debate*

[kate]

lol sorry snookums I think I'm done here. I know where this goes from here and I'm not interested :P

but yes, save the pandas. nomnomnom.

[pHantOm]

I watch animal rescue all the time, the conditions people put pets in through neglect/abuse is disturbing, but in the end human life is more important. Hence why they are animals, and we are humans and we are the dominant species on Earth. You have to be crazy to think that a domestic house cat harbors more life than yourself or your family. Sure you're both 'Alive' but a human has more value.

[Ravenblade]

Pandas are interesting - they're probably the one species in the world that 100% does not deserve to be saved.

They're too lazy to mate in order to further their own survival, and they can only eat one thing. Darwinism says that Pandas should die as they have simply become unable to adapt - a dead end species.

@pHantOm: Though I would agree with you, I think its helpful to question why you think like that. It's probably just social conditioning if its just a gut feeling, and I think that's where Kate would argue that animals and humans have equal importance.

[Mallick]

http://www.forumspile.com/Misc-PretentiousPanda.jpg

[Eugine]

You are so shallow, you always let a picture express yourself. Try to do it for yourself once in a while...

[Mallick]

lol? Alright, let me take a shot at it.


You're a fag.

[Eugine]

There we go ^^. Good start.
Now, try giving your opinion on the topic, student.

[Mallick]

Hey fag, read the first page or two.

[Eugine]

I never said you didn't give your opinion ^^. I just said try giving your opinion on the topic, rather than posting meaningless photos. kk? Don't try to be a smartass, I'm sure I'm better at it than you >__<

It's just rather annoying me now...

[Mallick]

http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn191/Mallicklocal/new/1210110170576.png

[Eugine]

I've done my part, I hope GL will stop being lenient and do something.

Anyway, it's always strange how people only care about the 'cute' animals, and often neglect the ugly ones. If you look at the animals who those scientists are trying to save, most, if not all, are part of the 'cute and cuddly' mascot.

[Mallick]

Eugine, on May 18 2008, 07:30 AM, said:

I've done my part, I hope GL will stop being lenient and do something.

Anyway, it's always strange how people only care about the 'cute' animals, and often neglect the ugly ones. If you look at the animals who those scientists are trying to save, most, if not all, are part of the 'cute and cuddly' mascot.

safe me frum the admin


I didn't know you had a part to do.

[Someone Else]

This is going off memory so I probably have some parts wrong.

I don't remember ever hearing where this was, but there were some deer living along a hillside. Their pointed hooves damaged the hillside and made it more prone to dangerous mud slides when it rains. So, some people wanted to lower the deer population there.

The public basically said "NO don't do that! ='( " because deer are too cute to be killed. =/

[Ravenblade]

Who, leading on from WD's post, would be so keen on saving this:





This is appropriately called a 'Lumpfish' and sure as hell is not cute.

I reckon there would be much less effort to try to save it amongst the animal lovers. They'd also make a less big deal out of its peril (if it was in any) as it would be less likely to win people over.

[Folcon]

Asfar as I'm concerned, the only right an animal has is the right to be on my dinner plate. If it tastes good.

[Eugine]

lol escout. That was blunt, but I believe most humans feel the same way -__-

[TheEnglishman]

I can't say I have a strong feeling on the issue. I'd just say that they deserve to be treated fairly, but ultimately we should come first.

[Mallick]

Ravenblade, on May 18 2008, 12:08 PM, said:

Who, leading on from WD's post, would be so keen on saving this:

lumpfish2.jpg

lumpfish.jpg

This is appropriately called a 'Lumpfish' and sure as hell is not cute.

I reckon there would be much less effort to try to save it amongst the animal lovers. They'd also make a less big deal out of its peril (if it was in any) as it would be less likely to win people over.

Fish are lesser creatures than deer anyway.

[pHantOm]

@Raven, that things ugly lol.

If it contributes to the food chain for other animals, or does something for the enviroment then its worth saving.

We have these things called gypsy moths in Pennsylvania, they eat all the leaves off trees and kill them while they are still a worm. Helecopters fly over our area and spray a pestiside that kills them before they kill the trees. Is it wrong to be killing them?

And after a long day at work, sometimes I don't feel like mating either. Cut the panda some slack.

[Caael]

Save humans first, and when Africa finally becomes an MEDC, we can concentrate on the animals.

[Yuki]

That fish is so cute <3
I'm serious :]! Look at it! It's so cutee >w<


Anyway.

Animals have rights, and we as humans have to speak for them. <_< Because, the government doesn't recognize animal representatives :P And also? Alot are gong extinct. We seriously need to start rethinking the way we do things on this Earth. D: <

[Legolastom]

Meh the human race disgusts me anyway, Animals are the only beings on this Earth that can be considered "Innocent" and what do we do? Slaughter them, work them to death, torture them for makeup and even wipe some species out.

As for the person who made the first post, I hope he dies the most painful death possible.

[Saturos S.]

I say we nuke Australia, then spill some T-virus (resident evil, whoo!) and see what kind of life will grow there.

Yeah... mutated animal zombie safari's are a gold mine.

[Toasty]

All I have to say, is that if it came to saving a humans life or an animal's life, and the human wasn't some kind of serial killer or something, I'd save the human.

The bible basically says that animals are here to serve humans. Either by helping plow fields/move cargo/etc. (though we have machines for that now), or by providing food for us to eat (livestock like cows, chickens, etc.)

Though I also love my dog very much, and would probably put his well-being ahead of some random stranger.

[Golden Legacy]

I don't agree with excessive abuse of animals. Forcing them to live together, poor and cruel sanitary conditions, pumping drugs into their systems, etc. is something I find repulsive.

However, at the same time, as concerned as I am for the safety of endangered species and the like, I generally can't find myself agreeing with entire charities dedicated to improving conditions for animals, when famished and impoverished communities of neglected peoples exist.

[Caael]

It depends on the situation really. If it's a choice between saving an orangutan or some fat american, i'm obviously going to save the 'tan.

Actually, i'd always save the 'tan. Dont mess with the monkehs.

[Legolastom]

Hey some people in Africa are in worse conditions than Homeless people! Lets shut down all homeless charities and focus on the people in Africa!

[Nyktos]

For me, animal rights is all about balance. I can't think of any situations where I'd put an animal's life before a human's, but that doesn't mean that the animal's life is worthless. I'm against animal abuse, but I could never be vegan.

[Golden Legacy]

First of all, no one is saying which gets higher "preference". Obviously, the very fact that we DO have homeless people and that there ARE impoverished/starving peoples is an issue in itself. Why aren't the nations of the world doing more to address this?

Nyktos, on Jul 8 2008, 05:56 PM, said:

For me, animal rights is all about balance. I can't think of any situations where I'd put an animal's life before a human's, but that doesn't mean that the animal's life is worthless. I'm against animal abuse, but I could never be vegan.

Well said!

[Split Infinity]

It's kind of ironic how people criticize human treatment of animals despite that the animals themselves are probably a lot worse. Go watch the discovery channel. When a safari program comes on, watch for the scene where the lion tackles its prey and starts ripping chunks out of it. Real humane.

[Legolastom]

*Facepalm*

[Split Infinity]

This isn't the Common Room, proper post or GTFO.

[Legolastom]

I was facepalming your sheer ignorance and stupidity.

[Split Infinity]

You're only confirming your own ignorance and stupidity by not clarifying yourself.

[Drizzy Drake]

Toasty, on Jul 8 2008, 05:13 PM, said:

All I have to say, is that if it came to saving a humans life or an animal's life, and the human wasn't some kind of serial killer or something, I'd save the human.

The bible basically says that animals are here to serve humans. Either by helping plow fields/move cargo/etc. (though we have machines for that now), or by providing food for us to eat (livestock like cows, chickens, etc.)

Though I also love my dog very much, and would probably put his well-being ahead of some random stranger.

Ok, just get the fuck out.

I should have stopped reading there. The bible also says all human are born equal, but you are for some reason against gay marrige. Fucking hypocritical prick.

Bringing up the Bible in an arguement is fucking pointless. Not everybody here is religious, and therefore don't give two flying fucks what the Bible says.

Split Infinity, on Jul 8 2008, 07:08 PM, said:

You're only confirming your own ignorance and stupidity by not clarifying yourself.

Ok, I will clarify for him.

The lion does that because he needs to. He NEEDS to feed on meat. We, do not. I am not against killing animals for food, but arguements like yours just makes me realise how entirely stupid the human race really is.

You were being ignorant btw.




God, am I in a fucking bad mood today or what?

[Toasty]

Lego, Split has a point.

We as human beings fall under the animal kingdom. In that sense, a Lion tearing it's prey apart is no different than a human tearing a lion apart. He may need to feed, but so do we. The only difference being that we normally kill livestock, not wild animals.
I could care less if someone shot an endangered animal, as long as it's not a large group of people shooting endangered animals.

Even though we may tear down their habitats (logging industry and the spotted owl case), they're more than capable of adjusting (again, the logging industry and the spotted owl case)


And Skidz, just because I'm against gay marriage doesn't mean I think I'm better than them. That in itself, was entirely speculation.

Religion applies to practically EVERYTHING, so leaving it out is unavoidable. I could call you a prick simply for saying that religion doesn't play a role here.

Don't be ignorant yourself.

[Split Infinity]

Dipset, on Jul 9 2008, 10:03 AM, said:

Ok, I will clarify for him.

The lion does that because he needs to. He NEEDS to feed on meat. We, do not. I am not against killing animals for food, but arguements like yours just makes me realise how entirely stupid the human race really is.

If you're not against killing animals for food, what point are you trying to make?

And what Toasty said. Humans are just another tier of the food chain, albeit a highly intelligent and resourceful one.

[Drizzy Drake]

Toasty, on Jul 8 2008, 08:03 PM, said:

And Skidz, just because I'm against gay marriage doesn't mean I think I'm better than them. That in itself, was entirely speculation.

Religion applies to practically EVERYTHING, so leaving it out is unavoidable. I could call you a prick simply for saying that religion doesn't play a role here.

Don't be ignorant yourself.

I never said you thought you were better than gays. I simply stated that you used the Bible FOR your arguement this time, but won't acknowledge that the bible states that everybody is equal, and therefore if one person is allowed to married, so should everybody else.

Split Infinity, on Jul 8 2008, 08:07 PM, said:

If you're not against killing animals for food, what point are you trying to make?

And what Toasty said. Humans are just another tier of the food chain, albeit a highly intelligent and resourceful one.

I'm saying that your lion statement is ignorant. You use a lion's dietry habits to state that we aren't really inhumane compared to lions. Lion's NEED to eat like that. If they were vergetarian, but then killed gazelle's for fun, then that would be inhumane. But you can't blame their primal instincts.

[Split Infinity]

Humans don't kill for fun though.

[Drizzy Drake]

...many do. And we don't NEED to eat meat. We can survive with the other food groups, but we choose not to because of the pleasure, yes pleasure, we get from eating meat. It tastes good, so we kill to eat it. Simple as that.

[Split Infinity]

I'd rather not suffer from protein deficiency, thanks.

[Drizzy Drake]

*Facepalm*

So you honestly eat meat because of the protein? Didn't think so.

[Split Infinity]

I eat food to prevent myself from starving to death, not for the taste. :/

[Nyktos]

Lions practise polygamy too. Do you condone that? If you don't, what makes mimicking lions in one way better than mimicking lions in another?

[Split Infinity]

Huh? I never said we should mimic lions; if anything, I said the opposite.

[Drizzy Drake]

Split Infinity, on Jul 8 2008, 08:28 PM, said:

I eat food to prevent myself from starving to death, not for the taste. :/

THERE! So you don't eat meat for the protein. So why not eat vegies? They keep you from starving to death.

[Split Infinity]

So I don't starve myself of protein, moron.

[Drizzy Drake]

...oh, my, fucking, god. You just stated you eat meat to stay alive.

So, tell me, honestly, do you eat meat ONLY because of the protein issue? If vegies gave you the same ammount of protein, would you stop eating meat?

[Kuchiyose]

Well this topic is gonna raise hell. I'll just state my opinion. Humans come first and animals where ever, you can't really compare an animal life with a humans what ever the circumstances, since we're the dominant species we have the rights to do what ever with animals be it good or bad, in fact i don't think people are complaining about certain make up, medicine, food etc, personally there too hypocrite for my liking, sorry if i seem harsh, its just certain circumstances people won't really care about animal rights when a certain circumstance happens basically i think they should just leave animal rights as it is and humans should always be considered more important than animals, it be wise not to lose sight of that.

[Split Infinity]

Dipset, on Jul 9 2008, 10:45 AM, said:

...oh, my, fucking, god. You just stated you eat meat to stay alive.

So, tell me, honestly, do you eat meat ONLY because of the protein issue? If vegies gave you the same ammount of protein, would you stop eating meat?

Are you a vegetarian, Skidz?

[Drizzy Drake]

Nope. Absolutely not. I eat for pleasure. I admit it. That's not the point. The point is that you said lion's killing other animals is inhumane, when it's really not because we kill for pleasure, and they for survival. Now answer my questions.

Do you eat meat ONLY because of the protein issue? If vegies gave you the same amount of protein, would you stop eating meat?

[Split Infinity]

Yes, because I'm one of the few people who actually likes vegetables.

[Drizzy Drake]

Take protein pills. That's what my aunt(who's a vegetarian) does.

[Split Infinity]

Unlike you, I'm not a huge fan of drugs.

[Drizzy Drake]

*Facepalm*

They are not harmfull drugs dumbass. It's protein, in powder form. THAT'S IT. Nothing more, nothing less. Protein.

So once again, answer me, why won't you take protein pills.

[Split Infinity]

You're not a very good listener, are you?

[Drizzy Drake]

Oh my. You really are an ignorant fuck. It'd be just like drinking coffee. It's a drug, in the most literal sence, but it's not. If you wouldn't take protein pills, then you shouldn't ever drink Coke, Pepsi, Sprite, ginger ale, tea, coffee, etc.

[Split Infinity]

Calm down, I'm talking about supplements.

[Drizzy Drake]

It's a harmless drug. Not reletively harmless, no side effects, fucking harmless. And there is no reason you wouldn't want it, except for the fact that you eat meat, not only for the protein, but because it tastes fucking awesome.

[Toasty]

Dipset, on Jul 8 2008, 05:13 PM, said:

I never said you thought you were better than gays. I simply stated that you used the Bible FOR your arguement this time, but won't acknowledge that the bible states that everybody is equal, and therefore if one person is allowed to married, so should everybody else.

I'm saying that your lion statement is ignorant. You use a lion's dietry habits to state that we aren't really inhumane compared to lions. Lion's NEED to eat like that. If they were vergetarian, but then killed gazelle's for fun, then that would be inhumane. But you can't blame their primal instincts.

The bible explicitly states that man should marry woman, and no one (or thing) else. Being gay in itself is a sin (at least as far as I know), but that doesn't mean I hate them.

Nor can you blame a humans. The only difference between them and us is that we have the ability to overcome ours. We still NEED to kill animals for food. We just kill livestock instead of wild animals. Is that inhumane aswell? Afterall, we're killing animals, aren't we?

As long as any given species isn't hunted into extinction, I don't care. Nor do I care if they're wiped out via natural disaster (regardless of the whole global warming fiasco, a tsunami or hurricane is still a natural disaster, and not brought on by man). Basically, Humans take priority over animals. Though that in itself doesn't warrant beatings or obvious unwarranted mis-treatment.

[Drizzy Drake]

Ok, well if you're Christian I can't really argue against that. But if you weren't Christian, could you see why saying gays can't marry makes no sense?

We really don't NEED to kill animals though. We do because we fucking love bacon, and steak, and stuff like that. Whether it be a lion, or a pig, we are still killing animals for something other than survival.

[Split Infinity]

Dipset, on Jul 9 2008, 11:12 AM, said:

It's a harmless drug. Not reletively harmless, no side effects, fucking harmless. And there is no reason you wouldn't want it, except for the fact that you eat meat, not only for the protein, but because it tastes fucking awesome.

Skidz, no medicinal drug is without side effects. Protein pills are a form of steroids, and I don't like the idea of forcing my body into reliance on an artificial nutrient.

[Drizzy Drake]

Nobody I know who has taken vitamins has had any side effects, and I know quite a few.

[Split Infinity]

Ah, but you see, I don't really trust much of what you say.

[Drizzy Drake]

Well then fuck you and have a nice day.

[kate]

Split, there are a large amount of vegetarians and vegans in the world who don't have nasty side effects, so if you don't want to trust skippy, trust the facts.

And skippy, I love you. He's so right, there's no need to kill animals. If we're so superior because of our infinite wisdom and technological advances, than we should recognize that there are other ways to get our nutritional requirements other than eating meat. So it's not out of necessity, it's out of selfishness because you like the taste, and laziness because changing would require effort. Not so superior now, are we?

That being said, like with global warming, not enough people are going to be willing to change to stop the slaughter of animals or close down farms so there's no big deal if you aren't vegetarian. Just the fact that it's a lost cause is what tells me we aren't better than animals.

[Split Infinity]

I'm just going to throw this out there and let you guys think on it.

As humans, would we be where we are today if we'd been plant-eaters all this time?

[kate]

all this time? no. Good point, except for the minor problem that now we are capable of other choices it's time to change. Just because you've been doing it forever doesn't mean it's right.

Plus I think the planet would be better off if we hadn't survived as a species. But that's just opinion.

What was in the past was necessity indeed. Hey, animals kill each other for survival. But now we're not doing it for survival, because we wouldn't die without meat.

[Split Infinity]

Well, put it this way: if humans stopped harvesting animals for food, they'd just end up being eaten by something else anyway, so what difference is there?

[kate]

umm quality of life? There's the difference. Everything dies, but how it lives is what animal rights is all about.

[Split Infinity]

If you're talking about things like locking chimps in cages and selling them on the black market, I can agree with you on that, but the fact is that most livestock get pretty good lives by comparison. Well, to be honest, animals really don't care about their lives too much; as long as they have food they're happy. :/

[Toasty]

Most animals at least. Pets like cats and (more so) dogs need attention. When my dog gets ignored, he starts whining and gets up in our faces. XD

Other than that, they all need exercise. But Split's right (as far as livestock goes atleast). Animals don't really aspire to anything greater than reproducing. They don't even have the ability to do anything greater than that. They eat, sleep, kill, run around, reproduce, and die. They don't try to prevent (a fake) global warming, or try to prevent wars, or anything like that. They don't even have the brains to do something like that, or the ability, for that matter. Their purpose on the earth is to provide a means for other organic lifeforms to nourish themselves.

Dipset, on Jul 8 2008, 06:27 PM, said:

Ok, well if you're Christian I can't really argue against that. But if you weren't Christian, could you see why saying gays can't marry makes no sense?We really don't NEED to kill animals though. We do because we ****ing love bacon, and steak, and stuff like that. Whether it be a lion, or a pig, we are still killing animals for something other than survival.

I suppose, other than the fact that if more and more people become gay, then eventually, no one will be reproducing anymore. That's highly unlikely to happen, but it's possible I suppose that might be a non-christian's reason for not wanting gays to marry.

Anyway, meat is our most abundant source of protein. Protein is far more abundant in meat than in vegetables. Sure, peanuts are chock full of protein, but there aren't enough peanuts for everyone. And perscription dietary suppliments are bull. The nutrients in the pills are rarely ever absorbed into the human body because they rarely desolve before being crapped out. That's especially true when it comes to liquid gel capsuls.

We NEED meat. It's impossible to supply the world with enough protein (and other nutrients abundant in mainly meat), let alone food, without eating meat. Abusing animals is bad. Choosing to become a vegetarian because you think killing animals for food is ihumane, well that's just plain stupid. The animals being killed in question were born to be slaughtered and eaten anyway (yes, even a lot of fish found in supermarkets).

kate, on Jul 8 2008, 07:20 PM, said:

all this time? no. Good point, except for the minor problem that now we are capable of other choices it's time to change. Just because you've been doing it forever doesn't mean it's right.Plus I think the planet would be better off if we hadn't survived as a species. But that's just opinion.What was in the past was necessity indeed. Hey, animals kill each other for survival. But now we're not doing it for survival, because we wouldn't die without meat.

If it's worked in the past without a hitch, why change? Any time that man tries to step in and mess with the way nature works, it turns out badly. The same goes for using our knowledge to try and produce ways to feed ourselves without killing cattle.Growing slabs of meat from one cow's genes? What happens if we eventually find out that the genes in that cow caused deformities in the meat cells we didn't notice before, and the deformities could cause illness? That may not happen, but if we eat meat from a bunch of different cows, it's not a big deal if one cow has problems.

That's just an example, and as unlikely as it seems that something like that could happen, and something like it will. We were meant to eat meat. From a christian point of view, even though we were origionally designed not to eat meat, god made it so that we could after we sinned as part of the punishment (or something like that. Basically, we were forced to kill animals for food, and god made them afraid of man or something).

But the thing is, we're just as important to the food chain as the lion. We eat livestock. We are their main predator. Even if they weren't protected from wild animals, they still wouldn't be killed off enough to have a stable population. Besides that, like I said before, most of the meat we eat was born for the sole purpose of being slaughtered. They have no other reason to live other than to feed humans.

[Golden Legacy]

Kuchiyose, on Jul 8 2008, 08:45 PM, said:

Well this topic is gonna raise hell. I'll just state my opinion. Humans come first and animals where ever, you can't really compare an animal life with a humans what ever the circumstances, since we're the dominant species we have the rights to do what ever with animals be it good or bad, in fact i don't think people are complaining about certain make up, medicine, food etc, personally there too hypocrite for my liking, sorry if i seem harsh, its just certain circumstances people won't really care about animal rights when a certain circumstance happens basically i think they should just leave animal rights as it is and humans should always be considered more important than animals, it be wise not to lose sight of that.

I quite liked this statement, nicely put.
I'll also add to the critics that just because a person strongly believes that humans come first, does NOT lead to the conclusion that they are cruel and heartless towards animals.

kate, on Jul 8 2008, 10:08 PM, said:

Split, there are a large amount of vegetarians and vegans in the world who don't have nasty side effects, so if you don't want to trust skippy, trust the facts.

And skippy, I love you. He's so right, there's no need to kill animals. If we're so superior because of our infinite wisdom and technological advances, than we should recognize that there are other ways to get our nutritional requirements other than eating meat. So it's not out of necessity, it's out of selfishness because you like the taste, and laziness because changing would require effort. Not so superior now, are we?

That being said, like with global warming, not enough people are going to be willing to change to stop the slaughter of animals or close down farms so there's no big deal if you aren't vegetarian. Just the fact that it's a lost cause is what tells me we aren't better than animals.

Kate, it's also a part of culture. Whether you're a devout believer in evolution or whether you favour religion's take on the creation of humans, the microevolution of human beings has incorporated the consumption of meat into nearly every culture, race, geography of the world. The caribou for the inuits, bison for the native peoples of North America, cattle and herds in every other corner of the globe. It's impossible to separate that, it's become innate.

Some may choose to withhold from the consumption of meats, but it simply can't be expected of everyone, not when millennia have passed with this core concept ingrained into the development of modern humans.

[kate]

>.< okay, I could go through and debate the points you guys have brought up because they are flawed, but once again, which is the reason I quit this topic the first time, we're ignoring the basis for all of this.

Why respect animals when they can't stop wars or global warming? Well at least they weren't stupid enough to start wars or global warming in the first place.

Why change eating meat? Because we're slaughtering animals for it.

Okay I can't even continue on with this because frankly that right there should be enough for anyone in my eyes. Like I just don't get this. How can you not see that killing creatures is wrong? We've decided it's not out of necessity, some say habit, some say culture, some say why fix what isn't broken, some say religion (btw I'm a religious person as you know but that's a lie that God of all people condone's killing animals). Okay great, good points if we were talking about rocks.

Obviously you're not okay with doing this to other humans, so why animals? Easy, you view them as inferior. I just can't get that and while with most other things I would at least respect your views, I can't do that either. It's disgusting. But since it's not going to change I can't move forward with any of these little points because we're fundamentally different. I might as well be trying to change your religion.

Quality of life for animals raised to the slaughter sucks, and no they don't care, but like toasty said some animals do, so do you know the difference? They've been raised that way. Abused children often don't see how badly they've been wronged, but we all recognize it as horrible. Same thing. Sorry, same thing to me.

I really don't know how to get this across any clearer. Okok, animal torture, like drowning kittens, that bothers you, yes? If it doesn't then **** off. If it does, then sit for a bit a think about why it bothers you and then get back to me. Because if you've ever had a pet that was like your best friend, or if you've ever seen animal cruelty and thought it was wrong, I don't see how you can then say they are inferior. It's like saying slavery is wrong but they shouldn't have equal rights.

Superiority comes in all different forms, but right and wrong in these situations is about as clear as it comes.

[Ironsight]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjQwLCC9_2w...feature=related
This is why we keep chickens in farms.

[Toasty]

kate, on Jul 8 2008, 10:41 PM, said:

>.< okay, I could go through and debate the points you guys have brought up because they are flawed, but once again, which is the reason I quit this topic the first time, we're ignoring the basis for all of this.

Why respect animals when they can't stop wars or global warming? Well at least they weren't stupid enough to start wars or global warming in the first place.

Why change eating meat? Because we're slaughtering animals for it.

Okay I can't even continue on with this because frankly that right there should be enough for anyone in my eyes. Like I just don't get this. How can you not see that killing creatures is wrong? We've decided it's not out of necessity, some say habit, some say culture, some say why fix what isn't broken, some say religion (btw I'm a religious person as you know but that's a lie that God of all people condone's killing animals). Okay great, good points if we were talking about rocks.

Obviously you're not okay with doing this to other humans, so why animals? Easy, you view them as inferior. I just can't get that and while with most other things I would at least respect your views, I can't do that either. It's disgusting. But since it's not going to change I can't move forward with any of these little points because we're fundamentally different. I might as well be trying to change your religion.

Quality of life for animals raised to the slaughter sucks, and no they don't care, but like toasty said some animals do, so do you know the difference? They've been raised that way. Abused children often don't see how badly they've been wronged, but we all recognize it as horrible. Same thing. Sorry, same thing to me.

I really don't know how to get this across any clearer. Okok, animal torture, like drowning kittens, that bothers you, yes? If it doesn't then **** off. If it does, then sit for a bit a think about why it bothers you and then get back to me. Because if you've ever had a pet that was like your best friend, or if you've ever seen animal cruelty and thought it was wrong, I don't see how you can then say they are inferior. It's like saying slavery is wrong but they shouldn't have equal rights.

Superiority comes in all different forms, but right and wrong in these situations is about as clear as it comes.

It's not a lie, kate. It's right there in the bible. If I'm too lazy to find it, I'll get the verse this sunday at church from one of the pastors. God gave us animals origionally for enjoyment (well, I don't really know what purpouse they had in the beginning, so that's my best guess), but when we sinned, we were condemmed to kill them for food. God gave the animals fear, and so they flee from humans.

And Kate, most animals don't kill members of their own species outside of disputes over land or status. The same goes for humans, except instead of land or status, it;s posessions, or revenge, or something else. In either case, we/they aren't killing their own species for food, but we're/they're still killing eachother.

Animals also attack and kill humans, just like humans attack and kill animals (though obviously the latter happens more). Is it inhumane for animals to attack humans? I think so, and I think it warrants said animal being killed. If you attacked a baby cheeta, it's mother would kill you, so obviously that applies to humans and animals alike.

And obviously animals are inferior to humans. That's why we have so much control over them. God made man superior to animals.



Kate, the difference between a cow and an abused child is that a cow isn't going to know the difference. They're not as inteligent as humans. A lot of dogs are smarter than cows though. A lot of dogs also would probably know the difference between an abusive master and a gracious master. We don't raise dogs to slaughter them.
Some species are smarter than others, and it's usually blatantly obvious when they are. An australian shpeherd (the breed of dog I own) can herd cows because it's smarter than the cows. If a cow wanted to, it could probably easily kill my dog. Yet it doesn't.

Cows are dumb and useful only for food. They're vegetarians, so they aren't responsible for keeping any species in check besides grass. I don't care how cute you think the are, they're too stupid to know the difference between their current life, and life in the wilderness. They wouldn't even stand a chance out in the wild.

All humans are made equal (or so says the bible for you non-believers). Humans were put at the top of the food chain because we were made in god's image, and god certainly isn't inferrior to any animal.

Kittens, dogs, and household pets aren't relied on for food (outside of a select few countries). Even though I would hate to see my dog drowned by someone (so much so that I'd beat said person's brains out. Litterally), I am still his master, I still give him commands, and I am still superior to him.


God gave us animals for some reason. After we sinned, that reason was to supply us with food, or to help us in any way we deemed nessescary. My dog helps me by just being himself. He gives me something to care about, something to pet, something to make me smile or laugh. Because I am attached to him, I would obviously put his life above a cow's. I would even risk my life to protect him. That doesn't mean I think of him as equal though.

[Saturos S.]

And we need the food *cough* global food shortage much?

[Legolastom]

1. STFU about the ****ing Bible alredy.

2. If a Lion is in your house you kill it. If you go into a Lions den it attacks you and it deserves to die. Of course!

Split Infinity, on Jul 8 2008, 11:23 PM, said:

It's kind of ironic how people criticize human treatment of animals despite that the animals themselves are probably a lot worse. Go watch the discovery channel. When a safari program comes on, watch for the scene where the lion tackles its prey and starts ripping chunks out of it. Real humane.

Animals do not necessarily have the ability to tell the diference between whats right and wrong, they see what they are doing as survival because... well it is, if they dont kill that Animal then they and their family die. And how exactly is killing a single Animal so you dont starve to death worse than locking animals in cages that are slightly bigger than themsleves for their whole lives just so you can slaughter them.

Seriously though how did you come up with this logic?

[Split Infinity]

Please direct me to the post where I claimed that any animal should be locked in a cage all its life.

[Ironsight]

Cows aren't locked in cages for all their life. They get put in fiels where they eat grass and fatten up before we make delicious hamburgers and steaks out of them.

[Toasty]

@DS: XD

@Lego:
1) No

2) Not what I meant. If you are taking a stroll through the woods and a bear attacks you, you are well within your rights to kill it. If you walk into a lion's den and it attacks you, you deserve to die for being that stupid.



I caught my dog sleeping on the couch when I got home from school once. this was only a little while after we had brought him home (a few months). No one ever told him he wasn;t supposed to be on the couch. Yet he looked at me with his head held low with the "I'm sorry, please don't punish me" look. I never gave him a stern look of any kind, nor di I yell at him. I only asked him what the matter was, because he looked like he thought he was in trouble (and really, he should've been, but he shouldn't have known that). I could tell he knew he had done something wrong, and I also knew that no one had taught him to stay off the couch. He's also fairly gentle with younger children (he still acts excited, but he doesn't attempt to jump on them). We didn't teach him that either.

Maybe I just have an abnormally intelligent dog, but I'd say he knows very well the diffrence between right and wrong without even needing to be told (well, other than he needed to be potty-trained since he was a puppy when we got him).

And please don't tell me that you think cows are kept in cages. ;) I can't name any livestock off the top of my head that's kept in a cage to be slaughtered later on. Chickens are kept in coops. They have plenty of space to run around. Cows have entire fields to graze. Non-wild fish are only kept in containers until they're large enough to be released into the ocean. Pigs are kept in pens.

If you're referring to the quait caffe's in third-world countries that sell endangered species on their menu, than I can see where you're going. But if you're talking about livestock like the kind we have in the United States, then you seriously need to go get your head checked.

[Legolastom]

@Split: *Facepalm*

@ Toasty: http://en.wikipedia....ki/Battery_farm

[Split Infinity]

Legolastom, on Jul 9 2008, 08:33 PM, said:

@Split: *Facepalm*

You couldn't find it, could you? Didn't think so. Maybe next time you'll use facts to back up your opinions instead of making pointless accusations. Live and learn, Tomboy.

[Toasty]

Legolastom, on Jul 9 2008, 03:33 AM, said:

@ Toasty: http://en.wikipedia....ki/Battery_farm

They're ****ing chickens Tom. Quit being such a tree-hugger. Besides, chickens are even stupider than cows. Heck, they might aswell be braindead. I would know, because we've had chickens before. They're not too bright.

And I'd like to see try to find cows in cages.

[Ironsight]

http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/4660/1215591876079zu7.jpg
ANIMAlZ R SUPEREOR

[Drizzy Drake]

So because chickens are stupid, they are allowed to be slaughtered, but becasue dogs are smarter, they aren't? That means killing a retard should be perfectly legal, if you look at it in that light. Intellegence has nothing to do with killing.

Tell me, why do you cringe at a dead dog but not a dead chicken? It's the same thing.

[Legolastom]

Hey split seriously *Facepalm* why dont you try reading my post and not being such a stupid and ignorant ****head?

[kate]

okay wow, first of all toasty, I know what you said is in the bible, I'm just saying that if that's really what God's like then I want nothing to do with him. Same with how people say we should fear him and he can be vengeful and blablablah. No. Just my personal opinion, but I don't worship that God, I interpret the bible in my own way.

Anywho, intelligence doesn't make us superior. I made a point about that a couple pages back, go find it if you want.

Cows who are in the big fields before being slaughtered I'm not so concerned about. Slaughtering is still wrong, but they do have a pretty nice life. I'm talking about the ones that are cramped, and the chickens who can't move (yes I was talking about chickens too). What bugs me the most is...ok I live on an acreage so there are a bunch of farms around, and I went to one with cattle, and they all wandered up to see me, and I was so sad thinking about how they were about to be killed. Does that honestly not bug you? Now it doesn't consume my every waking moment, but when I think about it, it bugs me. What I think you guys are doing is a defense mechanism. You like meat, but you don't like where meat comes from, so to make yourself happy you convince yourself that it's not wrong to kill these animals, and then you can enjoy your meat with a guilt free conscience. My theory anyways.

So cows are dumb so there's no reason we should save them? Hm okay, let's look at any sci fi movie ever made, where an incredibly intelligent alien race came to earth and decided to kill humans for food or funsies. Then all of a sudden what they're doing is wrong. Or would you gladly lie down in the streets and wait for them because they are intellectually superior and therefore you deserve to die? I don't think so, because when it comes to ourselves we care quite alot. So basically we're lacking in sympathy for other species, making us selfish bastards, because that's sure what the aliens seem like in the movies.

Please do not continue to confuse evolution to survive well in their niche to them being inferior. Quite different. As I also said a while back, if we went to live in their environment, we'd probably get our asses kicked because they are superior to us at what they do. However we've expanded our species so far across the earth that we force them to live in our environment, where they seem inferior. For some reason this grants us the right to treat them badly. Yes they would kill us if we pissed them off enough in their territory, but that's based on their survival. We have people who kill for fun, and beyond that, we raise them and treat them like ****, we don't just kill them. Everything has to die, it's how they live that I'm concerned about. Really, we're inferior because the world would be much better off without us. We're pretty much equivalent to parasites in the way we take and destroy and spread without care for others.

and toasty, don't say we were meant to be the superior species because God said so, because in some religions, these cows that you think are so dumb are worshipped as sacred creatures, so religion is kinda null and void in these discussions.

[Gio]

kate, on Jul 9 2008, 01:23 PM, said:

okay wow, first of all toasty, I know what you said is in the bible, I'm just saying that if that's really what God's like then I want nothing to do with him. Same with how people say we should fear him and he can be vengeful and blablablah. No. Just my personal opinion, but I don't worship that God, I interpret the bible in my own way.

If the bible straight up says that animals are here to serve us, then how do you interpret it a different way?

kate, on Jul 9 2008, 01:23 PM, said:

Anywho, intelligence doesn't make us superior. I made a point about that a couple pages back, go find it if you want.

since when

kate, on Jul 9 2008, 01:23 PM, said:

Cows who are in the big fields before being slaughtered I'm not so concerned about. Slaughtering is still wrong, but they do have a pretty nice life. I'm talking about the ones that are cramped, and the chickens who can't move (yes I was talking about chickens too). What bugs me the most is...ok I live on an acreage so there are a bunch of farms around, and I went to one with cattle, and they all wandered up to see me, and I was so sad thinking about how they were about to be killed. Does that honestly not bug you? Now it doesn't consume my every waking moment, but when I think about it, it bugs me. What I think you guys are doing is a defense mechanism. You like meat, but you don't like where meat comes from, so to make yourself happy you convince yourself that it's not wrong to kill these animals, and then you can enjoy your meat with a guilt free conscience. My theory anyways.

I kill it myself if you really want me to

kate, on Jul 9 2008, 01:23 PM, said:

So cows are dumb so there's no reason we should save them? Hm okay, let's look at any sci fi movie ever made, where an incredibly intelligent alien race came to earth and decided to kill humans for food or funsies. Then all of a sudden what they're doing is wrong. Or would you gladly lie down in the streets and wait for them because they are intellectually superior and therefore you deserve to die? I don't think so, because when it comes to ourselves we care quite alot. So basically we're lacking in sympathy for other species, making us selfish bastards, because that's sure what the aliens seem like in the movies.

I am pretty sure the cows don't give a rat's ass about us.

kate, on Jul 9 2008, 01:23 PM, said:

Please do not continue to confuse evolution to survive well in their niche to them being inferior. Quite different. As I also said a while back, if we went to live in their environment, we'd probably get our asses kicked because they are superior to us at what they do. However we've expanded our species so far across the earth that we force them to live in our environment, where they seem inferior. For some reason this grants us the right to treat them badly. Yes they would kill us if we pissed them off enough in their territory, but that's based on their survival. We have people who kill for fun, and beyond that, we raise them and treat them like ****, we don't just kill them. Everything has to die, it's how they live that I'm concerned about. Really, we're inferior because the world would be much better off without us. We're pretty much equivalent to parasites in the way we take and destroy and spread without care for others.

I think the fact that our technology has allowed us to live just about everywhere makes us superior and that is why we inhabit much more of the planet than cows.

kate, on Jul 9 2008, 01:23 PM, said:

and toasty, don't say we were meant to be the superior species because God said so, because in some religions, these cows that you think are so dumb are worshipped as sacred creatures, so religion is kinda null and void in these discussions.

Yes but why would we care about what another religion thinks.

[Nyktos]

Gio, on Jul 9 2008, 02:49 PM, said:

Yes but why would we care about what another religion thinks.

Why should I care what your religion thinks?

[Blue]

"In 197666, I killed an animals right activist, because animals, they ain't got no rights, that's right!"
That's my opinion.

[Split Infinity]

Gio, don't be an ass.

kate, on Jul 10 2008, 04:23 AM, said:

What bugs me the most is...ok I live on an acreage so there are a bunch of farms around, and I went to one with cattle, and they all wandered up to see me, and I was so sad thinking about how they were about to be killed. Does that honestly not bug you? Now it doesn't consume my every waking moment, but when I think about it, it bugs me. What I think you guys are doing is a defense mechanism. You like meat, but you don't like where meat comes from, so to make yourself happy you convince yourself that it's not wrong to kill these animals, and then you can enjoy your meat with a guilt free conscience. My theory anyways.

Not really. I'm fine with where meat comes from, it doesn't disgust or horrify me to any extent, as long as I don't have slaughter anything. But that's only because I have a subconscious resistance to causing harm, not because of any defence mechanism.

[Laharl]

lol christian morons,

Commandment #6: You shall not murder*

The Roman Catholic Church uses the translation 'kill' (less specific) instead of 'murder'

so unless you're RCC your God doesnt give 2 ****s about animals

so stop using an him an excuse to justify your ideals.

[Drizzy Drake]

kate, on Jul 9 2008, 02:23 PM, said:

okay wow, first of all toasty, I know what you said is in the bible, I'm just saying that if that's really what God's like then I want nothing to do with him. Same with how people say we should fear him and he can be vengeful and blablablah. No. Just my personal opinion, but I don't worship that God, I interpret the bible in my own way.

Anywho, intelligence doesn't make us superior. I made a point about that a couple pages back, go find it if you want.

Cows who are in the big fields before being slaughtered I'm not so concerned about. Slaughtering is still wrong, but they do have a pretty nice life. I'm talking about the ones that are cramped, and the chickens who can't move (yes I was talking about chickens too). What bugs me the most is...ok I live on an acreage so there are a bunch of farms around, and I went to one with cattle, and they all wandered up to see me, and I was so sad thinking about how they were about to be killed. Does that honestly not bug you? Now it doesn't consume my every waking moment, but when I think about it, it bugs me. What I think you guys are doing is a defense mechanism. You like meat, but you don't like where meat comes from, so to make yourself happy you convince yourself that it's not wrong to kill these animals, and then you can enjoy your meat with a guilt free conscience. My theory anyways.

So cows are dumb so there's no reason we should save them? Hm okay, let's look at any sci fi movie ever made, where an incredibly intelligent alien race came to earth and decided to kill humans for food or funsies. Then all of a sudden what they're doing is wrong. Or would you gladly lie down in the streets and wait for them because they are intellectually superior and therefore you deserve to die? I don't think so, because when it comes to ourselves we care quite alot. So basically we're lacking in sympathy for other species, making us selfish bastards, because that's sure what the aliens seem like in the movies.

Please do not continue to confuse evolution to survive well in their niche to them being inferior. Quite different. As I also said a while back, if we went to live in their environment, we'd probably get our asses kicked because they are superior to us at what they do. However we've expanded our species so far across the earth that we force them to live in our environment, where they seem inferior. For some reason this grants us the right to treat them badly. Yes they would kill us if we pissed them off enough in their territory, but that's based on their survival. We have people who kill for fun, and beyond that, we raise them and treat them like ****, we don't just kill them. Everything has to die, it's how they live that I'm concerned about. Really, we're inferior because the world would be much better off without us. We're pretty much equivalent to parasites in the way we take and destroy and spread without care for others.

and toasty, don't say we were meant to be the superior species because God said so, because in some religions, these cows that you think are so dumb are worshipped as sacred creatures, so religion is kinda null and void in these discussions.

Yeah. Defend that you catholic bitch.

Laharl, on Jul 9 2008, 07:07 PM, said:

lol christian morons,

Commandment #6: You shall not murder*

The Roman Catholic Church uses the translation 'kill' (less specific) instead of 'murder'

so unless you're RCC your God doesnt give 2 ****s about animals

so stop using an him an excuse to justify your ideals.

And that.

[Gio]

Nyktos, on Jul 9 2008, 05:25 PM, said:

Why should I care what your religion thinks?

I never said you had to. which really just proves my point.

[Toasty]

kate, on Jul 9 2008, 11:23 AM, said:

okay wow, first of all toasty, I know what you said is in the bible, I'm just saying that if that's really what God's like then I want nothing to do with him. Same with how people say we should fear him and he can be vengeful and blablablah. No. Just my personal opinion, but I don't worship that God, I interpret the bible in my own way.

God doesn't want us mindlessly abusing animals or mistreating them. He just said the we are superior, and that the animals are here to serve us. If some guy went around killing animals with no provocation, I know god wouldn't be too happy with him. Do you understand it better now? God made us in his image. Do you honestly think that there is some heavenly animal that is on par with god? (or better yet, do you think there's anything at all that's on par with god? Other than himself?)

Anywho, intelligence doesn't make us superior. I made a point about that a couple pages back, go find it if you want.

Do you think that any animal is capable of building a rocke an flying to the moon? Or inventing weapons? Our intelligence gives us the upper hand. There is no animal on earth who would be able to control humans. They aren't better than us. They're not even on par with us. If they were, they'd have their own nations and countries, and we'd probably have gone to war with them at some point. We are at the top of the foodchain because of our intelligence, and nothing more.

Cows who are in the big fields before being slaughtered I'm not so concerned about. Slaughtering is still wrong, but they do have a pretty nice life. I'm talking about the ones that are cramped, and the chickens who can't move (yes I was talking about chickens too). What bugs me the most is...ok I live on an acreage so there are a bunch of farms around, and I went to one with cattle, and they all wandered up to see me, and I was so sad thinking about how they were about to be killed. Does that honestly not bug you? Now it doesn't consume my every waking moment, but when I think about it, it bugs me. What I think you guys are doing is a defense mechanism. You like meat, but you don't like where meat comes from, so to make yourself happy you convince yourself that it's not wrong to kill these animals, and then you can enjoy your meat with a guilt free conscience. My theory anyways.

You're right. I myself probably wouldn't be able to kill a cow. However, I don't convince myself of anything. Those cows were born to feed us. They live their lives grazing meadows, and when it comes time, we slit their throats, let them bleed out, gut them, skin them, cut them up, and put them on store shelves. See? I know exactly where they come from. I may not be able to kill one myself, but I'm certainly not going to stop a butcher from doing his job. And yes. I do enjoy my meat very much. :)

So cows are dumb so there's no reason we should save them? Hm okay, let's look at any sci fi movie ever made, where an incredibly intelligent alien race came to earth and decided to kill humans for food or funsies. Then all of a sudden what they're doing is wrong. Or would you gladly lie down in the streets and wait for them because they are intellectually superior and therefore you deserve to die? I don't think so, because when it comes to ourselves we care quite alot. So basically we're lacking in sympathy for other species, making us selfish bastards, because that's sure what the aliens seem like in the movies.

We're smart enough to realise that we're being used for food. The cows aren't. If they were, they'd stay the hell away from people and farms. In the movies, the aliens may be more intelligent, but we're still smart enough to realise what's happening. And just because the cows don't know what's going isn't a reason to kill them, or something to justify it, it's the fact that they serve no other purpose. Anywhere. Cows aren't a major foodsource for anyone but humans.

Please do not continue to confuse evolution to survive well in their niche to them being inferior. Quite different. As I also said a while back, if we went to live in their environment, we'd probably get our asses kicked because they are superior to us at what they do. However we've expanded our species so far across the earth that we force them to live in our environment, where they seem inferior. For some reason this grants us the right to treat them badly. Yes they would kill us if we pissed them off enough in their territory, but that's based on their survival. We have people who kill for fun, and beyond that, we raise them and treat them like ****, we don't just kill them. Everything has to die, it's how they live that I'm concerned about. Really, we're inferior because the world would be much better off without us. We're pretty much equivalent to parasites in the way we take and destroy and spread without care for others.

We wouldn't get our asses kicked because we'd build spears and kill them. Just like our ancestors did. Our ancestors lived in the same environment as wild animals, and they were still superior. If you feel so strongly that humans are parasites, then go join the crazy group of college students who think the same. They believe that the world would be better off without humans, so they've decided not to have kids. They're hoping that the movement they've started (which is barey moving at all) will spread, and ultimately cause the extinction of the human race.
Luckily, that will never happen, because luckily, there will always be people who want to raise a family.

and toasty, don't say we were meant to be the superior species because God said so, because in some religions, these cows that you think are so dumb are worshipped as sacred creatures, so religion is kinda null and void in these discussions.

Those religions are worshipping false gods (according to Christianity), so that point is null and void from my perspective. Religion has everything to do with this situation, because religion is kinda what makes the world go 'round. Unless you haven't noticed. The United States as founded on Christian principals. Most of what people consider right and wrong was spread through the bibles of the three main religions (who's views are actually strikingly similar. They even all worship a single god. You could say that they're all looking upon a single mountain from three different sides).

We are superior to animals. They are here to serve us. We are here to be their masters. What I think you have a problem with, is the masters that beat their underlings. If you understand what I mean.

And Laharl, I wouldn't be surprised if you've never even picked up a bible. That commandment is directed at people killing other people. Not people killing animals. The bible says specifically that after we were kicked out of Eden, we were to eat the flesh of animals. I'll find the verses relating to this subject on Sunday if you want me to prove it.

[Eugine]

Toasty, you use the Bible as justification for your views that animals have no rights. Let me tell you something -
If we're using the Bible to determine who has rights in this day and age, only male caucasians would have had rights today.

[Toasty]

No they wouldn't. The bible says all men are created equal. Since the day I was born, I was taught by my parents and the various Christian churches I've been to, that no single person is better than any other person. Regardless of what they look like, their ethnicity, their personality, all of it.

If we were actually using the bible the way we were supposed to in this day and age, we would have far fewer problems.

[Eugine]

The Bible says everything.

[Toasty]

It's got views on almost anything you can think of, so yeah.

[Split Infinity]

No, Christians just like to interpret it as having views on everything.

[Toasty]

You can take anything from the bible and apply it to real life. And that's not just my opinion.
But that's for a different topic.

Were're supposed to be arguing about animal rights here. :)

[Ironsight]

"Bible, should I take the red pill or the Blue pill?"

[Toasty]

The bible would've said the red pill. :)

Seriously though. It's not like it answers all questions directly, it's more along the lines of taking what it teaches and applying it to a problem.

In this case, I think Jesus said somewhere to seek the truth. Well, wouldn't taking the red pill be seeking the truth? You'd also be standing up for what's right, protecting people, and trying to exact justice on the bad guys. Is that not the right thing to do?

[Laharl]

the bibles says we should rocks at homosexuals

[Toasty]

No it doesn't. We don't even have laws that state that. Even if we did have a law like that though, god wouldn't expect us to follow it. The bible may say that we are to obey the laws set forth by our fathers, but if any of the laws conflict with the ten commandments, then do you honestly think they should be obeyed? I wouldn't throw a rock at a homosexual if the law told me to, because god wouldn't want me to throw the rock.
Now if that homosexual was attacking me, I'd be well within my right in both the law's eyes and god's to throw a rock at him, because it would be self defence.

[Eugine]

Eugine, on Jul 10 2008, 06:04 AM, said:

The Bible says everything.

The Bible says everything even if it contradicts itself.

[Drizzy Drake]

Toasty, on Jul 10 2008, 06:01 AM, said:

No they wouldn't. The bible says all men are created equal. Since the day I was born, I was taught by my parents and the various Christian churches I've been to, that no single person is better than any other person. Regardless of what they look like, their ethnicity, their personality, all of it.

If we were actually using the bible the way we were supposed to in this day and age, we would have far fewer problems.

Then why do you dislike gays? Or think they are weird? Or that it's wrong? Once again, another contradiction by the Bible.

[Saturos S.]

Wasn't the bible written by mere men as well? So couldn't they have been mistaken when writing the fricking book? So instead of reciting what a few old coots wrote down 2000+ years ago, please, just for once, let's have a debate where the bible gets thrown overboard and have a rational discussion. With ethical, moral, economical, political, but not religious justifications for your view on animal rights.

kthxbai

[Gio]

You can't really, because a lot of people use the bible as the basis of their moral structure. Now you can choose to ignore or disagree with it.

[Split Infinity]

It's fine as long as people aren't saying 'It's in the Bible so STFU'.

[Gio]

The only time that a disagreement comes up involving the bible is because someone has made a negative remark about someone who says they believe something because the bible says it is supposed to be a certain way.

edit: for example

Toasty, on Jul 8 2008, 04:13 PM, said:

All I have to say, is that if it came to saving a humans life or an animal's life, and the human wasn't some kind of serial killer or something, I'd save the human.

The bible basically says that animals are here to serve humans. Either by helping plow fields/move cargo/etc. (though we have machines for that now), or by providing food for us to eat (livestock like cows, chickens, etc.)

Though I also love my dog very much, and would probably put his well-being ahead of some random stranger.

Dipset, on Jul 8 2008, 07:03 PM, said:

Ok, just get the fuck out.

I should have stopped reading there. The bible also says all human are born equal, but you are for some reason against gay marrige. Fucking hypocritical prick.

Bringing up the Bible in an arguement is fucking pointless. Not everybody here is religious, and therefore don't give two flying fucks what the Bible says.
Ok, I will clarify for him.

The lion does that because he needs to. He NEEDS to feed on meat. We, do not. I am not against killing animals for food, but arguements like yours just makes me realise how entirely stupid the human race really is.

You were being ignorant btw.
God, am I in a fucking bad mood today or what?

[Drizzy Drake]

Sorry, but those are my beliefs. When somebody believes in something, not because they think it is right or wrong, but because the Bible told them so, it bugs me.

[Split Infinity]

What if they believe the Bible is right?

[Drizzy Drake]

Well fine, basing everything you believe in on someone else's word bugs me.

[Gio]

I wasn't trying to call you out or anything skidz i was just trying to prove a point.


Anywho.......somebody want to say something about animals?

[Drizzy Drake]

.....cute bunnies are cute

[Gio]

Indeed they are, and I don't know of any person that would eat cute bunnies. Man they are set. :)

[Eugine]

Oh well. I eat everything, including rabbit meat. Rabbit meat is tasty.

[Gio]

Does it taste like chicken?

[Eugine]

Kinda. The meat is sweeter, and it's more tender. Tastes better imo. Haven't eaten it in ages though.

Let us save the fishes lol. I hate fish... Makes me vomit =(

[Gio]

Me to....unless it is catfish.
I was at the beach today, and a bunch of fish died and washed up on shore, and stunk up the whole beach, and that about made me vomit. There were thousands of them, not even the seagulls could eat them fast enough to keep the beach clean.