This is disgusting.... really really sad....

Stormy · May 08, 2010 9:16 PM

Trainer_Spyro wrote:

Correction: The vast majority of humans do while little to no animals engage in such behavior.

No, the vast majority of humans do not *bleep*, kill, and steal. =/
Animals actually do all of the above because they have no morals to tell them not to.

That’s to say that because we’re smart we’re have more worth and people with down syndrome and/or other mental illnesses are beneath us and if they do something to irritate us we have the right to kill them. And any child should be killed if they break something or cause damage property or accidentally harm the family pet they should be killed because they aren’t as smart as adults.

neutral

What makes humans different from animals is the ability to show emotion and reason. Humans can love and care for other people and animals. Humans have personalities. Children and people with Down's Syndrome have all of this. Animals don't as they basically run on pure instinct. I find it kind of disturbing that you're trying to make this argument. I would never claim we have the right to kill children or the mentally handicapped because they are not as intelligent as normal adults.

Honestly, say you had a dog. And you also had a little brother who's five years old. You only get to save one of them. Which would you save?

So just because they’re wild and less intelligent and don’t know any better we have the right to kill them.

I think we do, especially if they're a threat to our lives and food sources. I don't personally like hunting for fun, but it's nowhere near as bad as murdering someone like you're making it seem.

#1. You’re implying that I said somewhere in my argument that I wasn’t a part of the human race, which I did not.

That's why I don't get why you're complaining so much.
You make it sound like all humans are cruel and evil, but you are one.

#2. Refer to my intellect argument. #3. What makes humans better than animals, our capacity for knowledge? I think I already debunked that theory. Its only our own arrogance that that tells us we’re better.

These are basically the same argument. I've addressed the "intellect" thing already.

Really if you want to think about what’s the better species, humans reaction to an animal that annoys them is more often than not to kill it. If animals had our mentality we’d have been wiped off the planet ages ago.

Again with the generalizations. Not all humans think this way. I know I don't, and apparently you don't either.

It's sad that a lot of people have to think that way, but animals do kill people too.

Why can’t you just relocate them? What’s the point of killing more animals than necessary?

That would be ideal, but if a wolf is posing an active threat to some of your animals, there's no other choice a lot of the time.
If everyone had tranquilizer guns ready with them at all times and we had unlimited space to keep all the animals, I'd be all for this idea.

They do other things. They abuse their wives/ husbands, the abuse their children, they’re more argumentative… the list goes on. Try checking a book out a psychology book in the library and look for the correlation between animal abuse and human related abuse. One instance was in the news a while ago about a serial killer named Jeffrey Dahmer who’s uncle would torture animals in front of him while watching him. We all know what our buddy ol’ Jeff turned out to be.

Recreational hunting isn't the same as animal abuse. Find me an example of where recreational hunting has directly led to someone becoming a psychopath, and I'll accept this argument.

Sometimes the animal population needs to be kept in check, anyway, or it will get out of control, and we'll start having instances of people being attacked by scared wolves and mountain lions who are lost in the middle of suburban areas with no food.

You don’t think that humans have a holier-than-thou attitude for thinking they can just kill an animal whenever they want to and that’s okay?

Well yes, some people do. I never said they didn't. I think the person who wrote the article the OP linked to is one of them, wanting to get rid of every single wolf.

I am actually one of those people who will encourage others to pick up bugs and put them outside instead of squishing them, and I'd never want to hunt for fun. But I don't get self-righteous and start generalizing humanity as evil when other people don't agree with me, because in the end, it's no big deal.

Trainer_Spyro · May 08, 2010 10:01 PM

stormy wrote:

I don't think you can really say the vast majority of humans, or even a lot of humans, *bleep*, kill, and steal. =/

You’re completely avoiding the point. Animals don’t even have this capacity. And in case you haven’t noticed our prisons are overflowing.

stormy wrote:

What makes humans different from animals is the ability to show emotion and reason. Humans can love and care for other people and animals. Children and people with Down's Syndrome can do this. Animals can't as they basically run on pure instinct. I find it kind of disturbing that you're trying to make this argument. I would never claim we have the right to kill children or the mentally handicapped because they are not as intelligent as normal adults.

Animals do love and do show emotion and reason. Why do you think cats purr or have favorite people and why do you think dogs miss their owners after they’ve been away for a long time or go to warn their owners about a fire rather than just getting out of harms way themselves. There are also documented cases of animals raising human children in the wild. I also like how you try to put this on me by completely avoiding that fact that I was saying that your argument is supporting unethical treatment of the mentally handicapped and I was saying it was wrong.

stormy wrote:

I think we do, especially if they're a threat to our lives and food sources. I don't personally like hunting for fun, but it's nowhere near as bad as murdering someone like you're making it seem.

Yes it is. No one ever said we couldn’t defend ourselves, but to eliminate something because it annoys you is not self defense. There’s no way an animal could cause enough damage to your food supply for it to be necessary for you to have to worry about your own well-being. Not in this day and age. If the animal is physically attacking you and is actually a threat (I’m not talking about a cat biting you because you stepped on its tail) that’s another story. Humans will do that to other humans as well.

stormy wrote:

That's why I don't get why you're complaining so much.
You make it sound like all humans are cruel and evil, but you are one.

We are, it’s the bottom line.

stormy wrote:

Done.

Not quite yet it's not.

stormy wrote:

Again with the generalizations. Not all humans think this way. I know I don't, and apparently you don't either.
It's sad that a lot of people have to think that way, but animals do kill people too.

Then maybe we’re not disagreeing, maybe we’re saying humans that think this way are bad. And yes animals kill people, but you will never hear of an instance where an animal kills a human for sport and hangs their head on their cave wall. I'm only generalizing for the sake of simplicity.

stormy wrote:

That would be ideal, but if a wolf is posing an active threat to some of your animals, there's no other choice a lot of the time.
It would be great and all, if we had unlimited space to keep all these animals. Which we don't.

I really don’t see the point if that wolf is attacking livestock that’s just going to be killed in the end anyway. And we don’t have unlimited space for humans either, perhaps the whole world should start culling our species as well as animals then.

stormy wrote:

Recreational hunting isn't the same as animal abuse. Find me an example of where recreational hunting has directly led to someone becoming a psychopath, and I'll accept this argument.
Sometimes the animal population needs to be kept in check, anyway, or it will get out of control, and we'll start having instances of people being attacked by scared wolves and mountain lions who are lost in the middle of suburban areas with no food.

I don’t see the difference between pointlessly killing an animal and torturing it when it comes to lessons learned. That just teaches people that it’s alright to kill living things for fun. Maybe not all people, bit it's still a mind set and it plants a seed. And I already told you, check out a current psychology book.
Once more what about the overflowing human population? I ask again what makes us more important than them? And what’s the difference between an animal killing for food and a human killing for food. It’s all in the name of survival in the end.

stormy wrote:

Well yes, some people do. I never said they didn't. I think the person who wrote the article the OP linked to is one of them.
I am actually one of those people who will encourage others to pick up bugs and put them outside instead of squishing them, and I'd never want to hunt for fun. But I don't get self-righteous and start generalizing humanity as evil when other people do.

That's great that you do that, I do as well, but again you call me self righteous after I have stated multiple times that I never excluded myself from the human race in any of my arguments. I will emphasize that I agree with you that not all humans are this way, but there are still a lot of them that are. But again, that's not all of my argument. I just believe that animals have just as much right to be here as we do and maybe they don't deserve the right to vote, but they should be protected when it comes to pointless killing.

A Guy · May 08, 2010 10:33 PM

You’re completely avoiding the point. Animals don’t even have this capacity. And in case you haven’t noticed our prisons are overflowing.

Animals have the capacity to kill and steal.

Animals do love and do show emotion and reason. Why do you think cats purr or have favorite people and why do you think dogs miss their owners after they’ve been away for a long time or go to warn their owners about a fire rather than just getting out of harms way themselves. There are also documented cases of animals raising human children in the wild. I also like how you try to put this on me by completely avoiding that fact that I was saying that your argument is supporting unethical treatment of the mentally handicapped and I was saying it was wrong.

Cats show attachment to certain people because it associates those people with being cared for. The same goes for dogs, except it's their instinct to have an alpha in the pack. If the caregiver dies, guess what? It's bad for them, so they have every reason to keep the caregiver alive.

Yes it is. No one ever said we couldn’t defend ourselves, but to eliminate something because it annoys you is not self defense. There’s no way an animal could cause enough damage to your food supply for it to be necessary for you to have to worry about your own well-being. Not in this day and age. If the animal is physically attacking you and is actually a threat (I’m not talking about a cat biting you because you stepped on its tail) that’s another story. Humans will do that to other humans as well.

So if your bed was infested with bedbugs, would you not kill them? If your home was infested with mice eating all of your food, would you not kill them? And do you know why farmers spray pesticides?

We are, it’s the bottom line.

Oh, yeah, World Health Organization and the Red Cross are out to kill everybody roll

stormy wrote:

Done.

Not quite yet it's not.

Then maybe we’re not disagreeing, maybe we’re saying humans that think this way are bad. And yes animals kill people, but you will never hear of an instance where an animal kills a human for sport and hangs their head on their cave wall. I'm only generalizing for the sake of simplicity.

That's because an animal doesn't hold pride in its kills, or the need to impress somebody with a skull.

Oh, yeah, cats frequently bring back corpses to their owners, to give them a hint that they need to learn how to hunt.

I really don’t see the point if that wolf is attacking livestock that’s just going to be killed in the end anyway. And we don’t have unlimited space for humans either, perhaps the whole world should start culling our species as well as animals then.

The point is that the wolf eats it instead of the one who raised the livestock or the would-be buyer. And I doubt you would put your money where your mouth is...

I don’t see the difference between pointlessly killing an animal and torturing it when it comes to lessons learned. That just teaches people that it’s alright to kill living things for fun. Maybe not all people, bit it's still a mind set and it plants a seed. And I already told you, check out a current psychology book.
Once more what about the overflowing human population? I ask again what makes us more important than them? And what’s the difference between an animal killing for food and a human killing for food. It’s all in the name of survival in the end.

What makes us more important than them is that we are sentient. Oh, yeah, and we're the only ones that possess any capability of taking down an asteroid that's capable of destroying Earth.

Would you like it if someone you didn't know took the money you made from your job? Then why should a farmer let an animal eat his hard-grown livestock?

That's great that you do that, I do as well, but again you call me self righteous after I have stated multiple times that I never excluded myself from the human race in any of my arguments. I will emphasize that I agree with you that not all humans are this way, but there are still a lot of them that are. But again, that's not all of my argument. I just believe that animals have just as much right to be here as we do and maybe they don't deserve the right to vote, but they should be protected when it comes to pointless killing.

You just said we are all evil. Contradiction?

And we are hardly killing them pointlessly. The wolves are being killed because they are a threat to livestock.

Stormy · May 08, 2010 10:44 PM

Trainer_Spyro wrote:

You’re completely avoiding the point. Animals don’t even have this capacity. And in case you haven’t noticed our prisons are overflowing.

I'm not avoiding the point; I'm correcting you where you're exaggerating and being overdramatic. I've also noticed that you've also avoided my point about whether you'd save your dog or your brother. That's important for me to understand where you're coming from.

Animals do have the capacity to kill, *bleep*, and steal. Take my pet gerbils for example. I stupidly bought two males and put them in the same cage as my old female, thinking they wouldn't fight over her because she was old and because I had read on a website that female gerbils fight over males. The two males ended up getting in a fight, and one of them was killed. The surviving male started to have sex with the female, despite the fact that she kept kicking him off and clearly didn't want him to. I've also seen them steal food out of each other's paws, and many other animals steal food from humans. They have no morals to keep them from doing so.

Animals do love and do show emotion and reason. Why do you think cats purr or have favorite people and why do you think dogs miss their owners after they’ve been away for a long time

Because they want food, probably. They know the people feed them and associate seeing them with getting food. Instinct.

or go to warn their owners about a fire rather than just getting out of harms way themselves.

I'll admit, I don't know why they do this. It hasn't been proven that it's because they love their owners or that they're capable of love, though. This is an ongoing debate. It's also fairly rare that this happens, while humans do things like this every day.

If it is love, well, I may have to rethink my arguments a bit. I would still say that humans are more valuable, however. We still have the morality thing going for us, and it hasn't even been proven that animal rescues like this are anything more than flukes.

There are also documented cases of animals raising human children in the wild.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'd be interested to see an example of this so I can look into it more.

I think (again, can't prove any more than you can) this is another case of instinct, though. The animal may be confused in some way and mistake the human child for one of its own.

I also like how you try to put this on me by completely avoiding that fact that I was saying that your argument is supporting unethical treatment of the mentally handicapped and I was saying it was wrong.

Actually, that's not what I was doing at all. I realize you were arguing against this. I was defending my own point because apparently you'd horribly misinterpreted it to mean that I would support this treatment.

Yes it is. No one ever said we couldn’t defend ourselves, but to eliminate something because it annoys you is not self defense. There’s no way an animal could cause enough damage to your food supply for it to be necessary for you to have to worry about your own well-being. Not in this day and age. If the animal is physically attacking you and is actually a threat (I’m not talking about a cat biting you because you stepped on its tail) that’s another story. Humans will do that to other humans as well.

Think about people in rural areas who raise livestock. Surely you're not saying they should just let wolves keep coming and killing off their sources of income and food.

We are, it’s the bottom line.

Well, I disagree. Not all humans are; most humans are good, and, unlike animals, have morals that dictate their actions.

Not quite yet it's not.

I don't think we'll ever agree on this, so it will never be done.

Then maybe we’re not disagreeing, maybe we’re saying humans that think this way are bad. And yes animals kill people, but you will never hear of an instance where an animal kills a human for sport and hangs their head on their cave wall. I'm only generalizing for the sake of simplicity.

I get what you're saying, but hunting doesn't make someone a bad person.
Nor does wanting to exterminate all wolves. That just makes them misguided, and perhaps ignorant. But not a bad person necessarily.

stormy wrote:

That would be ideal, but if a wolf is posing an active threat to some of your animals, there's no other choice a lot of the time.
It would be great and all, if we had unlimited space to keep all these animals. Which we don't.

I really don’t see the point if that wolf is attacking livestock that’s just going to be killed in the end anyway.

And we don’t have unlimited space for humans either, perhaps the whole world should start culling our species as well as animals then.

As I already said, I value the lives of my own species over the lives of other species. I'm sure the animals would do the same.

I don’t see the difference between pointlessly killing an animal and torturing it when it comes to lessons learned. That just teaches people that it’s alright to kill living things for fun.

Torturing involves needless suffering. Animals die almost instantly when they are shot.

Maybe not all people, bit it's still a mind set and it plants a seed. And I already told you, check out a current psychology book.

Instead of telling me to find a source, why not show me one that you've found? That's basic argument skills - giving facts to prove your point.

Once more what about the overflowing human population? I ask again what makes us more important than them?

I've already answered this.

And what’s the difference between an animal killing for food and a human killing for food. It’s all in the name of survival in the end.

I suppose there technically is no difference; you're right. But I don't see how it supports your point. Based on this logic, are you saying you would let a wolf kill a person if you knew that wolf was going to die of starvation if it didn't?

Jackson117 · May 08, 2010 10:52 PM

Aicebo wrote:

wolf sandwiches are very yummy.

Crispy Balto burger

Stormy · May 08, 2010 11:01 PM

or go to warn their owners about a fire rather than just getting out of harms way themselves.

Also, I'd like to add, I think it's only dogs that do this. I've never heard of a pet hamster or a fish or a bird doing that, or showing the slightest sign of emotion for that matter, so what does that mean for them?

I think the main thing here is where you draw the line. So you think killing a dog is equivalent to killing a human. Is it the same for, say, a squirrel? A butterfly? A centipede? A single-celled organism?

Jackson117 · May 08, 2010 11:05 PM

Somehow larger creatures with more emotion deserve more respect.

Or any creature that shows emotion....Bugs drive on pure instincts...Dogs and cats show emotional feelings.

It just is somehow.

Not saying i vote on this but as one person said..the only thing dangerous then man..is man.

A Guy · May 08, 2010 11:08 PM

Cats and dogs aren't sentient. And their "emotions" are based off of pure instinct as well.

Stormy · May 08, 2010 11:09 PM

Again, we haven't been able to prove they have "emotions" any greater than responding with apparent happiness when given food. We have, however, proven that humans are sentient and animals are not. We've proven that instinct dictates a very large amount, if not all, of what animals do.

But based on what Trainer_Spyro is saying, though, it doesn't matter how much emotion or reason an animal has the capacity for, because if we discriminate based on things like that, we might as well be killing children and the mentally handicapped.

Edit: Darn it, A Guy, can't I post first for once? tongue

Trainer_Spyro · May 09, 2010 12:14 AM

A Guy wrote:

Animals have the capacity to kill and steal.

Yes, OUT OF NECESSITY! Not for fun. For the millionth time now.
And I missed one of your points so don’t tell me I’m ignoring you when you conveniently disregard multiples of mine. When your gerbil killed the other gerbil the only thing on his mind was ensuring that his genes continued (Continuing the species) When Humans kill or *bleep* they do it for the thrill of the hunt and the joy of watching someone helplessly squirm under them.

A Guy wrote:

Cats show attachment to certain people because it associates those people with being cared for. The same goes for dogs, except it's their instinct to have an alpha in the pack. If the caregiver dies, guess what? It's bad for them, so they have every reason to keep the caregiver alive.

It’s not just out of being cared for. Haven’t you ever heard stories of people complaining about how certain cats attract to them even though they hate them or have done nothing for them? And if you are going to argue that animals are dumb then how could they know that a human is their caregiver in the first place? Why is it so hard to believe that animals have feelings? Ducks will even mate for life and if one of them passes the other grieves. Our cat Peep from the time he could crawl chose my mom over everyone else in the house and she was the only one who never fed, held or associated with him in any way because she was planning on giving him away and didn’t want to get attached. He picked her, for whatever reason no one knows and he sleeps with her all the time, in front of her at the computer when she’s doing school work when she’s watching TV and I’m the only person in the house who feeds the animals because it’s my job.
And if you want to go back on the morality thing, it’s the same principle as the intellect argument. People can get off court sentences by pleading they have a mental illness and don’t know any better and aren’t capable of knowing any better. Perhaps they should just have an alternative and when people plead insanity they should be put to death rather than serving jail time.
As far as the instance of animals raising human children I don’t have any examples. I just recently learned this myself in a sociology class and was equally surprised. And the fire rescue thing has also been recorded with cats and birds.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldne … kfast.html

A Guy wrote:

So if your bed was infested with bedbugs, would you not kill them? If your home was infested with mice eating all of your food, would you not kill them? And do you know why farmers spray pesticides?

Yes I would kill them. Because I’m human and it’s been ingrained in my mind that insects are inferior even to animals. For the 5th time now I am going to stress that I never said I was better than anyone and respectfully request that you stop implying that I have as it is irrelevant and a waste of time.
And my house was at one point infested with mice and what I did was catch as many as I could and I took them to a nearby forest and let them go in the summer. Until summer came I fed them housed them and watered them. And farmers spray pesticides because we have the perceived notion that insects are distasteful or grotesque. Their crop wouldn’t sell if people found insects on them. However I’m going to assume that you were getting at the fact that insects can be poisonous which is absolutely ridiculous to insinuate that insects have intentionally made themselves poisonous to harm humans and that the pesticides themselves are not equally if not more harmful to humans.
Of course I’m not saying farmers should just let animals have free pickin on their livestock.
Relocate them or relocate yourself.

A Guy wrote:

Oh, yeah, World Health Organization and the Red Cross are out to kill everybody

Like I already said which you also ignored, not all people are bad. I am saying humans because animals do not have the capacity to purposefully do harm to another creature for pleasure purposes like humans do.

A Guy wrote:

That's because an animal doesn't hold pride in its kills, or the need to impress somebody with a skull.
Oh, yeah, cats frequently bring back corpses to their owners, to give them a hint that they need to learn how to hunt.

Exactly, because there should be no pride in killing another living creature.
And cats bring them back as a gift, not “get it together” message. It’s an act of love and adoration in an attempt to take care of their owner as we take care of them. And correct me if I’m wrong but last I checked love was an emotion.
I will agree with you that they’re not a bad person necessarily. Mislead? Definitely.

A Guy wrote:

The point is that the wolf eats it instead of the one who raised the livestock or the would-be buyer. And I doubt you would put your money where your mouth is...

So basically you’re saying that money is more important that a life.
But I will agree to disagree that animals are less important than humans.

A Guy wrote:

What makes us more important than them is that we are sentient. Oh, yeah, and we're the only ones that possess any capability of taking down an asteroid that's capable of destroying Earth.
Would you like it if someone you didn't know took the money you made from your job? Then why should a farmer let an animal eat his hard-grown livestock?

Again you make the argument that intelligence defines worth. We already went over that. And if an animal wasn’t aware of it’s being then it would have no reason to try to eat to survive because it wouldn’t even know that it existed. And one cow in a farmers herd isn’t going to make a huge difference.
But you can’t honestly tell me you would enjoy or be tolerant of being shot. There’s a reason people scream when it happens. Animals feel the same things we do.

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp& … 30ada67292
A link to multiple sites and articles that will have facts for and against both of our arguments. Simple as that.

A Guy wrote:

You just said we are all evil. Contradiction?
And we are hardly killing them pointlessly. The wolves are being killed because they are a threat to livestock.

What I mean when I say we’re all evil is we all have the capacity to be evil and all it takes is a simple order, hence the Milgram’s Experiment. You can train an animal to do evil things for you, but then who’s really the bad one? Humans can be evil all on their own because they’re selfish and want more than they need. Again I am generalizing when I say humans. Animals only take what they need and do what they need to survive.

Humans killing animals to survive is the natural order of things just as much as animals killing other animals, humans and otherwise. Would I personally let a wolf kill a person if it were starving? No. But would a wolf let another animal kill it’s offspring or it’s pack brethren if it knew that other animal was starving? No. Again, it’s all in the name of survival. And you ask me to choose between my dog and my brother, I say why not aim to save both?

Stormy · May 09, 2010 12:33 AM

All the things you've quoted me as saying were actually said by A Guy. While I do agree with them, I think you should make sure you're getting your quotes straight with who said what. Since you didn't seem to have noticed my post, I'll just address your first point since you made a direct reference to something I said:

Yes, OUT OF NECESSITY! Not for fun. For the millionth time now.
And I missed one of your points so don’t tell me I’m ignoring you when you conveniently disregard multiples of mine. When your gerbil killed the other gerbil the only thing on his mind was ensuring that his genes continued (Continuing the species) When Humans kill or *bleep* they do it for the thrill of the hunt and the joy of watching someone helplessly squirm under them.

You're right about that. They do it out of necessity, further proving my point that what they do is pure instinct. I was merely pointing out that you were wrong that they don't have the capacity to do those things, as you claimed before.

But see, what I was saying was that if animals had morality like most humans do, they wouldn't do these things because they'd know they were wrong. Animals do not have this capacity and therefore *bleep*, kill, and steal, whereas most people realize that this is wrong. I've seen humans show far more of a capacity to help than do these common, everyday things that animals do to survive.

Also, I'm not sure how I (or I guess, A Guy, since you only replied to his points), missed anything you were trying to say.

Trainer_Spyro · May 09, 2010 12:45 AM

Stormy wrote:

All the things you've quoted me as saying were actually said by A Guy. While I do agree with them, I think you should make sure you're getting your quotes straight with who said what. Since you didn't seem to have noticed my post, I'll just address your first point since you made a direct reference to something I said:
Yes, OUT OF NECESSITY! Not for fun. For the millionth time now.
And I missed one of your points so don’t tell me I’m ignoring you when you conveniently disregard multiples of mine. When your gerbil killed the other gerbil the only thing on his mind was ensuring that his genes continued (Continuing the species) When Humans kill or *bleep* they do it for the thrill of the hunt and the joy of watching someone helplessly squirm under them.
You're right about that. They do it out of necessity, further proving my point that what they do is pure instinct. I was merely pointing out that you were wrong that they don't have the capacity to do those things, as you claimed before.
But see, what I was saying was that if animals had morality like most humans do, they wouldn't do these things because they'd know they were wrong. Animals do not have this capacity and therefore *bleep*, kill, and steal, whereas most people realize that this is wrong. I've seen humans show far more of a capacity to help than do these common, everyday things that animals do to survive.
Also, I'm not sure how I (or I guess, A Guy, since you only replied to his points), missed anything you were trying to say.

Actually that was a combination of inattentiveness and me being just plain lazy since he was just commenting on things you also commented on, but I'll go change that. And take a look at your post. I didn't mean to ignore it.

But I never said that animals acts weren't instinctual. I have actually been saying that this whole time. I just also believe that instinct isn't the factor 100% of the time.
My main point is that humans are worse than animals because what they do is not instinct. They are just sick and twisted for the sake of being sick and twisted.
I better stress again, before you rip my head off. When I say humans I mean that because we are smarter we do bad things on purpose rather than for the sake of survival and also when i say humans I don't mean that EVERYONE is absolutely like this.

EDIT ---> Alright I apologize, I missed that. That was my bad. <--- EDIT

Stormy · May 09, 2010 12:56 AM

Trainer_Spyro wrote:

But I never said that animals acts weren't instinctual. I have actually been saying that this whole time. I just also believe that instinct isn't the factor 100% of the time.

And I'm saying I don't because there's really no proof that they feel anything more than happiness at being fed and taken care of.

It was mainly a response to when you said this:

You’re completely avoiding the point. Animals don’t even have this capacity. And in case you haven’t noticed our prisons are overflowing.

As I've shown, they do have the capacity. Humans, on the other hand, have the capacity, but usually have the morals to know that it's wrong.

My main point is that humans are worse than animals because what they do is not instinct. They are just sick and twisted for the sake of being sick and twisted.
I better stress again, before you rip my head off. When I say humans I mean that because we are smarter we do bad things on purpose rather than for the sake of survival and also when i say humans I don't mean that EVERYONE is absolutely like this.

Sometimes humans doing this is sort of like instinct, though. Many murderers, rapists, and thieves are mentally ill.

I think it's sad that you seem to be completely ignoring the all the good that humans can do, though. Yes, there are bad people, but there are a lot more good people out there than there are "good" animals.

I did say some things that were different than what A Guy said, though, and I'd like you to respond to them, too. Our arguments aren't identical. If you continue to not see these I think it's kind of a lost cause to continue arguing in such a circular way.

Trainer Spyro wrote:
Yes it is. No one ever said we couldn’t defend ourselves, but to eliminate something because it annoys you is not self defense. There’s no way an animal could cause enough damage to your food supply for it to be necessary for you to have to worry about your own well-being. Not in this day and age. If the animal is physically attacking you and is actually a threat (I’m not talking about a cat biting you because you stepped on its tail) that’s another story. Humans will do that to other humans as well.
My response wrote:
Think about people in rural areas who raise livestock. Surely you're not saying they should just let wolves keep coming and killing off their sources of income and food.

Stormy wrote:

I've also noticed that you've also avoided my point about whether you'd save your dog or your brother. That's important for me to understand where you're coming from.

Stormy wrote:

Also, I'd like to add, I think it's only dogs that [save humans from fires]. I've never heard of a pet hamster or a fish or a bird doing that, or showing the slightest sign of emotion for that matter, so what does that mean for them?
I think the main thing here is where you draw the line. So you think killing a dog is equivalent to killing a human. Is it the same for, say, a squirrel? A butterfly? A centipede? A single-celled organism?

Trainer Spyro wrote:
There are also documented cases of animals raising human children in the wild.
my response wrote:
I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'd be interested to see an example of this so I can look into it more.

Trainer_Spyro · May 09, 2010 1:21 AM

stormy wrote:

And I'm saying I don't because there's really no proof that they feel anything more than happiness at being fed and taken care of.

There’s also no proof that they don’t.

stormy wrote:

Sometimes humans doing this is sort of like instinct, though. Many murderers, rapists, and thieves are mentally ill.
I think it's sad that you seem to be completely ignoring the all the good that humans can do, though. Yes, there are bad people, but there are a lot more good people out there than there are "good" animals.

I’m not completely ignoring that humans can do good or I wouldn’t have rephrased myself to say that we simply have the capacity. Also you’re thinking of animals as humans when you say there are more humans that do good. That simply doesn’t work. They’re animals, they can’t build hospitals or put out fires, they’re simply incapable. They are less intelligent than us, but that shouldn’t mean that they’re beneath us. That just means we should be caring for them as we would a child or a mentally ill person. And yes many murderers, rapists and thieves are mentally ill, that’s true, but the ONLY animals to step out of their survival instincts and do something malicious and out of the ordinary are those that are mentally ill. Hitler honestly only wanted the best for his people. He was a brilliant man who just didn’t like Jewish people. That doesn’t mean what he did was okay or that he was even mentally ill.

stormy wrote:

I did say some things that were different than what A Guy said, though, and I'd like you to respond to them, too. Our arguments aren't identical.

I actually did respond to these but I’ll repost my answers.

Trainer Spyro wrote:
Yes it is. No one ever said we couldn’t defend ourselves, but to eliminate something because it annoys you is not self defense. There’s no way an animal could cause enough damage to your food supply for it to be necessary for you to have to worry about your own well-being. Not in this day and age. If the animal is physically attacking you and is actually a threat (I’m not talking about a cat biting you because you stepped on its tail) that’s another story. Humans will do that to other humans as well.

Stormy:
Think about people in rural areas who raise livestock. Surely you're not saying they should just let wolves keep coming and killing off their sources of income and food.

Trainer_Spyro:
Of course I’m not saying farmers should just let animals have free pickin on their livestock.
Relocate them or relocate yourself.

Stormy wrote:
I've also noticed that you've also avoided my point about whether you'd save your dog or your brother. That's important for me to understand where you're coming from.

Trainer_Spyro:
And you ask me to choose between my dog and my brother, I say why not aim to save both?

Stormy wrote:
Also, I'd like to add, I think it's only dogs that [save humans from fires]. I've never heard of a pet hamster or a fish or a bird doing that, or showing the slightest sign of emotion for that matter, so what does that mean for them?

I think the main thing here is where you draw the line. So you think killing a dog is equivalent to killing a human. Is it the same for, say, a squirrel? A butterfly? A centipede? A single-celled organism?

Trainer_Spyro:
As far as the instance of animals raising human children I don’t have any examples. I just recently learned this myself in a sociology class and was equally surprised. And the fire rescue thing has also been recorded with cats and birds.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldne … kfast.html

All things have an equal right to live. ALL things.

Stormy · May 09, 2010 1:34 AM

Trainer_Spyro wrote:

I’m not completely ignoring that humans can do good or I wouldn’t have rephrased myself to say that we simply have the capacity. Also you’re thinking of animals as humans when you say there are more humans that do good. That simply doesn’t work. They’re animals, they can’t build hospitals or put out fires, they’re simply incapable.

But would they if they were capable? Probably not. It wouldn't help them in any way, so it's not important to them.

But if they were capable, they would basically be humans with different bodies, and I would be agreeing with everything you've been saying.

They are less intelligent than us, but that shouldn’t mean that they’re beneath us. That just means we should be caring for them as we would a child or a mentally ill person.

Well, I've already made it clear what I think about this, but excluding that...

And yes many murderers, rapists and thieves are mentally ill, that’s true, but the ONLY animals to step out of their survival instincts and do something malicious and out of the ordinary are those that are mentally ill. Hitler honestly only wanted the best for his people. He was a brilliant man who just didn’t like Jewish people. That doesn’t mean what he did was okay or that he was even mentally ill

I agree with this.

Trainer_Spyro:
Of course I’m not saying farmers should just let animals have free pickin on their livestock.
Relocate them or relocate yourself.

And if the animal is attacking the livestock at that moment and the only way to get them to stop is to shoot? If there's no place to relocate it because they're becoming overpopulated? If the humans don't have the money to relocate or it would be too much of a hassle or inconvenience?

Trainer_Spyro:
And you ask me to choose between my dog and my brother, I say why not aim to save both?

Because it's a hypothetical situation I used to make a point. In this hypothetical situation, only one can be saved for one reason or another.

Trainer_Spyro:
As far as the instance of animals raising human children I don’t have any examples. I just recently learned this myself in a sociology class and was equally surprised. And the fire rescue thing has also been recorded with cats and birds.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldne … kfast.html

Alright, I'm not sure if I believe the animals-raising-humans thing without any proof, but whatever. I know of many fictional stories with sentient animals where this has happened, however.

And as for the fire rescue thing, that's fine, but there's still the question of hamsters, fish, and other household pets that would otherwise be incapable of doing this.

All things have an equal right to live. ALL things.

I see. So we shouldn't defend our livestock and homes from attacking animals because we might kill them. We shouldn't eat wheat or crops because farmers use pesticides to kill the bugs that eat their produce. We shouldn't manufacture wheat because some innocent mice and insects might die from the machines. We shouldn't eat salad because it kills plants. We shouldn't step outside in the grass because we might squish an innocent bug. We we shouldn't use soap because it kills bacteria.

I fail to see how you live in a modern society with this outlook.

A Guy · May 09, 2010 1:45 AM

Trainer Spyro wrote:

Yes, OUT OF NECESSITY! Not for fun. For the millionth time now.
And I missed one of your points so don’t tell me I’m ignoring you when you conveniently disregard multiples of mine. When your gerbil killed the other gerbil the only thing on his mind was ensuring that his genes continued (Continuing the species) When Humans kill or *bleep* they do it for the thrill of the hunt and the joy of watching someone helplessly squirm under them.

Cats toy with mice before they kill them. Seems rather sadistic, don't you think? And I don't know about the whole gerbil thing... But I found a nice link for you. http://www.our-happy-cat.com/cat-hunting.html

It’s not just out of being cared for. Haven’t you ever heard stories of people complaining about how certain cats attract to them even though they hate them or have done nothing for them?... And the fire rescue thing has also been recorded with cats and birds.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldne … kfast.html

For your previous questions, no, I haven't. As for the link, parrots are birds of imitation - it definitely did not learn how to say "Mama, Baby!" on its own. There was a tale of how a parrot allegedly said "Robber! Robber!" when a store (or was it a bar, or a restaurant? I can't remember) was being robbed, but it turned out the parrot was actually saying "Robert!", the name of the robber, who was a frequent customer - that's how the police caught him. The parrot most likely just said "Mama! Baby!" in response to something the baby normally does when people say that.

Yes I would kill them. Because I’m human and it’s been ingrained in my mind that insects are inferior even to animals. For the 5th time now I am going to stress that I never said I was better than anyone and respectfully request that you stop implying that I have as it is irrelevant and a waste of time... Of course I’m not saying farmers should just let animals have free pickin on their livestock.
Relocate them or relocate yourself.

You see, so you say that these things are ingrained in your mind because you are HUMAN? Despite the fact that you are arguing to the opposite? The very fact that you argue this shows that these thigns are not ingrained in your mind. Argument busted.

And how did you catch so many mice without damaging or harming them? Barehanded? The fact that you have such an amazing tale to tell for this argument reeks of falsification - unless you can prove your story to me, I won't buy it. As Stormy has said before, though not in these exact words, a good argument does not live off of anecdotal evidence.

Like I already said which you also ignored, not all people are bad. I am saying humans because animals do not have the capacity to purposefully do harm to another creature for pleasure purposes like humans do.

Yes, you have. Stormy says "You make it sound like all humans are cruel and evil, but you are one." You reply with "We are, it’s the bottom line."

And did I mention cats before?

Exactly, because there should be no pride in killing another living creature.
And cats bring them back as a gift, not “get it together” message. It’s an act of love and adoration in an attempt to take care of their owner as we take care of them. And correct me if I’m wrong but last I checked love was an emotion.
I will agree with you that they’re not a bad person necessarily. Mislead? Definitely.

No, it's because an animal is incapable of pride in the sense that a human is. Beavers, for example, won't find another beaver community and argue about who has a better dam. And did I mention that link? http://www.our-happy-cat.com/cat-hunting.html And this link: http://www.articlealley.com/article_460709_54.html

So basically you’re saying that money is more important that a life.
But I will agree to disagree that animals are less important than humans.

Yes, the money and the livestock which then becomes food are more important. And you do know that the longer you let a wolf live, the more things die, right? Right? So if you value animal lives more, you would actually have to starve every single carnivorous creature on the planet.

Again you make the argument that intelligence defines worth. We already went over that. And if an animal wasn’t aware of it’s being then it would have no reason to try to eat to survive because it wouldn’t even know that it existed. And one cow in a farmers herd isn’t going to make a huge difference.
But you can’t honestly tell me you would enjoy or be tolerant of being shot. There’s a reason people scream when it happens. Animals feel the same things we do...

Yes, intelligence defines how capable someone or something is performing, so it does define worth to a degree. And I would not be tolerant of being shot, but if I was robbing someone, I would have it coming to me.

What I mean when I say we’re all evil is we all have the capacity to be evil and all it takes is a simple order, hence the Milgram’s Experiment. You can train an animal to do evil things for you, but then who’s really the bad one? Humans can be evil all on their own because they’re selfish and want more than they need. Again I am generalizing when I say humans. Animals only take what they need and do what they need to survive.

Animals do not take more than what they need usually because it's easier to get just what they need. It's like a kid that gets grades just good enough to get him into an okay college. However, if they have the opportunity to glut themselves with little effort, they will.

And you ask me to choose between my dog and my brother, I say why not aim to save both?

Say the building is burning, debris is collapsing, and you have time to only save one. You would save your brother, wouldn't you? Why not your dog? Your brother is, after all, an evil, abominable human, the worst possible vision of all the world's horrors.

Trainer_Spyro · May 09, 2010 3:09 AM

stormy wrote:

But would they if they were capable? Probably not. It wouldn't help them in any way, so it's not important to them.
Animals get injured and sick just like we do.
And if the animal is attacking the livestock at that moment and the only way to get them to stop is to shoot? If there's no place to relocate it because they're becoming overpopulated?

If the humans don't have the money to relocate or it would be too much of a hassle or inconvenience?
If there ever comes a day when there are no places left to relocate an animal on Earth then we will already have inhabited another planet. That wont happen for a long time. And again, Money should never be more important than a life. You may as well sell a family member to pay for your high speed internet.

stormy wrote:

Because it's a hypothetical situation I used to make a point. In this hypothetical situation, only one can be saved for one reason or another.

Refer to my reply to A Guy further down.

stormy wrote:

Alright, I'm not sure if I believe the animals-raising-humans thing without any proof, but whatever. I know of many fictional stories with sentient animals where this has happened, however.
And as for the fire rescue thing, that's fine, but there's still the question of hamsters, fish, and other household pets that would otherwise be incapable of doing this.

You don’t have to believe it it’s out of context anyway.
So ask yourself, could a deaf blind and mute person do this? Your suggesting fantastical measures and exaggerating to the obviously impossible proves nothing.

stormy wrote:

I see. So we shouldn't defend our livestock and homes from attacking animals because we might kill them. We shouldn't eat wheat or crops because farmers use pesticides to kill the bugs that eat their produce. We shouldn't manufacture wheat because some innocent mice and insects might die from the machines. We we shouldn't use soap because it kills bacteria. We shouldn't eat salad because it kills plants.
I fail to see how you live in a modern society with this outlook.

I already said this isn’t an argument of the natural order. So all food related comments are irrelevant.
But if you want to get so pickey, then yes.
We shouldn't defend our livestock and homes from attacking animals because we might kill them. It interrupts the natural order.
We shouldn't eat wheat or crops because farmers use pesticides to kill the bugs that eat their produce. We shouldn’t be using pesticides at all. We should just eat the bug, that’s what there here for, nourishment, just like all living things.
We shouldn't manufacture wheat because some innocent mice and insects might die from the machines. It’s one thing to kill something accidentally; it’s another completely to kill for the hell of it.
We shouldn't use soap because it kills bacteria. If it weren’t for antibacterial precautions we would have evolved beyond the bacteria it’s meant to kill in the first place like Mexicans and drinking their water.

That whole charade was pointless. I am not saying animals shouldn’t die. I’m saying we should have respect for them in the fact that we’re created equally but not with equal opportunity.

A Guy wrote:

Cats toy with mice before they kill them. Seems rather sadistic, don't you think? And I don't know about the whole gerbil thing... But I found a nice link for you. http://www.our-happy-cat.com/cat-hunting.html

Can’t don’t know any better, just like the autistic child that kills the family fish by feeding it peanut butter sandwiches. They just thought it would be fun to see the fish eat people food.

A Guy wrote:

For your previous questions, no, I haven't. As for the link, parrots are birds of imitation - it definitely did not learn how to say "Mama, Baby!" on its own. There was a tale of how a parrot allegedly said "Robber! Robber!" when a store (or was it a bar, or a restaurant? I can't remember) was being robbed, but it turned out the parrot was actually saying "Robert!", the name of the robber, who was a frequent customer - that's how the police caught him. The parrot most likely just said "Mama! Baby!" in response to something the baby normally does when people say that.

This was more to rebut that fact that she said you never hear heroic stories with anything but dogs.

A Guy wrote:

You see, so you say that these things are ingrained in your mind because you are HUMAN? Despite the fact that you are arguing to the opposite? The very fact that you argue this shows that these thigns are not ingrained in your mind. Argument busted.
And how did you catch so many mice without damaging or harming them? Barehanded? The fact that you have such an amazing tale to tell for this argument reeks of falsification - unless you can prove your story to me, I won't buy it. As Stormy has said before, though not in these exact words, a good argument does not live off of anecdotal evidence.

Just because something is ingrained in my mind doesn’t mean I can’t believe differently. Thinking and acting are two completely different things. People know abuse is wrong yet when they see it happening in a public area they stand by and do nothing. That doesn't mean they think it's okay.

I find it funny how you use your violent gerbil story for argument sake, but I’m not allowed to use my mouse story.
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/3 … AA280_.jpg Ever see one of those? It’s a live trap. And I hardly find catching and relocating 18 mice an amazing tale. I never said I caught 200. I said I caught as many as I could.
Insults are not necessary.

A Guy wrote:

Yes, you have. Stormy says "You make it sound like all humans are cruel and evil, but you are one." You reply with "We are, it’s the bottom line."
And did I mention cats before?

Did I mention mental retards?

A Guy wrote:

No, it's because an animal is incapable of pride in the sense that a human is. Beavers, for example, won't find another beaver community and argue about who has a better dam. And did I mention that link? http://www.our-happy-cat.com/cat-hunting.html

Did I mention the mentally insane killing because they don’t know better? And wouldn't that make beavers more like-able than humans? No one likes a jerk. Imagine how nice this world would be if people didn't argue over such petty garbage.

A Guy wrote:

Yes, the money and the livestock which then becomes food are more important. And you do know that the longer you let a wolf live, the more things die, right? Right? So if you value animal lives more, you would actually have to starve every single carnivorous creature on the planet.

Order of nature. Your argument is invalid. Humans are meant to eat animals and animals are meant to eat animals.

A Guy wrote:

Yes, intelligence defines how capable someone or something is performing, so it does define worth to a degree. And I would not be tolerant of being shot, but if I was robbing someone, I would have it coming to me.

But you would be robbing someone out of greed in that case. Animals rob for survival. And if it defines worth to any degree then a human in a coma is no longer a human and families are foolish for crying over stillborn children that never had any knowledge to begin with.

A Guy wrote:

Animals do not take more than what they need usually because it's easier to get just what they need. It's like a kid that gets grades just good enough to get him into an okay college. However, if they have the opportunity to glut themselves with little effort, they will.

If they do it’s because they don’t know any better. It’s interesting how all your arguments are all those saying intellect is the defining characteristic of worthy beings in some way or another. I feel like a broken record.

A Guy wrote:

Say the building is burning, debris is collapsing, and you have time to only save one. You would save your brother, wouldn't you? Why not your dog? Your brother is, after all, an evil, abominable human, the worst possible vision of all the world's horrors.

With that sort of logic yes, I should save the dog. But to be completely honest I’d rather die trying to save them both than having to choose. But that’s purely opinionated. Just like the notion that humans are superior to animals. The only difference is the vast majority believes one thing while a sparse few believe the other.
No one has proof either way.

Aceedwin · May 09, 2010 8:03 AM

Trainer_Spyro wrote:

Not just wolves, All animals. Pay attention. Wolves just started the argument. And you still haven't said what makes humans more important in the first place.
And how is it looking out for our well-being to kill an animal because they did damage to our property or took some of our food?
You can't accuse me of seeing the situation wrongly if you're doing exactly the same thing but on the opposite end of the confrontation.
I say animals are just as important you say humans are more important.
What's the difference?

I'm getting left behind.

Sorry about wolves. They seem to be the crux of idiotic anti-human philosophy, and thus my mortal enemies.

What makes a human more important to me is that they are simply my species. Thus, I have a greater responsibility to care for them than other species. Given the choice between a dog and any decent human, expanding on what Stormy said, I'd always choose the human. And don't think that animals would do any different.

You interpret this "worth" as a universally translatable property that we all have, possibly in different amounts, but that's an idealistic and downright silly idea. Since worth does not actually exist, it is a subjective property. Thus, you may attribute different values of worth to values I attribute.

Now, as people, we have a sort-of, layered circle of responsibility (this bit's going to get a little weird). First of all, we are to keep ourselves alive, that's our number one priority, when we want to live at least. Then, close family, spouses, children and good friends. Then less close family and friends. Your third cousin from Australia, or whatever. People who live near you. And finally humans as a species. Then maybe primates, if you take this really seriously.

This may sound a little callous, but think of it like this. My hypothetical children are cared for by me. I feed them, clothe them, provide new technological innovatios for them, but I don't do this for other people's children. That is because I have a responsibility towards my own children that is greater than the responsibility I hold to other children. And don't think I wouldn't try to save, say, my sister if there was a 0.1% chance of death. Eventual action in such situations involve "worth", probabilities, and quantity.

So, worth is not objective, but subjective. We have a greater responsibility to our own people. Reply.

A Guy · May 09, 2010 1:54 PM

Just because something is ingrained in my mind doesn’t mean I can’t believe differently. Thinking and acting are two completely different things. People know abuse is wrong yet when they see it happening in a public area they stand by and do nothing. That doesn't mean they think it's okay.
I find it funny how you use your violent gerbil story for argument sake, but I’m not allowed to use my mouse story.
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/3 … AA280_.jpg Ever see one of those? It’s a live trap. And I hardly find catching and relocating 18 mice an amazing tale. I never said I caught 200. I said I caught as many as I could.
Insults are not necessary.

I don't have time for a point-by-point response for now, but I'll respond to this first.

Okay, first of all, where is this gerbil story I supposedly gave you?

Second of all, you gave the expected response. Now, I'll give you my response - do you know why vermin are vermin? Because they're hard to get rid of. Do you know one of the reasons they're hard to get rid of? Because they ADAPT. A group of animals will only fall for the same trap a few times before they realize their comrades disappear whenever they enter one of the traps in question, and will start to avoid it, even if it is baited. That's why several methods are often used to combat the problem of a mouse invasion. The fact that 18 mice managed to fall for that one fact shows me that either A. Your story is false, B. The mice in your house were really, REALLY stupid, or C. You were effectively living in a mouse hole. A seems the most logical answer.

And even if you were telling the truth, catching HOUSE mice, spoon-feeding them food and water, and then throwing them out in the wild will make them easy prey for anything that happens to eat mice.

Stormy · May 09, 2010 2:07 PM

Trainer_Spyro wrote:

Animals get injured and sick just like we do.

I was thinking of it in the context of building hospitals for humans, so I guess I misunderstood this.

However, like I said, if they were really capable of and willing to doing such things (which they are neither), they wouldn't be animals. They'd be humans in animal bodies.

If the humans don't have the money to relocate or it would be too much of a hassle or inconvenience?
If there ever comes a day when there are no places left to relocate an animal on Earth then we will already have inhabited another planet. That wont happen for a long time.

Animals are already becoming overpopulated. That's why they're coming into human-inhabited areas and killing livestock. That's why there are government-approved and regulated hunting seasons - to keep people safe and the animal population in check. We've modified their environments to the extent that we can't just let them do whatever they want anymore.

You also didn't answer how they would move if they don't have the money (it's impossible to move anywhere if you don't have the money. Not everyone has unlimited disposable income to just get up and leave when bugs are attacking their crops or wolves are killing their livestock), or what you would do if the animal was attacking the livestock at that second and there was no other way to stop it but shoot.

And again, Money should never be more important than a life.

This is very, very idealistic as people actually need money and food to survive. Human life, I agree with you, but not a dog's life or an insect's life, as your philosophy of equal value would suggest.

You may as well sell a family member to pay for your high speed internet.

You don't need high speed internet to survive, so this is a terrible example. Please stop horribly misinterpreting my words, or at least give fair examples and stop trying to make me seem like a Nazi. =/ It greatly decreases your credibility.

So ask yourself, could a deaf blind and mute person do this? Your suggesting fantastical measures and exaggerating to the obviously impossible proves nothing.

I never said people weren't worth anything if they can't save other people, nor will you ever hear me say that. You're twisting my words and misinterpretting my arguments again. I'm just asking for your opinion about this. Obviously it's an impossible situation for a hamster or a fish to save a human, but it brings up a good point that they can't. You say it's proof that animals can love because they can save people, but not all animals can. Do you think this means they don't have emotions? What about wild animals that don't have owners and don't care a thing about humans? Again, what about insects?

We shouldn't defend our livestock and homes from attacking animals because we might kill them. It interrupts the natural order.

Then how would we all eat?
As I said, we've already interrupted the "natural order" by creating buildings, roads, cars, and other things. Now that we've done this, we can't just let nature take its course because it's not natural - everything would be in chaos and people would be dying everywhere. Farmers would lose all their money and starve because they couldn't defend their main sources of income from predators.

Or are you suggesting we all go back to the caveman days, getting rid of all our houses, roads, and cars, so we can all be the way nature intended? This argument makes you a hypocrite, as you are on a computer using electricity which pollutes the air to type your messages.

We shouldn’t be using pesticides at all. We should just eat the bug, that’s what there here for, nourishment, just like all living things.

Bugs actually can completely destroy crops, leaving nothing. What then?

As for the ones that don't completely destroy them, no one wants to buy food that's been half-eaten by bugs, and any farmers who did this would make no money and again, starve. You're being idealistic again; the world does not work this way.

It’s one thing to kill something accidentally; it’s another completely to kill for the hell of it.

OK, but the other situations I mentioned weren't "for the hell of it" either. They're very necessary. Unfair argument.

If it weren’t for antibacterial precautions we would have evolved beyond the bacteria it’s meant to kill in the first place like Mexicans and drinking their water.

That's not the point. The point was that you said "all lives," implying that bacteria, bugs, etc are equal to humans.

That whole charade was pointless. I am not saying animals shouldn’t die. I’m saying we should have respect for them in the fact that we’re created equally but not with equal opportunity.

You were saying they're created equally. Doesn't that warrant equal opportunity?

With that sort of logic yes, I should save the dog. But to be completely honest I’d rather die trying to save them both than having to choose. But that’s purely opinionated. Just like the notion that humans are superior to animals. The only difference is the vast majority believes one thing while a sparse few believe the other.
No one has proof either way.

There's a burning building, and inside are your little brother and a pet ant. You only have time to save one of them, or you will be killed. By your logic that all lives are worth exactly the same, you would have to take the time to get both your brother and the ant out safely, killing yourself in the process, because the ant's life is worth the same as yours. Is this correct?

-------

(The gerbil story was mine, by the way, not A Guy's; please read more carefully. If you want to pick on anyone for that, pick on me.)

A Guy · May 09, 2010 5:53 PM

Can’t don’t know any better, just like the autistic child that kills the family fish by feeding it peanut butter sandwiches. They just thought it would be fun to see the fish eat people food.

You do know that autism =/= retardation, right? Just for the record, it's an annoying stereotype. By the way, here's another link I found: http://www.articlealley.com/article_460709_54.html

This was more to rebut that fact that she said you never hear heroic stories with anything but dogs.

I never said those stories don't exist. That doesn't prove that animals can care like humans can.

Just because something is ingrained in my mind doesn’t mean I can’t believe differently. Thinking and acting are two completely different things. People know abuse is wrong yet when they see it happening in a public area they stand by and do nothing. That doesn't mean they think it's okay.

Yes, it does mean that. If something is ingrained in your mind, you can't root it out.

Oh, and did you know that the primary concerns of animals are either themselves, those it associates with its well-being, or their species? The amount an animal is concerned with each varies from animal to animal (bees, for example, are concerned more with the species as a whole than with themselves).

Did I mention mental retards?

We have institutions for them that allow them to live somewhat happy lives.

Did I mention the mentally insane killing because they don’t know better? And wouldn't that make beavers more like-able than humans? No one likes a jerk. Imagine how nice this world would be if people didn't argue over such petty garbage.

Read previous post. And no, it doesn't make beavers more likable than humans, as you can't talk with a beaver. Imagine what life would be like if you had nothing to strive for other than basic survival. That's what animals strive for. And it's not because beavers are nice, it's because they CAN'T feel these emotions because they are not sentient.

Order of nature. Your argument is invalid. Humans are meant to eat animals and animals are meant to eat animals.

Exactly. And where there is conflict that can't be settled by diplomacy, that conflict is settled by force. Whoever can apply more wins. And a gun can apply a great deal of lethal force quickly. It's that simple. It works that way with animals - the stronger, dominant lions get the lion's share of the meat from a kill.

But you would be robbing someone out of greed in that case. Animals rob for survival. And if it defines worth to any degree then a human in a coma is no longer a human and families are foolish for crying over stillborn children that never had any knowledge to begin with.

I never mentioned the motive of the robbery, did I? People often rob because they cannot see another way to survive. Many still often die of bullet wounds.

And a human in a coma can still recover. I think what you're thinking of is a brain-dead human - and there have been many cases of the plug being pulled on brain-dead humans because life support was a waste.

If they do it’s because they don’t know any better. It’s interesting how all your arguments are all those saying intellect is the defining characteristic of worthy beings in some way or another. I feel like a broken record.

It's funny how all of your arguments are saying that humans should just be pushovers and let animals have their way because it's the "natural order" and it's "moral", even though that's not what happens among animals.

And define "know any better". What makes your way of thinking better?

With that sort of logic yes, I should save the dog. But to be completely honest I’d rather die trying to save them both than having to choose. But that’s purely opinionated. Just like the notion that humans are superior to animals. The only difference is the vast majority believes one thing while a sparse few believe the other.
No one has proof either way.

You are dodging the question.

Alice: "There's a chicken, a bag of grain, and fox. You can carry one of each in your boat with you. You want to get them all to the other side of the river. The fox eats the chicken when left unattended, and the chicken eats the grain when left unattended. What do you do?"
Bob: "Take all three in my boat and drown."

Starscream · May 09, 2010 6:35 PM

Jesus *bleep*ing Christ people this is geting retarded!

OK, we get it! Humans are the superiour species, the most inteligent, beautiful, genius, best ,most awesome thing to have ever happened to the universe everything else sucks and is inferious to us and we should EX-TER-MIN-ATE!!! every life-form ever because it isn't as perfect as us ho mo awesomepiens.

Can this thred die now please?

A Guy · May 09, 2010 6:48 PM

Humans are the superiour species, the most inteligent, beautiful, genius, best ,most awesome thing to have ever happened to the universe

True.

everything else sucks and is inferious to us and we should EX-TER-MIN-ATE!!! every life-form ever because it isn't as perfect as us ho mo awesomepiens.

Wrong. Thanks for twisting our words around.

Starscream · May 09, 2010 7:37 PM

I was being sarcastic the whole time.

A Guy · May 09, 2010 8:00 PM

Your sarcasm was intended to mock a non-existent view you believed we had.

#101 May 08, 2010 9:16 PM

Re: This is disgusting.... really really sad....

#102 May 08, 2010 10:01 PM

Re: This is disgusting.... really really sad....

#103 May 08, 2010 10:33 PM

Re: This is disgusting.... really really sad....

#104 May 08, 2010 10:44 PM

Re: This is disgusting.... really really sad....

#105 May 08, 2010 10:52 PM

Re: This is disgusting.... really really sad....

#106 May 08, 2010 11:01 PM

Re: This is disgusting.... really really sad....

#107 May 08, 2010 11:05 PM

Re: This is disgusting.... really really sad....

#108 May 08, 2010 11:08 PM

Re: This is disgusting.... really really sad....

#109 May 08, 2010 11:09 PM

Re: This is disgusting.... really really sad....

#110 May 09, 2010 12:14 AM

Re: This is disgusting.... really really sad....

#111 May 09, 2010 12:33 AM

Re: This is disgusting.... really really sad....

#112 May 09, 2010 12:45 AM

Re: This is disgusting.... really really sad....

#113 May 09, 2010 12:56 AM

Re: This is disgusting.... really really sad....

#114 May 09, 2010 1:21 AM

Re: This is disgusting.... really really sad....

#115 May 09, 2010 1:34 AM

Re: This is disgusting.... really really sad....

#116 May 09, 2010 1:45 AM

Re: This is disgusting.... really really sad....

#117 May 09, 2010 3:09 AM

Re: This is disgusting.... really really sad....

#118 May 09, 2010 8:03 AM

Re: This is disgusting.... really really sad....

#119 May 09, 2010 1:54 PM

Re: This is disgusting.... really really sad....

#120 May 09, 2010 2:07 PM

Re: This is disgusting.... really really sad....

#121 May 09, 2010 5:53 PM

Re: This is disgusting.... really really sad....

#122 May 09, 2010 6:35 PM

Re: This is disgusting.... really really sad....

#123 May 09, 2010 6:48 PM

Re: This is disgusting.... really really sad....

#124 May 09, 2010 7:37 PM

Re: This is disgusting.... really really sad....

#125 May 09, 2010 8:00 PM

Re: This is disgusting.... really really sad....

Board footer