#126 May 09, 2010 8:09 PM

Trainer_Spyro

Member

From: AQWorlds - Nythera

Registered: Mar 09, 2007

Posts: 1,325

Gems: 0

Birthday: 1 January

Age: 35 years old

Gender: Male

Website

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

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.

And you keep giving the same response. All you do is call me a liar and provide inadequately explored information and opinions as to why I’m fabricating.
Animals as you said are driven by instinct, put food somewhere and they’ll attempt to get it. And it’s either out in the wild or I find dead mice left all over the house from my cats. I don’t know about you but I don’t think finding carcasses in my bed is all that amusing.
Think about it logically. 18 mice out of the 200 or more that are normally in a goup? Yeah they adapted or I would have caught them all. Common sense.

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

Mental retardation just means that someone has ceased to grow or cannot grow any further than a specific point in terms of intellect. Retardation means something has ceased to grow mental and/or otherwise.
As for the link I never would have guessed that a cat isn’t a human… And as far as evolution goes we come from a long line of hunters as well.
You are completely missing the point. Refer to my last paragraph.

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

And you can’t prove that they can’t any more than I can prove that they can.

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

Then explain my example. It’s the same principle.

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).

Funny that’s exactly what I said. Just like humans. It’s all in the name of survival.

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

So why not better institutions for animals. They don't kill the people in mental institutions when they become overfilled. You contradicted yourself.

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.

Sentient means you are aware of your existence.  If animals weren’t aware of their existence they wouldn’t even try to survive.

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.

I can understand your point, that makes sense. But again this argument really isn’t about food. It’s about respect and humans believing that just because they are smarter they are superior and should be able to do whatever they want to animals whenever.  Yes there are certain laws set in place but they’re not nearly as enforced as they should be.

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.

Animals never steal for anything other than survival and all they can think about is they need as much as they can get to survive. People will steal just because they want something they don't have.
But it’s the same thing. Animals can be taught certain things. Just because a human is temporarily incapable of proving that they are human doesn’t make them worth anything less for that period of time. And yes people pull the plugs on humans in those situations but they aren’t nearly as common as animals being put down just because theres no room for them in a shelter. We don’t’ go exterminating people who live on the street.

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?

Again not my argument they are examples. And I never said I know better I said humans know better. Pay attention.  Refer to my last statement at the bottom.

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."

I really don’t see how this has anything to do with anything.

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.

Lol. Dogs and cats are pretty much capable of the same things compared to a human, that doesn’t dogs cats and cats dogs.

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.

Listen to yourself. WE modified THEIR environment. It was theirs and we just took it. That’s just wrong. We don’t even compromise. Once upon a time black people were considered animals and so were the Indians, just because they didn’t speak the same language and do the same things as the Anglo Saxons. Any of this ringing a bell?
Just let it take the livestock at the time. The worst they can do is take 1 or 2. Big deal in a herd of 10 – 2o and it’s not like the farmer doesn’t have chickens or a wal*mart 5 miles away to fall back on.

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.

People don’t need money to survive. Otherwise there wouldn’t be homeless people, they’d all have died instantly from a lack of income. It’s just harder to survive without money and people like you wouldn’t understand. 

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.

You’re doing the exact same thing to me. It was an example. I wasn’t saying that’s how you are. Seriously. How in any way does it make sense for a goldfish or hamster to be able to save anyone? That’s just ridiculous. Hypocritical much?

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?

I’m not twisting your words. You were making a point that animals are worth less because a fish and a hamster aren’t able to save a human from a burning house. It’s just as impossible as a deaf dumb and blind person it’s exactly the same argument. And I never said that was the only reason animals could love. You’re picking out random things that I’ve said and ignoring the rest of my statements so you can twist my words. Wild animals care for themselves and their families, just like humans and so do insects. Otherwise they’d all just run of a cliff like lemmings and eat their children regardless of mental stability.

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.

That’s a good question. How would we eat? Seeing as one dead farmers cow means every other cow in the world will die as well. There are hundreds and thousands of farmers and they’re not all going to be attacked at once just because one did.  We don’t deserve to interrupt the natural order, and just because we did doesn’t mean we’re justified. That’s like going into your neighbors family and forcing them to do everything you want them to do just because you don’t think they’re as smart as you. 
This isn’t about pollution. Stay on topic this isn’t even about going back to the caveman days you’re completely missing my point. I will get to that at the end of my post.

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.

They can go down to the store or the salvation army or a soup kitchen or a homeless shelter. They wouldn’t starve, that’s just ridiculous.

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

It’s an example, chill out. Humans do kill animals for any reason they can think of. It’s just a fact. I was going out of context to prove a point. And it’s not like you and  A Guy haven’t given me unfair arguments.

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

They’re not equal in intellect but they have just as much right to be here as we do. Whether you believe creation or evolution either God created them just like he created us or We came from them and if it weren’t for them we wouldn’t even be here. Have some respect.

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

If it did there wouldn’t be poor and homeless people. Believe it or not a person born in the ghetto does not get all the same choices as someone in Beverly Hills. Contrary to popular belief.

Flaming is not necessary. You are going overboard. First warning.

It’s not a flame so stop abusing your administrative powers to win an argument. I didn’t call him a mental retard. I have been using the mentally handicapped as an example throughout this whole argument you know that. I simply responded in the same manner he commented. I don’t appreciate this. I would expect better out of a moderator.

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.)

Excuse me for being gang banged by 3 different individuals and getting a little confused. If anyone is being picked on it’s me.

This is not about pollution, it’s not about money, this isn't about animals being humans and it’s not about technology. Yes we’re here the way we are yes we are all very comfortable with the lives we lead now and that’s not going to change and no one wants it to change.
My point is that we should have more respect for animals and treat them as someone rather than something we can just use and abuse. We took their land. Just like we took the Indians land, just like we took and enslaved African Americans but now we have accommodations for them. We take and enslave animals we take their land we take their food. Yes that’s what we do because we’re smarter and feel entitled. Yes we accidentally kill animals with our technology but that's not even close to the same thing and is an irrelevant argument. We have little to no respect for animals whatsoever and that is my argument. We should be a little more appreciative of the creatures that are keeping us alive and that have given us everything we have today. They don’t complain, they don’t even plot to kill us because we took everything they had. They just want to live and survive just like we do. Is that really so wrong?

I’m finished with this confrontation. It’s purely based on opinion, the only defining factor is that the majority believes one thing and I was raised to believe something that’s socially abstract in this time period. I can’t change your minds and you can’t change mine. Lets just agree to disagree. I’m sure we all have better things to do than bang our heads on a brick wall all day.

---

A Guy

Member

From: New York City

Registered: Mar 03, 2008

Posts: 5,711

Gems: 0

Website

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

And you keep giving the same response. All you do is call me a liar and provide inadequately explored information and opinions as to why I’m fabricating.
Animals as you said are driven by instinct, put food somewhere and they’ll attempt to get it. And it’s either out in the wild or I find dead mice left all over the house from my cats. I don’t know about you but I don’t think finding carcasses in my bed is all that amusing.
Think about it logically. 18 mice out of the 200 or more that are normally in a goup? Yeah they adapted or I would have caught them all. Common sense.

You have no proof. You provided the story, now the burden of proof is on you. And the mice will adapt after a few disappear - it doesn't take 18 for them to realize something is wrong.

Mental retardation just means that someone has ceased to grow or cannot grow any further than a specific point in terms of intellect. Retardation means something has ceased to grow mental and/or otherwise.
As for the link I never would have guessed that a cat isn’t a human… And as far as evolution goes we come from a long line of hunters as well.
You are completely missing the point. Refer to my last paragraph.

A. You obviously only read the first sentence.
B. I answered the last paragraph of your anecdotal tale. Now, while I'm at it, why don't I make up a story? A lioness once went on a killing spree, killing scores of gazelles, and just left the bodies there to rot while cackling evilly. Proof that animals are evil.

Mental retardation just means that someone has ceased to grow or cannot grow any further than a specific point in terms of intellect. Retardation means something has ceased to grow mental and/or otherwise.
As for the link I never would have guessed that a cat isn’t a human… And as far as evolution goes we come from a long line of hunters as well.
You are completely missing the point. Refer to my last paragraph.

I am referring to the fact that you are talking about an autistic kid feeding a fish peanut-butter sandwiches when an autistic kid would probably be smart enough not to feed a fish peanut-butter sandwiches. And the link provided the reasons that cats bring people corpses.

And you can’t prove that they can’t any more than I can prove that they can.

When discussing the existence of something, the burden of proof is on the person that says it exists.

I claim to be able to perform cold nuclear fusion. Now prove that I can't, even though I have no evidence that I can.

Then explain my example. It’s the same principle.

The false example "proves" it's not ingrained in your mind.

Funny that’s exactly what I said. Just like humans. It’s all in the name of survival.

And we're immoral and animals aren't? Isn't everything on the planet that is not a plant equally decadent by your logic?

Sentient means you are aware of your existence. If animals weren’t aware of their existence they wouldn’t even try to survive.

No, they survive because of instinct. Are you saying that bacterium survive because they're aware of their existence? No, they survive due to constant mutations and because their DNA provides the instruction they need to produce the proteins that allow for their survival. You'll never see an animal question the point of life. You know how we know this? Because many humans that question the point of life commit suicide, and an animal that thought like a human would also be likely to commit suicide, especially if it was in constant torment. The few cases of animal suicide involve specific locations (such as that one strange location where dogs seem to like jumping off of a bridge).

Again not my argument they are examples. And I never said I know better I said humans know better. Pay attention. Refer to my last statement at the bottom.

You're evading the question. What makes your belief that everything is equal better?

Animals never steal for anything other than survival and all they can think about is they need as much as they can get to survive. People will steal just because they want something they don't have.
But it’s the same thing. Animals can be taught certain things. Just because a human is temporarily incapable of proving that they are human doesn’t make them worth anything less for that period of time. And yes people pull the plugs on humans in those situations but they aren’t nearly as common as animals being put down just because theres no room for them in a shelter. We don’t’ go exterminating people who live on the street.

Dogs can steal balls and toys belonging to other dogs and humans. Not exactly survival there, is it? And of course we can still tell the human is a human, because we have a tool known as a brain and we know that people can recover from comas. As for animals being put down in shelters, nobody can pay to keep the animal in this case, while someone is willing to pay to keep a human alive. I would prefer to know that resources are going towards keeping humans alive and well rather than keeping an insentient animal that has a lifespan of a few years alive.

I really don’t see how this has anything to do with anything.

Bob is evading the question proposed by Alice ("How would you get all three of the things across the river?") by making up an alternate solution instead of finding the POSSIBLE solution. You're evading the question by saying "I'd die and pick both" instead of choosing your dog or your brother.

---

"Have you seen The Passion yet? Here's a spoiler for you - Jesus dies."

Stormy

Administrator

From: Illinois

Registered: Jun 01, 2006

Posts: 10,385

Gems: 542

Birthday: 3 April

Gender: Female

Website

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

Lol. Dogs and cats are pretty much capable of the same things compared to a human, that doesn’t dogs cats and cats dogs.

...Huh? I read that like five times and I still can't understand what you're trying to say here.

Listen to yourself. WE modified THEIR environment.

Did I ever say we didn't? In fact, I made it clear that we did.

It was theirs and we just took it. That’s just wrong. We don’t even compromise. Once upon a time black people were considered animals and so were the Indians, just because they didn’t speak the same language and do the same things as the Anglo Saxons. Any of this ringing a bell?

The Indians even modified the environment and went against the natural orders of things, taming horses and things like that, though not nearly to the extent that we have.

Just let it take the livestock at the time. The worst they can do is take 1 or 2. Big deal in a herd of 10 – 2o

Yeah, and they keep coming back to get more if no one stops them because they get the idea in their heads that that's OK. It's like when you feed a stray dog and it'll keep coming back and bugging you for more food because it knows you'll give it some. It's all about instinct.

and it’s not like the farmer doesn’t have chickens or a wal*mart 5 miles away to fall back on.

What part of "it's their source of income" do you not understand?

People don’t need money to survive. Otherwise there wouldn’t be homeless people, they’d all have died instantly from a lack of income. It’s just harder to survive without money and people like you wouldn’t understand.

So you're saying everyone should just be homeless if wolves are attacking their livestock and taking away all their money. Yeah, that's reasonable.

You’re doing the exact same thing to me. It was an example. I wasn’t saying that’s how you are. Seriously. How in any way does it make sense for a goldfish or hamster to be able to save anyone? That’s just ridiculous. Hypocritical much?

No, I'm not doing the same thing to you at all. My examples are extreme and make sense based on your logic. Yours, however, are extreme and don't make sense based on my logic.

I'll repeat it again. I never said it made sense. I was asking you a hypothetical question.

I’m not twisting your words. You were making a point that animals are worth less because a fish and a hamster aren’t able to save a human from a burning house. It’s just as impossible as a deaf dumb and blind person it’s exactly the same argument.

Addressed this already. I'm not saying that. It's called a hypothetical question, for the tenth time.

And I never said that was the only reason animals could love. You’re picking out random things that I’ve said and ignoring the rest of my statements so you can twist my words.

Point out something I've ignored, please?

Wild animals care for themselves and their families, just like humans and so do insects. Otherwise they’d all just run of a cliff like lemmings and eat their children regardless of mental stability.

That wouldn't help them much in the whole species survival thing, would it? That doesn't mean it's love, that's instinct again.

That’s a good question. How would we eat? Seeing as one dead farmers cow means every other cow in the world will die as well. There are hundreds and thousands of farmers and they’re not all going to be attacked at once just because one did.

And again, what will that farmer do all their source of income is taken away? Oh yeah, be homeless and live on the street, because at least then they don't have to kill an innocent wolf that was trying to steal their food.

We don’t deserve to interrupt the natural order, and just because we did doesn’t mean we’re justified. That’s like going into your neighbors family and forcing them to do everything you want them to do just because you don’t think they’re as smart as you.

I don't see how this example makes sense in context, no matter how I look at it.

This isn’t about pollution. Stay on topic this isn’t even about going back to the caveman days you’re completely missng my point. I will get to that at the end of my post.

It is on topic, because pollution isn't the natural order of things.

They can go down to the store or the salvation army or a soup kitchen or a homeless shelter. They wouldn’t starve, that’s just ridiculous.

...I can't believe you're actually suggesting that instead of just killing the bugs, they should be homeless. That's ridiculous. I'd like to see you try it if you ever owned a farm.

It’s an example, chill out. Humans do kill animals for any reason they can think of. It’s just a fact. I was going out of context to prove a point. And it’s not like you and  A Guy haven’t given me unfair arguments.

Yeah, except your example was irrelevant because none of my examples were just for the hell of it.

I don't recall any unfair arguments from either of us.

If it did there wouldn’t be poor and homeless people. Believe it or not a person born in the ghetto does not get all the same choices as someone in Beverly Hills. Contrary to popular belief.

I know that, but now it sounds like you're saying we shouldn't try to give them equal opportunity if they were born into the wrong conditions.

It’s not a flame so stop abusing your administrative powers to win an argument.

I'm really, really sorry about that; I misread it the first time, and I went back and edited as soon as I realized. I thought I'd gotten to it soon enough that no one had noticed. I apologize; I was tired and trying to quickly get done before my internet went down. >.>

{Last few paragraphs taken out because it's all redundant anyway.}

I’m finished with this confrontation. It’s purely based on opinion, the only defining factor is that the majority believes one thing and I was raised to believe something that’s socially abstract in this time period. I can’t change your minds and you can’t change mine. Lets just agree to disagree. I’m sure we all have better things to do than bang our heads on a brick wall all day.

OK. Sorry this had to get so heated.