NationStates Jolt Archive

ARM = Animal Rights Movement. The goal of the movement is to prevent un-needed cruelty to animals which includes: Eating meat, Animal Experimentation, Owning Pets(More of a PETA thing, but seen within other animal rights organizations), And Hunting(a hobby in which I enjoy tyvm). Now before I go any further I would just like to say I won't throw all animal rights organizations in the same pot as PETA, some animal rights organizations (from here on out referred to as AROs) do good things for the benefit of people and animals, without taking away our right to choose. They are the ones I don't complain about. Even though that is so it's not the quiet and good AROs we here about on the news, oh no. In the news we here about another fire bombing from ALF(supported by PETA btw), another story of AROs targeting children by calling their mommies murderers for cooking meat(PETA again) and stealing equipment from animal testing facilities ruining years of hard work and research(ALF again). These are the AROs I have a problem with and the AROs that make me turn the cold shoulder even against the good points of the ARM.

Does anyone else feel the same way?

I'm all for Animal Rights, but PETA and their ilk go to far. I'm a veggie but I respect peoples right to eat meat if they choose to do so. The millitant wing of ARO definately detracts from any good other groups may do.

The militants are criminals and should be treated as such.

Please let's not forget that some of them can and have murdered humans in the pursuit of the rights of the animals.

...I thought I wasn't the only one who expressed soul hatred for arms.

*stares at my arms...* you bastards...

I personally don't like hunting unless you intend to eat or not waste what you kill, and I avoid meat but I think there are a great many animal rights groups that go to far. It's just like Katganistan mentioned, the issue of animals in some cases being held up over humans. My religious edicts and own personal philosophy revolve around the *equality* of living things, not the superiority of one over the other.

People like PETA and the A.L.F. are a bunch of hypocrites due to their degradation of human life and I'm still remembering that thread that mentioned PETA killing animals in its shelter in Virginia.

and I thought this topic was going to be about Michael Howard and his evil hand.

hey, i made a similar thread like this a few days ago, but ill input here too. There is a line where animal rights turns to militantism (if its a word)

those crazy peta people really have 'something wrong with them', i know its their opinion and they can think what they want, but comeon, theyre nuts. also, news somehwere in virginia states taht the PETA HQ there had stolen many animals from people's backyards, and killed then animals. This was after police found the corpses of many domesticated animals (dogs, and cats) in a meat locker (freezer). They killed the animals b/c it cost too much to keep them alive, and the funding wasnt coming in fast enough ot support these animals.--- this is an example of how they are completely crazy., and need to be stopped. check this site out too PETA SUCKS (http://www.peta-sucks.com/main.htm) its pretty funny, and you hear some of the most ignorant, stupid stuff coming out of PETA people's mouths.

:( I expected a Total Annihilation thread.

PETA are indeed crazy....what we need to do is edit videos of animal cruelty so they appear to be taking place at the hands of Al Quaida. Two birds, one stone :cool:

Unneeded cruelty?

Eating Meat - No
Owning a pet - No, if you take care of it.
Hunting - YES
Animal Experimentation - Yes, unless extremely important.

How do you justify giving rights to animals?

I have no support for those who release the animals into where they'll face certain death. There's no point in that.

But I'm all for ending uneeded cruelty towards animals. Just not by murdering them.

How do you justify giving rights to animals?

Exactly!

Hunting - YES

Food. Conservation.
Animal Experimentation - Yes, unless extremely important.
Only option right now.

How do you justify giving rights to animals?

They're sentient, living creatures with emotions, social structures, and psychology. They may not have the capacity for these things that a human does, but neither does a brain-damaged child - would you agree with eating those?

I have problems with animal rights when it gets prioritised over human rights, either through behaviour harming humans (as mentioned above) or through more emphasis being based on guinea pigs than dying children.

I take a "people first always" stance on animal rights. I consider human lives to be more important than the lives of animals, so using animals for research, food or for fun is perfectly legitimate in my book.

Unneeded cruelty?

Eating Meat - No


I'd dispute this. Most people don't need to eat meat (unless they have some disorder), they choose to. I'm okay with that (well I'm not, but I can't doanything to change it so it'sa moot point), but they should at least admit it's their personal choice to eat a dead being.

They're sentient, living creatures with emotions, social structures, and psychology. They may not have the capacity for these things that a human does, but neither does a brain-damaged child - would you agree with eating those?
Straw man.

I take a "people first always" stance on animal rights. I consider human lives to be more important than the lives of animals, so using animals for research, food or for fun is perfectly legitimate in my book.

So an important ambassador could freely torture and abuse a criminal for fun? Importance....

Straw man.

How so? It's establishing the fact that animals possess the same qualities that we think make us "human", but in lesser quantities, and posing that by thesame logic a creature with merely animal capacity that happened to be a human would be fair game.

There is a dark irony in that many of the extreme animal rights groups (like the ALF) often cause harm to humans, ignoring that humans are animals too...

Animal Experimentation - Yes, unless extremely important.

Animal experimentation is sometimes needed to save the lives of many more humans. For cosmetics no, but for medical purposes I would see it as a neccesary evil.

...but neither does a brain-damaged child - would you agree with eating those?

It depends on how they were prepared. I don't like fancy sauces or anything that's deep-fried.

How so? It's establishing the fact that animals possess the same qualities that we think make us "human", but in lesser quantities, and posing that by thesame logic a creature with merely animal capacity that happened to be a human would be fair game.

a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted

And no it didn't.

They're sentient, living creatures with emotions, social structures, and psychology. They may not have the capacity for these things that a human does, but neither does a brain-damaged child - would you agree with eating those?

That is not the reason people have rights. A person does not have rights outside of an organized society, so why should an animal?

EDIT: And a cannibalistic diet is very unhealthy.

So an important ambassador could freely torture and abuse a criminal for fun? Importance....

Nope, I didn't infer anything of the sort. It's my belief that people are more important than animals, I said nothing about people being more important than other people.

That is not the reason people have rights. A person does not have rights outside of an organized society, so why should an animal?

Exactly. This is why cows need to unionize.

Exactly. This is why cows need to unionize.

Cows with guns, man, cows with guns. (http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/cowswithguns.php)

a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted

And no it didn't.

Fine, I'll rephrase.

Humans possess traits which people see as making them a person - consciousness, morals, emotions, personality, civilisation, etc. Animals also possess these traits, in varying capacities - many "higher" animals have demonstrated self-awareness, and also rudimentary morals (elephants, for instance, have been seen to become depressed after killing, even if the death was intentional - they sometimes even bury their victims). Anybody who owns a pet will inform you that animalsexpress emotion and personality. And organisms down to the level of fish possess social structure; if you look at primates, you can see the firstsigns of civilisation (cruelty, war, tool use).

So we set a scale for the level of "personhood" that each animal possesses, humanity at the top. But then, a brain-damaged child would be lower on this scale, because it's capacity is diminished. And it may progress low enough to actually fall below the place of some other species. In any case, all animals on this scale hold elements of personhood, this sacred thing among humans,and therefore deserve comparative treatment.

Cows with guns, man, cows with guns. (http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/cowswithguns.php)

I've always loved that song.

That is not the reason people have rights. A person does not have rights outside of an organized society, so why should an animal?

EDIT: And a cannibalistic diet is very unhealthy.

Society isn't a closed environment. Animals are part of society, whether you acknowledge it or not. They simply hold the position of slave, in the case of livestock (and poorly-kept pets).

Cows with guns, man, cows with guns. (http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/cowswithguns.php)

That was beautiful! Bookmarked.

How do you justify giving rights to animals?

why shouldn't they?

we don't need to kill them for food, we don't need to keep them caged as pets. We inflict pain on them for our pleasure. Is that not immoral?

Nope, I didn't infer anything of the sort. It's my belief that people are more important than animals, I said nothing about people being more important than other people.

Humans are animals. Hypothetical situation - a species of ape develops, either naturally or through genetic engineering, to possess the same level of personhood as a human. Do they still have less value to you, simply due to their species? If you think about it logically, it's not a question of species but of capacity for personhood. And therefore even within a species the value of an individual can be higher or lower than another. So if 'lower' individuals can be harmed as a source of fun for 'higher' individuals, we can kick retards with aclear conscience (I admit my original example wasn't especially well-constructed).

...Hypothetical situation - a species of ape develops, either naturally or through genetic engineering, to possess the same level of personhood as a human....

I would wipe out those damn dirty apes before they turned the tables and enslaved us.

*I always thought it would be fun to free the animals.... oh hi
um...I personnally hate hunting in most countries nowadays, for we are hunting for sport now insted of actual need for food!!!
BAN HUNTING IN THE USA!!!!!!!!
ok now I think that the PETA and some of their like take it too far....I mean what is the point of burning down a GM dealership when it just pollutes the world more!!! ok now for veganism or vegetarianism, yes they are different, well....if you wanna be one go ahead...I am kinda a vegetarian, well no...I am not one, I am just an organicist, only eats organic food.
Lastly, they are against owning pets!!! wow they are extreme....well I guess it depends, what I am saying is that it depends what you feed it, how you feed it, how you treat it, what its conditions for liveing are, etc.
wow that's a lot.

...Actually the only thing provably 'bad' about eating human flesh is the fact that it's a great way to spread disease.

There's absolutely nothing objectively immoral about ass-burgers.

PETA, I think, is crazy for the most part. So now it's cruel to own a pet? Only under the circumstance where you leave your dog chained outside and feed it like twice a week, yeah thats cruel. But if you take care of it and love it obviously it's not. Animal testing is very cruel and should be banned. Why don't people just take other humans to test if they're up for it. At least that way if they're stupid enough to actually want to be tested on, then so be it. Leave the animals alone. And as for hunting, It's a good thing to keep population down if it needs to be kept down, and if you're actually going to eat it that's fine. But doing it for just fun and games, I don't think that's ok

...Actually the only thing provably 'bad' about eating human flesh is the fact that it's a great way to spread disease.

There's absolutely nothing objectively immoral about ass-burgers.

I don't think there's anything objectively immoral about anything :P

It depends on how they were prepared. I don't like fancy sauces or anything that's deep-fried.lots of chilli sauce for me:p

Cows with guns, man, cows with guns. (http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/cowswithguns.php)
WOOHOO!!GO COWS!!
reminds me of that book... Animal Farm, i think, I forget the author.
there's also a movie on the book.

Society isn't a closed environment. Animals are part of society, whether you acknowledge it or not. They simply hold the position of slave, in the case of livestock (and poorly-kept pets).

Were they given the rights of people they would not abide by society's laws and would provide no utility to society.

It is impossible for an animal to enter into the social contract, so the issue of rights really doesn't apply. Now you can argue whether it is moral to have animals suffer, but rights don't apply.

lots of chilli sauce for me:p

I'm a HP man myself....can you get that in the US? (I don't mean regular brown sauce, I mean proper HP)

Were they given the rights of people they would not abide by society's laws and would provide no utility to society.

It is impossible for an animal to enter into the social contract, so the issue of rights really doesn't apply. Now you can argue whether it is moral to have animals suffer, but rights don't apply.

It's also impossible for a mentally disabled person to enter into the social contract. You think they should have no rights?

I'm a HP man myself....can you get that in the US? (I don't mean regular brown sauce, I mean proper HP)I'm not in America, I'm in New Zealand. What's HP?

It's also impossible for a mentally disabled person to enter into the social contract. You think they should have no rights?

A person with limited mental capability should and does have limited rights and freedoms to the extent of the incapacity.

A person with limited mental capability should and does have limited rights and freedoms to the extent of the incapacity.

could we justify eating them?

Fine, I'll rephrase.

Humans possess traits which people see as making them a person - consciousness, morals, emotions, personality, civilisation, etc. Animals also possess these traits, in varying capacities - many "higher" animals have demonstrated self-awareness, and also rudimentary morals (elephants, for instance, have been seen to become depressed after killing, even if the death was intentional - they sometimes even bury their victims).

Consciousness - Check
Awareness - No
Morals - Fuck no
Emotions - Varies
Personality - Check
Civilization - No.

FYI, sorrow is not a moral.

Anybody who owns a pet will inform you that animalsexpress emotion and personality.

Not the same as humans.

And organisms down to the level of fish possess social structure; if you look at primates, you can see the firstsigns of civilisation (cruelty, war, tool use).

Basic social structure a society does not make. And because of thumb use Primates use tools, animals that do not have thumbs can not make use of tools so they do not. And all animals make war, thats nature down to the basics.

So we set a scale for the level of "personhood" that each animal possesses, humanity at the top.

Because we are the dominate race, so sayeth the Bible as well.

But then, a brain-damaged child would be lower on this scale, because it's capacity is diminished.

It's still a person.

And it may progress low enough to actually fall below the place of some other species.

Still a person.

In any case, all animals on this scale hold elements of personhood, this sacred thing among humans,and therefore deserve comparative treatment.

No.

why shouldn't they?

we don't need to kill them for food, we don't need to keep them caged as pets. We inflict pain on them for our pleasure. Is that not immoral?
We do need to kill them for food, as all animals who eat meat kill for food. Pets are nice. Third statement is bullshit. Morals are subjective FYI.

could we justify eating them?
We can't justify eating a person because they are a person, as a lion doesn't aet a lion because a lion is a lion.

A person with limited mental capability should and does have limited rights and freedoms to the extent of the incapacity.

That's my point....person isn't perfectly synonymous with human, you know (not all rectangles are squares :rolleyes: )

And whether or not they can comprehend a social contract should not be an issue, IMHO. They can feel pain, and fear, and possess consciousness, and deserve our sympathy and empathy. And the social contract concept pertains to them being a valued member of said society (they give some, they take some) - ergo, some members (give>take) are more valuable than others (give<take ), ergo you should be fine with higher members killing or harming lower members for enjoyment, or just to increase efficiency. I personally disagree with this mechanical way of view society; live and let live.

could we justify eating them?

If you were aware of the health risks, got the permission of friends and family, I would have no problem if you ate Terri Shiavo. I would consider you a rather maladjusted individual, but I would have no moral justification for banning you from doing it.

We do need to kill them for food, as all animals who eat meat kill for food. Pets are nice. Third statement is bullshit. Morals are subjective FYI.

vegetarians do not kill for food. So we don't NEED to. So we do so for pleasure only.

That's my point....person isn't perfectly synonymous with human, you know

Yes it is.

And whether or not they can comprehend a social contract should not be an issue, IMHO. They can feel pain, and fear, and possess consciousness, and deserve our sympathy and empathy.
Animals do not. Just as the bear doesn't give compassion to the deer.

And the social contract concept pertains to them being a valued member of said society (they give some, they take some) - ergo, some members (give>take) are more valuable than others (give<take ), ergo you should be fine with higher members killing or harming lower members for enjoyment, or just to increase efficiency. I personally disagree with this mechanical way of view society; live and let live.

No.

vegetarians do not kill for food. So we don't NEED to. So we do so for pleasure only.
Vegetarians eat fish and eat eggs. AKA wrong.

We do need to kill them for food, as all animals who eat meat kill for food. Pets are nice. Third statement is bullshit. Morals are subjective FYI.(bold mine)

I couldn't disagree any stronger with you on that one. You mean to say If I think it's allright to break your face and take your jacket then that's OK?

(bold mine)

I couldn't disagree any stronger with you on that one. You mean to say If I think it's allright to break your face and take your jacket then that's OK?
It's a moral, it doesn't matter what I think.

And whether or not they can comprehend a social contract should not be an issue, IMHO. They can feel pain, and fear, and possess consciousness, and deserve our sympathy and empathy. And the social contract concept pertains to them being a valued member of said society (they give some, they take some) - ergo, some members (give>take) are more valuable than others (give<take ), ergo you should be fine with higher members killing or harming lower members for enjoyment, or just to increase efficiency. I personally disagree with this mechanical way of view society; live and let live.

That is a question of personal morality, not of rights. Since sympathy is subjective, it should not be used as an argument for rights.

All those who comprehend the value of their utility to the society deserve all of the rights and responsibilities allowed by society. Since mentally impaired people have diminished ability to recognise this, they are allowed diminished rights and responsibilities.

Consciousness - Check
Awareness - No
Morals - Fuck no
Emotions - Varies
Personality - Check
Civilization - No.

It's been proven.

Okay....sorrow at an act shows knowledge that a "bad thing" has occurred. I doubt the elephant is sad because it's broken it's new toy.

Civilisation is advanced society. Higher animals are following the same path likely traveled as humans evolve. Therefore they're the same as us, but further back.

If you're using the Bible to establish scientific facts, you're seriously deluded.

(bold mine)

I couldn't disagree any stronger with you on that one. You mean to say If I think it's allright to break your face and take your jacket then that's OK?

That is the point, you may think you are justified in doing it, he may not. That is why rights and laws should not be based on morality.

:( I expected a Total Annihilation thread.



I LOVE YOU! I have a serious problem with ARM, trying to enforce mortality on us all when CORE comes with glorious immortality. t'oh.

on the real topic, however, I don't really have a problem with animal rights movements, except, of course, the militants who destroy property, etc. I also don't approve of hunting for sport. Hunting for food is fine, and for farmers, say, shooting animals that would otherwise disturb the livestock, that's ok too, but not just for poops and giggles. I still want to eat meat though. If we released all our livestock, for one thing, it'd destroy the ecology, and predators would still eat them. And I like the taste of pork. That justification I just conjured up there doesn't affect me in the least. I do think that we should be as humane as possible. We are using them purely as a food source, the least we can do is ensure that their lives in the meantime aren't a complete misery.

Yes it is.
Animals do not. Just as the bear doesn't give compassion to the deer.
No.

What eloquent andwell-thought-out arguments. Care to offer a view or evidence for that view, or are you happy just gainsaying everything you disagree with?

The bear has a biological need to kill the deer, and is not intelligent enough to conceive compassion. We are, however, and disregarding that because of another's shortcomings is selfish and idiotic.

It's been proven.

Okay....sorrow at an act shows knowledge that a "bad thing" has occurred. I doubt the elephant is sad because it's broken it's new toy.

Sorrow is an emotion, not a moral.

Civilisation is advanced society. Higher animals are following the same path likely traveled as humans evolve. Therefore they're the same as us, but further back.

Assumes evolution is true (which is under debate), and doesn't matter to us now. Also assumes they are following any path at all.

If you're using the Bible to establish scientific facts, you're seriously deluded.
If you believe anything in which you have posted, you're way past deluded.

We can't justify eating a person because they are a person, as a lion doesn't aet a lion because a lion is a lion.I've seen documentaries where lions have eaten thier dead cubs.
This is not to support cannabilism in any way, because the lions need every scrap of meat they can get, and we don't(though we tend to think that way, but about money, not meat).

All those who comprehend the value of their utility to the society deserve all of the rights and responsibilities allowed by society. Since mentally impaired people have diminished ability to recognise this, they are allowed diminished rights and responsibilities.

What do you base this on?

Rights/laws should be based on undue harm caused to others being a bad thing. Harming animals when you don't need to would then be a crime, social contract or no.

Vegetarians eat fish and eat eggs. AKA wrong.

no they don't. A vegetarian does not eat fish.

And vegans eat no animal products at all.

Therefore we CAN survive without them, just we CHOOSE not to.

So we choose to kill for our pleasure.

What eloquent andwell-thought-out arguments. Care to offer a view or evidence for that view, or are you happy just gainsaying everything you disagree with?
Homosapien does not take into account mentality.

The bear has a biological need to kill the deer, and is not intelligent enough to conceive compassion.

We have a biological need to eat meat. Compassion is subjective regardless.

We are, however, and disregarding that because of another's shortcomings is selfish and idiotic.
Compassion is subjective FYI.

We have a biological need to eat meat. Compassion is subjective regardless.



This is patently untrue.

Either you are a liar or incredibly ignorant.

Sorrow is an emotion, not a moral.

Assumes evolution is true (which is under debate), and doesn't matter to us now. Also assumes they are following any path at all.


If you believe anything in which you have posted, you're way past deluded.

Sorrow points to rudimentary morals/ethics in this case. Emotionsare not morals, I agree, but the two are definitely connected,and in this case the connection is evident in another species.

I'm suggesting that they possess qualities which we did, which allowed us to achieve what we have as those qualities developed.

That's a personal attack and has no bearing on this argument; the Bible is not a scientific document and has no claims to be.

no they don't. A vegetarian does not eat fish.
A vegetarian diet is one which excludes animal flesh but may include eggs and dairy products.

I guess the definition has changed.

And vegans eat no animal products at all.

yeah so?

Therefore we CAN survive without them, just we CHOOSE not to.

Compare the diet of a healthy meat eater(McDonalds is not meat FYI) and a vegan, Meat eaters generally do better.

So we choose to kill for our pleasure.
Wrong, as per usual ITT.

This is patently untrue.

Either you are a liar or incredibly ignorant.
Either you're a propoganda sprewing moron or a regular moron.

no they don't. A vegetarian does not eat fish.

And vegans eat no animal products at all.

Therefore we CAN survive without them, just we CHOOSE not to.

So we choose to kill for our pleasure.


I'll admit to that. I put the pleasure I have eating a juicy Porterhouse Steak over the life of a cow. Ditto for roasted turkey, bacon sandwiches, fried chicken and steamed crab. Man I'm hungry... catch ya later...

That is the point, you may think you are justified in doing it, he may not. That is why rights and laws should not be based on morality.The point is, that morals are not subjective. It is not evil to give water to a thirsty child, and it is not good to tease the child by holding a glass of water just out of his reach.

Compassion is subjective FYI.

com·pas·sion (kəm-păsh'ən) pronunciation
n.

Deep awareness of the suffering of another coupled with the wish to relieve it.


That sounds like a fairly objective thing to me. What's subjective is its application, which is based on ethics (again, subjective).

Sorrow points to rudimentary morals/ethics in this case. Emotionsare not morals, I agree, but the two are definitely connected,and in this case the connection is evident in another species.

I feel bad for killing a snake, but my morals say it's ok to kill a snake. They are not always connected FYI.

I'm suggesting that they possess qualities which we did, which allowed us to achieve what we have as those qualities developed.

Assumes evolution.
That's a personal attack and has no bearing on this argument; the Bible is not a scientific document and has no claims to be.
Because it's ok to call me deluded if I wanted to bring in the bible as evidence for meat eating, which I didn't.

What do you base this on?

Rights/laws should be based on undue harm caused to others being a bad thing. Harming animals when you don't need to would then be a crime, social contract or no.

Rights should be based on freedom from coersion, not freedom from harm.

That sounds like a fairly objective thing to me. What's subjective is its application, which is based on ethics (again, subjective).
A dictionary is not the universal compass for emotions or morals FYI.

The point is, that morals are not subjective. It is not evil to give water to a thirsty child, and it is not good to tease the child by holding a glass of water just out of his reach.

An act is judged by its consequences and its intent. Your examples are generally true, but that's merely because there are few examples of these actions being evil. The underlying morals are, however, subjective.

They're sentient, living creatures with emotions, social structures, and psychology. They may not have the capacity for these things that a human does, but neither does a brain-damaged child - would you agree with eating those?
depends do they taste good when deep fried and battered? if so then yes. if they dont then no. but there is only one way to find out. the only differance between animlas and humans is that we cant tell what an animal is thinking. if we give them the same rights that we give humans and then they go out and kill someone what are we going to do. put them in jail? probably not. we would most likely do what we do now. put them to sleep for endangering humans. that my friends is why we can not give animals the same rights that we give humans. and why we cant give some humans the same rights as others. it just wont work. it hasnt yet and never will. too many humans have screwed up in the past to be able to trust the animals that they wont hurt us.

A dictionary is not the universal compass for emotions or morals FYI.

It is, however, a good way to find out the meaning of a word. Which is what I used it for.

It is, however, a good way to find out the meaning of a word. Which is what I used it for.
Subjective it is still.

I feel bad for killing a snake, but my morals say it's ok to kill a snake. They are not always connected FYI.

Assumes evolution.

Because it's ok to call me deluded if I wanted to bring in the bible as evidence for meat eating, which I didn't.

You feel bad because your instinct tells you killing is wrong. This instinct is a moral shortcut; as opposed to debating the issue, your mind has developed to see most killing as wrong, and automatically makes you remorseful. It's reflexive morality, but morality nonetheless. Then your higher brain function kicks in to tell you that what you did was justified for whatever reason. Just because your initial moral judgement may have been wrong doesn't make it less moral :rolleyes:

If you're a creationist or whatever, believe what you want. I prefer the good honest science of observation and deduction.

You used the Bible as a reference that we are the dominant race, leading me to believe you view the Bible as a benchmark for judgements about issues such as personhood, which it has no authority on.

depends do they taste good when deep fried and battered? if so then yes. if they dont then no. but there is only one way to find out. the only differance between animlas and humans is that we cant tell what an animal is thinking. if we give them the same rights that we give humans and then they go out and kill someone what are we going to do. put them in jail? probably not. we would most likely do what we do now. put them to sleep for endangering humans. that my friends is why we can not give animals the same rights that we give humans. and why we cant give some humans the same rights as others. it just wont work. it hasnt yet and never will. too many humans have screwed up in the past to be able to trust the animals that they wont hurt us.

I'm not saying the same rights, privileges, or responsibilities, but for some.

An act is judged by its consequences and its intent. Your examples are generally true, but that's merely because there are few examples of these actions being evil. The underlying morals are, however, subjective.Do you mean to say that I could torment a thirsty child and, by believing that I was in fact doing the right thing, remain completely innocent?

Perhaps if I was trying to support evolution by letting the weak weaken more and die, and assuming evolution was true, this might be the right thing.

You feel bad because your instinct tells you killing is
wrong.

My instincts tell me I think snakes are cool, I guess you're wrong god.

This instinct is a moral shortcut; as opposed to debating the issue, your mind has developed to see most killing as wrong, and automatically makes you remorseful.

lol Nope. Take a look at the Vikings or the Mongols.

It's reflexive morality, but morality nonetheless. Then your higher brain function kicks in to tell you that what you did was justified for whatever reason. Just because your initial moral judgement may have been wrong doesn't make it less moral :rolleyes:

Blown out of water.

If you're a creationist or whatever, believe what you want. I prefer the good honest science of observation and deduction.

Doesn't matter here.

You used the Bible as a reference that we are the dominant race, leading me to believe you view the Bible as a benchmark for judgements about issues such as personhood, which it has no authority on.

I used it as an example of a well written document agreeing with me.

My instincts tell me I think snakes are cool, I guess you're wrong god.



lol Nope. Take a look at the Vikings or the Mongols.
*snip*
I used it as an example of a well written document agreeing with me.

Your instincts tell you a lot of things. Instincts can be developed and learned; society has made you instinctively think that killing is wrong. Why else would you feel that pang.

There's your problem. It's not well-written.

Why can a cat eat a mouse, but we cannot eat a cow?

Why can a cat eat a mouse, but we cannot eat a cow?

why can a chimp rape another chimp, but you cannot rape other humans?

Do you mean to say that I could torment a thirsty child and, by believing that I was in fact doing the right thing, remain completely innocent?

Perhaps if I was trying to support evolution by letting the weak weaken more and die, and assuming evolution was true, this might be the right thing.

You'd have a hard time creating a full, coherent, and congruent moral framework that allowed such actions. But yes, if you believed you were doing the right thing, then at least a certain level of innocence would prevail.

Your instincts tell you a lot of things. Instincts can be developed and learned; society has made you instinctively think that killing is wrong. Why else would you feel that pang.

Because I think snakes are cool.

There's your problem. It's not well-written.


Another debate, but yes it is.

Why can a cat eat a mouse, but we cannot eat a cow?

We appear to have the (illusion of) free will and self-reflexive consciousness. We have little evidence that a cat possesses these. Aside from that, a cat is unable to survive in the long term on a herbivorous diet, whereas dogs are in fact able to do so.

Why can a praying mantis kill and eat their mate after fornication, but we 'cannot'?

why can a chimp rape another chimp, but you cannot rape other humans?

A cat can eat a mouse because it needs to and knows no better. A chimp rapes another chimp because, again, it does not see this as wrong. Explain simple morality to that chimp from birth, and these acts will IMHO not occur; after all, humans who have not been taught that rape is wrong may well rape other humans. The act harms another, but an unknowingly harmful act is not as'bad' as a knowingly harmful one.

Because I think snakes are cool.




Another debate, but yes it is.

Well then you're just one sick puppy [/jk]

In any case, I really need some shut-eye about now. Thisisn't me weaselling out of anything....I've subscribed to this, so post whatever and I'll check it when I'm more coherent.

why can a chimp rape another chimp, but you cannot rape other humans?You can. Try it if you don't believe me.
You'll just get arrested, because we live in something called a civillization and rape is a bad thing.

Doh! I get it now! Animals don't have a moral problem with eating other animals because they are not advanced enough to be self-righteous.

Well then you're just one sick puppy [/jk]

In any case, I really need some shut-eye about now. Thisisn't me weaselling out of anything....I've subscribed to this, so post whatever and I'll check it when I'm more coherent.
It's alright, I have 7 hours of homework I need to be doing so my participation in this thread for the rest of the night will be near null.

Why can a praying mantis kill and eat their mate after fornication, but we 'cannot'?The female starts eating the male during the mating. The male keeps going by way of nervous twitch after it's dead.

You'd have a hard time creating a full, coherent, and congruent moral framework that allowed such actions. But yes, if you believed you were doing the right thing, then at least a certain level of innocence would prevail.But this innocence would be illusionary.

This kind of thing is what happened to Adolf Hitler. The whole reason for the second World War is because this deranged madman was trying to help evolution. Hitler must thought he was one of the most righteous men around, genociding all the people whom he thought were less evolved than others.

Of course, if evolution were true, war would be one of the best ways to further our race, as the stronger, more resourceful killed people off the weaker and less intelligent.

no they don't. A vegetarian does not eat fish.

And vegans eat no animal products at all.

Therefore we CAN survive without them, just we CHOOSE not to.

So we choose to kill for our pleasure.

A bear can live on a meatless diet, (proven. You can feed any omnivorous animal a purely vegetarian diet without inflicting immediate starvation.)
Does this make the Bear, then, immoral for eating meat?

The only true "Pure predators" out there are reptiles. Everything else (and I mean "Everything warm blooded and fur-bearing") can survive, subsist, exist, on a pure-plant diet.

Until they wear their teeth out.

Human teeth are more akin to those of other carnivorous mammals, than to herbivorous animals-thin enamel, which wears out easily on grasses, grains, roots and leaves.

In terms of design, humans are designed like other predatory critters as well-thin skinned, long period of helplessness (Most Herbivores can walk within hours of birth. It takes a human years to master the most basic movement skills.)
Low per-capita birthrate (one per customer), long gestation in the womb, (nine months, only whales and Elephants have it longer), few to no natural defenses (weak hearing, bad eyesight, thin skin, pound-for-pound weaker than any other large mammal of similar weight), physically slow (you're not going to out-sprint that leopard). In the wild, Herbivorous Humans would be driven to extinction in short order.

A vegetarian diet demands a static, defended, and violent civilization that keeps the other predators in check. If you ever find yourself facing a pack of Feral Dogs, you'll understand just how much 'respect' they have for your right to exist. (zero. Feral Dogs, unlike Wolves, have no fear of man, and will kill for the sheer shits-and-giggles of it.)
Likewise (in some areas) Cougar, Lynx, Grizzly, and Polar Bears.

An old and weakened Lion will hunt Human-because humans are easy prey without weapons and the willingness to use them.

PETA and other groups of similar ideas can only exist in technologically advanced places where food of their choosing is widely available at little cost.
The raw poundage of legumes you would have to consume to match the useable proteins and other materials in a single 8 ounce steak is measurable in Pounds dear.

this is why most Vegetarians who lack access to high-end nutritional supplementation are pallid, weak (for body type), and show signs of malnutrition. It takes fairly significant amounts of Money-spent to match the Omnivorous diet humans are designed for with a purely herbivorous diet-this translates directly into a time and effort cost/benefit. Only upper-middle-class and Upper-class people can afford the lifestyle you advocate, and they can only afford it as long as the Omnivores continue to consent to protect them by maintaining a large, aggressive, industrialized agricultural system with frequent delivery to the health-food stores.

Meat eating= Good
Hunting= Good
Pets= Good
Fishing= Good
Animal Experimentation= Good

Besides wheat and soy combines kill animals too and those people dont eat what they kill so it is kindof contradictioray.

Meat eating is more effecient then vegetarianism as seen since humans started out as vegetarians and evolved into omnivorous. Besides there is no such thing as wrong. Wrong is just an illusion of the society.