NationStates Jolt Archive

Whoever photoshopped this. No, whoever thought of it. This is a bit over the line, methinks.

(Just a warning to the light of stomach, you might want to think twice about clicking this link) http://usemycomputer.com/indeximages/2005/October/humans-suck-1.jpg

I see the point they're making, but in no way was this shock factor necessary, nor is what they're comparing all that truthful. Humans may be living beings alongside animals, but in no way are we equal.

EDIT: By the way, does anyone know what organization, if any, is responsible for this image? The print is small enough to where I can't tell.

Who wants to photoshop that so it is a PETA member getting clubbed?

that is disgusting!!! i hate peta i hate what they stand for!

Who wants to photoshop that so it is a PETA member getting clubbed?

Sadly, I don't know enough of photoshop to do so...

that is disgusting!!! i hate peta i hate what they stand for!

So we know for sure that this is PETA? I wouldn't be surprised, really.

It says "Humans for Animals", so I don't know if they are the dead baby joke based subsection of PETA, or what.
Low form as usual too, I must say, but typical of such groups. If a seal saw the reason to club human babies over the head, it wouldn't hesitate over moral conviction. So, if we are equal to the animals, and are no better on any real level, then why should we hesitate for even a second before doing unto them?

I see the point they're making, but in no way was this shock factor necessary, nor is what they're comparing all that truthful.
Then it wasn't ever a 'point' now was it?

Anyone else find it quite funny? More the seal's expression than the dead baby.

It says "Humans for Animals", so I don't know if they are the dead baby joke based subsection of PETA, or what.
Low form as usual too, I must say, but typical of such groups. If a seal saw the reason to club human babies over the head, it wouldn't hesitate over moral conviction. So, if we are equal to the animals, and are no better on any real level, then why should we hesitate for even a second before doing unto them?
To my knowledge as a PETA member (so watch it, we're not a bunch of psychotic blood-tossers, that's just the freaky llama-lovers), Humans for Animals is NOT part of PETA. As a matter of fact, I've never even HEARD of this group. Google's never even heard of this group. Nobody I've asked in the brief few minutes (including another PETA member) has ever heard of this group.

How do we know it wasn't just disgruntled, incredibly computer-savvy seals, hmmm?

I see the point they're making, but in no way was this shock factor necessary, nor is what they're comparing all that truthful. Humans may be living beings alongside animals, but in no way are we equal.

How do you know that, morally, humans and animals are not equal?

On what basis do you make that statement? How do you know that that is a proper basis for such a judgement?

oh boohoo

sombody photoshops up an image to make the point that its not nice to club a living creature to death no matter what species it is and you can't take it

it s a freaking image FGS

noone was truely hurt were they? if you can offer proof that someone was truely hurt, like if that is an image of a real dead baby, then I will retract my statement. Otherwise I would like to know how this has taken anything too far?

get over it will ya? no need to get all bent out of shape over it - I find the image quite funny myself.

so what if someone does't like to see animals brutally killed? is it so hard to understand that some people actually care for all living creatures and not just whatever species they are a part of? what is so wrong with having a heart?

<snippity snip>
what is so wrong with having a heart?
I don't know, *hefts knife* Can I borrow yours to try?
And yes, there is a clear moral difference between animals and humans, for one thing we very rarely ingest our young, and if you want to say that we are moral equals, then you have to either start converting Lions to veganism, or realize that it is perfectly natural to kill other species to gain resources.

I don't know, *hefts knife* Can I borrow yours to try?
And yes, there is a clear moral difference between animals and humans, for one thing we very rarely ingest our young, and if you want to say that we are moral equals, then you have to either start converting Lions to veganism, or realize that it is perfectly natural to kill other species to gain resources.

sure have at it

*looks for where I said anything about moral equals*

nope - not seeing what you are responding to in my post.

Simonist']To my knowledge as a PETA member (so watch it, we're not a bunch of psychotic blood-tossers, that's just the freaky llama-lovers),
You're not?! :(

sombody photoshops up an image to make the point that its not nice to club a living creature to death no matter what species it is and you can't take it

So when I go fishing this weekend, I should just let the fish I decide to keep die slowly in the creel instead of popping them on the heads with a priest?

I just re-read that. Most of you don't have any idea what a priest is in the context of fishing. It's just a club.
http://www.troutfishing.co.uk/ishop/images/243/k2256.jpg

So when I go fishing this weekend, I should just let the fish I decide to keep die slowly in the creel instead of popping them on the heads with a priest?

I just re-read that. Most of you don't have any idea what a priest is in the context of fishing. It's just a club.
http://www.troutfishing.co.uk/ishop/images/243/k2256.jpg


well I personally wouldn't do it and I don't like to see it done, but I never said that other people should live by the rules I set for myself. or did I?

regarding the priest - how many whacks does it take to kill a fish? how many whacks does it take to kill a seal?

I just made the point that some people have empathy for other creatures and don't like to see them brutally killed. I for one think that if you MUST kill animals to eat them that you shoud do it in the quickest way possible.

Trout only take one smack. If I was fishing for salmon or stripers, I think I'd just use a bigger priest.

I need to figure out where that term came from. Surely Great Britain, as they seem to have the deepest tradition of fly fishing.

And yes, there is a clear moral difference between animals and humans, for one thing we very rarely ingest our young,

How, precisely, does that indicate that a human life is any more worthwhile than that of a seal's? and if you want to say that we are moral equals, then you have to either start converting Lions to veganism, or realize that it is perfectly natural to kill other species to gain resources.

So what is natural is moral? Why the connection?

And humans do not need to slaughter animals to survive, lions do.

You're not?! :(
Sorry to disappoint :rolleyes:

It appears that you have stumbled upon our newest branches. We added it only last month. It was created to fool the public into believing that this fake organization was really a satellite of the Canadian government. They were training super-intelligent seals, hundreds of thousands of them, to invade the U.S. This was necessary to protect the national interests. This post will explode in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0....

Special Agent Smith
Department of Homeland Security

Anyone else find it quite funny? More the seal's expression than the dead baby.
glad I'm not the only one.


have a fluffle for being twisted :fluffle:

glad I'm not the only one.


have a fluffle for being twisted :fluffle:
For the record, you guys are sick.

Off the record, yes, I was amused by the look on the seal's face. Then I was disappointed because I realized that PETA was going to get blamed for this one way or another. Then I looked at the face again and giggled.

I don't think that humans should be held equal to animals nor do I think the image was tactfully done. I do partly agree with the message. Killing baby seals just for their fur is barbaric and should be a cause of concern.

Though I think people are much more valuable then animals. If I have to kill 1000 mice to save one person I will. Actually on Monday I'll be killing 75 mice, but hopefully one day the knowledge gained from it can be applied to human diseases.

How, precisely, does that indicate that a human life is any more worthwhile than that of a seal's?

So what is natural is moral? Why the connection?
Methinks I see a contradiction. If humans are capable of being more moral than an animal, that means that the human has moral superiority. At this point there are two possible answers: A) Humans are generally superior to animals, in which case there is no reason not to kill animals or B) Animals could be moral but chooose not to because they are greedy bastards, in which case we should burn them.
And humans do not need to slaughter animals to survive, lions do.
Can't you put a lion on an IV? Keep him alive and isolated from other animals, so that he can't engage in random slaughter.
Why wouldn't you do so? Wouldn't that be the moral thing to do. After all, human morality extends to animals now, and we wouldn't let a serial killer just run around like a jack ass.
But if lions just are too much for you, what about some vegan wolves? They can eat berries, surely they should be convinced to go off of moose and sheep, now that we is all enlightened.

Now that's an awesome bit of propoganda! Kudos to whomever made it.

Methinks I see a contradiction. If humans are capable of being more moral than an animal, that means that the human has moral superiority. At this point there are two possible answers: A) Humans are generally superior to animals, in which case there is no reason not to kill animals or B) Animals could be moral but chooose not to because they are greedy bastards, in which case we should burn them.

Why does the capability for moral action determine intrinsic moral value?

Can't you put a lion on an IV? Keep him alive and isolated from other animals, so that he can't engage in random slaughter.
Why wouldn't you do so? Wouldn't that be the moral thing to do. After all, human morality extends to animals now, and we wouldn't let a serial killer just run around like a jack ass.
But if lions just are too much for you, what about some vegan wolves? They can eat berries, surely they should be convinced to go off of moose and sheep, now that we is all enlightened.

Sure you could. But the cost to the lion in becoming vegetarian would be far greater than the cost to the human in doing so.

Simonist']For the record, you guys are sick.

Off the record, yes, I was amused by the look on the seal's face. Then I was disappointed because I realized that PETA was going to get blamed for this one way or another. Then I looked at the face again and giggled.


There is nothing wrong with being a little sick and twisted. It makes life that much more amusing. And for being (albeit off the record) just as twisted, you get a fluffle too (what can I say, I'm in a loving mood right now) :fluffle:

Why does the capability for moral action determine intrinsic moral value?
If an animal can't determine whether its actions are moral or not, doesn't that make it drastically inferior to humans? Further, if the value of a life isn't influenced by morals, then morals mean nothing, and there is no sin, thus no sin in bashing in a Seal's head for the fur.
Sure you could. But the cost to the lion in becoming vegetarian would be far greater than the cost to the human in doing so.
Yes, but if morals are an absolute, then everyone has to suffer. If a human killing an animal is unneccesary and a Lion killing an animal is unnessecary, then I think that Lions require alot more moral adjustment then humans. Then you can start to work on monkeys and wolves.
Finally, in a few decades, when the rest of the world is being just as moral as humans, then humans will make the next step.

So when I go fishing this weekend, I should just let the fish I decide to keep die slowly in the creel instead of popping them on the heads with a priest?

I just re-read that. Most of you don't have any idea what a priest is in the context of fishing. It's just a club.
http://www.troutfishing.co.uk/ishop/images/243/k2256.jpg

Nice job of deliberately missing the point and diverting the issue.

Some would say you shouldn't be killing those fish at all. Some make a distinction between lesser life forms.

When the seals catch you, do you want to be popped on the head with a priest?

Just to point something out, human life has no inherent value, so from the perspective of the universe we are worth no more then a seal. That said, the value of human life is in the end up to the individual.

Whoever photoshopped this. No, whoever thought of it. This is a bit over the line, methinks.

(Just a warning to the light of stomach, you might want to think twice about clicking this link) http://usemycomputer.com/indeximages/2005/October/humans-suck-1.jpg

I see the point they're making, but in no way was this shock factor necessary, nor is what they're comparing all that truthful. Humans may be living beings alongside animals, but in no way are we equal.

EDIT: By the way, does anyone know what organization, if any, is responsible for this image? The print is small enough to where I can't tell.


I'm glad they made that image. Good for them.

I'm glad they made that image. Good for them.

Well PETA themselves are a rather silly bunch with some indisputably stupid ideas, such as animal rights.

That doesn't mean that picture is not insanely funny.

Just to point something out, human life has no inherent value, so from the perspective of the universe we are worth no more then a seal. That said, the value of human life is in the end up to the individual.

If moral value is subjective, then no one can accuse the maker of the image of being not "truthful."

If an animal can't determine whether its actions are moral or not, doesn't that make it drastically inferior to humans? Further, if the value of a life isn't influenced by morals, then morals mean nothing, and there is no sin, thus no sin in bashing in a Seal's head for the fur.

Neither of your arguments follow logically.

Moral awareness and moral value are two different things. An entity that is not morally aware - that doesn't know the difference between right and wrong - can still have moral value. Until a certain age human children do not have moral awareness; when was the last time someone espoused infanticide?

How can something without moral awareness "sin"? And why does "sin" necessarily decrease the value of the sinner's life?

Yes, but if morals are an absolute, then everyone has to suffer. If a human killing an animal is unneccesary and a Lion killing an animal is unnessecary, then I think that Lions require alot more moral adjustment then humans. Then you can start to work on monkeys and wolves.
Finally, in a few decades, when the rest of the world is being just as moral as humans, then humans will make the next step.

Humans have destroyed the lives of far more animals than lions have. I do not think lions drive other species to extinction very often, for instance.

EDIT: By the way, does anyone know what organization, if any, is responsible for this image? The print is small enough to where I can't tell.

i thi nk that it was done by
humans for animals
iam not positive though

Well PETA themselves are a rather silly bunch with some indisputably stupid ideas, such as animal rights.

That doesn't mean that picture is not insanely funny.
Are you people even listening? PETA had nothing to do with that picture. They're not the only people out there going for humane treatment of animals. Furthermore, PETA usually avoids the shock value when striking towards new audiences, preferring instead to either play off of pornography or science fiction in little mini-films that get limited airtime for sporting events or before movies in selected cities. Even if it was A PETA MEMBER that doesn't give the right to turn it around on the rest of the PETA members who prefer not to use those kinds of tactics.

It's like teaching trig to a monkey, you just don't learn......

The seals are much less common, therefore, they are worth more.

Does each species have an equivalent total value, in your view?

I club both babies and seals. Therefore, this picture has no meaning to me.

Does each species have an equivalent total value, in your view?


Yes, humans take up more of the earth's population and seem less useful in the grand scheme of things. So yes, humans are worth less than aquatic mammals.

Neither of your arguments follow logically.

Moral awareness and moral value are two different things. An entity that is not morally aware - that doesn't know the difference between right and wrong - can still have moral value. Until a certain age human children do not have moral awareness; when was the last time someone espoused infanticide?
Yes, but an infant can eventually be enlightened. A seal cannot.
And I believe into doing unto others as they would do unto me. A seal wouldn't hesitate for a second to kill me if its well-being were promoted by such an act, so I offer no hesitation in return.
On the other hand, with rare exception, a human being won't kill me just because of a small boost, thus I return the favor.
How can something without moral awareness "sin"? And why does "sin" necessarily decrease the value of the sinner's life?
Ah, but I don't believe in Sin. I assumed that someone who doesn't like killing seals would, but then PETA probably gets sociopaths too. That isn't the point, the point is that, yes, we do recognize a sinner's life as low priority then the relatively unsinless. If sin didn't make a difference in the value of a life, there would be no justice system and no prisons.
Humans have destroyed the lives of far more animals than lions have. I do not think lions drive other species to extinction very often, for instance.
Obviously you have never heard of this man named Darwin. Now, he said that a species that can't survive in the environment it is in, will die off and be replaced. Considering, then, that lions have been around and carnivorous for quite some time, I am quite sure that at least one species has been edged out of the picture.
And we weren't talking about species anyway, we are talking about individual creatures. So bring me my vegan lion, or quit trying to convert me!

Simonist']Are you people even listening? PETA had nothing to do with that picture. They're not the only people out there going for humane treatment of animals. Furthermore, PETA usually avoids the shock value when striking towards new audiences, preferring instead to either play off of pornography or science fiction in little mini-films that get limited airtime for sporting events or before movies in selected cities. Even if it was A PETA MEMBER that doesn't give the right to turn it around on the rest of the PETA members who prefer not to use those kinds of tactics.

It's like teaching trig to a monkey, you just don't learn......

What the hell are you talking about? PETA funds many front organizations, it is possible that this is one of them, I am too lazy to check, but it really doesn't matter. Animal rights is a load of monkey piss, I don't care if workers throw chickens into barn walls as long as I get my chicken club sandwhiches, and I don't care about live skinning as long as I get my soft tanned skin jackets. I find all efforts to spread the word to be quite funny, including the "softer" methods. I think it is a waste of time and money that could be spent doing useful things like promoting education or helping improve social equality.

What the hell are you talking about? PETA funds many front organizations, it is possible that this is one of them, I am too lazy to check, but it really doesn't matter. Animal rights is a load of monkey piss, I don't care if workers throw chickens into barn walls as long as I get my chicken club sandwhiches, and I don't care about live skinning as long as I get my soft tanned skin jackets. I find all efforts to spread the word to be quite funny, including the "softer" methods. I think it is a waste of time and money that could be spent doing useful things like promoting education or helping improve social equality.
As I mentioned earlier, I did check. Because I am NOT too lazy. It does really matter.

So shut your face about the random accusations if you're too lazy to check on your own, otherwise you just come off sounding ignorant.

I didn't accuse PETA of doing anything more than having stupid theories, it isn't exactly difficult to find evidence to back it:

Animals deserve rights, regardless of how they taste or how convenient it is to experiment on them. Like humans, animals are capable of suffering and have an interest in leading their own lives. They are not ours to use for food, clothing, experimentation, or entertainment.

And they do pay out vast amounts of money to fund efforts to promote this mentality, which is just about as bad as George Bush spending vasts amounts of money liberating nations and consequently throwing them into chaos that requires even more money to fix than before, or the massive amounts of money people spend on their religions and books on pseudoscience and pop culture.

EDIT: I will acknowledge that there is evidence that Dolphins and higher primates are self-aware, and I recognize many animals need protection to prevent them from becoming extinct. I do not see why we shouldn't make beef burgers, though.

THIS AD IS SUCCESSFUL! it wanted you all to get offended by it. that was what its intention was. to make people think, have a reaction, and form an opinion.

tsk tsk tsk, you all just played right into their hands

Yes, but an infant can eventually be enlightened. A seal cannot.

So the potential for moral awareness is the test? What difference does the potential make? How in the world do you know that a seal cannot achieve moral awareness?

And I believe into doing unto others as they would do unto me. A seal wouldn't hesitate for a second to kill me if its well-being were promoted by such an act, so I offer no hesitation in return.

If you would do unto a seal as you think a seal would do unto you, that is, killing it for your own benefit, don't you think a seal would be also justified in doing unto a human baby - or unto yourself - as you would unto it? In that case, the moral equivalency the image assumes fits quite nicely; the only difference such a position has with the one presented by the image is that it makes no moral judgements about what occurs in the picture, and therefore transfers none.

Ah, but I don't believe in Sin. I assumed that someone who doesn't like killing seals would, but then PETA probably gets sociopaths too. That isn't the point, the point is that, yes, we do recognize a sinner's life as low priority then the relatively unsinless. If sin didn't make a difference in the value of a life, there would be no justice system and no prisons.

What about prevention and deterrence? I can hold the life of the sinner equal to that of everyone else while still thinking the sinner should be restrained from sinning any more.

Obviously you have never heard of this man named Darwin. Now, he said that a species that can't survive in the environment it is in, will die off and be replaced. Considering, then, that lions have been around and carnivorous for quite some time, I am quite sure that at least one species has been edged out of the picture.

I did not say that lions had never caused extinction, I said they didn't come close to the rate humans do so.

And we weren't talking about species anyway, we are talking about individual creatures.

Fair enough. But the destructive effect of humans on the lives of even individual animals is almost certainly far greater than that of lions.

So bring me my vegan lion, or quit trying to convert me!

If I were trying to convert you I would be posting PETA videos; they are probably more effective than any amount of rational argument, especially on an issue whose grounds are ultimately premises people take on faith.

Smash 'em
Bash 'em
Moosh 'em
Squish 'em
Clash 'em
Sqoosh 'em 'til they sqeal,
All day long, just clubbing the baby (Well, in this case it isn't a seal)

How do you know that, morally, humans and animals are not equal?

On what basis do you make that statement? How do you know that that is a proper basis for such a judgement?
i know that isn't aimed at me, but i think i can properly respond.
humans are animals. we're both alive. all life is essentially only a set of chemical proscesses that duplicate themselves.
human's shouldn't be saying "we are better than animals" but neither should they be saying "animals are better than us", for we are animals.

If moral value is subjective, then no one can accuse the maker of the image of being not "truthful."

Truth and morality are very different things. Connected, but different.

Yes, that is pretty much what I have in mind. Humans are animals too, and their first priority should be to ensure their own survival. We happen to have the best engineers and scientists of any species on the planet, so we may as well take a step up on the old elephants knocking paths in forests and start bringing out our genetically engineered crops and manipulating life in general to suit us. Those of us humans who enjoy our meat should also not be disallowed or villified for eating other animals. They are just species looking out for their own survival, like us, and if the seal would choose to kill human babies for its own benefit, well, humans will kill it for their benefit. We have guns, helicopters, cars, medical facilities... we could easily eradicate seals if at any point we needed to, but hopefully people are now clever enough to know not to do things that will extensively damage the ecosystem.

Humans are not sacred or special in any way but in terms of accomplishments, habitat, and abilities, they have become far superior to any other species on Earth, largely through the ability to understand complex systems (granted, well less than %10 of the human population gain this, but those that do can have their innovations replicated on mass scales quickly by technicians and laborers who can learn to operate complex solutions from a more limited perspective.) There is really no reason to sanctify animals, especially considering their technological achievements.

I didn't accuse PETA of doing anything more than having stupid theories, it isn't exactly difficult to find evidence to back it:
Oh, actually you did:
Are you people even listening? PETA had nothing to do with that picture. They're not the only people out there going for humane treatment of animals. Furthermore, PETA usually avoids the shock value when striking towards new audiences, preferring instead to either play off of pornography or science fiction in little mini-films that get limited airtime for sporting events or before movies in selected cities. Even if it was A PETA MEMBER that doesn't give the right to turn it around on the rest of the PETA members who prefer not to use those kinds of tactics.

It's like teaching trig to a monkey, you just don't learn......
What the hell are you talking about? PETA funds many front organizations, it is possible that this is one of them, I am too lazy to check, but it really doesn't matter. Animal rights is a load of monkey piss, I don't care if workers throw chickens into barn walls as long as I get my chicken club sandwhiches, and I don't care about live skinning as long as I get my soft tanned skin jackets. I find all efforts to spread the word to be quite funny, including the "softer" methods. I think it is a waste of time and money that could be spent doing useful things like promoting education or helping improve social equality.
In my mind, contradicting my statement that PETA isn't involved is a direct implication that PETA fronted this ad. You then tried to back away from the claim and change it to this:
And they do pay out vast amounts of money to fund efforts to promote this mentality, which is just about as bad as George Bush spending vasts amounts of money liberating nations and consequently throwing them into chaos that requires even more money to fix than before, or the massive amounts of money people spend on their religions and books on pseudoscience and pop culture.
...which I see as nothing more than poor debating tactics and diversion. I didn't even contradict the fact that PETA is involved in extra efforts to promote the "mentality", but the fact is that just because it reeks of Animal Rights Activism doesn't mean that PETA is the only possible culprit. You posted a fallacy that I called you on, and now you try to bring other hot topics into the mix. Doesn't work that way; when you make claims, you should be able to stick behind them.

EDIT: I will acknowledge that there is evidence that Dolphins and higher primates are self-aware, and I recognize many animals need protection to prevent them from becoming extinct. I do not see why we shouldn't make beef burgers, though.
I'm sorry, did I ever say that you shouldn't eat hamburgers? No. Did I ever say that the world would be so much better of as a vegetarian paradise? No. Did I ever claim you said that animals are st00pid and should be killed? Certainly not.

Well, I mentioned they funded front organizations after you already misinterpreted my earlier statement as saying that I was pinning the picture on PETA, which I was not, but you seemed to assume so. I had to bring up the possibility since as I understand there are at the current time a pretty large amount of groups which have recieved major donations from organizations like PETA and the Sierra Club, interestingly enough, a few of which have actually commited arson (back in Oregon and Washington this was a problem for a while, I was living there at the time.)

The two things I was mentioning with my first post was

A) I think PETA is rather silly. (not proven, not disproven.)

B) I liked the picture. (not proven, not disproven.)

Neither of these constitutes a logical fallacy. Please revise your definitions.

The statement you quoted proposed.

A) PETA funds many organizations. (not proven, not disproven.)

B) This may or may not be a front for PETA (tautology.)


If you mean to say that this organization was not a front for PETA, sure, I have not seen evidence of such but I can believe that. That doesn't mean I claimed the picture was made by PETA.

I don't like those radical animal rights movements. Saying that killing or torturing a human is the same or isn't worse than doing the same thing to an animal really disgusts me. I find their way of thinking and acting quite obscene.

I'm all for obliterating humans of every age. At least there wouldn't be anymore bullshit going on on this planet.

I'm all for obliterating humans of every age. At least there wouldn't be anymore bullshit going on on this planet.
Maybe you should start with yourself. You know, set an example.

http://fivelights.net/42-2/fuckpeta.jpg
http://www.britfeld.com/tail-dock/peta-sucks.gif
http://www.rajuabju.com/literature/images/Peta1.gif
http://whispy.com/lmimages/7101.gif

KILL THEM BEFORE THEY KILL YOU!!!:sniper: :gundge: :mp5:

:fluffle:

To the seals of the world: Look out, we humans have wiped entire species of the earth before and we can do it again! :mp5:

Is it bad that their weird manner of phrasing bothered me more then the picture?

Maybe you should start with yourself. You know, set an example.
Cry more, n00b.

I thought that was the funniest picture I ever saw!!!!

I'm going to print it off and put it up on my little message board...

good stuff crazy animal rights person, good stuff

Humans are animals too, and their first priority should be to ensure their own survival. We happen to have the best engineers and scientists of any species on the planet, so we may as well take a step up on the old elephants knocking paths in forests and start bringing out our genetically engineered crops and manipulating life in general to suit us.

I actually mostly agree with that sentiment, with the exception of TANSTAAFL. We're simply not good enough at manipulating life yet to do so with any real degree of security or safety. I firmly believe that we will be able to bio-engineer a crop that will vastly outstrip nature in growing speed, yield, environmental resistance, and pest resistance. I also firmly believe that we have to use such a crop with great care, if at all, because nature has a way of coming up with new pests -- and if we're all relying on this super-monoculture for survival, things get ugly.

Those of us humans who enjoy our meat should also not be disallowed or villified for eating other animals. They are just species looking out for their own survival, like us, and if the seal would choose to kill human babies for its own benefit, well, humans will kill it for their benefit. We have guns, helicopters, cars, medical facilities... we could easily eradicate seals if at any point we needed to, but hopefully people are now clever enough to know not to do things that will extensively damage the ecosystem.

Humans are not sacred or special in any way but in terms of accomplishments, habitat, and abilities, they have become far superior to any other species on Earth, largely through the ability to understand complex systems (granted, well less than %10 of the human population gain this, but those that do can have their innovations replicated on mass scales quickly by technicians and laborers who can learn to operate complex solutions from a more limited perspective.) There is really no reason to sanctify animals, especially considering their technological achievements.

I think we agree on the general reasoning here, but come to exact opposite conclusions. Mine is that there's really no reason to sanctify humans.

In fact, it can be argued that most animals are actually of moral superiority to humans -- very few kill for any reason other than immediate survival. Even fewer take pride in being able to do so.

And I believe into doing unto others as they would do unto me. A seal wouldn't hesitate for a second to kill me if its well-being were promoted by such an act, so I offer no hesitation in return.

But the problem is, that seals don't feel the need to wear human skin boots.

In fact, it can be argued that most animals are actually of moral superiority to humans -- very few kill for any reason other than immediate survival.

That is partially my point, Animals act from bestial need rather than bestial greed. It's not a "Them or Us situation" we're fully capable of leaving them alone.

That is partially my point, Animals act from bestial need rather than bestial greed. It's not a "Them or Us situation" we're fully capable of leaving them alone.
Except it is a matter of greed. It is possible for a wolf to get all the nutrients it needs without hunting down the poor deer.

Whoever photoshopped this. No, whoever thought of it. This is a bit over the line, methinks.

(Just a warning to the light of stomach, you might want to think twice about clicking this link) http://usemycomputer.com/indeximages/2005/October/humans-suck-1.jpg

I see the point they're making, but in no way was this shock factor necessary, nor is what they're comparing all that truthful. Humans may be living beings alongside animals, but in no way are we equal.

EDIT: By the way, does anyone know what organization, if any, is responsible for this image? The print is small enough to where I can't tell.
Am I a bad guy for giggling at that picture?

Am I a bad guy for giggling at that picture?
I thought it was rather poor quality of -shopping or whatever.
On the other hand, had it been a baby seal standing triumphant over a hunter, then I might have a new desktop image.

But the problem is, that seals don't feel the need to wear human skin boots.



That is partially my point, Animals act from bestial need rather than bestial greed. It's not a "Them or Us situation" we're fully capable of leaving them alone.

Seals dont have feet, maybe thats why?

"Don't treat others the way you don't want to be treated"

What? Is that the worst tag line in the history of advertising?

Even worse than Amnesty's "Protect the Human" (Although obviously I much prefer Amnesty to PETA... since I'm a member of Amnesty)

Yes! That is my new PWNED picture! :)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v254/saintmaggot/pwned-sealclub.jpg

I also think PETA could have used that for a promotional slogan:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v254/saintmaggot/peta.jpg

Simonist']I'm sorry, did I ever say that you shouldn't eat hamburgers? No. Did I ever say that the world would be so much better of as a vegetarian paradise? No. Did I ever claim you said that animals are st00pid and should be killed? Certainly not.
Then why on earth are you a member of PETA?

Time again to review what those horrible Conservatives Penn & Teller have to say about PETA: http://www.thatvideosite.com/view/709.html

Or not, if you want to continue to LA LA LA LA LA at us...