Animal Appreciation Thread

[Llama231]

I have create this thread to appreciate all of the animals that we refer to on this board so heavily.:smallbiggrin:

LONG LIVE!!!!!!!!:

Cats
Rabbits
Dogs
Salmon
Hippos
Llamas
Camels
Dinosaurs
Muskrats
Penguins
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Please continue.

[Cobra_Ikari]

Is dinosrawrs. And am conspicuously absent. v.v

[Thes Hunter]

I like penguins......


So does Indurain appearantly.

[Mauve Shirt]

Parrots.
Ridgebacks.
Kangaroos.
Lemurs.
Cobras.

VV And wolves!

[mercurymaline]

I suppose I am the only person who ever refers to wombats...

[UncleWolf]

You forgot Wolves on the list.

[Llama231]

Furrets
Lynxes
Lions
Moose
Turtles
Elephants
Iguanas
Mockingbirds
Squids

[Syka]

...I am ashamed no one has mentioned foxes.

For shame, GiantITP, for shame.



:smallwink:

[BizzaroStormy]

yoo fergot mudkipz

[Assassin89]

I like
cats
dogs
amphibious species

[Tempest Fennac]

In my defence, I only just saw this thread, Syka.:smalltongue: I'd add meerkats (I know V Junior likes those as well).

[kpenguin]

I see penguins are already on there, so I have nothing to add except....

POLAR BEARZ! The largest land carnivore on Earth, packing 780 to 1500 pounds of raw awesome. Its a pity that penguins and polar bears live on opposite ends of the Earth. I suppose them living in the same area would be too much awesome for one area to contain.

[eidreff]

Rats,
Mice,
Voles,
Moles,
Marmosets,
crayfish
and Orangutans

These are a few of my favourite things.

[Jimorian]

Tits and Boobies!

(Aw, c'mon, SOMEBODY had to say it :smalltongue:)

[Grail]

Yay for my Golden Retrievers (Feanor and Thorin), so I've got to say Dogs.

Also:
Sharks. Sharks rock.

[thubby]

I'm pretty much for any animal that doesn't try to eat me, except for monkeys, they're to human :smallannoyed:. sadly, I am horrendously allergic to cats.

though, it seems silly to have an appreciation thread for something that will never read it.

[ghost_warlock]

I'm greatly disappointed that nobody has mentioned Tiktaalik or Opossum yet. :smallmad:

@V: No, gross, humans are icky! :smallyuk: :smallwink:

[Nameless]

Humans.

It's funny how people always miss those. :smalltongue:

[Recaiden]

Echidnas.
Kiwis.
Snakes.
Shrews.

Very disappointing.

Hawks.
Bats.

[DigoDragon]

Dolphins and Raccoons, I'm facinated at how smart and resourceful they are.

[Nameless]

Dolphins and Raccoons, I'm facinated at how smart and resourceful they are.

Humans are smarter. :smalltongue:

[ghost_warlock]

Humans are smarter. :smalltongue:

Maybe. I've never heard of a dolphin or a raccoon being depressed or stressing out about work. I've never heard of a dolphin or a raccoon having 'body-image' issues. I've never heard of a dolphin or a raccoon buying a Milli Vanilli CD. :smallwink:

@V: North American ones are spelled "opossum" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_opossum) (technically Virginia opossum) and they're the only kind we have; the only North American marsupial at all "north of the Rio Grande."

[Serpentine]

No love for the platypus?

Incidentally, possum > opossum, unless you're in New Zealand.

Ummm... I think it's a bit pointless my listing awesome animals, cuz I'd just end up going through my Wildlife Fact File and my Dictionary of Zoology to fill any gaps. Special mention, though, to snakes in general and the okapi.

Also: Gazelles, cheetahs and peregrin falcons are at the extreme of speed-specialisation; bears, elephants and anacondas are at the extreme of strength-specialisation; flies, albatrosses and eagles are at the extreme of flight-specialisation; and humans are at the extreme of intelligence-specialisation. Doesn't mean that no other animal is fast, strong, flight-capable or clever.

[Thanatos 51-50]

+1 Peregrine Falcon fan.

Unless my memory is out-of-date, which it could very well be, the fastest animal. On. The. Planet. Breaking two hundred miles per hour in an attack dive?

Yes. Please.

In the vein of some of my other favourites:
Jaguars, Black Mambas, mako sharks, Drop Bears (:smalltongue:).

Gotta show appreciation for Humans, too. Little resourceful buggers have somehow craved out a nich for themselves, and then forced the planet to conform to their tastes.

Most love ou there to cyborgs, though. Because cyborgs are awesome.

[Eldan]

Just read today in a discussion of newly found animals:

Tyrannophasma gladiator.

That's all.

[Canadian]

I've got to mention a few.

Beaver
Moose
Caribou
Seal (navy and regular)
Polar Bear

Remember, the field mouse is fast... But the owl sees at night! Ha! Ha! Ha!

[Mauve Shirt]

Tapirs (http://questionablecontent.net./view.php?comic=1293) :smalltongue:

[Dirk Kris]

Lemur.
Otter.
Raccoon.
Capuchin monkey.
Ferret.
Chinchilla.
Python.
Flying squirrel.
Pygmy marmoset.
Sloth.

[Serpentine]

Just read today in a discussion of newly found animals:

Tyrannophasma gladiator.

That's all.This reminds me of the coolest scientific name ever.

Chyrax destructor.

Aka, the yabbie.

@^ They have a colony of pygmy marmosets at my uni. I helped to feed them for a while. When they don't want you near them, they piss at you. I went in there once with sandals on. Turns out they really don't like toes for some reason. They wouldn't let me get close enough to change their food.

[Boo]

BEARS!

Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, Bears, BEARS!

Bears aside, I think people put too much thought into things like this. Not that it's a bad thing or whatever, but sometimes people get serious and ruin the fun. Good thing no one's done that yet. Otherwise, I'd have to write Bears! a few hundred more times.

Going back to Bears, please remember to capitalize the B, otherwise it's just a plain old bear. Who cares about bears when you could care about Bears! And no one has mentioned either? Just specific breeds of bear? Lame.

[ghost_warlock]

BEARS!


http://i461.photobucket.com/albums/qq339/ghost_warlock/internetbearyr6.jpg

[Raiser Blade]

Maybe. I've never heard of a dolphin or a raccoon being depressed or stressing out about work. I've never heard of a dolphin or a raccoon having 'body-image' issues. I've never heard of a dolphin or a raccoon buying a Milli Vanilli CD. :smallwink:


Probably because they don't have the intelligence to do those things. :smalltongue:

[ghost_warlock]

Probably because they don't have the intelligence to do those things. :smalltongue:

Yep, only us humans are smart enough to be that stupid. :smallcool:

[Canadian]

Dolphins don't seem very smart once they're flopping around on dry land.

[Nameless]

Maybe. I've never heard of a dolphin or a raccoon being depressed or stressing out about work. I've never heard of a dolphin or a raccoon having 'body-image' issues. I've never heard of a dolphin or a raccoon buying a Milli Vanilli CD. :smallwink:

I've also never heard of a dolphin travel to space, create fire or electricity, create music and art (no, squeaks don't count), think outside it's instinct, build buildings like humans do, try to understand his place in the world, read or write. :smalltongue:

[Raiser Blade]

Yep, only us humans are smart enough to be that stupid. :smallcool:

My point is that an animal would not even be able to perform those "stupid" tasks.

[Nameless]

I find it funny how a monkey gets praised more for how "smart" it is if it picks the right card that matches to colour of something, then let's say a student working out a long maths equasion.

[Canadian]

I suggest all good students be given bananas then.

[Innis Cabal]

Dolphins don't seem very smart once they're flopping around on dry land.

Humans don't seem very smart when their drowning.

Also, go pygmy marmoset. Best monkey ever.

[Canadian]

Don't the convulsions denote a high level of intelligence? The dumb people just sit still and inhale the water when they drown.

My favorite monkeys

The Recess - Love that peanut butter!

The Spider Monkey - Spins a web any size! So what if he's not as evolved as Spider Man? He's still more fun than Spider Australopithecus.

[Innis Cabal]

Dosn't the flailing of the dolphin denote intellegence, its clearly trying to get back to a mode of transport it evolved to work in. Its not like its going to suffocate in the open air, its just going to die from exposure.

[Canadian]

I guess the dolphin's intelligence would have to do with how close it is to the nearest taxi. All the flailing in the world won't help unless there's a taxi nearby.

[Serpentine]

I find it funny how a monkey gets praised more for how "smart" it is if it picks the right card that matches to colour of something, then let's say a student working out a long maths equasion.It's easier to find out whether a human student if smart, because you can just talk to them. Also, you don't have generations of backwards scientists and anthrocentrist attitudes demanding absolutely amazing and incredible evidence based on continuously-changing definitions to contend with when trying to prove the intelligence of said student.
So yeah, we get excited, because 1. we've figured out a way to prove that animals think, and 2. we've proven that animals think and it wasn't that long ago that people didn't even believe animals could feel.

[ghost_warlock]

In light of the recent thread derailment...

Mosquito - because no matter how 'smrt' humans think they are, we still haven't managed to wipe these little buggers out. :smallwink:

[PhantomFox]

I find all animals interesting, and evocative of certain personality characteristic. Of course my favorite is the clever and fast thinking fox. But the highly curious raccoon and the playful otter are close favorites too.

[Canadian]

I like all the animals that taste good with BBQ sauce!

[Nameless]

Humans don't seem very smart when their drowning.

Which is why most humans learn how to swim... and why we have invented equipment to let us breath under water. I don't see dolphins learning how to survive on land and creating equipment to help them.


It's easier to find out whether a human student if smart, because you can just talk to them. Also, you don't have generations of backwards scientists and anthrocentrist attitudes demanding absolutely amazing and incredible evidence based on continuously-changing definitions to contend with when trying to prove the intelligence of said student.

Other animals are still stupid compared to humans. :smalltongue:


we've figured out a way to prove that animals think,

Proving my point, I don't see other animals doing that. :smalltongue:


we've proven that animals think and it wasn't that long ago that people didn't even believe animals could feel.

Other way round, a lot more people are caring to much about animals and some are putting them before humans, just look at PETA. *shakes fist angrily*

[Fredthefighter]

I like the Silverback Gorrila, the peaceful herbivore that can rip your arms off if you try to take their food/children.
Gorrila + Irritating person = A person who has two less arms than usual and who has learned a lesson about being irritating.

[Serpentine]

Which is why most humans learn how to swim... and why we have invented equipment to let us breath under water. I don't see dolphins learning how to survive on land and creating equipment to help them.
Other animals are still stupid compared to humans. :smalltongue:
Proving my point, I don't see other animals doing that. :smalltongue:Whatever 9.9 I'm tired of these arguments. Yeah, of course a snake has fewer legs than a tarantula, duh. Doesn't mean it can't move just as well.

Other way round, a lot more people are caring to much about animals and some are putting them before humans, just look at PETA. *shakes fist angrily*PETA are extreme to the point of stupidity, but that doesn't mean that all animal rights activists are like that, nor that too many people are caring too much. There are still far too many people who consider animals mere toys and/or the environment just one big personal resource.

[Thanatos 51-50]

I like all the animals that taste good with BBQ sauce!

Hear, hear!

[Canadian]

Hoisin sauce is good too. Ketchup and mustard. Sometimes just a little salt and pepper. Animals taste good!

[Nameless]

Whatever 9.9 I'm tired of these arguments. Yeah, of course a snake has fewer legs than a tarantula, duh. Doesn't mean it can't move just as well.

No offence Serpentine, but that comment was irrelevant and kinda silly.


PETA are extreme to the point of stupidity, but that doesn't mean that all animal rights activists are like that, nor that too many people are caring too much. There are still far too many people who consider animals mere toys and/or the environment just one big personal resource.

I don't think of them as toys, I just think of them as food.
Yes, I have a kitty and he's awesome, but if I was stuck with no other food I would eat him.

[DigoDragon]

My point is that an animal would not even be able to perform those "stupid" tasks.

Well they do have a valid excuse-- stores tend to have a "No Shirt, no Shoes, no Service" clause, thus baring naked animals and even naked humans (which are thought to be smarter) from buying that CD. :smallsmile:

On the flip side, some marine biologists have found evidence that dolphins have a structured language and give each other names. I'm sure that research is debated, but it's thought provoking.

[Penguinsushi]

I feel obligated to mention 'Appreciate A Dragon Day' here - since it happens to be today. :smallsmile:

Heh.

~PS

[Checkmate]

Other way round, a lot more people are caring to much about animals and some are putting them before humans, just look at PETA. *shakes fist angrily*

Actually, PETA's beliefs are founded by philosphical theories that consider animals just as important as human beings, not more important. To quote Peter Singer, a philosopher on this field,

"The only legitimate boundary to our concern for the interests of other beings is the point at which it is no longer accurate to say that the other being has interests. To have interests, in a strict, nonmetaphorical sense, a being must be capable of suffering or experiencing pleasure. If a being suffers, there can be no moral justification for disregarding that suffering, or for refusing to count it equally with the like suffering of any other being. But the converse of this is also true. If a being is not capable of suffering, or of enjoyment, there is nothing to take into account."

Most animal rights activists believe in this "equal consideration" and value an animal life the same as a human life, unless their is a relevant difference between them. They call it Speciesism, in analogy to racism or sexism, when you treat someone differently merely because they are of a different species.

Although some of their campaigns are a bit extreme, I can't say their ideology is in any way irrational.

[Nameless]

Actually, PETA's beliefs are founded by philosphical theories that consider animals just as important as human beings, not more important. To quote Peter Singer, a philosopher on this field, That's what they say, but they seem to put animal values before human.


Most animal rights activists believe in this "equal consideration" and value an animal life the same as a human life, unless their is a relevant difference between them. They call it Speciesism, in analogy to racism or sexism, when you treat someone differently merely because they are of a different species.

Why would you treat an animal such as a dog the same as a human? If you did then you would have dogs in our school and in our work which wouldn't make sense.


Although some of their campaigns are a bit extreme, I can't say their ideology is in any way irrational.

It's completely irrational and hypacritical.
They give fauls information, they lie, they brainwash children as well as adults, and even though the say you should never put an animal down, ever, they killed about 75% of the animals they took in for no apparent reason.

[Checkmate]

Why would you treat an animal such as a dog the same as a human? If you did then you would have dogs in our school and in our work which wouldn't make sense.


No that wouldn't happen. Dogs don't have an interest in being at school and being able to vote and all of that. That is why a human is not the same as a dog when dealing with things like that, because their interests are different. That's an important part of the filosophy also.:smallsmile:



It's completely irrational and hypacritical.


I don't see how. Everything seems quite logical and quite consistent with what they believe and say.



They give fauls information, they lie, they brainwash children as well as adults.

I think "brainwash" is a bit of a heavy word. They do not brainwash people any more than GreenPeace or Amnesty International does. It is a non-profit organisation. The only problem people might have with it is that it is based on a philosophy most people don't agree with.


and even though the say you should never put an animal down, ever, they killed about 75% of the animals they took in for no apparent reason.

They don't say it is always wrong to put animals down. They say so very clearly on their site.

[Canadian]

If animals are to be treated exactly the same a humans...

All animals should have the food they catch taxed and have a portion given to the human community. They should also pay property tax. Animals should pay rent for the land they live on. This can be done in the form of supplying eggs or milk or pulling a plow. Animals that don't pay their taxes will be jailed just like a human.

Animals should be criminally charged for assault, trespassing, public nudity, tax evasion, pooping in public areas, destruction of property, jaywalking, etc. Any animals that breaks the law will be jailed or fined just like a human.

If the animals break the law too often they should be confined and eventually executed just like bad humans. Then we eat the meat. It would be a shame to let it go to waste.

Oh yeah, if things are equal for animals and humans I demand the right to eat other humans!

Cannibalism. The other other white meat.

[Checkmate]

If animals are to be treated exactly the same a humans...

No one said they wanted to be treating animals exactly the same as humans. They only value their lives as the same. Their interests are given equal consideration.


All animals should have the food they catch taxed and have a portion given to the human community. They should also pay property tax. Animals should pay rent for the land they live on. This can be done in the form of supplying eggs or milk or pulling a plow. Animals that don't pay their taxes will be jailed just like a human.

Why would animals need to pay taxes? They don't work, hell they aren't even citizens, (mainly because we and them don't have an interest in them being citizens). Just like we don't let mentally handicaped work and pay taxes, it would be unreasonable to expect animals to do so.


Animals should be criminally charged for assault, trespassing, public nudity, tax evasion, pooping in public areas, destruction of property, jaywalking, etc. Any animals that breaks the law will be jailed or fined just like a human.

Animals can't comprehend laws, just like babies and mentally handicaped can't. Punishing them for crimes therefore is rather questionable.

[Canadian]

Some humans can't comprehend laws or understand taxes. Does that mean they should be able to go around acting like animals and not get punished for it?

[Checkmate]

Some humans can't comprehend laws or understand taxes. Does that mean they should be able to go around acting like animals and not get punished for it?

In my post I gave examples of two groups of human beings, babies and mentally handicaped, who are just like animals incapable of comprehending laws or understanding taxes or even paying taxes, working etc. Usually babies aren't convicted when they murder (it rarely happens, but it does) and mentally handicaped usually aren't convicted either or at least very less severely.

[Jack Squat]

I appreciate animals. That being said, I don't have a problem eating them. I also put them on a lower peg of importance than humans (save the family pet, who gets the same importance as any family member). If someone forced me between killing a human I didn't know, and a dog I didn't know, I'd choose the dog every time. I also would try to do it as humanely as possible. Although preferably, I'd go after the guy who's trying to force me.

@Checkmate: I never had an interest in going to school, in fact, I'd love to lay around in the sun all day and have someone come by and feed me. Doesn't mean I don't have to go.

On PETA. They're completely nuts. I don't mind people with the viewpoint that you shouldn't eat animals, but emphasize the point by degrading humans down to the point of animals?

I also don't like people who try and push their beliefs onto me. Whether or not I agree with someone, I don't want to be constantly told it's the "right" way, I'll decide that for myself.

[Checkmate]

@Checkmate: I never had an interest in going to school, in fact, I'd love to lay around in the sun all day and have someone come by and feed me. Doesn't mean I don't have to go.

You did have an interest in going to school, only you didn't know it. Children are not always capable of understanding what is best for them. That is why parents act like their guardians, just like severely mentally handicaped often have guardians. Because they are incapble of seeing the entire image.


If someone forced me between killing a human I didn't know, and a dog I didn't know, I'd choose the dog every time.

If I'd had to, in whatever unrealistic situatin that might be, I'd pick randomly. They are both worth the same to me.:smallsmile:

[Canadian]

So if you went into a burning building and had only enough time to rescue a little human baby or a tank full of tropical fish - you would save the fish.

Since there's lots of fish in the tank and only one baby you're saving more lives if you save the fish tank and let the baby burn to death.

How would you explain your actions to the firefighters, police, the baby's family, or the judge when they send you to jail for negligence causing death?

Come one. Seriously. I'd save the baby. Would you let a baby die just to rescue some fish, kittens, puppies etc?

[Nameless]

No that wouldn't happen. Dogs don't have an interest in being at school and being able to vote and all of that. That is why a human is not the same as a dog when dealing with things like that, because their interests are different. That's an important part of the filosophy also

No, I went to school because it was law, and if dogs want equal rights then it would be law for them to go to school.
And as for the jobs, most jobs don't interest people, but they have to do that.
Giving animals the exact same rights as humans is completely, excuse my language, retarded.


I think "brainwash" is a bit of a heavy word. They do not brainwash people any more than GreenPeace or Amnesty International does. It is a non-profit organisation. The only problem people might have with it is that it is based on a philosophy most people don't agree with.

Have you seen the adverts aimed at children? "your mummy kills animals" with cartoons, they even compare eating and killing animals to the holocaust.


They don't say it is always wrong to put animals down. They say so very clearly on their site.

They still want animal "liberation" yet killed thousands of animals for no reason at all.


I don't see how. Everything seems quite logical and quite consistent with what they believe and say.

Are you serious? There is absolutely no benefit of becoming a vegan, none at all, yet they claim that it's better and lie to the public with bias video's and information.
And I've already mentioned why it's hypocritical.


No one said they wanted to be treating animals exactly the same as humans. They only value their lives as the same. Their interests are given equal consideration.



Why would animals need to pay taxes? They don't work, hell they aren't even citizens, (mainly because we and them don't have an interest in them being citizens). Just like we don't let mentally handicaped work and pay taxes, it would be unreasonable to expect animals to do so.



Animals can't comprehend laws, just like babies and mentally handicaped can't. Punishing them for crimes therefore is rather questionable.

You're completely missing the point, it doesn't matter what comprehend.
Equality to humans means they go by the same rules as humans, end of story, no if's or but's.

[Canadian]

Yeah, I saw the documentary where they show the massive freezer the they keep all the dead dogs and cats in. It was super creepy. I put them in the same camp as scientologists. There's a psychotic undercurrent to the whole thing.

[Checkmate]

Come one. Seriously. I'd save the baby. Would you let a baby die just to rescue some fish, kittens, puppies etc?

I am serious. They are not just "some" fish, kittens or puppies. They are living sentient beings who can feel and suffer. I would be able to explain my motives to the police. There is nothing criminal about saving lives.


No, I went to school because it was law, and if dogs want equal rights then it would be law for them to go to school.
And as for the jobs, most jobs don't interest people, but they have to do that.
Giving animals the exact same rights as humans is completely, excuse my language, retarded.


Well, I think no one wants to give them "equal" rights. They aren't the same, they just aren't inferior, they deserve the same consideration. Just like you don't want human babies to pay taxes and go to school, yet still consider them worthy of natural rights that protect their health and freedom.


Have you seen the adverts aimed at children? "your mummy kills animals" with cartoons, they even compare eating and killing animals to the holocaust.

I've seen the cartoons, also the comparisons with the holocaust. It would be against the forum rules to talk about that, I think, (as it is political), so I will not give my arguments in favor of the comparison.


Are you serious? There is absolutely no benefit of becoming a vegan, none at all, yet they claim that it's better and lie to the public with bias video's and information.


I'm completely serious. I'm vegan and I can't see how it didn't benefit my health.


You're completely missing the point, it doesn't matter what comprehend.
Equality to humans means they go by the same rules as humans, end of story, no if's or but's.

I think you are wrong, partially. You are right there aren't any if's or but's with considering the lives of humans equally, just like there shouldn't be with considering the lives of all animals, but when dealing with certain individuals in our society, such as mentally handicaped some qualities do matter and they need special treatment.

[thubby]

How would you explain your actions to the firefighters, police, the baby's family, or the judge when they send you to jail for negligence causing death?


(for the record i do think rescuing the fish is insane)
criminally negligent homicide doesn't work like that.

[Jack Squat]

You did have an interest in going to school, only you didn't know it. Children are not always capable of understanding what is best for them. That is why parents act like their guardians, just like severely mentally handicaped often have guardians. Because they are incapble of seeing the entire image.

What's best for me isn't what's my interests. It's what's other people's interests. It's best for a dog to get trained and always listen to their owner(s), but if you've ever had a dog you know that's not always their interests.

If you're severely mentally handicapped, not only are you incapable of seeing the big picture, but most are incapable of functioning past a toddler. They have guardians because they need help with things, not to make their decisions for them.

[Canadian]

If someone is so out of it they can't tell the difference between a human and an animal - perhaps they qualify as mentally handicapped and should be locked up.

[Jack Squat]

If someone is so out of it they can't tell the difference between a human and an animal - perhaps they qualify as mentally handicapped and should be locked up.

He's not saying he can't tell, he's saying he considers both categories equally. I don't want vegans/vegetarians trying to convert me and tell me which way is right, so I'll extend the same courtesy to them: I suggest you do the same.

[Nameless]

Yeah, I saw the documentary where they show the massive freezer the they keep all the dead dogs and cats in. It was super creepy. I put them in the same camp as scientologists. There's a psychotic undercurrent to the whole thing

I know, it was weird.
And it's not just that, it's the fact that all their video's such as "Chew on this" is EXTREAMLY bias, and pretty much all the information in it and inm other viideo's and adverts are completely wrong.
Now to mention how creepy they are.


I am serious. They are not just "some" fish, kittens or puppies. They are living sentient beings who can feel and suffer. I would be able to explain my motives to the police. There is nothing criminal about saving lives.

You should worry about your own species before other ones.
I would kill 1000 monkey's to save one baby.


Well, I think no one wants to give them "equal" rights. They aren't the same, they just aren't inferior, they deserve the same consideration. Just like you don't want human babies to pay taxes and go to school, yet still consider them worthy of natural rights that protect their health and freedom.

You're changing the subject now that you realise you were wrong. Before you said they should be equal.
And actually, the are scientifically inferior to Humans, that's why Humans are at the top of the food chain.


I'm completely serious. I'm vegan and I can't see how it didn't benefit my health.

There is no benefits of being a vegan, unless your omnivores diet was an unhealthy one. if it was a healthy one then it's just psychological.
People believe what they want to believe. If they tell the selves that this is healthier, then they'll think that they are. I've actually met some very unhealthy vegans.


I think you are wrong, partially. You are right there aren't any if's or but's with considering the lives of humans equally, just like there shouldn't be with considering the lives of all animals, but when dealing with certain individuals in our society, such as mentally handicaped some qualities do matter and they need special treatment.

I think you're missing the point.
lets take a healthy human and a healthy dog. That human will have to lead a life with a job, paying taxes and following the laws.
Now, if that dog has equality, then that dog should also have a job, pay taxes and follow the same laws.
Equality means equal, the clue is in the word.

Fact is, humaans are animals. Humans are Omnivores. Killing animals and eating them is perfectly fine. I'm not saying I agree with factory farming, which is why I eat free range meat, but at the end of the day, everything that's living is a source of food.
If we wern't at the top of the food chain, we would be hunted too.

[Checkmate]

What's best for me isn't what's my interests. It's what's other people's interests. It's best for a dog to get trained and always listen to their owner(s), but if you've ever had a dog you know that's not always their interests.


I'm sorry, it might be the grammar or it might be the fact that I'm not a native speaker, but I do not fully understand what you mean with that first sentence. I agree it is not always in the interests of a dog to do what their owner wants


If you're severely mentally handicapped, not only are you incapable of seeing the big picture, but most are incapable of functioning past a toddler. They have guardians because they need help with things, not to make their decisions for them.

You are correct and thus we let them make decisions when they can. But some are practically babies and for those some people decide what happens to them and where they life.

[Canadian]

Honestly, I hope nobody has ever asked you to babysit their children. After all you don't seem to care if they live or die.

I hope it anyone ever asks you to watch their kids that in inform them that you'll treat the lives of their children with complete indifference when compared to any animal that happens to walk by.

I also personally hope you never have children. If you're that indifferent to the value of human life I can only wonder what kind of cruel and harsh life your children would have to endure.

It's psychotic people like you with no sense of morals that abuse and mentally and physically scar children for life.

You should talk to a professional about your mind set. It's not healthy.

[thubby]

How would you explain your actions to the firefighters, police, the baby's family, or the judge when they send you to jail for negligence causing death?


(for the record i do think rescuing the fish is insane)
criminally negligent homicide doesn't work like that.

[Nameless]

Honestly, I hope nobody has ever asked you to babysit their children. After all you don't seem to care if they live or die.

I hope it anyone ever asks you to watch their kids that in inform them that you'll treat the lives of their children with complete indifference when compared to any animal that happens to walk by.

I also personally hope you never have children. If you're that indifferent to the value of human life I can only wonder what kind of cruel and harsh life your children would have to endure.

It's psychotic people like you with no sense of morals that abuse and mentally and physically scar children for life.

You should talk to a professional about your mind set. It's not healthy.

wow, harsh :smalleek:

But this is what I mean, careing more about human life then animals life isn't being a "speciest" and if it is there's nothing wrong with it.
All animals care about there won mor ethen other animals, I just wish people would beggin to understand what humans are.

[Checkmate]

You should worry about your own species before other ones.
I would kill 1000 monkey's to save one baby.

I do not agree with this.


You're changing the subject now that you realise you were wrong. Before you said they should be equal.
And actually, the are scientifically inferior to Humans, that's why Humans are at the top of the food chain.

Rephrasing something is not the same as changing the subject. If I am correctly, I never said animals were equal to humans. I did say their interests deserve equal consideration.


There is no benefits of being a vegan, unless your omnivores diet was an unhealthy one. if it was a healthy one then it's just psychological.
People believe what they want to believe. If they tell the selves that this is healthier, then they'll think that they are. I've actually met some very unhealthy vegans.

I wouldn't say I lived really unhealthy. I've seen some very unhealthy meat-eaters too, doesn't say much. Don't know why we are discussing veganism, now though.


I think you're missing the point.
lets take a healthy human and a healthy dog. That human will have to lead a life with a job, paying taxes and following the laws.
Now, if that dog has equality, then that dog should also have a job, pay taxes and follow the same laws.
Equality means equal, the clue is in the word.

By that definition severely mentally handicaped and babies are not equal to healthy humans. If you want to use a definition like that, I'm fine with it. But no one would claim that because of that inequality a baby or mentally handicaped deserves less rights.



Fact is, humaans are animals. Humans are Omnivores. Killing animals and eating them is perfectly fine. I'm not saying I agree with factory farming, which is why I eat free range meat, but at the end of the day, everything that's living is a source of food.
If we wern't at the top of the food chain, we would be hunted too.

I don't agree with using natural phenomena or nature as a whole as an ethics compass, but that is just my point of view.

Also, let's keep this friendly. No one of us here is attacking or forcing their views upon anyone and it would be nice if we could keep it like that.

[Jack Squat]

I'm sorry, it might be the grammar or it might be the fact that I'm not a native speaker, but I do not fully understand what you mean with that first sentence.

I was saying that just because something is best for me, that doesn't mean that it suits my interests; the two categories are mutually exclusive. I'm not interested in working whatsoever, but I do because I have to.

Where are you from? I hate to admit it, but plenty of foreign speakers (you included) use the English language much better/more correct than many of us native speakers.



You are correct and thus we let them make decisions when they can. But some are practically babies and for those some people decide what happens to them and where they life.

Yes, but it's not a usable comparison. An infant/toddler needs constant care and isn't capable of making many of their own decisions. By about the time school starts, that changes, and children are able to reason; maybe not as well as they could, but better than many adults seem to be capable of doing. At this point, is it still right to force them to do something they're not interested in?

[Checkmate]

Honestly, I hope nobody has ever asked you to babysit their children. After all you don't seem to care if they live or die.

I hope it anyone ever asks you to watch their kids that in inform them that you'll treat the lives of their children with complete indifference when compared to any animal that happens to walk by.

I also personally hope you never have children. If you're that indifferent to the value of human life I can only wonder what kind of cruel and harsh life your children would have to endure.

It's psychotic people like you with no sense of morals that abuse and mentally and physically scar children for life.

You should talk to a professional about your mind set. It's not healthy.

I never said I care less for the live of a human being. I value a human being equally. I'm not indifferent to the lives of human babies. If I had to choose between 2 human babies or 1 dog, I would choose to save the 2 babies.

[Nameless]

I do not agree with this.

That's because you have obviously lost your last bit of humanity.


Rephrasing something is not the same as changing the subject. If I am correctly, I never said animals were equal to humans. I did say their interests deserve equal consideration.

You didn't say it, but it's what you were trying to prove, I can give several examples.


I wouldn't say I lived really unhealthy. I've seen some very unhealthy meat-eaters too, doesn't say much. Don't know why we are discussing veganism, now though.

Because we're descussing PETA, which are a vegan/vegitarian orginisation.
The healthiest and most natural diet for humans is this one:
http://pennypincherspantry.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/food_chart.gif
Oh look, there's meat in it.


By that definition severely mentally handicaped and babies are not equal to healthy humans. If you want to use a definition like that, I'm fine with it. But no one would claim that because of that inequality a baby or mentally handicaped deserves less rights.

Yes, but how does that prove anything?


I don't agree with using natural phenomena or nature as a whole as an ethics compass, but that is just my point of view.

No, however, if it effects out health and enjoymeant of life without harming
othere's, there's no problame with it.


Also, let's keep this friendly. No one of us here is attacking or forcing their views upon anyone and it would be nice if we could keep it like that.

I appologise if I said anything harsh.


I never said I care less for the live of a human being. I value a human being equally. I'm not indifferent to the lives of human babies. If I had to choose between 2 human babies or 1 dog, I would choose to save the 2 babies.

But what if it was two dogs, and one human?

[Canadian]

{Scrubbed}

[thubby]

By that definition severely mentally handicaped and babies are not equal to healthy humans. If you want to use a definition like that, I'm fine with it. But no one would claim that because of that inequality a baby or mentally handicaped deserves less rights.

children already have fewer rights, the state recognizes it. they cannot enter legal contracts, including marriage and employment, no right to bear arms, trial by piers, the list goes on.

[Jack Squat]

Let's try to get this thread back on topic.

I'm very appreciative of the following animals:
Tuna
Chicken
Pigs
Shrimp
Cows
Crabs
Salmon
Deer
Sheep
Squirrels
Grouper...

What the heck, I'll include critters of all types on there.

[Canadian]

Jack - I'll join you...

Sea Cow
Sperm Whale
Yak

Gives me something to do while I look up the number for children's aid...

[Jack Squat]

Jack - I'll join you...

Sea Cow
Sperm Whale
Yak


Interesting choices...I'm pretty sure two are endangered, but if it's on a plate and not moving, I'm willing to try it :smallamused:

NOTE: While I do enjoy eating animals very much, I'm entirely sincere that I appreciate them, and agree that they need to be treated with an amount of respect/ethics. I mean, if the American Bison is able to tell us anything, we can't go around killing every living thing we see; but killing something for food is perfectly fine in my book if it's done in the quickest and least painful way possible.

[Canadian]

I've eaten Bison and Buffalo. So tasty. I don't eat endangered stuff like Chilean Sea Bass. I don't want the sea bass to become extinct. It's too tasty. We need to let them regenerate for a while.

[Checkmate]

I was saying that just because something is best for me, that doesn't mean that it suits my interests; the two categories are mutually exclusive. I'm not interested in working whatsoever, but I do because I have to.


Ah I see, I understand. Thank you. You do have a point in that within our society we demand from people that they do certain things that aren't directly in their interests, although earning money of course it. It would indeed be interesting to try to deduce how influences other ethical aspects of our lives.


Where are you from? I hate to admit it, but plenty of foreign speakers (you included) use the English language much better/more correct than many of us native speakers.

I come from the Netherlands.


That's because you have obviously lost your last bit of humanity.


Is that supposed to be a joke?:smallamused:


You didn't say it, but it's what you were trying to prove, I can give several examples.

You can? Could you point that out? Because I'm quit sure I wasn't and if you had that impression it means I wasn't clear enough in my word use.



Yes, but how does that prove anything?


It proves that giving some equal rights to certain grups, or actually acknowledging they have certain natural rights, does not automatically equate to giving them the all same duties within society.



I appologise if I said anything harsh.


Appology accepted, you weren't in any way that harsh, I would only find it a pity of this thread was closed, because some people turned to emotional and started a flame war, which thankfully isn't happening.



But what if it was two dogs, and one human?

I would choose the two dogs. Choosing the human would be rather inconsistent of me.

[Deepblue706]

I just want to say I appreciate many animals. Without them, my dinners would be far less enjoyable.

[Canadian]

I'm going to eat extra meat tonight to balance out all this vegan talk. Maybe I'll order the veal.

Lightly killed, chopped up, hit with a hammer until flat, and cooked to perfection.

Mmm...

After dinner I'll rescue some orphans from a burning building and send a donation of pigs and chickens to Africa. Just to boost my pro human agenda.

[Checkmate]

I'm going to eat extra meat tonight to balance out all this vegan talk. Maybe I'll order the veal.

Lightly killed, chopped up, hit with a hammer until flat, and cooked to perfection.

Mmm...

After dinner I'll rescue some orphans from a burning building and send a donation of pigs and chickens to Africa. Just to boost my pro human agenda.

Well, I can sure say this debate has fuelled my morale on doing more protests and such, so I guess the feelings are mutual.:smallbiggrin:

[Jack Squat]

I've eaten Bison and Buffalo. So tasty. I don't eat endangered stuff like Chilean Sea Bass. I don't want the sea bass to become extinct. It's too tasty. We need to let them regenerate for a while.

I've had Bison, it's much better than cow...it's also much more expensive.


Ah I see, I understand. Thank you. You do have a point in that within our society we demand from people that they do certain things that aren't directly in their interests, although earning money of course it. It would indeed be interesting to try to deduce how influences other ethical aspects of our lives.

No problem. If I ever get too vague, feel free to ask me to explain better. Sometimes I forget that not everyone I'm talking to knows the language well enough to deal with informal shortcuts. I guess that's what happens when you grow up using a language.

And yes, it would be a very interesting to try and figure that out...but that's for another topic.


I come from the Netherlands.

Cool...always wanted to travel there sometime.



I just want to say I appreciate many animals. Without them, my dinners would be far less enjoyable.

Preach on. I just got a new cookbook (3 more on the way), so I'm going to be trying a few things. First up, smoked shrimp...as soon as this cold front passes through that is.

[Canadian]

Here's the national dish.

Dutch national dishes tend to be of the ungarnished, hearty, wholesome variety -- solid, stick-to-your-ribs stuff. A perfect example is erwtensoep, a thick pea soup cooked with ham or sausage that provides inner warmth against cold Dutch winters and is filling enough to be a meal by itself. Similarly, hutspot, a potato-based "hotchpotch," or stew, is no-nonsense nourishment to which klapstuk (lean beef) is sometimes added. Hutspot has an interesting intangible ingredient.

Perhaps he was exiled for not eating enough ham and lean beef.

After learning their national dish I'm stopping the nuke strike against their capital city. I do like ham. I guess they can all be amoral psychos.

I find their words amusing. They're like a random handful of scrabble tiles.

[Nameless]

Is that supposed to be a joke?

No, if you can't even put your own kind before otheres, or eat a natural diet which is the last bit of humanity most people have, then you've pretty much lost it.


You can? Could you point that out? Because I'm quit sure I wasn't and if you had that impression it means I wasn't clear enough in my word use.

I said:

You're completely missing the point, it doesn't matter what comprehend.
Equality to humans means they go by the same rules as humans, end of story, no if's or but's.

You said:

I think you are wrong, partially. You are right there aren't any if's or but's with considering the lives of humans equally, just like there shouldn't be with considering the lives of all animals, but when dealing with certain individuals in our society, such as mentally handicaped some qualities do matter and they need special treatment.

Although you didn't actually say they should be equal, you were arguing against myy view of that they shouldn't, therefor saying that they should be treated equaly.


It proves that giving some equal rights to certain grups, or actually acknowledging they have certain natural rights, does not automatically equate to giving them the all same duties within society.

We're talking about healthy animals getting the same rights as healthy humans, not handicap people.


Appology accepted, you weren't in any way that harsh, I would only find it a pity of this thread was closed, because some people turned to emotional and started a flame war, which thankfully isn't happening.

I'm not actually trying to flame, I'm just trying to have constructive argument.


I would choose the two dogs. Choosing the human would be rather inconsistent of me.

This is exactly my point, I would actually be scared to be around you knowing you value my life under that of a couple of dogs.
Much like every single other animal, you should value human life abouve other types of animals.

[Checkmate]

Although you didn't actually say they should be equal, you were arguing against myy view of that they shouldn't, therefor saying that they should be treated equaly.


I don't think that deduction is valid. Anyway, I agree, I should have been more clear.


We're talking about healthy animals getting the same rights as healthy humans, not handicap people.

What has the fact whether certain individuals are healthy or not and whether it is the "normal" state for their species have to do with this argument? It seems we are discussing 2 things here. Whether they deserve equal consideration of their interests and whether they should be treated as healthy human beings are treated. My stance on the last is that they have more in common with those unhealthy human beings.


I'm not actually trying to flame, I'm just trying to have constructive argument.

Oh I know, neither am I, but I know these debates could get into a flame war and I was trying to prevent that, however, it seems all parties are civil and responsible people.



This is exactly my point, I would actually be scared to be around you knowing you value my life under that of a couple of dogs.
Much like every single other animal, you should value human life abouve other types of animals.

I'm sorry to hear I would scare you.
I am not so sure whether or not animals actually do care more about certain individuals because they are of their species.
It seems rather pointless to do so, to me.

[Canadian]

Nameless - Why are you even talking to him? He's an amoral psychopath. He's probably duct taping a hamster right now.

[Jack Squat]

I'm sorry to hear I would scare you.
Does that mean you value your own race above peole of other races too? I am not so sure whether or not animals actually do care more about certain individuals because they are of their species.
It seems rather pointless to do so, to me.

I take the same stance as him, so I'll try and explain this one. It has to do with commonality. You naturally try to protect what you perceive as you're friends; that's instinct. Cats will attack snakes, birds, dogs, etc. so that kittens they don't know can survive, and animals tend to stick together in packs of that species for a greater chance of survival, and will fend off something that tries to infiltrate it's pack. You may see a dog take care of a cat every once in awhile, but it'll probably choose another dog first; again, it's for a greater chance of their species surviving.

The situation could stretch into human races as well, especially if it's a "choose one" scenario and you know neither of the parties. I'm not racist, and wouldn't avoid saving someone of another race over one of my own; it depends on much more on what the person's like than race, such as attitude and age. I'm more willing to save a younger person than an older one, and more likely to save someone who's willing to follow me over the tough guy.

[Nameless]

I don't think that deduction is valid. Anyway, I agree, I should have been more clear.

Maybe I misunderstood you, but one of the original point I made was about PETA wanting the same rights for animals as humans, and you argued against me, so maybe I misunderstood.


What has the fact whether certain individuals are healthy or not and whether it is the "normal" state for their species have to do with this argument? It seems we are discussing 2 things here. Whether they deserve equal consideration of their interests and whether they should be treated as healthy human beings are treated. My stance on the last is that they have more in common with those unhealthy human beings.

You're the one who was bringing handicap people into this conversation.
What appears to me is that, you want animals to live the same lives as humans... but without actually contributing... in other words other animals should reap all the benefits, but we do all the work...


I'm sorry to hear I would scare you.
Does that mean you value your own race above people of other races too? I am not so sure whether or not animals actually do care more about certain individuals because they are of their species.
It seems rather pointless to do so, to me.

Yes, Black people, white people, Asians are all different species of homo-sapiens, much like there's many different species of Spitting cobra's. However, because they are human they should all be treated equally, unless they have a great difference in which case they should be treated differently, however not necessarily worse.
And actually, a herd of lions or a group of monkey’s will look after one another, and not care much for other animals.

Once humans are able to realise the differences between different types of humans, they'll also notice our similarities which should hopefully help end racism.
Same with Animals, once people realise they're differences, they'll realise that the cans still feel torment, and hopefull it will help end factory farming and increase free range and organic farming.


Nameless - Why are you even talking to him? He's an amoral psychopath. He's probably duct taping a hamster right now.

Because I don't think that she's a psychopath, I just think she's been extreamly misinformed and lacks some knowlege in basic humen nature.
which is a shame, sinse these things should be natural to human but more and more people are beggining to loose it.

[Jack Squat]

Same with Animals, once people realise they're differences, they'll realise that the cans still feel torment, and hopefull it will help end factory farming and increase free range and organic farming.

Just to toss this into the mix, right now, free range and organic farming is a joke. If you're not paying for local stuff, it's basically all the same.

As a little fun fact: Did you know that a pound of organically grown carrots has more nitrates in it than a pound of bologna?

[Checkmate]

Well, I don't want to have animal lives the same lives as humans, I don't even think we should want them be that big a part in our society. I do however think that they have an equally important right to be protected from harm, their interests are not as I see it less important than ours, and when they do come into contact would human society they should be treated as such, but because of their lack of intelligence or capability to work they should be treated somewhat similar to mentally handicaped.

[Nameless]

Just to toss this into the mix, right now, free range and organic farming is a joke. If you're not paying for local stuff, it's basically all the same.

But organic farming tecniques can be put into factory farming.
They don't need to torture the animals in order to produce more meat or kill them so inhumainly.


Well, I don't want to have animal lives the same lives as humans, I don't even think we should want them be that big a part in our society. I do however think that they have an equally important right to be protected from harm, their interests are not as I see it less important than ours, and when they do come into contact would human society they should be treated as such, but because of their lack of intelligence or capability to work they should be treated somewhat similar to mentally handicaped.

Think about it this way. A lion hunts and eats. Why can't we?

[Checkmate]

Think about it this way. A lion hunts and eats. Why can't we?

Well, for starters, we have a choice not to. We are able to decide that we do not want to do that. We can live vegan and although it might not be the most healthy diet (I'm saying might, I am absolutely sure it is at least just as healthy as a regular meat based diet, if not healthier).

Please continue, I'm truly interested in what you are telling me.

[Jack Squat]

But organic farming tecniques can be put into factory farming.
They don't need to torture the animals in order to produce more meat or kill them so inhumainly.

We torture and kill inhumanely? I know there's a lot of debate going on about how to raise cattle massively other than to keep them in massive pens, feed them a mixture of grains, and etc. Not sure about the torture parts.

Also, we tend to do kill animals as humanely as possible; a bolt instantly piercing the skull is supposed to be relatively painless. It's instant, so if it's not, they're not in pain for long. I have a problem with chickens, so I really don't care how they're killed...I'm a fan of the old way of wringing the neck, but I suppose an axe is more ethical.


Well, for starters, we have a choice not to. We are able to decide that we do not want to do that. We can live vegan and although it might not be the most healthy diet (I'm saying might, I am absolutely sure it is at least just as healthy as a regular meat based diet, if not healthier).

Please continue, I'm truly interested in what you are telling me.

Yes, we have a choice, but if everyone's supposed to follow it, it's not much of a choice, is it?

Veganism isn't as healthy as an omnivorous diet because you're restricting yourself to what you eat. For starters, you've got to look a lot harder to get proteins and fats, and when you do find them, it's not as much, so you have to eat more of a food to gain as much as eating a smaller portion of meat. You're also missing out on things like B12, Calcium, and Iron, but typically a multivitamin takes care of that. There's other things, but I won't compound on them...only end it with there's no such thing as an unhealthy food, only an unhealthy habit. i.e. even though you can't live off of Big Macs and milkshakes, having them once in a while isn't going to do any harm.

[Checkmate]

Yes, we have a choice, but if everyone's supposed to follow it, it's not much of a choice, is it?

I was talking about the capability to make a choice concerning a different diet. I wasn't talking about any kind of activism that might or might not "force" people into a certain type of diet.


Veganism isn't as healthy as an omnivorous diet because you're restricting yourself to what you eat. For starters, you've got to look a lot harder to get proteins and fats, and when you do find them, it's not as much, so you have to eat more of a food to gain as much as eating a smaller portion of meat. You're also missing out on things like B12, Calcium, and Iron, but typically a multivitamin takes care of that. There's other things, but I won't compound on them...only end it with there's no such thing as an unhealthy food, only an unhealthy habit. i.e. even though you can't live off of Big Macs and milkshakes, having them once in a while isn't going to do any harm.

Well, it is true that you need to look more careful at what you eat, but the only real thing you lack is B12. Calcium and Iron you can get from other stuff and I take multivitamins with amongst others B12 which is artificially made.

[Nameless]

Well, for starters, we have a choice not to. We are able to decide that we do not want to do that. We can live vegan and although it might not be the most healthy diet (I'm saying might, I am absolutely sure it is at least just as healthy as a regular meat based diet, if not healthier).

Please continue, I'm truly interested in what you are telling me.


Human’s have the amazing ability to eat both animal products and vegetation. Most animals can only eat one, and some such as panda’s can only eat one type of vegetation.
Humans are extremely lucky to be bale to have such a wide range of food options, which is partly the reason for us developing the way we did.
If animals understood what we could do, they would do anything to be able to do what we can. We can survive on almost anything that’s edible. For Humans, the most natural, healthiest and most satisfying diet would be an omnivores one.
There are a lot of rumours spreading about meat.

1- Humans are naturally herbivores and we cannot digest raw meat.

This is wrong, humans can actually digest raw meat, apart from SOME red meat. However, our immune system isn’t strong enough to attack the bacteria because over the years, we have cooked meat and out immune system has become weaker.
We are not herbivores, we can digest vegetation and meat, we have herbivores and carnivores features, we like the taste of both foods and we don’t get ill from any of them, therefore, we’re omnivores.

2- Meat is unhealthy for humans.

Again, this is wrong. The reason so many people are having meat related problems is because they’re eating too much of the wrong types of meat. A lot of meat now is protest and full of chemicals which can be bad for you.

3- Producing meat causes global warming.

Man-made Global warming is actually just a theory, and not fact. But due to the media, it has almost become fact.
There is a lot of evidence to suggest that CO2 has very little to do with climate change, this is the fundamental idea for man-made global warming.
Because of this, 30,000 scientists who were getting paid to work on global warming have left their jobs because they disagree with the theory.

4- If everyone was a vegetarian/vegan, we could feed the world.

Not necessarily true, it works theoretically, but practically it may not. And we can probably fee dthe world now too. We have A LOT more food then we need.

5- If everyone was a vegetarian, the world would be far better off.

Again, not necessarily true. A lot of problems would come out of this. What would we do with all the animals? We would also need A LOT of land to grow all the crops to feed the whole world.
Eating meat is also a good way to control animal growth.


We torture and kill inhumanely? I know there's a lot of debate going on about how to raise cattle massively other than to keep them in massive pens, feed them a mixture of grains, and etc. Not sure about the torture parts.

Actually, the people working in the factories literally beat the animals for no reason. The way they are killed is horrible. They are usually bled to death and skinned or boiled alive.

[Checkmate]

Alright, I need to go sleep soon, its very late here, so I will just respond to your post now briefly, but I hope this thread is still here when I return in a few hours.

I agree Global Warming isn't a fact. I do however am of the opinion that eating meat is a big cause of our CO2 emissions.

I stopped eating meat, mainly for ethical reasons, not because I thought it was unhealthy, so yeah. Many of those argument or fact don't mean much to me, bu thanks.

Well, I agree with you that the "we can feed the world"-argument is quite lame and not by itself very strong, however it does show the big gap between rich and poor in the world, somewhat. And by itself it is an interesting thing to know.

I don't think we should expect anything drastic to happen to the world if everybdy turned vegan/vegetarian. It depends on how it is implemented and how quickly it happens, mostly what will happen with the animals that are farmed/hunted right now, but when it is a slow process I don't think it will have any real effect other than that people will kill less animals. If it is a slow proces the ecosysem will slowly adjust if that would at all be a problem.

Anyway, thanks and good night.See you tomorrow.

[Jack Squat]

Actually, the people working in the factories literally beat the animals for no reason. The way they are killed is horrible. They are usually bled to death and skinned or boiled alive.

On the beatings, that's an employee problem and not native to factory farming. It'd probably happen no matter what type of raising is involved.

I'm not finding any non-bias sources for how their killed, links?

EDIT: I know you won't be able to answer until tomorrow...when I can't, but still.


I don't think we should expect anything drastic to happen to the world if everybdy turned vegan/vegetarian. It depends on how it is implemented and how quickly it happens, mostly what will happen with the animals that are farmed/hunted right now, but when it is a slow process I don't think it will have any real effect other than that people will kill less animals. If it is a slow proces the ecosysem will slowly adjust if that would at all be a problem.

Actually, we're part of that balance. If we don't kill animals, the balance changes, their population booms, natural resources are used until they can no longer support the current population, and animals starve to death. Not just the animals we don't kill, but all the ones that rely on the plants being eaten, either directly (they also eat/use the plants) or indirectly (increased erosion). It doesn't matter when we do it, as Humans have considerably lessened the amount of predators most animals have (a coincidence from defending ourselves from the same predators). So, we need to take their place to help maintain the balance in nature.

Even if we slowly let off of it, the same thing happens.

So, is it ethical to stop killing animals? I don't think so, but as I said before, we can't overdo it either.

[Nameless]

I agree Global Warming isn't a fact. I do however am of the opinion that eating meat is a big cause of our CO2 emissions.

That's true, however like I said, CO2 hasn't been proved to effect the climate.


I stopped eating meat, mainly for ethical reasons, not because I thought it was unhealthy, so yeah. Many of those argument or fact don't mean much to me, bu thanks.

If you want to follow true natural ethics, the not eating meat isn't one of them. But I respect your opinion, I just don't agree with it.


Well, I agree with you that the "we can feed the world"-argument is quite lame and not by itself very strong, however it does show the big gap between rich and poor in the world, somewhat. And by itself it is an interesting thing to know.

There is a gap, but it doesn't have anything to do with meat. :P

[QUOTE]On the beatings, that's an employee problem and not native to factory farming. It'd probably happen no matter what type of raising is involved.[QUOTE]

Factory farming has A LOT of benifits, I completely agree. I just think it can be done in a better way.
And unfortunatly, no, most information is given out by crazy anti-meat groups. :smalltongue:
However, I have seen interesting video's of people goin undercover and filming what's happening.
And either way, there's no excuse for some of them.
Is boiling, skinning and bleeding the animal alive REALLY nessecerey?

[Jack Squat]

Factory farming has A LOT of benifits, I completely agree. I just think it can be done in a better way.
And unfortunatly, no, most information is given out by crazy anti-meat groups. :smalltongue:

Yeah, it can be done better, but that is being worked on...especially with increased pressure from the public. It's a shame that the only info that's found is from anti-meat groups. Often their info's outdated and very selective, because their only goal is to convert people.

I did see mention on how chickens are killed, which seems to be mostly what you're talking about. (hung upside-down, electric current passed through to stun them, necks slit - which doesn't always work - and then they're plunged into a quick bath of boiling water to loosen the feathers). I already mentioned that I really don't care how chickens are killed because of a vendetta, which is why I was asking for more info.

[Nameless]

Yeah, it can be done better, but that is being worked on...especially with increased pressure from the public. It's a shame that the only info that's found is from anti-meat groups. Often their info's outdated and very selective, because their only goal is to convert people.

I did see mention on how chickens are killed, which seems to be mostly what you're talking about. (hung upside-down, electric current passed through to stun them, necks slit - which doesn't always work - and then they're plunged into a quick bath of boiling water to loosen the feathers). I already mentioned that I really don't care how chickens are killed because of a vendetta, which is why I was asking for more info.

I agree, correct information from these people is hard to get, but I have seen information from other sources, mainly TV, which is still bias, everyhting is, but it's still modern recorded information.
And actually, the bleeding and hung upsidedown thing is also being done to cows and pigs.
Some of it is pretty horrific.

[Canadian]

I love fois gras. It's like the veal of birds.

[Jack Squat]

I agree, correct information from these people is hard to get, but I have seen information from other sources, mainly TV, which is still bias, everyhting is, but it's still modern recorded information.
And actually, the bleeding and hung upsidedown thing is also being done to cows and pigs.
Some of it is pretty horrific.

Well, all larger animals are hung upside-down and their necks slit to let the blood drain out, but generally, they're dead when that happens. I know cows are killed via bolt method, and I'm pretty sure pigs are the same.

[Canadian]

I just had chicken and ribs for dinner. With gravy.

[Serpentine]

No offence Serpentine, but that comment was irrelevant and kinda silly.Saying that other animals are dumb because they don't think exactly the same as humans is like saying snakes can't move because they don't have legs. Of course they're different, they've taken a different evolutionary path. Intelligence is just one path, no superior to any other.
Why would you treat an animal such as a dog the same as a human? If you did then you would have dogs in our school and in our work which wouldn't make sense.It's about equality, and acknowledging that they are just as capable of suffering and pleasure as humans, not about them being "the same" - noone's claiming that, just you.

It's completely irrational and hypacritical.
They give fauls information, they lie, they brainwash children as well as adults, and even though the say you should never put an animal down, ever, they killed about 75% of the animals they took in for no apparent reason.That's what they do, not what they believe. Checkmate was talking about the latter, which doesn't necessarily have much to do with the former (just look at various spiritual organisations).

Animals should be criminally charged for assault, trespassing, public nudity, tax evasion, pooping in public areas, destruction of property, jaywalking, etc. Any animals that breaks the law will be jailed or fined just like a human.

If the animals break the law too often they should be confined and eventually executed just like bad humans. Then we eat the meat. It would be a shame to let it go to waste.Human law dictates what humans can and cannot do. No other species are involved. We cannot control what other species do, only what we do. Also, I'd hate to live where you live, if execution is the automatic sentence for repeat offenders...
And actually, the are scientifically inferior to Humans, that's why Humans are at the top of the food chain.Absolutely, completely, utterly and categorically incorrect. Scientifically, humans are nothing but an interesting branch of an extremely complex evolutionary tree - which is really more of a bush or bramble. We. Are. Not. Superior*. Our evolutionary path has focused on the development of our brains. That is all.

I think you're missing the point.
lets take a healthy human and a healthy dog. That human will have to lead a life with a job, paying taxes and following the laws.
Now, if that dog has equality, then that dog should also have a job, pay taxes and follow the same laws.
Equality means equal, the clue is in the word.Again, no. Equality means that two organisms are (personal considerations aside) of the same importance and value, not ability or skill. Equality means that other animals have an equal claim to basic rights. Absolutely noone is saying that animals are the same as humans. I find it ludicrous that you KEEP ON pushing this point. Of course specism is perfectly natural; it's hardwired into our genetic code. Objectively, however, one animal's potential to feel pain is no different, no less important, than another animal's potential to feel pain. Humans, so far as we know, are the only species that can look at the world objectively, are the only animals that are capable of conciously avoiding causing unnecessary suffering in other animals, and are the only animals that ignore this and continue to cause suffering regardless.

I appreciate animals. That being said, I don't have a problem eating them. I also put them on a lower peg of importance than humans (save the family pet, who gets the same importance as any family member). If someone forced me between killing a human I didn't know, and a dog I didn't know, I'd choose the dog every time. I also would try to do it as humanely as possible. Although preferably, I'd go after the guy who's trying to force me.
On PETA. They're completely nuts.
I also don't like people who try and push their beliefs onto me. Whether or not I agree with someone, I don't want to be constantly told it's the "right" way, I'll decide that for myself.I'm basically with you on all this.
Honestly, I hope nobody has ever asked you to babysit their children. After all you don't seem to care if they live or die.

I hope it anyone ever asks you to watch their kids that in inform them that you'll treat the lives of their children with complete indifference when compared to any animal that happens to walk by.

I also personally hope you never have children. If you're that indifferent to the value of human life I can only wonder what kind of cruel and harsh life your children would have to endure.

It's psychotic people like you with no sense of morals that abuse and mentally and physically scar children for life.

You should talk to a professional about your mind set. It's not healthy.He cares about animals the same amount as humans. That means that if, as it sounds like, he cares about animals a lot, then he cares about humans a lot. There is no need for groundless personal attacks.

I was saying that just because something is best for me, that doesn't mean that it suits my interests; the two categories are mutually exclusive. I'm not interested in working whatsoever, but I do because I have to.What we have here is confusion of terms. You mean interest as in "something you are interested in". He means interest as in "I am doing this in his intrest". Interest looks really weird when you write it a bunch.

That's because you have obviously lost your last bit of humanity...
I appologise if I said anything harsh.Irony much?


Yes, Black people, white people, Asians are all different species of homo-sapiens, much like there's many different species of Spitting cobra's.There may be different species of spitting cobras, but there are no other species of Homo sapiens. Hell, there isn't even another member of this genus. What you're looking for there may be sub-species.

Neither vegetarianism nor global warming has any place in this discussion. I will just say that saying that "CO2 hasn't been proved to effect the climate" is not only a bold statement, but a pretty unsupported one. Anyway, I'm more worried about CO2's more direct effect on the chemistry of the oceans. From my lecturer, a world-reknowned expert on reef ecosystems and biology in response to my question, "is there any hope for coral reefs?": "Well... Put it this way: Get out there and enjoy it now, because your kids may not be able to."


Wooo, wall o' text! :smallbiggrin:

Canadian: I suggest you review the forum rules, particularly the ones on trolling, flaming and personal attacks.

[Raiser Blade]

Of course they're different, they've taken a different evolutionary path. Intelligence is just one path, no superior to any other.

I would say common sense points to intelligence being a superior path for the most part. I mean sure humans are outclassed in a variety of physical aspects by numerous animals but our intelligence allows us to more then compensate for it.

As for whether or not we are superior to animals really depends on your perspective and definition of "superior". Going by the dictionary's first couple definitions

1. higher in station, rank, degree, importance, etc.: a superior officer.

and

2. above the average in excellence, merit, intelligence, etc.: superior math students.

I personally would say that humans are superior.

[Serpentine]

1. is entirely subjective. What, you think dolphins don't think they're the best thing ever? :smalltongue:

2. I admit that, to the extent that we have and can test it, humans are overall superior to other animals in intelligence. That doesn't make us "better" than they are, or more worthy, or more wonderful, or less accountable for our actions and impact on the world around us (in fact, it does the opposite for the latter).

Animals are capable of truly amazing things. Banging on about how wonderfully "superior" humans are eclipses this and blinds humanity to our relative insignificance and the marvels of the world. The unremiting insistence of our innate, utter and irrefutable "difference" from other animals, moreover, is, and has been for a long time, crippling our research into just what other animals can think and do, and potentially hobbling our own understanding of our own evolutionary history and psychology. To quote an article from the March 2008 National Geographic

Whenever (animal cognition researchers) find a mental skill in a species that is reminiscent of a special human ability, the human cognition scientists change the definition... "Sometimes the human cognitive psychologists can be so fixed on their definitions that they forget how fabulous these animal discoveries are", said Clive Wynne of the University of Florida, who has studied cognition in pigeons and marsupials. "We're glimpsing intelligence throughout the animal kingdom, which is what we should expect. It's a bush, not a single-trunk tree with a line leading only to us."
In any case, when it comes to animal rights relative intelligence is almost irrelevant. The only important questions to ask when considering the ethical treatment of animals is not "Can it think? How clever is it?" but "Does it feel? Can it suffer?"

[Checkmate]

Saying that other animals are dumb because they don't think exactly the same as humans is like saying snakes can't move because they don't have legs. Of course they're different, they've taken a different evolutionary path. Intelligence is just one path, no superior to any other.It's about equality, and acknowledging that they are just as capable of suffering and pleasure as humans, not about them being "the same" - noone's claiming that, just you.

Human law dictates what humans can and cannot do. No other species are involved. We cannot control what other species do, only what we do. Also, I'd hate to live where you live, if execution is the automatic sentence for repeat offenders...Absolutely, completely, utterly and categorically incorrect. Scientifically, humans are nothing but an interesting branch of an extremely complex evolutionary tree - which is really more of a bush or bramble. We. Are. Not. Superior*. Our evolutionary path has focused on the development of our brains. That is all.

Again, no. Equality means that two organisms are (personal considerations aside) of the same importance and value, not ability or skill. Equality means that other animals have an equal claim to basic rights. Absolutely noone is saying that animals are the same as humans. I find it ludicrous that you KEEP ON pushing this point. Of course specism is perfectly natural; it's hardwired into our genetic code. Objectively, however, one animal's potential to feel pain is no different, no less important, than another animal's potential to feel pain. Humans, so far as we know, are the only species that can look at the world objectively, are the only animals that are capable of conciously avoiding causing unnecessary suffering in other animals, and are the only animals that ignore this and continue to cause suffering regardless.


Well said. You've said it better than I coud've done.


He cares about animals the same amount as humans. That means that if, as it sounds like, he cares about animals a lot, then he cares about humans a lot.

True,:smallsmile:



What we have here is confusion of terms. You mean interest as in "something you are interested in". He means interest as in "I am doing this in his intrest". Interest looks really weird when you write it a bunch.

That is a good explanation of why we seemed to have a weird disagreement.



The only important questions to ask when considering the ethical treatment of animals is not "Can it think? How clever is it?" but "Does it feel? Can it suffer?"

I completely agree with you!:smallbiggrin:

[Thanatos 51-50]

MY 2 small units of currency (Lets go with Yen, because Yen is fun) which will likely be joined by many others down the line:

Humans are the only species smart enough to be stupid.
While we're not the only "tribe" of animal to kill members of our own "tribe", we are the only ones who expand to the point where our natural instinct is to overhunt and overharvest. Then relise we're overhunting and over-harvesting, and proceed to do it, anyway.

A fundamental "error" going on about here that I see, is, instead of "Raising" other animals to Human-like expectations, we should be "lowering" humans to animal-like expectations.
I expect humans to express a desire to mate, eat, and ensure their own saftey and comfort. To do this, we flirt, work, build houses and buy locks for our doors and clothes for our bodies, acting within a set of laws we have created so that the species as a whole my benefit. Of course there are animals within the species who act outside the norm, fulfilling those desires through various other tactics, such as theft and rape. Filled with our own self-importance and with the "social" aspect of humans, some of us also deisre power (Which, I personally see as a twisted form of saftey, because the leader gets protected).

Likewise, I expect (say, for example), a dog to desire to mate, eat, and be comfortable and safe. To mate... well, they mate? I'm not a real expert on canine reproduction. To eat, they hunt. For saftey and comfort, they travel in packs and huddle together in the cold.

As this is the animal appreciation thread, I must say that I appreciate the "base intelligence" of animals that have mamanged to survive on Terra thus far.

[Nameless]

Saying that other animals are dumb because they don't think exactly the same as humans is like saying snakes can't move because they don't have legs. Of course they're different, they've taken a different evolutionary path. Intelligence is just one path, no superior to any other.

I never said they were "dumb", I said compared to humans they're mentally inferior.


Saying that other animals are dumb because they don't think exactly the same as humans is like saying snakes can't move because they don't have legs. Of course they're different, they've taken a different evolutionary path. Intelligence is just one path, no superior to any other.

We've already been through this. Animal Equally to humans would mean them having the same equal rights as us, which means that they would have to pay taxes, that they could work, go to schools etc. Equality.


That's what they do, not what they believe. Checkmate was talking about the latter, which doesn't necessarily have much to do with the former (just look at various spiritual organisations).

Again, we've discussed this already and I think I've already been through the kind of things they believe in and why they're wrong.


Absolutely, completely, utterly and categorically incorrect. Scientifically, humans are nothing but an interesting branch of an extremely complex evolutionary tree - which is really more of a bush or bramble. We. Are. Not. Superior*. Our evolutionary path has focused on the development of our brains. That is all.

How can you even say that Humans is not more superior then let's say a cat, or a snake or a fish?
Look at EVERYTHING humans as a whole have accomplished, look at our entire history, for good and bad, and tell me that that's not thicker and more superior to that of any other animal.
The brain is the most powerful tool, and humans are the only animals that have such a powerful one.
That is why humans have made it so far, why we don't get hunted and why a lot of us have such completely different lives to other animals.


Again, no. Equality means that two organisms are (personal considerations aside) of the same importance and value, not ability or skill. Equality means that other animals have an equal claim to basic rights. Absolutely noone is saying that animals are the same as humans. I find it ludicrous that you KEEP ON pushing this point. Of course specism is perfectly natural; it's hardwired into our genetic code. Objectively, however, one animal's potential to feel pain is no different, no less important, than another animal's potential to feel pain. Humans, so far as we know, are the only species that can look at the world objectively, are the only animals that are capable of conciously avoiding causing unnecessary suffering in other animals, and are the only animals that ignore this and continue to cause suffering regardless.

Equality means equal, agreed? Okay, now, equality to HUMANS means that animals will get the same RIGHTS as humans, because that's what equality means.
Take a look at woman’s EQUALITY to men, Blacks EQUALITY to white people.
That's what it would mean.
And it's also hardwired into our genetic code to hunt/kill/eat other animals.
Humans need to do what's best for them, not what's best for other animals.
And eating meat, as I've already discussed, IS what's best for a human being.


There may be different species of spitting cobras, but there are no other species of Homo sapiens. Hell, there isn't even another member of this genus. What you're looking for there may be sub-species.

People like to call it "different races", but in fact, it's different "species".
Before I continue, I would like to point out that I am in no way a racist.

Lets look at an average white person and an average black person.
Let's focus on the looks first. Skin colour is different, body shape is also different, the head is shaped differently, black people can usualy grow taller then white people.
Now, it' not just physical looks, black people can usualy run much faster then white people, this is why we have so many black winners in racing. Black people have much harder and thicker bones then a white person would.
A black persons skin is also thicker then a white persons skin I believe.

It is widely believed that the human race started in Africa and as Black.
Some humans travailed to Europe and EVOLVED into what we now call White people.
Some, travailed into Asia and again EVOLVED differently.
One animal evolving differently to the rest of it's kind on a large scale creates a different SPECIES.
The same way as a King Cobra evolved differently to a Manacle Cobra.


Irony much?

No, not really.


MY 2 small units of currency (Lets go with Yen, because Yen is fun) which will likely be joined by many others down the line:

Humans are the only species smart enough to be stupid.
While we're not the only "tribe" of animal to kill members of our own "tribe", we are the only ones who expand to the point where our natural instinct is to overhunt and overharvest. Then relise we're overhunting and over-harvesting, and proceed to do it, anyway.

A fundamental "error" going on about here that I see, is, instead of "Raising" other animals to Human-like expectations, we should be "lowering" humans to animal-like expectations.
I expect humans to express a desire to mate, eat, and ensure their own saftey and comfort. To do this, we flirt, work, build houses and buy locks for our doors and clothes for our bodies, acting within a set of laws we have created so that the species as a whole my benefit. Of course there are animals within the species who act outside the norm, fulfilling those desires through various other tactics, such as theft and rape. Filled with our own self-importance and with the "social" aspect of humans, some of us also deisre power (Which, I personally see as a twisted form of saftey, because the leader gets protected).

Likewise, I expect (say, for example), a dog to desire to mate, eat, and be comfortable and safe. To mate... well, they mate? I'm not a real expert on canine reproduction. To eat, they hunt. For saftey and comfort, they travel in packs and huddle together in the cold.

As this is the animal appreciation thread, I must say that I appreciate the "base intelligence" of animals that have mamanged to survive on Terra thus far.

Humans live in there own bubble that is completely separate from the rest of the world.
A bubble filled with made up laws, morals and ethics.
This bubble has it’s advantages for many humans including myself, but also has many faults.

[Checkmate]

Equality means equal, agreed? Okay, now, equality to HUMANS means that animals will get the same RIGHTS as humans, because that's what equality means.
Take a look at woman’s EQUALITY to men, Blacks EQUALITY to white people.
That's what it would mean.
And it's also hardwired into our genetic code to hunt/kill/eat other animals.
Humans need to do what's best for them, not what's best for other animals.
And eating meat, as I've already discussed, IS what's best for a human being.


When using that definition, women are not equal to men. Women have generally underdeveloped muscles, exceptions exist, when compared to men. Women can give birth, men can not. Female black singers have a typically different voice than female white singers. They are different, and no one means to deny their differences when they say they are "equal". With equality we mean that we do not consider their differences relevant enough to consider their interests less or more important than those of others. If however their differences mean they have different interests, such as with the whole birth thing with women, it is understandable that they are treated differently, but we do not value the interest of a man more important than the like interest of a woman.

[Nameless]

When using that definition, women are not equal to men. Women have generally underdeveloped muscles, exceptions exist, when compared to men. Women can give birth, men can not. Female black singers have a typically different voice than female white singers. They are different, and no one means to deny their differences when they say they are "equal". With equality we mean that we do not consider their differences relevant enough to consider their interests less or more important than those of others. If however their differences mean they have different interests, such as with the whole birth thing with women, it is understandable that they are treated differently, but we do not value the interest of a man more important than the like interest of a woman.

You just helped to prove my point. Yes, woman are different to men, I completely agree, but generally speaking mean and woman have the same equal rights. The can both have the same jobs (usually), they both pay taxes, they both go to school, the both follow the laws.
Now, this would work with woman because they're still human. It wouldn't work with a dog because it's a completely different animal.
Serp was saying that she wants equality for animals to humans, and this is what equality means.
It just wouldn't work.
Giving the animals "What’s best for the interest" is NOT equality in any way or form, it's just giving them what you think they want.

[Checkmate]

You just helped to prove my point. Yes, woman are different to men, I completely agree, but generally speaking mean and woman have the same equal rights. The can both have the same jobs (usually), they both pay taxes, they both go to school, the both follow the laws.
Now, this would work with woman because they're still human. It wouldn't work with a dog because it's a completely different animal.
Serp was saying that she wants equality for animals to humans, and this is what equality means.
It just wouldn't work.
Giving the animals "What’s best for the interest" is NOT equality in any way or form, it's just giving them what you think they want.

I feel we are stuck here because we have both of different opinion on wht "equality" means, and not per se about what we think should happen with animals. Therefore I will try to explain my view without using the word "equality". The only thing I've said is that we should consider their interests equally, meaning that we should not value the same interest of a dog lower than that of a human. Just like we do not value the interests of a women lower than that of a man. You are completely right in that making them go to school and letting them pay taxes would not work for animals, just like it doesn't work with certain other individuals in our society, like mentally handicaped or very young children, like we already discussed. Some have different needs and some are not capable of functioning in society as others do, that is why groups need special treatment, women for example have special needs concerning their menstruation cycle, this is however not a reason to disregard their equal interests in not suffering or equal interests in having food or not dying.

[Nameless]

I feel we are stuck here because we have both of different opinion on wht "equality" means, and not per se about what we think should happen with animals. Therefore I will try to explain my view without using the word "equality". The only thing I've said is that we should consider their interests equally, meaning that we should not value the same interest of a dog lower than that of a human. Just like we do not value the interests of a women lower than that of a man. You are completely right in that making them go to school and letting them pay taxes would not work for animals, just like it doesn't work with certain other individuals in our society, like mentally handicaped or very young children, like we already discussed. Some have different needs and some are not capable of functioning in society as others do, that is why groups need special treatment, women for example have special needs concerning their menstruation cycle, this is however not a reason to disregard their equal interests in not suffering or equal interests in having food or not dying.

The reason we are stuck is because you don't know what the word "equality" means. I've tryed to explain this.
Giving the animal what 's in there interest is not equality in any way.
Even humans don't have what's in there interest. It's not in my interest to have to work for money, but If I want money I'll have to work for it.
What you're saying, is that humans should go out of there way, make there own lives more difficult and give up their natural diet in order to give other animals what they want.
This is completely ridicules, and isn't "equality" in any way or form.
I worry about my own kind before others.
And to be quite frank, if you would save two dogs over a human child, I do not only find that extremely un natural, but also worrying and frightening.
And please, stop comparing human children to other animals.
If the human race wants to excel, we need to think about humans first and put ignorance behind us, which may never happen.

[Checkmate]

We are stuck because you still think we believe that animals and humans are the same. While all I am saying is that we shouldn't consider the interests of one superior over the other, but should consider them equally, not valueing one over the other.

Severely mentally handicaped don't need to work either and still they are cared for by working members of society who gain nothing from that. You might view this as unjust, but many view this as solidarity and socially acceptable that we care for others even though they can not return the favor.

Anyway this discussion is indeed stuck so I see no reason to continue. Also I would like to apologise if my opinions make you feel uncomfortable, but I don't see how you can not comare humans to animals when you are talking about whether or not animals should be given human-like rights

More on the original topic: I appreciate pidgeons.

[Fredthefighter]

Pidgeons aren't too bad but I prefer the eagle, the hawk and the falcon. The three birds of prey who are kickass. (The Owl doesn't count because they only comes out at night, even if everyone is fond of owls)

[Nameless]

.
We are stuck because you still think we believe that animals and humans are the same.

No I don't. I'm just explaining to you what equality actually means.


While all I am saying is that we shouldn't consider the interests of one superior over the other, but should consider them equally, not valueing one over the other.

I completely agree. however we should consider the interests of our own kind over others, all animals are like that, even the cute fluffy ones.
And when exactly does life stop? technically bacteria is life too, the insects yours step on is also life. Plants are also life. Everything that is a source of natural food is living in one way or another.


Severely mentally handicaped don't need to work either and still they are cared for by working members of society who gain nothing from that. You might view this as unjust, but many view this as solidarity and socially acceptable that we care for others even though they can not return the favor.

I've already asked you to stop comparing children and handicap people to animals. Handicap people are still human, a dog isn't. Big difference.
And you want to end the discussion because you are unable to justify your reason without going back on yourself and you are afraid of being wrong.

Like I said, I’m not trying to flame you, I’m just trying to prove my point.

[Fredthefighter]

I think you have proved your point.
But I believe it is the time to move this thread back on topic, which is appreciating animals, not comparing them to this that and the other.

[Nameless]

I like reptiles, mainly snakes and cats. :D

[Checkmate]

Well, I'm not afraid of continueing the discussion, I just don't see this discussion going anywhere because we both just disagree on what we mean.

I'm very much aware of what equality means, I just used the word differently than you do. I did not say that animals are equal to humans, just like men are not equal to women. I said their interests should be considered to have the same value.

Being alive does not equate to having interests. Peter Singer said the following about having interests "the only legitimate boundary to our concern for the interests of other beings is the point at which it is no longer accurate to say that the other being has interests. To have interests, in a strict, nonmetaphorical sense, a being must be capable of suffering or experiencing pleasure."

I don't see how we can have a serious conversation about this when you do not allow me to compare different groups within human society that have certain animal like qualities. My stance is exactly that the quality "being human" doesn't in fact mean much by itself.

I'm very much capable of justifying myself, but I have the idea that we are starting to repeat each other because we either feel the other side isn't understanding us or just not agreeing with us.

I am not flaming either, I just disagree with you.

[Spiryt]

I think I'll go with salmons, trouts and good old pigs.


:smalltongue:

Speaking less gastronomically, cats have something awesome in them. Too bad I'm allergic. :smallyuk:

[Almighty Salmon]

Yeeeeah. You could just take this discussion to PM's, I think that'd be best.

Also, I like frogs. They're awesome.

[Nameless]

Well, I'm not afraid of continueing the discussion, I just don't see this discussion going anywhere because we both just disagree on what we mean.

It's not going anywhere because even though you're wrong, you keep going back on yourself to try and prove your point.


I'm very much aware of what equality means, I just used the word differently than you do.

Then don't use the word differently. You cannot make up a different meaning for a word because no one would understand you properly.


I did not say that animals are equal to humans, just like men are not equal to women. I said their interests should be considered to have the same value.

And I'm saying that they shouldn't because it wouldn't work.


I don't see how we can have a serious conversation about this when you do not allow me to compare different groups within human society that have certain animal like qualities. My stance is exactly that the quality "being human" doesn't in fact mean much by itself.

Because comparing a healthy human to a handicap person is COMPLETELY different to comparing a healthy human with a healthy animal.


I'm very much capable of justifying myself, but I have the idea that we are starting to repeat each other because we either feel the other side isn't understanding us or just not agreeing with us.

Yes, but these justifications don't make a lot of sense.
If we're all animals, and humans are meant to eat meat, then it's perfectly moral. Just as a chimpanzee who is also an omnivore with hunt and eat other animals.


I am not flaming either, I just disagree with you.

I know, I never said you were. :smalltongue:

[Checkmate]

It's not going anywhere because even though you're wrong, you keep going back on yourself to try and prove your point.


What do you mean with "keep going back on yourself"? Do you mean to say I keep taking back what I said? Because I am not aware of that, I haven't taken back anything I've said before and all of my responses are in my view just to clarify my opinion, because you misinterpretate it or say something that doesn't make sense. I'm just not sure what you mean with "keep going back on yourself".


I know, I never said you were. :smalltongue:

I never thought you were. We are just 2 people having a philosophical ethical discussion and we both seem to think the ideology of the other person is logically flawed and try to convince him of that.:smalltongue:


Then don't use the word differently. You cannot make up a different meaning for a word because no one would understand you properly.

Well, my use of the word was valid. I didn't say animals were equal to humans, I always said that their interests should be valued equally. There is a huge difference between the 2 uses of the word, but both are valid with the meaning of the word "equality" you gave us.


Because comparing a healthy human to a handicap person is COMPLETELY different to comparing a healthy human with a healthy animal.

I don't see how this is "completely" different.


Yes, but these justifications don't make a lot of sense.
If we're all animals, and humans are meant to eat meat, then it's perfectly moral. Just as a chimpanzee who is also an omnivore with hunt and eat other animals.

Like I said before, I don't see nature as a moral compass. If nature "meant" something that doesn't automatically mean it is ethical or moral. At least that is my view.

[Serpentine]

We've already been through this. Animal Equally to humans would mean them having the same equal rights as us, which means that they would have to pay taxes, that they could work, go to schools etc. Equality.Yes, we have been through this. And, again, you are mistaken. You are, in fact, completely distorting our argument. It means absolutely nothing of the sort, but it seems we are never going to come to an understanding on this matter. I get what Checkmate means by equality, and I agree with him. If he does not understand yours, then neither do I, but I believe you are in the minority of understanding.

How can you even say that Humans is not more superior then let's say a cat, or a snake or a fish?
Look at EVERYTHING humans as a whole have accomplished, look at our entire history, for good and bad, and tell me that that's not thicker and more superior to that of any other animal.
The brain is the most powerful tool, and humans are the only animals that have such a powerful one.
That is why humans have made it so far, why we don't get hunted and why a lot of us have such completely different lives to other animals.We are different. We are remarkably successful, and intelligence is, at this particular point in time, an ecological advantage. Actually, yes, intelligence is a very successful strategy, as it allows for a great deal of flexibility, and we have developed it to the extreme. However, we do not have a monopoly on this particular faculty, and it does not somehow make us "better" than everything else. It's like saying a university-educated lawyer is "better" than a high school drop-out plumber. Why don't you tell him that, when he comes to fix your loo?

Equality means equal, agreed? Okay, now, equality to HUMANS means that animals will get the same RIGHTS as humans, because that's what equality means.No, it doesn't. You're the only one saying this. The ONLY one. Go, look through this discussion. Tell me exactly where anyone has said anything remotely resembling this!

And it's also hardwired into our genetic code to hunt/kill/eat other animals.
Humans need to do what's best for them, not what's best for other animals.
And eating meat, as I've already discussed, IS what's best for a human being.Again, you're the only one talking about eating meat. Even the bleeding vegan has only mentioned it in passing.

People like to call it "different races", but in fact, it's different "species".
Before I continue, I would like to point out that I am in no way a racist.

Lets look at an average white person and an average black person.
Let's focus on the looks first. Skin colour is different, body shape is also different, the head is shaped differently, black people can usualy grow taller then white people.
Now, it' not just physical looks, black people can usualy run much faster then white people, this is why we have so many black winners in racing. Black people have much harder and thicker bones then a white person would.
A black persons skin is also thicker then a white persons skin I believe.

It is widely believed that the human race started in Africa and as Black.
Some humans travailed to Europe and EVOLVED into what we now call White people.
Some, travailed into Asia and again EVOLVED differently.
One animal evolving differently to the rest of it's kind on a large scale creates a different SPECIES.
The same way as a King Cobra evolved differently to a Manacle Cobra.This is so wrong, it's almost funny. What year are you in? I don't mean that derogotarily (sp?), I just want to know what level of biology you've reached.
The ideal definition of species, the biological species, is a group of animals that can breed with each other but not other groups of animals. Here, from a reliable source:

species (sing. and pl.) Literally, ab group of organisms that resemble one another closely. The Latin word species means 'appearance' or 'semblance'. In taxonomy, it is applied to one or more groups (populations) of individuals that can interbreed within the group but that do not, under natural conditions, exchange genes with other groups (populations); it is an interbreeding group of biological organisms that is isolated reproductively from all other organisms.Unless you're going to tell me that black people can't interbreed with white people, or Asians, or Native Americans, I suggest you reevaluate your definition. An extra note on this topic: There is more genetic variation within a race (e.g. Africans, Polynesians, etc.) than there is between them. That means that there may be a far greater difference between Kylie Minogue and George Bush, and Tupac and Nelson Mandela than between Kylie Minogue and George Bush and Tupac and Nelson Mandela. Your definition of species is incorrect.
I should qualify something: You are, in a broad sense, correct, at least in the differentiation on human "types". However, we are nowhere near the point of becoming distinct species. Maybe if the different groups had been separated for another few dozen or hundred thousand years...

We are saying that animals deserve basic rights as living, feeling, thinking beings. Nothing more, nothing less. Lets look at the basic human rights (which are artificial, but so is any human ethical or philosophical thought).First, the ones I, and I suspect Checkmate, believe should apply to at least neurologically advanced animals:
Article 3
Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person.
Article 5
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 13
Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
Article 14
Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

The ones that are a bit more thorny and more likely subject to debate:
Article 1
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 4
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms (is pet ownership slavery? Keeping sheep? I don't know, that's a topic that should probably be discussed by someone. Not us, not now)
Article 6
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
Article 7
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Article 11
Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed. (I think I'd like to see, say, animals involved in maulings or whatever given a fair trial...)
Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. (If we can ever figure out whether they have opinions, why not?)

The ones I believe are irrelevant in that they are too specific to humans, or too technical for use here:
Article 2
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 8
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
Article 9
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 10
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Article 12
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 15
Everyone has the right to a nationality.
No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
Article 16
Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
Article 17
Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
Article 18
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 21
Everyone has the right to take part in the government of their country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in their country.
The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
Article 22
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
Article 23
Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
Article 24
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.
Article 25
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection
Article 26
Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
Article 28
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.
Article 29
Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 30
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.Okay, they're a lot more specific than I thought. Still, I hope it give you an idea of what we want, not what you think we want based on a single misinterpreted word. This is about basic rights - the right to food, comfort, shelter, freedom from (human-induced, as we have no control over what other animals do) suffering, joy or pleasure, companionship, adequate space, and so on. It's a bit Communist, really: To each according to his needs.
I just looked up "animal welfare" and "animal rights" on Wikipedia, and I think really I'm somewhere in-between: More or less animal welfare, but with emphasis on animals as feeling, thinking, autonomous beings in their own right.


It's not going anywhere because even though you're wrong, you keep going back on yourself to try and prove your point.
Then don't use the word differently. You cannot make up a different meaning for a word because no one would understand you properly.I suggest that the same could apply to you.

Because comparing a healthy human to a handicap person is COMPLETELY different to comparing a healthy human with a healthy animal.Scientists who have studied them intensly have determined that an adult chimpanzee is approximately equivalent, intellectually, to a healthy 2-4 year old human child. How's that?


I like pigeons more now. They can beat university students on the spatial part of the same IQ test. Also they're really tasty.

[Nameless]

What do you mean with "keep going back on yourself"? Do you mean to say I keep taking back what I said? Because I am not aware of that, I haven't taken back anything I've said before and all of my responses are in my view just to clarify my opinion, because you misinterpretate it or say something that doesn't make sense. I'm just not sure what you mean with "keep going back on yourself".

You keep using the same arguments over and over again, which means I have to use mine over and over. This means we keep going round in circles.


Well, my use of the word was valid

It wasn't valid at all.
That's like saying; "I like cheese" when in fact you don't like cheese, but you're using the term "like" for "dislike"


I don't see how this is "completely" different.

Because comparing two completely different species with completely different genetics is completely different from comparing a normal healthy animal, to that of the same kind with a health issue.


Like I said before, I don't see nature as a moral compass. If nature "meant" something that doesn't automatically mean it is ethical or moral. At least that is my view.

Ethics and morals is something which is usually man made. And unless they actually benefit mankind, I don't see the point in following them.


Yes, we have been through this. And, again, you are mistaken. You are, in fact, completely distorting our argument. It means absolutely nothing of the sort, but it seems we are never going to come to an understanding on this matter. I get what Checkmate means by equality, and I agree with him. If he does not understand yours, then neither do I, but I believe you are in the minority of understanding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality


We are different. We are remarkably successful, and intelligence is, at this particular point in time, an ecological advantage. Actually, yes, intelligence is a very successful strategy, as it allows for a great deal of flexibility, and we have developed it to the extreme. However, we do not have a monopoly on this particular faculty, and it does not somehow make us "better" than everything else. It's like saying a university-educated lawyer is "better" than a high school drop-out plumber. Why don't you tell him that, when he comes to fix your loo?

There's a simple way to prove my point.

Get a group of humans, and a group ANY other animal.
I guarantee the groups of humans would win in almost every test against every animal.
Therefore, because they are better in everything against every animal, they are more superior then they are.


No, it doesn't. You're the only one saying this. The ONLY one. Go, look through this discussion. Tell me exactly where anyone has said anything remotely resembling this!

Again, look at the wiki link.
If I can find my dictionary, I'll right out the meaning of it.


Again, you're the only one talking about eating meat. Even the bleeding vegan has only mentioned it in passing.

That's because Animal equality and rights would mean for people to become vegan and not eat meat.


This is so wrong, it's almost funny. What year are you in? I don't mean that derogotarily (sp?), I just want to know what level of biology you've reached.
The ideal definition of species, the biological species, is a group of animals that can breed with each other but not other groups of animals. Here, from a reliable source:

Do you realise that that quote actually proves my point?
Thanks for posting it.

It is true that every human is different from one another. But so is every dog of the same species.
However, what defines a sub species is characteristics such as over all looks, perhaps colouring, biological features, physical features. Something which, as I've discussed, Black and White people have some differences in.
People use the term "race" because they're afraid of being called a racist. I am not a racist, I believe, as I've already said, that although different types of humans share many differences, we also share many similarities therefore they should be treated equally in general.
for example, if you see a an elephant with small ears and big tusks, and see another with big ears and small tusks, and one might be grey while the other brown, even if they share almost every other similarities, scientists would still consider them as two separate species.
It's the same with Humans.


I suggest that the same could apply to you.

The same applies to because if she keeps going back on herself, I must then argue my point again.
However, if it happens again, I will simply say that we've already discussed it.


Scientists who have studied them intensly have determined that an adult chimpanzee is approximately equivalent, intellectually, to a healthy 2-4 year old human child. How's that?

That is completely irrelevant. An adult chimpanzee cannot reach the same brain capacity as an adult human, therefore they are less intelegant.

[Serpentine]

Do you realise that that quote actually proves my point?
Thanks for posting it.

It is true that every human is different from one another. But so is every dog of the same species.
However, what defines a sub species is characteristics such as over all looks, perhaps colouring, biological features, physical features. Something which, as I've discussed, Black and White people have some differences in.
People use the term "race" because they're afraid of being called a racist. I am not a racist, I believe, as I've already said, that although different types of humans share many differences, we also share many similarities therefore they should be treated equally in general.
for example, if you see a an elephant with small ears and big tusks, and see another with big ears and small tusks, and one might be grey while the other brown, even if they share almost every other similarities, scientists would still consider them as two separate species.
It's the same with Humans.No. Appearance does not determine species. It may influence sub-species, but this is a pretty artificial category. Species is determined by genetics, and potential for interbreeding. If you are a human, you are a Homo sapiens. Your genus is Homo, your species is sapiens. Different breeds of dog are not different species. The "races" of humans are "breeds". Not. Species. In your elephant example, if they were the first individuals of those animals to be examined by science, they may initially be placed in different species. If, however, it was found that they can, and especially if they do, breed, then they will be determined to be varieties of the same, single species. It used to be thought that there was only one species of African elephant, with populations living in forests and on plains. Further investigation, which has had to be quite intense because the two populations look nearly exactly the same, has determined them to be two distinct species.
Look, I hate to throw around qualifications, especially when there are so many other no doubt far better qualified people around, but I have just finished my Bachelor of Arts and Science. In the Science part of it I focused on ecology and zoology and did very well in units on evolution and taxonomy. I have read the definition of species so many times I think my child, whenever I have it, is going to absorb it through my milk, and consequently his first word is going to be "Speciation!". Incidentally, one of my units was "Animal Behaviour", which specifically went into examples of animal cognition. Unfortunately, I have a terrible memory, so I can't be more convincing than I have been. I do remember, however, that every "defining feature" cited as "separating man from beast!" so far has been utterly debunked. It's only a matter of time before the next one is. I have even read examples of dolphins being creative and imaginative, and of bonobos possessing culture. What do you have, that humans can do that no other animal can? I'm willing to bet that, unless you're completely unreasonable about it ("Only a human has ever painted the Mona Lisa!), if there isn't evidence of it yet it's only because it hasn't, or can't be, studied. Furthermore, it's ridiculous to say things like "We must be superior to dolphins because they can't build things!" We have another distinct advantage in this regard, other than our fascinating brains: Hands, with opposable thumbs.

The same applies to because if she keeps going back on herself, I must then argue my point again.
However, if it happens again, I will simply say that we've already discussed it.If you have to keep repeating yourself, then perhaps your explanation is inadequate.

That is completely irrelevant. An adult chimpanzee cannot reach the same brain capacity as an adult human, therefore they are less intelegant.It's completely relevant. If an animal's worth is entirely based on its intelligence relative to that of a human, then a chimpanzee with the intelligence of a human toddler must be of the same worth of a human toddler, natural anthrocentric tendencies aside.

There's a simple way to prove my point.
Get a group of humans, and a group ANY other animal.
I guarantee the groups of humans would win in almost every test against every animal.
Therefore, because they are better in everything against every animal, they are more superior then they are.A heavyweight boxer who has received a broad tertiary education and has been around the world a number of times could probably beat that middle-aged checkout guy at most things. Does that make him better, worthier, more deserving of a good life? How does our "superiority" mean that we deserve these basic freedoms and other animals don't, anyway?

I appreciate the animal Homo sapiens. They've done some pretty incredible stuff, even if a lot of it is also pretty terrible.

[JerryMcJerrison]

There's just something about seeing a dwarf hamster in its exercise ball that makes me want to giggle like a eleven year old schoolgirl. I try to suppress it for the sake of those around me. I'm told it's little disturbing, seeing as I'm 20 years old and 6'6" tall.


Yeeeeah. You could just take this discussion to PM's, I think that'd be best.

I'm with this guy. I went from a rather playful platter of bear flavored copypasta on the bottom of the first page, only to smash my face in the cold, unyielding wall of moral debate on page 5. Not the moral debates are bad, it's just that a guy could use a little warning here.

[Checkmate]

You keep using the same arguments over and over again, which means I have to use mine over and over. This means we keep going round in circles.

You are as guilty of this as I am. Just like I said, we've come to a point in our discussion in which we both view that our arguments still stand and therefore keep repeating them, this makes us go in circles.



The same applies to because if she keeps going back on herself, I must then argue my point again.
However, if it happens again, I will simply say that we've already discussed it.


So will I. I will also not repeat myself again and respond with "we've already discussed it", when you start to repeat yourself. However, I think this will kill the debate quite soon as we are now more discussing the discussion.



It wasn't valid at all.
That's like saying; "I like cheese" when in fact you don't like cheese, but you're using the term "like" for "dislike"


No it is not. It is just using the word in a different context. I argued that the interests of animals should be considered equally. This is perfectly in line with what equality means. But I might already have said this, so we technically already discussed this.



Because comparing two completely different species with completely different genetics is completely different from comparing a normal healthy animal, to that of the same kind with a health issue.


I'm not comparing species, I'm comparing individuals with certain qualities that are atributable to either their species or their health.


Ethics and morals is something which is usually man made. And unless they actually benefit mankind, I don't see the point in following them.

Ah, so you are more a follower of Aristotle than of Plato? I'm okay with that, but I am more of a plato person, believing in moral absolutes, independent of human reasoning.


That's because Animal equality and rights would mean for people to become vegan and not eat meat.


Naturally, I can't deny that, but I do agree with Serpentine that it is a bit of a different issue.

[Nameless]

Species is determined by genetics, and potential for interbreeding. If you are a human, you are a Homo sapiens. Your genus is Homo, your species is sapiens.

I completely agree, but like I've already said, it's not just looks that Black and White people have that's different, it's a whole bunch of other stuff which I've been through.
There are more, but it's not a good idea for me to discuss it on this particular forum and thread.
But Black's an White's still deserve the same rights because they also have a lot of similarities.

The "races" of humans are "breeds".

No, "race" is just a nicer term for "species" and or "sub-species" but people don't like to use it.
Mammals> Homo> Homo-Sapiens> Black's, White's etc.
People just don't like to look at it like that like I've already said, they think it's racist.
White people didn't originally develop via breeding, it developed through evolution.
Evolution is what causes new species.


Look, I hate to throw around qualifications, especially when there are so many other no doubt far better qualified people around, but I have just finished my Bachelor of Arts and Science. In the Science part of it I focused on ecology and zoology and did very well in units on evolution and taxonomy.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't necessarily make you right.
You only get taught what the tutors are told to teach you. I wanted to take science in college but decided to take Art instead.
I know my GCSE science result isn't much compared to your qualifications, but when I was taught science, I was always angry because I new some of what they were teaching me was wrong.
This is why, even today, I study science in my free time, and although I don't have a qualification in it, I still like to do my own personal research. And in fact I've learnt more on my own then I did in school and probably more then I would just in college. I was taught about different species and what they mean, but they never applied it to humans even though humans were animals.
And whenever I asked my teacher privately about global warming or evolution or even other things such as space that didn’t make sense she would never answer me and dismiss it.
But when I decided to do my own research and find out for myself, I realised that if humans are animals, and white people have developed from black people due to evolution, and this is how evolution works along with breeding, it makes perfect sense that white people are a different sub species to black people.


It's completely relevant. If an animal's worth is entirely based on its intelligence relative to that of a human, then a chimpanzee with the intelligence of a human toddler must be of the same worth of a human toddler, natural anthrocentric tendencies aside.

I'm sorry, but you lost me there. I'm not sure what you're suggesting.


A heavyweight boxer who has received a broad tertiary education and has been around the world a number of times could probably beat that middle-aged checkout guy at most things. Does that make him better, worthier, more deserving of a good life? How does our "superiority" mean that we deserve these basic freedoms and other animals don't, anyway?

Once again you've made an irrelevant point. I'm talking about your average man and your average... dog for example, again you’re comparing the same species of humans to one another.
And actually, in a way, if you're more superior and better then something else, you're going to succeed more which might lead to more freedom.
Anyway, a chicken in an organic farm is actually far happier to be on an open field, getting fed for it's whole life, then being in the wild having to find it's own food and having to watch out for predators.
So in a way, the lack of freedom offers them more freedom.
But that’s a little off topic.

[Checkmate]

I'm with this guy. I went from a rather playful platter of bear flavored copypasta on the bottom of the first page, only to smash my face in the cold, unyielding wall of moral debate on page 5. Not the moral debates are bad, it's just that a guy could use a little warning here.

I agree, although I certainly liked this debate I think it would be inappropriate to continue it.

To Nameless: The fact that I am the one to retreat first does not mean I am uncertain about me being right or anything. I would like to debate with you some more, but I think it would be wrong to destroy this topic even more.:smallamused:

This is my last reply on animal ethics within this topic.

[Nameless]

You are as guilty of this as I am.

That is because you keep saying the same thing over and over, which means I have to keep giving you the same reasons over and over.


So will I. I will also not repeat myself again and respond with "we've already discussed it", when you start to repeat yourself. However, I think this will kill the debate quite soon as we are now more discussing the discussion.

We've already been through this.


No it is not. It is just using the word in a different context. I argued that the interests of animals should be considered equally. This is perfectly in line with what equality means. But I might already have said this, so we technically already discussed this.

But you're not using the word in a different context, you're giving it a different meaning in order to help support your argument.


I'm not comparing species, I'm comparing individuals with certain qualities that are atributable to either their species or their health.

Yes that's what I said. And that's why it's irrelevant... :smallconfused:


Ah, so you are more a follower of Aristotle than of Plato? I'm okay with that, but I am more of a plato person, believing in moral absolutes, independent of human reasoning.

I just think that the only way for humans to finally excel is to give up ignorance and look after their own before others.


Naturally, I can't deny that, but I do agree with Serpentine that it is a bit of a different issue.

but if they link to one another, then why shouldn't the be discussed?

[Nameless]

To Nameless: The fact that I am the one to retreat first does not mean I am uncertain about me being right or anything. I would like to debate with you some more, but I think it would be wrong to destroy this topic even more.

I didn't "retreat" in that sense from it, I decided not to take it for three reasons:

1- The main reason was because I had more of an intrest in art and wanted a career in that department more then in science.

2- Science require a high leve in mathimatics, and my math's isn't that great. :smalltongue:

3- I also knew that even though I wanted a career in art, I could still studdy science in my free time and have it as more of a hobby.

[Serpentine]

I completely agree, but like I've already said, it's not just looks that Black and White people have that's different, it's a whole bunch of other stuff which I've been through.
There are more, but it's not a good idea for me to discuss it on this particular forum and thread.
But Black's an White's still deserve the same rights because they also have a lot of similarities.
No, "race" is just a nicer term for "species" and or "sub-species" but people don't like to use it.
Mammals> Homo> Homo-Sapiens> Black's, White's etc.
People just don't like to look at it like that like I've already said, they think it's racist.
White people didn't originally develop via breeding, it developed through evolution.
Evolution is what causes new species.I've already explained to you what a species is. I even quoted directly from a dictionary of zoology. Different breeds or races are not different species. It has nothing to do with racism and everything to do with biology.

But when I decided to do my own research and find out for myself, I realised that if humans are animals, and white people have developed from black people due to evolution, and this is how evolution works along with breeding, it makes perfect sense that white people are a different sub species to black people.Subspecies, maybe. Species, no.

Once again you've made an irrelevant point. I'm talking about your average man and your average... dog for example, again you’re comparing the same species of humans to one another.It is quite relevant, but you're never going to get why so I won't push it anymore.

That is because you keep saying the same thing over and over, which means I have to keep giving you the same reasons over and over.
We've already been through this.And you're doing the same. And around we go again...

But you're not using the word in a different context, you're giving it a different meaning in order to help support your argument.No, he isn't.
Yes that's what I said. And that's why it's irrelevant... :smallconfused:No, it isn't.
but if they link to one another, then why shouldn't the be discussed?Because neither of us are arguing that eating meat is wrong. Only you are. I have no problem with eating meat - I'm a bit of a carnivore - but I am concerned with an animal's wellbeing whilst it's alive and that it is killed humanely.

What we are saying is this: both humans and other animals are equally deserving of the basic necessities of life; food, shelter, comfort, company (if the species is at all social - a snake may not care. On the other hand, it may. I don't know whether anyone's done much research into the emotions of reptiles), pleasure, freedom from non-human suffering. Noone has said anything about Giving Animals The Vote. Please stop ignoring the bits of our posts that actually matter, if you're going to keep discussing this. Otherwise, lets put it to bed. And no, this is not admitting defeat. This is admitting frustration and futility.

[Nameless]

It is quite relevant, but you're never going to get why so I won't push it anymore.

And you're never going to understand why comparing to completely different species is different from comparing two of the same.
Which is partly the reason why people will never come to a conclusion to this whole topic.
Even when people are completely wrong about something, they refuse to back down because like many things, it's in our human nature to not back down.
However, if people do give this natural thing up, then it will benefit humanity unlike this who topic.


And you're doing the same. And around we go again...

It's a vicious circle. :smalltongue:


No, he isn't.

Yes he/she is.


No, it isn't.

Yes it is.


Because neither of us are arguing that eating meat is wrong. Only you are. I have no problem with eating meat - I'm a bit of a carnivore - but I am concerned with an animal's wellbeing whilst it's alive and that it is killed humanely.

What we are saying is this: both humans and other animals are equally deserving of the basic necessities of life; food, shelter, comfort, company (if the species is at all social - a snake may not care. On the other hand, it may. I don't know whether anyone's done much research into the emotions of reptiles), pleasure, freedom from non-human suffering. Noone has said anything about Giving Animals The Vote. Please stop ignoring the bits of our posts that actually matter, if you're going to keep discussing this. Otherwise, lets put it to bed. And no, this is not admitting defeat. This is admitting frustration and futility.

wowowowowowow...wowow...wow...WWWOOOOW...wow...... ..wow...

You said you wanted what's best for the animals and what's in there intrest. Yes? agreed? That's what we've been discussing, animal welfare and their personal interest.
I somehow doubt very much that being eaten is what the animals want.
Therefore, it's in the animals interest if we don't eat meat, and therefore you eating meat is extremely contradictive if what you want is for animals to have their interests taken into consideration in the same reason that you're or mine might be.
You keep changing your argument, first you were saying you want equality, then you said you want their interests taken into consideration equally, and now you're saying it's okay to kill and eat them...
I'm confused.

[Serpentine]

If we're going to evaluate the manner in which we treat other animals according to their abilities, then we need to examine the manner in which we treat individuals of our own species of variable abilities.

Even when people are completely wrong about something, they refuse to back down because like many things, it's in our human nature to not back down.The irony, it burnses ussss.

You said you wanted what's best for the animals and what's in there intrest. Yes? agreed? That's what we've been discussing, animal welfare and their personal interest.
I somehow doubt very much that being eaten is what the animals want.
Therefore, it's in the animals interest if we don't eat meat, and therefore you eating meat is extremely contradictive if what you want is for animals to have their interests taken into consideration in the same reason that you're or mine might be.
You keep changing your argument, first you were saying you want equality, then you said you want their interests taken into consideration equally, and now you're saying it's okay to kill and eat them...
I'm confused.That's because these things aren't all black and white. I'm not changing my argument, this has been the same one all along. This is why I looked at, and mentioned, animal welfare and animal rights. I suggest you go look at them, too, and maybe review the bit where I stated my views. In fact, I'll do it for you now: think really I'm somewhere in-between: More or less animal welfare, but with emphasis on animals as feeling, thinking, autonomous beings in their own right. Specifically, we can use them (though I don't necessarily think they should be used in all the ways listed), but still care about them. There are grades and degrees in philosophy, morality and ethics. It isn't all this or that, all or nothing, one extreme or another.

edit: I think this might be appropriate to some previous comments :smallamused:
http://roflrazzi.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/celebrity-pictures-shaw-foo.jpg

[Nameless]

That's because these things aren't all black and white. I'm not changing my argument, this has been the same one all along. This is why I looked at, and mentioned, animal welfare and animal rights. I suggest you go look at them, too, and maybe review the bit where I stated my views. In fact, I'll do it for you now: think really I'm somewhere in-between: More or less animal welfare, but with emphasis on animals as feeling, thinking, autonomous beings in their own right. Specifically, we can use them (though I don't necessarily think they should be used in all the ways listed), but still care about them. There are grades and degrees in philosophy, morality and ethics. It isn't all this or that, all or nothing, one extreme or another.

I'm sorry, but you did not make this clear at all.
to summarise what you've said, you want animals interest to be taken with the same attitude as human ones.

And while we're at it, let me summarise my views;

I think that it is perfectly moral and okay to kill and animal, eat it's meat and use it's fur/skin for products.
I think it's okay to hunt, I think it's okay to farm animals and I think that we should think about human interests and well being above other animals.
HOWEVER, I do not think you should torture animals or hunt them simply for sport because there's no need for it.
As long as you do something useful with the animals after it's been killed and as long as you've killed the animal quickly, it's fine.
Whether it's for food, fur, anything.
Torturing animals is not okay and killing them for no reason is not okay, but killing them quickly for a purpose is fine.
Humans are animals, we're not perfect, we have faults, we're bound down to natures laws in one way or another.
We're human. And that's okay.

[Serpentine]

I'm sorry, but you did not make this clear at all.
to summarise what you've said, you want animals interest to be taken with the same attitude as human ones.I never said that, I've just said that, objectively and scientifically, other animals are of the same worth and deserve the same respect as humans. For everything else there, I more or less agree with you. Yes, I have the right to eat other animals if I want to. Other animals also have the right to me. No, I'm not going to just sit there and let an animal eat me if it wants to. I'm also not going to hold it against another animal if it tries not to be eaten. Unlike another animal, I can go to efforts to ensure that the animal I eat is killed in a humane manner (though I haven't really done as much in that regard as I should... Anyone know of any movements in Australia on this matter that I could get involved in?).

There. I think - hope - we've wound down that discussion properly now :smallsmile:


I appreciate dolphin rapists and chimpanzee murderers, for showing us that humans aren't the only animals capable of ugly, needless deeds.

[Nameless]

I never said that, I've just said that, objectively and scientifically

I apologise. It was Checkmate who was saying that.
When you're arguing against someone, and then someone else (you in this case) joins and argues as well, it's difficult to make out who said what, and who believes what, especially if those two other people are arguing against you.


other animals are of the same worth and deserve the same respect as humans

But surely if they deserve the same respects as humans, they deserve the same respect from us to understand their interests the same as humans do, in which case you are in fact saying that their interests should be taken the same as humans.


I'm also not going to hold it against another animal if it tries not to be eaten.

Actually, personally I would hold it against the animal. Just as if I were to try and eat another more inelegant animal it would most likely hate me for it.
I wouldn't consider it "evil" though because it's just doing what it's meant to do.


I appreciate dolphin rapists and chimpanzee murderers, for showing us that humans aren't the only animals capable of ugly, needless deeds.

Remember... Rape isn't rape if you shout surprise. :smallbiggrin:

[Serpentine]

But surely if they deserve the same respects as humans, they deserve the same respect from us to understand their interests the same as humans do, in which case you are in fact saying that their interests should be taken the same as humans.Not at all. I... I can't argue against that any more, because I really don't get what you're saying. If you respect someone, you should know everything they want, and give it to them? :smallconfused:

Actually, personally I would hold it against the animal. Just as if I were to try and eat another more inelegant animal it would most likely hate me for it.
I wouldn't consider it "evil" though because it's just doing what it's meant to do.Well, I wouldn't. It's just doing what comes natural. And, lets face it, I am quite a catch :smallwink:

[Nameless]

Not at all. I... I can't argue against that any more, because I really don't get what you're saying. If you respect someone, you should know everything they want, and give it to them? :smallconfused:
Well, I wouldn't. It's just doing what comes natural. And, lets face it, I am quite a catch :smallwink:

Well, what’s the point of respecting what the animals want if you’re not gonna do anything about it? :P

And LULZ.

[Jack Squat]

Well, what’s the point of respecting what the animals want if you’re not gonna do anything about it? :P

And LULZ.

I think she's arguing that animals deserve to be treated with respect, not necessarily that their opinions need to be. Which I agree with.

[Nameless]

I think she's arguing that animals deserve to be treated with respect, not necessarily that their opinions need to be. Which I agree with.

Oh yes, animals need to be treated with a certain amount of respect, just not the same amount of respect humans should get.

[CrimsonAngel]

OWLS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8el_P4yvfc)!!!! :smallsmile:

[Trog]

Any kitteh. Esp:
Tigers, Snow Leopards, House cats
Hamsters!
koala bears
mice
wolves
bunnehs and wabbits
ducks
fiddler crabs (It'sth Fiddler Crab Sthhhheasthhon!!!)
bearded dragons
kimodo dragons
penguins
seals
narwhals

[Jack Squat]

narwhals

Hvor er Narkval (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1o4hAzN6J5Q)

[Serpentine]

Oh yes, animals need to be treated with a certain amount of respect, just not the same amount of respect humans should get.Why not?

Narwhals ROCK! \m/ Imitation unicorns FTW! :biggrin:

[Project_Mayhem]

I win the £10 I bet myself that this thread would messy based purely on reading the title.

I postulate:

The ring tailed lemur (but not other lemur)
Turtles, Tortoises and every variation thereof
Jackalopes

[Thanatos 51-50]

Jackalopes

My father actually had my mother believing for years that Jacklopes really existed. I really mean years, lke, up around the decade and a half territory.

[Project_Mayhem]

My father actually had my mother believing for years that Jacklopes really existed. I really mean years, lke, up around the decade and a half territory.

:smallconfused: sorry? Are they not real?

[Serpentine]

:smallconfused: sorry? Are they not real?XD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackalope)

There is, however, an antelope jackrabbit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antelope_Jackrabbit).

[Project_Mayhem]

XD

There is, however, an antelope jackrabbit.

Oh Serp Serp Serp, your so naive. Thats what your government *wants* you to think. I can't believe you fell for the old jack' cover up. Jackalope are a serious threat to modern America

[Canadian]

Chupacabra!
Bigfoot!
Nessie!

[Nameless]

Why not?

Narwhals ROCK! \m/ Imitation unicorns FTW! :biggrin:

Because there's little point in respecting animals the same as we respect humans if we're not actually going to act on that respect.
And if it's respect we're going to act on, I think the respect should be below that of a human in order for us to focus on our own kind more so that the human race can excell and evolve to the best of out ability.

[Fredthefighter]

Long live Killer Whales! (Shamu rocks)
Long live Bears! (All of them are awesome)
Long live Apes! (All of them are cool and Gorillas are awesome)
Dinosrawrs rule! (They are animals in a way)

[ghost_warlock]

Baby Pandas (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzRH3iTQPrk).

:smallbiggrin:

[Ilena]

Fact is, humaans are animals. Humans are Omnivores. Killing animals and eating them is perfectly fine. I'm not saying I agree with factory farming, which is why I eat free range meat, but at the end of the day, everything that's living is a source of food.
If we wern't at the top of the food chain, we would be hunted too.

now for starters, i would like to say im offended noone mentioned horses in the first part, secondly my view is if it comes down to saving my horses over a person, id save my horses first and if possible then the person, and as for any other animal, depends on the situation, and who has a higher probability of living, someone burried under a burning support beam or a dog trapped under some non burning rubble, id go for the dog,

3rdly ... humans are being hunted in the ocean, i saw a documentory on some giant something squid, that are on the pasific coast from south america to alaska, about the size of a person, super aggressive, able to change their skin color 4 times a second, pack hunters ... they are fished but ya, a small fishing boat flipped over, and 2 people died because of the squid, you actually have to wear armor to swim in the water with them else you would litterally die, humans are only at the top of the food chain because nothing else hunts us, and if it did we would hunt it to extinction.

[Illiterate Scribe]

humans are only at the top of the food chain because nothing else hunts us

Top of the food chain means nothing else hunts us, and it is also a tautology.

Also, giant isopods (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/Giant_isopod.jpg) have feelings too. Why does everybody want to save their own skins over these things' beautiful, nacreous forms?

[Nameless]

now for starters, i would like to say im offended noone mentioned horses in the first part, secondly my view is if it comes down to saving my horses over a person, id save my horses first and if possible then the person, and as for any other animal, depends on the situation, and who has a higher probability of living, someone burried under a burning support beam or a dog trapped under some non burning rubble, id go for the dog,

How is that related to the comment I made? :smallconfused:


3rdly ... humans are being hunted in the ocean, i saw a documentory on some giant something squid, that are on the pasific coast from south america to alaska, about the size of a person, super aggressive, able to change their skin color 4 times a second, pack hunters ... they are fished but ya, a small fishing boat flipped over, and 2 people died because of the squid, you actually have to wear armor to swim in the water with them else you would litterally die

1- This is one animal which is in the oceon. Most oceon such as sharks only hunt humans because they sometimes mistake them for other animals.
Also, humans are land mammles, we're not built for the oceon.
Other animals only attack humans as an accedent or in self deffence.


humans are only at the top of the food chain because nothing else hunts us, and if it did we would hunt it to extinction.

Yes, that's what being at the top of the food chain means. :smalltongue:

[Serpentine]

Because there's little point in respecting animals the same as we respect humans if we're not actually going to act on that respect.
And if it's respect we're going to act on, I think the respect should be below that of a human in order for us to focus on our own kind more so that the human race can excell and evolve to the best of out ability.Respect is an attitude, not an action. I may respect a child's wish to not go to school, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to ignore it anyway. Respecting animals means acknowledging that they (or at least, many of them - absolutely no doubt far more than we have specific data on right now) are their own, autonomous, sentient beings that have their own thoughts, feelings, desires, emotions, sensations, needs and requirements, and considering carefully before we deprive them of any of those for any reason. It also means realising that we're all different - someone who wraps up their ickle doggy in baby clothes cuz they're their coot ickle baby schnooky-wookums has absolutely no respect for that dog. It's about knowing that they have as much right to the things that they want and need, not giving them the same things as we want and need.
We're falling back into the same ol' argument, here, though.

[Nameless]

Respect is an attitude, not an action. I may respect a child's wish to not go to school, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to ignore it anyway. Respecting animals means acknowledging that they (or at least, many of them - absolutely no doubt far more than we have specific data on right now) are their own, autonomous, sentient beings that have their own thoughts, feelings, desires, emotions, sensations, needs and requirements, and considering carefully before we deprive them of any of those for any reason. It also means realising that we're all different - someone who wraps up their ickle doggy in baby clothes cuz they're their coot ickle baby schnooky-wookums has absolutely no respect for that dog. It's about knowing that they have as much right to the things that they want and need, not giving them the same things as we want and need.
We're falling back into the same ol' argument, here, though.

I see where you're comming from. However I personally stand by my statment.
Every animal respects it's own kinds intrests abouve others. The animal will then respect it's preditors, but that's because of fear.
I think Humans should also respect animals, but like I said, respect them selves abouve the other animals.

[Ilena]

Well my comment about the horses had nothing to do with what you posted but more of in general noone that i saw (yes i didnt read the entire set of posts) but noone mentioned horses :( but ya these squid attack just because they are super aggressive, and will eat anything they can catch,