Animal cruelty

Post Reply New Topic

While I hate animal cruelty (who doesn't?), I think PETA are a bunch of ret*d militants.
I don't quiiiite understand the OP's post, but I'm guessing that they're saying that groups like PETA spent so much time focusing on animals and there are people out there that need help to? Well if I've read that right, there are seperate organisations for seperate issues, if an organisation specialises in animal cruelty (as in, fighting against it not the partaking of it XD) that's what they would focus their attention to.
But I do think PETA take it a bit too far and seem to value other animal's lives over humans and go apeshit when a fly gets swatted but I doubt they even care if a human gets killed in war. They need to get their priorities sorted. I don't think animal lives are LESS valuble than human of course, but I think they are both just as valuble since we are animals too. But if I had to choose to save a human or a horse for example, from a burning building I would save the human, not because I think the horse is inferior but because I'm obviously going to favour those of my own species aren't I? I think horses prefer the company of other horses more than the company of humans, so yeah. My conclusion is, that PETA are ret*ds.

Are you implying that the only relevant points are those made in response to something already asserted? I believe a measure of respect is due to any individual offering their opinion. Disagreeing with that opinion is quite acceptable, but attempting to devalue it by questioning its relevance seems more than a little churlish.

At no point was it implied that you had represented the opposite view to greenblue's statement. Your call of 'strawman' is therefore genuinely irrelevant.



The concept of moral evolution is itself open to debate and is probably best left out of this discussion which focuses on a specific aspect of morality, not the bigger picture.



You refer to; "animals and pets are tools like a hammer made for people to use".

I can see no explicit reference to a divine being in this sentence, or indeed within the body of the entire post. I believe we have found our strawman.

I was raised on a farm.

We were quite fond of our chickens and sheep and pigs.

But... if my mother said "kill a chicken for dinner" then I could cut it's head off with an axe, pluck it and then eat it.

I have helped when a sheep had it's throat cut and be hung up by it's back legs, skinned, gutted and chopped up.

We fed the offal to the dogs.

What do you THINK happens on a farm?

Depends on the farm. I'd rather plant and harvest food instead of killing animals, and personally I cannot bring myself to want to kill an animal or human unless it were in self-defense. I do eat meat, and I cannot seem to change that about me, but I also cannot kill to eat but only kill to defend or protect.

By looking at your avatar, I wonder how do parakeets taste like

Nah, I just didn't know where that comment came from, as it wasn't addressing anything I'd said.



...you DO know "evolution" means "change over time", right?



It didn't have to be explicit. What was being referred to, in saying animals were "made" for a specific "use", if not the OP's personal religious ideology?

Ah, that's another matter entirely. Sometimes people are not very good at introducing additional information in a manner that is obviously relevant. I'm guilty of reacting the same way myself.



Usually used to denote an improvement over the previous state. This is where the debate begins.



I rather think it did. There is enough ambiguity in that statement to lead at least one other person to draw a different conclusion to your own. Even taking this sentence at its most literal you could surmise that it refers to the selective breeding of traits in animals to engineer a better tool. In this instance I would have sought clarification before coming to a conclusion.

Maybe that's a connotation, but not the denotation.





You know, I didn't think of that. That is one possible meaning. Though I don't see how it's relevant to the moral rights of animals, any more than slave breeding affected the rights of that "product".

I don't know. BTW, that's not a parakeet in my avatar. Rather that bird is Picasso, who just became a grandfather today. He is a tiel, not a keet.

to oh most glorious monkey: thank you for calling me a ret*d. i'm humbled by your graciousness. oh, to have such knowledge as a teenager. after all, what does peta stand for? why, we bozos are for non-human animals to be treated not as property,but as beings who know fear, and pain, creatures who deserve to not be tortured and abused.

someone has to do it. there are NO politicians who care about animals. the nra and agri-business has seen to that.

when your human soul-mates have killed all the mountain gorillas, when maybe someone shows you the torture that lesser primates experience in laboratories, you might stop being the way you are.

as i said before and will say every time , those who think animal abuse is 'maybe ok', it hurts my soul deeply. i feel shame that i walk ( ok, gimp along) on two legs.

most honor to you, genius boy.

It has to be in this case, you would have to ask him what he really meant by that to be absolutely certain, because adifferentname has a point, it can be said that the message may be somehow ambiguous, to try to interpret it what he meant implicitly doesn't seem to work, it is easier to take that out of context, without actual knowing what was the intended message, in that case, being explicit works better as it is more accurate in the description. So you seem to be commiting the straw man fallacy that you accuse others of, not that you would the be the only one, but is not uncommon for people making acussations towards others not realising or admiting their own faults.


From what I see, you may have been guilty of doing #1 (a misrepresentation seems somehow evident) #4 (The accusation of the appeal to Argument from Divine without a proper interpretation of the context) and likely #5 (which seems to have been the case in your responses).

I live out #3 but there is the issue when considering the opponent positions weaker, by just holding that position that you happen to disagree with, the issue with #3 is that sometimes that is the case when acusations of fallacies takes place or devaluting their arguments because, given assumptions a person makes when a perspective that he/she doesn't hold and is against, must be therefore fallacious.


Hmm, I think I have to point this out: Loaded question.

The text does not indicate explicitly (yes it has to be) that he mentions animals are made for a specific use or for people to use, rather, the text explictly states that a HAMMER is made for people to use.

And he did not mention nor made an indication of his personal religious beliefs in this thread or has he done so in another thread?

Last edited by greenblue on 19 Aug 2010, 3:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

When I hear these animal rights activists talking about freeing the animals I immediately think about how we don't life in a free society, we live in one that calls itself free. Let's free people first!

it's pretty amazing that those who have most likely never helped any lifeform on this planet are those to reject the notion that all life on this planet deserves to not be abused. must be some sort of teenage angst thing. oh, that i would have been so brilliant and compassionate as a teenager. must be the water.

[quote="Robdemanc"]I think humans have a responsibility to the animal kingdom. They are not here for us to 'use'. They share the planet with us.

As for dogs - Did you know that dogs are the only animal on the planet that can recognise human expressions. It seems they do a lot better than aspies at that. Dogs have co-evolved with humans for some time and they are more tuned into us than some people think.[/quote

One of the reasons humans have become as smart as humans have become is because they eat the flesh of animals, a good source of protein. Protein enabled the brains of hominids to become large which makes it possible for us to be very smart.

Our species is evolved to eat both animal material and plant material. So we do.

ruveyn

Actually, the only nutrient not derivable from plant material (unless you count yeast as a plant instead of a fungus) is vitamin B12, which is essential for the development of the nervous system. As far as proteins go, all of the amino acids available from meat are equally available from plants, such as beans and rice, wheat and peanuts, and a few other combinations. I learned this when I was trying to become a vegan a few years ago. I tried, I failed. It's just for me the will power isn't there to overcome the addiction to eating meat. Oh well, but it is nutritionally possible to accomplish.

the owner of a junkyard in kansas kept 2 tigers and a male lion in home-made pens, welded at the yard. they lived in these pens, the size of an average bathroom, for years. a high pressure hose was used to clean the cages, with the animals inside. wow, what fun, huh?

only peta came to the rescue of these cats. the owner wasn't breaking any law and other local rescues groups didn't know what to do with them if they could get them.

after long negotiations, and some cash, the owner gave them up. the lion was rehabed and went to live with two female lions at a small zoo. he now had an acre of land to roam and two friends to hang out with. the tigers were harder to deal with but ended up at a large cat sanctuary. they have the best life possible for them.

yeah, peta sucks. what a despicable group. slime. scum of the earth.

what i would like to write to some of the humans who post here, i can't. i don't want to get thrown off wp. i want to be here to respond to you for as long as i can.