about animal rights...

Page 3 of 4 [ 61 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

07 Jan 2007, 10:01 pm

headphase wrote:

Why do people keep mentioning dogs, because the animal shows empathy toward humans it should be held in higher regard than a pig?

Yeah, that is why they mention them. There is no better way to pull on the heartstrings than to mention Rover. If we started talking about rats instead then we would get less empathy despite the fact that both animals are not human but still hold enough in common to be covered by the same arguments.

Xenon
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,476
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

07 Jan 2007, 10:12 pm

I just love animals. In fact, I just had some for supper.

(Okay, it was a portion of a cow. But the principle remains.)

:lol:

_________________
"Some mornings it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps." -- Emo Philips

lonelysoul
Butterfly

Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 11

07 Jan 2007, 10:12 pm

headphase wrote:

lonelysoul wrote:

I don't get why you are saying what is the animals purpose. Shouldn't their purpose be the same as ours, to procreate and survive? Why do people keep mentioning dogs, because the animal shows empathy toward humans it should be held in higher regard than a pig?

I said I completely understand those who eat meat. In other countries, dogs are livestock, and yet in others, cows are sacred. I said animals kept as livestock, no matter what animals should still be entitled to decent living conditions and a quick painless death. What would you suggest to do with the livestock? As I said, send them BACK to the wild to be hunted by predators? Oh, I know, we can give them away as pets. lol. Riiiiiighhht.

headphase
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 709
Location: NC, USA

07 Jan 2007, 10:24 pm

I don't see why sending them back to the wild is not more humane, and I also eat meat.

lonelysoul
Butterfly

Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 11

07 Jan 2007, 10:27 pm

headphase wrote:

I don't see why sending them back to the wild is not more humane, and I also eat meat.

Number one, they've been bred in captivity so long, they would survive all of two seconds. They no longer have the same survival instincts. At least we have the potential for some compassion, other than them being ripped to shreds by a friggin cougar or whatever. And some of them (DEFINITELY not all) live pretty decent lives.

headphase
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 709
Location: NC, USA

07 Jan 2007, 10:34 pm

lonelysoul wrote:

Number one, they've been bred in captivity so long, they would survive all of two seconds. They no longer have the same survival instincts.

That's their problem.

lonelysoul wrote:

At least we have the potential for some compassion, other than them being ripped to shreds by a friggin cougar or whatever. And some of them (DEFINITELY not all) live pretty decent lives.

How can you know their lives are decent?

lonelysoul
Butterfly

Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 11

07 Jan 2007, 10:40 pm

headphase wrote:

lonelysoul wrote:

Number one, they've been bred in captivity so long, they would survive all of two seconds. They no longer have the same survival instincts.

That's their problem.

lonelysoul wrote:

At least we have the potential for some compassion, other than them being ripped to shreds by a friggin cougar or whatever. And some of them (DEFINITELY not all) live pretty decent lives.

How can you know their lives are decent?

Either way, they're being killed. What's the difference, really, if it's us or another animal? BESIDES your personal ideals of consciousness?

I said some. Just because I live in the southern states and I know that there are many cattle owners who give them acres and acres of land to roam free. However, I recognize branding and things like that, and how many are mistreated. Actually, most. I'm against that completely. I'm actually more in favor of some reform in these areas, rather than doing away with eating meat, altogether.

headphase
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 709
Location: NC, USA

07 Jan 2007, 10:46 pm

I'm mostly just playing devil's advocate here. Still the question arises; do animals have a right to personal freedom? How do many of you feel about foie gras?

peebo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Mar 2006
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,624
Location: scotland

07 Jan 2007, 10:55 pm

nasty bastards, thats how i feel about it.

_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?

Adam Smith

lonelysoul
Butterfly

Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 11

07 Jan 2007, 11:37 pm

headphase wrote:

I'm mostly just playing devil's advocate here. Still the question arises; do animals have a right to personal freedom? How do many of you feel about foie gras?

I already said where I stand. I think they should live in conditions suited to their nature and needs, if they are to be used as livestock. ie: Plenty of room to roam, wellfed, well-treated,etc. Foie gras is f*****g disgusting. Until recently, I hadn't even heard of it, though it doesn't surprise me.

headphase
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 709
Location: NC, USA

07 Jan 2007, 11:59 pm

You guys then seem more sympathetic to animals than I. I can totally see why people despise foie gras, and I think if most people knew how it was made, they would find it sickening. Nevertheless, I feel I can accept torture to animals that are not self aware.

McJeff
Deinonychus

Joined: 4 Nov 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 361
Location: The greatest country in the world: The USA

08 Jan 2007, 12:35 am

lonelysoul wrote:

Here's how I feel. Yes, I eat meat. I think it's simply part of the food chain. If we hadn't taken the animals we now know as cattle out of the wild and bred them, long ago, they would not be sitting there eating grass and looking all cute and smiley, despite what some may think. lol, They would be hunted by natural predators, and ripped to shreds brutally. I understand that what makes us different is compassion. So what, is it now our duty to remove all those poor "prey" from their natural habitats and "save" them? Should we start breeding domesticated livestock anmals to go BACK to the wilderness? What are these animals purpose, then? My thing, personally, is that I believe animals used for livestock should live in decent living conditions and entitled to a quick and painless death.

Now, as far as animal cruelty, I'm completely against it, in any form. I think beating and starving a dog should earn the same in return.

But, if I wanted to go off certain A-stereotypical atheist views I've seen here, morality is a myth, so therefore we should f**k our dead grandmothers corpses and run around eating aborted fetuses. Go back to Norse Viking Days. Cold hard logic. OK, fine. But, what logic says that me stabbing you in the face because "I felt like it" is wrong? I've then proven I'm "dominant".

I understand that morality is relative, but there has to be a line. What is "progress", anyway? Reverting back to base animal instincts like f***ing Neanderthals because "morality is a myth" or becoming like friggin Vulcans (emotionless beings)?

I could hug you for this post.

I have no further comments.

snake321
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,135

08 Jan 2007, 1:56 am

ha, did you all know lonelysoul is my older brother? Anyhow, yeah good comment dude (I won't give your name out online either;))
But I'll be honest though, some of the comments I've seen on here from a certain viking lol, have reminded me of secular humanism and the dangers it can represent if it becomes too powerful. MrMark put a thread up there a few weeks ago as a matter of fact about this.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

08 Jan 2007, 2:21 am

snake321 wrote:

But I'll be honest though, some of the comments I've seen on here from a certain viking lol, have reminded me of secular humanism and the dangers it can represent if it becomes too powerful. MrMark put a thread up there a few weeks ago as a matter of fact about this.

Yes, because you have objectively proven that my ideas will lead to the death of man. :roll:

After all, if an idea comes up to challenge pre-existing beliefs, obviously the pre-existing belief must be conserved no matter what the intellectual cost! Screw logic and rather use ad hominems and complete distortions of the argument to win the day. :roll:

snake321
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,135

08 Jan 2007, 5:32 pm

ok f**ktard........ What good has come out of hatred, selfishness, and ignorance that could not have been gained some other way? What has it lead to? How about the halucaust, slavery, wars, deaths, hunger.... Just because you say "oh dog fights put money into the economy"? Get the f**k real. There are plenty of better ways to raise money. Not giving you the right to senselessly murder and assault innocent victims is not totalitarian. Look do me a favor and die ok? Better yet, atleast STOP REPLYING TO MY POST, YOUR NOT HIGH ENOUGH ON MY EVOLUTIONARY "LADDER" TO TALK TO ME! DON'T RESPOND TO MY POSTS, JUST LEAVE ME THE f**k ALONE!

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

08 Jan 2007, 6:10 pm

snake321 wrote:

What good has come out of the misguided notion that we could abolish these forces? At the least we could utilize them for the good of other individuals rather than try to ignore them. As well, we already talked about the good that comes from hatred, it drives man, and self-interest IS the driving force for the economy. Frankly though, you just love lumping my argument into categories which I do not stand for. Better way though? It stands alone, it is a better way to raise money than not doing it, not only that but it raises money by pleasing more people, why do you stand against their pleasure? It doesn't affect you. It is totalitarian when the "innocent victims" are not protected in any sense by our ideas of society, the same emotional rhetoric could be used to ban the cans of raid used against cockroaches, they are just as innocent. I'd ask for that favor from you, I'd say that I could do the human race a hell of a lot more good through the consistent application of logical thought, not only that but I have also devoted myself to training for an activity that is highly economically beneficial so I'd say that I have a greater potential to do good so to speak no matter where my moral compass lies. Also, evolution isn't a ladder, it is survive or don't. We like to say there is an evolutionary ladder but it doesn't exist. Besides, you keep on responding to my posts making the same mistakes, I'd ask that you stop and go your own way instead of coming back to give meaningless insults and bad logic.

Page 3 of 4 [ 61 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Jump to:

about animal rights... Post Reply New Topic

about animal rights...