human bigotry and animal cruelty--so illogical!

Post Reply New Topic

Here's what I would have to say to those upset villagers.

1. What makes you think you have the right to burn the leopard?

2. What happened to "an eye for an eye makes the world go blind"?

3. What makes you think you were any better than the leopard? The leopard acted because a: he/she felt threatened or b: if it wasn't feeling threatened, then you better watch where you're going next time. The leopard can't help being opportunistic when he/she sees an easy meal. You attacked it with conscious thought going through your mind (for lack of better phrasing). You acting upon emotional distress pumping you up is no better than an animal acting upon instinct, considering humans have higher standards and expectations for themselves.

4. What would soaking a leopard in kerosene and then burning it solve? It won't make the dead guy suddenly become alive.

5. The leopard had every right to attack you. Animals don't care if you see this as yours, they see this land as their territory. It is their duty to protect their environment they inhabit. You're the trespassers, not them! You seriously didn't expect your little crusade to go like a picnic, did you?

6. So if the leopard was wrong for killing one of your kind for a: self-defense or b: food, then wouldn't we technically be wrong for defending ourselves against wildlife and slaughtering our farm animals? If we get that right and they don't, all we're achieving is hypocrisy.

Yes, you have some common sense. The worst part is that the autopsy suggested that the leopard that was burned wasn't even the man-eater in question. Nothing has bee solved. The leopard that was killing humans is probably still out there, and it's only a matter of time before it is brutally murdered in it's own home.

I don't get this whole "human superiority" thing. We are not superior to any other animal. Nor are we more entitled to this Earth than any other animal. We may be smart, but viruses and microbes without a brain are killing us, so we must not be so superior as so many of us like to think. It's delusional thinking. Viruses were on Earth long before humans, and will most likely persist long after humans stupidly self-destruct in some sort of cataclysmic nuclear war. To quote Einstein: "I don't know what weapons will be used in the Third World War. But I can tell you what they'll use in the Fourth--rocks!" "competitive armament is not a way to prevent war. Every step in this direction brings us nearer to catastrophe.... I repeat, armament is no protection against war, but leads inevitably to war."

I agree with you wholeheartedly. Why are we superior? I regret having the superiority mindset when I was younger. What the hell was I thinking?

Furthermore, we somehow think that this "superiority" gives us the right to torture animals for fun. I'm interested to read your opinion on my original question.

Why do you think an American sports star can get away with heinous acts of animal abuse, but yet there are people expressing anti-Indian sentiments because of some small group of poorly educated, impoverished villagers with nothing in their heads but superstition? I don't get it.

Maybe because he's an American superstar therefore he's "superior" to impoverished Indians miles away (in sarcastic tone of voice)?

Let's not limit this to superstar vs. impoverished masses. This is also a case of we empathize/sympathize/feel more sorry for those in our own nation. We're more willing to forgive the superstar than the random guy from the random country. We're more willing to hear a news story of a murder or bullycide for weeks than stories of starving kids in Africa (why don't we help? It seems like there's always something stopping us from helping them, but we can't identify nor overcome it).

Because they can. The strong survive, the weak die. Welcome to the real world.

That applies only to humans.

Humanity evolved to become the dominant species. The leopard walks on all fours, has no opposable thumbs, and does not use tools. It is an nothing more than a mobile life-support system for a spotted pelt.

The villagers felt threatened too, and the leopard should have watched where it was going.

Wrong. Executing a person or animal that kills humans assures that the killer does not kill again.

The method of execution is the only point that miffs me off. A bullet would have worked more efficiently, and it wold not have ruined the pelt or the meat. I mean, a pile of charcoal that's been soaked in naptha can ruin even a good bear-meat steak! Since they must have tied up the animal to keep it in one place long enough to burn it, they could have used a knife, a spear, an arrow, or even a club just as well!

No. Wherever humans are is human territory. Any animal that lives in human territory lives their solely at the pleasure of the humans that own that territory. This includes cats and dogs, as well as bears, cougars, leopards, elephants and whales. When such an animal purrposely attacks a human, whether or not it kills the human, the animal's only remaining right is to die.

No hypocrisy. If animals have the same rights as humans (which they do not), then the friends and relatives of the "murdered" animal would have the right to seek redress of grievance in a court of law (which they do not. Fortunately for the human species, humans are the dominant species on Earth, and humans make the laws - the ones that say that any animal that kills a human must be put to death.

I wonder what leopard tastes like? Don't tell me "chicken", because domestic cats don't taste like chicken at all.

Humanity is not the dominant species. Bacteria can kill us, and can exist in places where we wouldn't even think to go, like the inside of volcanoes and the bottom of the ocean. They outnumber us exponentially, and they will likely survive long after we stupidly blow ourselves up through nuclear warfare. You must have a very different definition of "dominant" and certainly not a conventional one. These bacteria leave medical doctors scratching their heads as their patients die.

Leopards don't have a concept of cause and effect like people do, so it can't "watch where it's going." Again, do your research before you post. There are people with PhDs in animal behavior and zoology, and I trust their research.

They executed the wrong animal according to the autopsy, so the killer will strike again.

Acting upon instinct is very much how non-human animals behave. Once again, do your research into animal behavior before you say that someone is "wrong." There are books and journal articles out there and available for free, so there's really no excuse.

You have an anthropocentric view of what constitutes "territory." Leopards have territory, and they are genetically programmed to defend it. It's called natural selection. Evolution gave them teeth, and by natural law, they can use them if they feel so inclined. Once again, do your research into animal behavior before you post.

Unlike humans, who are conscious of our own consciousness, other animals only have primary conscious. This means they don't have a sense of justice and they certainly don't think that what they did was wrong. The "family and friends of the leopard" don't go to court not because they don't have the "right," but because they don't have a sense of revenge and justice. They simply don't have the cognitive ability to be self-aware, and they lack the ability for verbal logic, which is instrumental for thoughts of justice and revenge. The human population is exploding and taking over land that was previously wild, so humans can expect some vicious competition. We'd be stupid to expect other animals to just bend to our will. They will fight to protect their hunting grounds. Competitive behavior is very common in the animal kingdom.

It does amuse me that you think that humans are the "dominant species." If you tell that to a biologist, they just might explode in laughter, then they might even cry for a little bit. Anthropocentrism has no place in a legitimate, scientifically sound argument about nature. I also noticed you like to just plain out say people are "wrong," without having any actual facts to back up your claim, other than statements like "humans are the dominant species," and another favorite, "humans make the laws." If humans make the laws, then why are organisms that lack even a nucleus--and in many cases a metabolism--killing us? It must be because they have opposable thumbs and the ability to use tools.

Is it our god given right to capture and enslave people in factories? The ability to dominate them exists so I guess so.

It is just a natural part of being human, we are naturally adverse to killing other humans but other life forms are fair game. This is magnified when it comes to other humans belonging to our communities.
When you think about it though every action in the universe is neutral, the only reason we would feel adverse to inflicting suffering is we are capable of experiencing the same suffering so we can relate to it on some level.

You animal-lovers need to get over this fetish of yours, or go join P.E.T.A.

And pass the salt ... this catburger needs some flavor ...

And you need to get over the human-superiority complex. So what if we are capable of making laws, using tools, ect. Look at how we utilize these abilities! Yes, some of it benefits us, the other half goes to destroying the world.

It's not a fetish, Fnord. When you said the strong survive, the weak die, I could use that argument in favor of the leopard. At the time, the leopard was strong, the human was weak. How do you feel now? Besides, humans being the dominant species isn't going so well for anyone else, is it?

You said we need to get over our animal fetish. Why do you say this? Because animals are inferior due to them being instinct-based? Due to the lack of opposable thumbs? Due to their lack of intelligence? Don't forget, humans are animals too. Underneath, we are animals. We are mortal, we succumb to disease, we have hormones, we reproduce, we need to be sustained with food and water and shelter. So what if we make tools, use language, and whatnot? Humans are animals too. Our ancestors were once ape-like (or some other primitive being). Rabidmonkey has a point. Let's not get a big head here because we're capable of making medicine, mmkay?

So wait a minute. You said earlier that wherever humans are is human territory. Not every animal breaching "human" territory is going so humans can have a lovely picnic and animals can service them. There's a difference between wild and domesticated animals. Have you thought that most animals simply don't give a s**t that we're supposedly "dominant and superior", that all we are to them is arms and legs and possibly a food source, depending on the circumstance?

Humans and animals share these basic rights: to use what evolution gave them, to be born, to survive, to die, to defend, to eat, to sleep, and other natural things. All this other stuff about law we created, not nature. Just wait until animals "create rights" for themselves and treat humans like s**t.