Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Animal Cruelty that pisses me off the most is abuse to pets, like those scumbags that left their dogs tied up during Hurricane Katrina. If they didn't drown they die of starvation or dehydration.

Or people who think it's ok to just ditch your pet when you move, to me pets are part of my family and should be cared for as much.

As far as hunting, I do hunt anything I'm not going to eat, with the exception of vermin that threaten livestock (prairie dogs for example) while I think hunting with semi-auto's (these are not "assault rifles" people) is unsportsman like, it's not my place to tell you how to hunt. Hell I think firearms give a pretty unfair advantage, and if there wasn't such a huge risk to the dogs (and the horrid painful death to the prey) I'd partake in pack hunting. But, I don't see my self ever doing that, as a hunter you owe that animals life your about to take a quick, clean death, pack hunting does not do this. Not to mention even animals like deer will seriously frack up a large breed dog.

I love animals...my digestive system REALLY loves animals

grilled, pan seared or in a stew

now knowing that there was ONE moment I felt offended about eating an animal

we ordered this fish dish in a chinese restaurant and I had to pick the fish out of a tank

they cooked the fish in front of me and I was damn fine with it

the problem was they cooked it and presented it in a way to show that the fish was still alive and his heart and lungs were still pumping

>_<

now im all for freshness but this is just unnecessarily mean

ColdFire wrote:
Emperors Faithful: Im surprised you used Rhino as an example for why Trophy Hunting is ok. Trophy Hunters do not eat the animals they kill, they kill them to show how tough they are and what beasties they have taken down, its nothing but grotesque egotism. Especially Rhinos, historically they were favoured for their horns as trophies of a hunt, now they are killed for their horns for medicine and decore. This is a major waste of anamal life and a major environmental problem, sadly its caused by economic problems in other cultures who care more about money then they do about the products of thousands of years of evolution. I get upset because people "have" killed an endangered and "why" they justify it.

You obviously missed my point, and I don't really think reiterating will help you TBH.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

ColdFire wrote:
Emperors Faithful: Im surprised you used Rhino as an example for why Trophy Hunting is ok. Trophy Hunters do not eat the animals they kill, they kill them to show how tough they are and what beasties they have taken down, its nothing but grotesque egotism. Especially Rhinos, historically they were favoured for their horns as trophies of a hunt, now they are killed for their horns for medicine and decore. This is a major waste of anamal life and a major environmental problem, sadly its caused by economic problems in other cultures who care more about money then they do about the products of thousands of years of evolution. I get upset because people "have" killed an endangered and "why" they justify it.

You obviously missed my point, and I don't really think reiterating will help you TBH.

By all means please, if I can learn something but from what I read of your post before I dont see how Ive missed anything, please reiterate if you think I have missed something dont just stomp off in a huff. It doesnt solve problems.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ChrisWWII wrote:

But humans still come first...if I had to massacre the world's giant panda population to save or feed one human life, I would.

You see this is one thing which confuses me, do you draw a line or do you just generalise the entire human race.

Now if this was a loved one or a close family member like one of my brothers I can see how some one would get this mindset, I would hate myself afterwards but I would probably do it. A loving mother, a scientist who could potentially cure Cancer,etc, people who contribute in a positive way to society I would certainly consider.

But please what about a Sociopath who will spend his entire life either murdering people or in a cell or my cousins former husband who enjoyed beating her and her children while doing drugs which made him psychotic to the point that his oldest child has very little chance of growing up without problems or a firebug who enjoys setting fires in the bush even if it could potentially endanger the lives of hundreds of people etc etc......

why are these people worth it?

I certainly understand the concept Black and White is wrong and there are factors but if there is no help for these people why would you wipe out an entire species to save them. A sociopath doesnt even think with the mindset of a human. I realise that aside from Sociopaths and others born with mental concerns that these people are a product of their environment but I know for a fact that sometimes these people cant be saved. Certainly we should continue working to stop this from happening as unlikely as that is but why should animals pay for what our society does to people.

I would also like to remind people that as Omnivores we are not restricted to meat, if the last animals on the planet were endangered why on Earth would the only option be to kill them till their gone to feed a couple of people who dont like lettuce. We have the teeth to eat meat but we also have the teeth to eat plants and thats why we were so successfull. The fact that we have an option and even if we dont like it the human race could potentially subsist on a diet totally consisiting of plant material, fungus and even some forms of bacteria.
Id question why you would kill the panda when you could give them some fruit or the other multitudes of food growing all around us.

It is a generalization. Yeah, there are some people who deserve to die, but that's not for me to decide. If I didn't know anything about the person, and I had to choose between killing a panda to feed them, and letting that person die, I'd kill the panda. Of course, there are extenuating circumstances, but I can't know about them. If I was omniscient, and could tell whether a person was worth saving or not...yeah, I'd let them starve, if they'd be a drain. But I'm not, and it is my opinion that a human being is innocent until proven guilty, and as such I will choose to feed the human being over keeping the panda alive.

Yes, we are omnivores, and we can eat both meat and plant life. However, we can not eat all plant life, like other creatures. We could probably subsist on a strictly non-animal diet, but it's far easier for us to eat meat in addition to vegetables. When I said I'd kill the panda, I was assuming that either: a) we need the meat due to lack of other sources of protein or b) the only food available is bamboo (which humans can't eat) and pandas (which we can).

ChrisWWII wrote:It is a generalization. Yeah, there are some people who deserve to die, but that's not for me to decide. If I didn't know anything about the person, and I had to choose between killing a panda to feed them, and letting that person die, I'd kill the panda. Of course, there are extenuating circumstances, but I can't know about them. If I was omniscient, and could tell whether a person was worth saving or not...yeah, I'd let them starve, if they'd be a drain. But I'm not, and it is my opinion that a human being is innocent until proven guilty, and as such I will choose to feed the human being over keeping the panda alive.

Yes, we are omnivores, and we can eat both meat and plant life. However, we can not eat all plant life, like other creatures. We could probably subsist on a strictly non-animal diet, but it's far easier for us to eat meat in addition to vegetables. When I said I'd kill the panda, I was assuming that either: a) we need the meat due to lack of other sources of protein or b) the only food available is bamboo (which humans can't eat) and pandas (which we can).

Yeah I suppose that would have made it clearer.

I realise that we cant eat all plants but there is a considerable amount of plant life that we can eat, Im simply saying we have the option.

A lot of people call me a sick, sadistic bastard for this, but I believe that within reason, you should be able to cause physical pain to a household animal if they've done something that could be considered wrong. Animals in general, unlike humans, don't have a firm grasp of morality, or much of an ability to reason, so pain is often the only barrier keeping a household pet from doing whatever the feth it wants to. Of course, I'll be sure to do my best to show an animal what it has done wrong before it receives it's punishment, so it can learn from it's mistakes.

If a dog takes a dump on my bed, I'm going to hit it. If a cat destroys something I've spent hundreds of dollars on, I'm going to hit it.

Needless to say, my roommate has learned to make sure that her cat stays out of my room at all costs. She's someone who believes that an animal should never suffer physical pain under any circumstance. Even if it burns your house down, it's innocent. We get in fights about this all the time.

Also, I think that unethical treatment of animals is far overblown by PETA and company. We are shown all of the bad cases, and none of the good ones. Therefore, most people are led to believe that it's all horrific, all of the time.

Not to say that it's not horrific when it does happen, or that it shouldn't be punished. I'm only saying that it doesn't happen as often as you are led to believe.

Polonius wrote:Well, if you judge things by their worst, than I haven't seen a human rip the head of her husband after sex. Or cannibalize the young of another. Animals can be bastards to. OTOH they don't create art.

While thats true , dont you feel it might be abit circumstancial?
Animal live in a strict circle of life , where humans are not bound by it, for what ever reason we ended up evolving this way , it doesnt matter
because we DO have the luxury of messing around when animals do not.

So in a way , they have higher priorities in doing other things to insure their survival than say , creating art.

For example, when is the last time you see your parents do art ( please please dont be from artistic family rofl )

Well you get my point , i hope.

In other words , im the type that believes animals have soul , and most have emotions , and many display love and effection.
This alone makes me sympathetic in their treatment. I believe they should have the right to live unless they threaten our own lives or is some emergency like we are going to die from starvation.

Unfortunately as there are so many type of human beings in this world...
Some do others harm because they can.
While others wish others well and help because , they can.

If they want to kill animals for the sole reason of because "they can" well , for me thats even lower than a beast that kills to survive.

ColdFire wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

ColdFire wrote:
Emperors Faithful: Im surprised you used Rhino as an example for why Trophy Hunting is ok. Trophy Hunters do not eat the animals they kill, they kill them to show how tough they are and what beasties they have taken down, its nothing but grotesque egotism. Especially Rhinos, historically they were favoured for their horns as trophies of a hunt, now they are killed for their horns for medicine and decore. This is a major waste of anamal life and a major environmental problem, sadly its caused by economic problems in other cultures who care more about money then they do about the products of thousands of years of evolution. I get upset because people "have" killed an endangered and "why" they justify it.

You obviously missed my point, and I don't really think reiterating will help you TBH.

By all means please, if I can learn something but from what I read of your post before I dont see how Ive missed anything, please reiterate if you think I have missed something dont just stomp off in a huff. It doesnt solve problems.

Essentially, it makes no difference 'why' you kill an animal, as the animal is dead. Whether you did it in self-defence, hunger, or the thrill of the kill, the end result is still a dead animal.



As for the 'save a human vs animal' here's an example:

If in the case of a burning building would you choose, at face value, to save the human or a boxful of kittens?
As adorable as they are, and as gak as I would feel afterwards for not being able to save them, the choice is always going to be the human. That doesn't mean that I would rather drown a cat than see a mass-murderer take a seat in the electric chair.

It's also been proven that a solely vegetarian diet is not as healthy as a balanced omnivorous diet. However, I would kill of the last of the panda population rather than eat my greens becuase that's not sustainable.

Essentially, it makes no difference 'why' you kill an animal, as the animal is dead. Whether you did it in self-defence, hunger, or the thrill of the kill, the end result is still a dead animal.

For every action , there is definitely a reaction , this is the rule of universe and will never change. While it makes no difference to the already dead animal ,
it makes every difference to the one that initiated the "action" to the kill and anyone that has a part of it .
Or else , cant we simply say "anyone that have extinguished a human life should be treated the same way? " "May it be in self defense, or in cold blooded murder since the victim is dead? "

As for the 'save a human vs animal' here's an example:

If in the case of a burning building would you choose, at face value, to save the human or a boxful of kittens?

Interesting question , here is my reply. I would save the human, why? because i believe a lone human should have more impact in the world's existence or more capability to change the world , then a boxful of kittens.
In a way, humans like to say they are supreme life form on this planet? Alright so be it, then we do our share since we are such hot shots. With great powers comes great responsibilities no?
We maybe "just humans" to each other , but there is no doubt when compared to animals or insects , we hold godly powers compared to what they can do?
( almost related to humans asking why doesnt god help us right? even though god is so mighty ? very interesting huh ^^ )

But you are missing the point people mentioned. Many have killed animals NOT out of necessity , only because they "can" which is very different then your question.

As adorable as they are, and as gak as I would feel afterwards for not being able to save them, the choice is always going to be the human. That doesn't mean that I would rather drown a cat than see a mass-murderer take a seat in the electric chair.

Yes i understand.

It's also been proven that a solely vegetarian diet is not as healthy as a balanced omnivorous diet. However, I would kill of the last of the panda population rather than eat my greens becuase that's not sustainable.

Well thats your freedom i guess :'P

I think there's an obligation to minimise suffering to animals, and that this is just part of being a decent human being. Basically I don't have a problem with eating meat, if that meat is humanely slaughtered. Finding out if that is actually the case is an extremely hard thing to do.

happydude wrote:I wish that were the case, however I cannot remember the last time a marmoset shelled a swamp area in order to drive out its residents and drain its resources for a profit margin. I really wish humanity were different though and I really would love to have your mindset as I once did even though I still try to see the good in everyone more often than not it never is so.

You're confusing capability with morality. Animals lack the capability to reap vast environmental damage, but this doesn't mean them more moral. If that marmoset grew so large that it could sweep a whole swamp it wouldn't start acting more carefully, it wouldn't even have the intellect to consider such a thing necessary.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ChrisWWII wrote:Yes, we are omnivores, and we can eat both meat and plant life. However, we can not eat all plant life, like other creatures. We could probably subsist on a strictly non-animal diet, but it's far easier for us to eat meat in addition to vegetables.

There's no probably about. People not only can, they can actually eat far more healthily than people do now. That is, the healthiest diet possible would include a small amount of meat, but you could have a vegetarian diet that's much healthier than what 99% of people live on today, if you were so inclined.

As for ease, livestock is a primary cause of carbon emissions and many livestock types are incredibly damaging to the land. It would be far easier and more sustainable to feed our current population on plant life alone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chrysaor686 wrote:Of course, I'll be sure to do my best to show an animal what it has done wrong before it receives it's punishment, so it can learn from it's mistakes.

If a dog takes a dump on my bed, I'm going to hit it. If a cat destroys something I've spent hundreds of dollars on, I'm going to hit it.

Being social animals, dogs learn more from shaming than they do from pain. Seriously, the dog will learn more and suffer more from being scolded and seperated from you than it will from being hit.

What this actually means is that the issue "do you hit a dog?" is actually pretty meaningless, because the dog doesn't really give a gak either way. It's got a threshhold for pain way beyond what you're likely willing to inflict, so hitting it won't really traumatise the dog nor will it actually achieve anything.

Scolding the dog and seperating it from the group is by far the better option.

LunaHound wrote:

Essentially, it makes no difference 'why' you kill an animal, as the animal is dead. Whether you did it in self-defence, hunger, or the thrill of the kill, the end result is still a dead animal.

For every action , there is definitely a reaction , this is the rule of universe and will never change. While it makes no difference to the already dead animal ,
it makes every difference to the one that initiated the "action" to the kill and anyone that has a part of it .
Or else , cant we simply say "anyone that have extinguished a human life should be treated the same way? " "May it be in self defense, or in cold blooded murder since the victim is dead? "

That's because human life has equal value.

Maybe I'm over-simplifying, I would completely understand an animal killing a human in self-defence (and would advocate that the creature be allowed to live unless it was likely to do so again), just as I would also abhor the torture of animals. The inherent value of humans over animals, as you've said, isn't a one way street.

My point in regards to the Rhino and other endangered species was the enviromental impact, what difference does it make if the poacher/hunter killed [insert super endangered species here] for food or a trophy? The committed an reckless and unsustainable act by dooming said species to extinction.

For example, if wolves were abundant and became unbelievably prominent, would you be against hunters going out and seeking Wolf trophies? I don't think so, it's the rarity of the animal, and the risk of losing their individual and beautiful presence on our planet that makes killing endangered animals so repugnant.

As for the 'save a human vs animal' here's an example:

If in the case of a burning building would you choose, at face value, to save the human or a boxful of kittens?

Interesting question , here is my reply. I would save the human, why? because i believe a lone human should have more impact in the world's existence or more capability to change the world , then a boxful of kittens.
In a way, humans like to say they are supreme life form on this planet? Alright so be it, then we do our share since we are such hot shots. With great powers comes great responsibilities no?
We maybe "just humans" to each other , but there is no doubt when compared to animals or insects , we hold godly powers compared to what they can do?
( almost related to humans asking why doesnt god help us right? even though god is so mighty ? very interesting huh ^^ )

I don't really see it to be that existenstial. It's natural for species to value their own over another, especially prey. Our survival instinct would be pretty useless if we valued an incompatible species over our own.

But you are missing the point people mentioned. Many have killed animals NOT out of necessity , only because they "can" which is very different then your question.

Humans aren't alone in this. Hell, cats even play with their food.

It's also been proven that a solely vegetarian diet is not as healthy as a balanced omnivorous diet. However, I would kill of the last of the panda population rather than eat my greens becuase that's not sustainable.

Well thats your freedom i guess :'P

Whoops, meant to be a n't there.

I'd only eat meat if it was sustainable, otherwise the meat will run out sooner or later. Same goes for farming crops and the sustainable practice of that.

My point in regards to the Rhino and other endangered species was the enviromental impact, what difference does it make if the poacher/hunter killed [insert super endangered species here] for food or a trophy? The committed an reckless and unsustainable act by dooming said species to extinction.

The difference would be the amount of animals killed would greatly differ between the 2 reasons of killing them

For example, if wolves were abundant and became unbelievably prominent, would you be against hunters going out and seeking Wolf trophies? I don't think so, it's the rarity of the animal, and the risk of losing their individual and beautiful presence on our planet that makes killing endangered animals so repugnant.

I would be against it , though of course the trophy hunters have no use for none rare animal to be used as trophy :'/

I don't really see it to be that existenstial. It's natural for species to value their own over another, especially prey. Our survival instinct would be pretty useless if we valued an incompatible species over our own.

But thats what makes humans different then animals no? the ability to reason over our innate primal reactions

Humans aren't alone in this. Hell, cats even play with their food.

Yes they do, I dont like cats , MAOWWWWWW

I agree with minimalising the damage we cause to animals. Some is inevitable such as eating which is a natural process, but being capable of higher though I believe we should try and reduce the pain they feel. I am completely against harming animals for enjoyment.

I'm ok with hunting if it's for food, the animal got a good life (better than most farm animals) and people have to eat. Hunting for sport is not something I can ever agree with. IMO the animals life is more important than someone's enjoyment or pride at having killed it. One must be done the other is uneccessary.

The reason for my thoughts are that I don't see humans as anything more than advanced animals. I don't think being more intelligent makes us more important, I can understand seeing a human as better but thats because we are human and would have a biased opinion. While we only cause more damage because we can, we also have the intelligence to understand the effects of our actions but often still choose the selfish destructive path. I see animals as neutral and I see humans as having an overal negative effect.

I agree with a lot of what Luna said. Especially about animals being much close to humans than we admit. You just have to look at pet animals. When they have the luxury of being able to get everything they need without having to act in an animalistic way they start to show many traits which we typicaly see as human traits.

sebster wrote:

Chrysaor686 wrote:Of course, I'll be sure to do my best to show an animal what it has done wrong before it receives it's punishment, so it can learn from it's mistakes.

If a dog takes a dump on my bed, I'm going to hit it. If a cat destroys something I've spent hundreds of dollars on, I'm going to hit it.

Being social animals, dogs learn more from shaming than they do from pain. Seriously, the dog will learn more and suffer more from being scolded and seperated from you than it will from being hit.

What this actually means is that the issue "do you hit a dog?" is actually pretty meaningless, because the dog doesn't really give a gak either way. It's got a threshhold for pain way beyond what you're likely willing to inflict, so hitting it won't really traumatise the dog nor will it actually achieve anything.

Scolding the dog and seperating it from the group is by far the better option.

Truth. When humans hit dogs, it's generally to make themselves feel better, as opposed to correcting their dog. Every time you hit a dog, you increase the probability that it will bite you one day, as they don't understand the concept of being 'hit'. Apparently, when you hit a dog, the dog interprets you drawing your hand away after the hit as fear, and fear to dogs is weakness. Plus, you pretty much can't hurt a dog with your bare hands, especially if you're a teenage boy, and not exactly the 'captain of the football team type'. This is because some breeds are nigh on impervious to pain - I've seen my Lab take some blows to the head (she's a clumsy fether!) that would have knocked me out, no question. The tail just keeps on wagging.

I even heard a story about a guy who nearly got his arm ripped off by a pitbull - he punched it in the face over and over again to try to get the dog to let go of his arm. In the end, he managed to grab a kitchen knife, and had to stab it six times before the dog would even loosen its grip.

4M2A wrote:IMO the animals life is more important than someone's enjoyment or pride at having killed it. One must be done the other is uneccessary.

So well said , i cant believe i left that part out. I 100% agree with you , most of the sport hunting is just that. A life traded for one's adrenalin rush , wall trophy.

The reason for my thoughts are that I don't see humans as anything more than advanced animals. I don't think being more intelligent makes us more important, I can understand seeing a human as better but thats because we are human and would have a biased opinion. While we only cause more damage because we can, we also have the intelligence to understand the effects of our actions but often still choose the selfish destructive path. I see animals as neutral and I see humans as having an overal negative effect.

Again , i 100% with you especially the part i high lighted in bold. Nope! been intelligent doesnt make us more important , because its obvious mother earth dont give a ****
how smart we are while we continue to destroy the very environment that is sustaining all life. IF anything , slowly killing ourselves really doesnt seem intelligent at all.

You just have to look at pet animals. When they have the luxury of being able to get everything they need without having to act in an animalistic way they start to show many traits which we typicaly see as human traits.

Amen .... amen.

LunaHound wrote:

My point in regards to the Rhino and other endangered species was the enviromental impact, what difference does it make if the poacher/hunter killed [insert super endangered species here] for food or a trophy? The committed an reckless and unsustainable act by dooming said species to extinction.

The difference would be the amount of animals killed would greatly differ between the 2 reasons of killing them

You're saying that more Pandas are killed for their meat than for trophies?
What about cows?

Can you spot the difference between the two?

For example, if wolves were abundant and became unbelievably prominent, would you be against hunters going out and seeking Wolf trophies? I don't think so, it's the rarity of the animal, and the risk of losing their individual and beautiful presence on our planet that makes killing endangered animals so repugnant.

I would be against it , though of course the trophy hunters have no use for none rare animal to be used as trophy :'/

It's not the rarity of the animal really, though that has some appeal I suppose, it's the hunt and danger (how removed due to technology) that would motivate hunters (in addition to any necessity to protect livestock).

I don't really see it to be that existenstial. It's natural for species to value their own over another, especially prey. Our survival instinct would be pretty useless if we valued an incompatible species over our own.

But thats what makes humans different then animals no? the ability to reason over our innate primal reactions

Not really, unless you believe there is something inherently divine that seperates man from animal. For all we know we could just be very darn successful as far as species go.

You're saying that more Pandas are killed for their meat than for trophies?
What about cows?

Can you spot the difference between the two?

Arnt we strictly using endangered species in the quote? If its cows , then of course its different.

It's not the rarity of the animal really, though that has some appeal I suppose, it's the hunt and danger (how removed due to technology) that would motivate hunters (in addition to any necessity to protect livestock).

I think thats a difference between game hunter and trophy hunter vs poachers

LunaHound wrote:

You're saying that more Pandas are killed for their meat than for trophies?
What about cows?

Can you spot the difference between the two?

Arnt we strictly using endangered species in the quote? If its cows , then of course its different.

That's my point, it's the unsustainability that makes these acts reprehensible, not really anything else.

It's not the rarity of the animal really, though that has some appeal I suppose, it's the hunt and danger (how removed due to technology) that would motivate hunters (in addition to any necessity to protect livestock).

I think thats a difference between game hunter vs trophy hunter

Generally carnivores aren't hunted for their flesh either way.

That's my point, it's the unsustainability that makes these acts reprehensible, not really anything else.

If thats the case , then for example , wouldnt it be awful if the amount of cow we killed, are not eaten?
and if only took their horns / heads?

It's not just wrong when we are talking about endangered animals. If I just got a shoot a dog or a cow for the thrill I am still killing a perfectly fine animal for no reason. My enjoyment isn't worth that animals life.

LunaHound wrote:

That's my point, it's the unsustainability that makes these acts reprehensible, not really anything else.

If thats the case , then for example , wouldnt it be awful if the amount of cow we killed, are not eaten?

I'm sorry can you reiterate this? Are you saying it would be awful if we kill more cows than we eat? It would depend, many may have been put down due to disease or weren't suitable to be eaten. If a certain slaughterhouse was chopping up a cows for gaks and giggles then that would be disturbing.

and if only took their horns / heads?

Was taking the horn/head a relatively dangerous activity (like the Matador in Spain)?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

4M2A wrote:It's not just wrong when we are talking about endangered animals. If I just got a shoot a dog or a cow for the thrill I am still killing a perfectly fine animal for no reason. My enjoyment isn't worth that animals life.

If you had read my post you'd see I'm not saying that.

Humanity bears the gift of sapience, which makes any human more precious in my eyes than any other animal life. Given the choice between saving most humans and saving an animal, I'd probably choose the human.

That being said, however, the value of an individual is not measured by how he treats his equals; it's measured by how he treats his inferiors. If you harm an animal simply to cause it suffer, and not for sustenance or to save your own life, then you're lower than any animal.

Hawkward wrote:Humanity bears the gift of sapience, which makes any human more precious in my eyes than any other animal life. Given the choice between saving most humans and saving an animal, I'd probably choose the human.

That being said, however, the value of an individual is not measured by how he treats his equals; it's measured by how he treats his inferiors. If you harm an animal simply to cause it suffer, and not for sustenance or to save your own life, then you're lower than any animal.

If you needed to travel great distances but had little access to technology would you really kill a horse instead of a human?

corpsesarefun wrote:

If you needed to travel great distances but had little access to technology would you really kill a horse instead of a human?

If my need to travel great distances with little access to technology was because my life was in danger and there was no other course of action, then killing a human and taking his horse would be justified. It would be more justified if the lives of my friends or dependents relied on my getting there quickly. If it was simply as a matter of convenience, I'd just go without a horse.

Where land can be used for either crops or animals, I would prefer it to be used for crops, as they can feed more people per acre than animals. On land unsuitable for crops, animals should he kept.

I would agree with the majority of people that meat animals should be treated as well as possible before being turned into steaks, burgers and other foodstuffs.

Hunting for sport is fine so long as the person doing the hunting has at least some fundamental knowledge and skill as to how to make clean kill shots.

Pets and so on should be treated well. People unable to care for animals should not be permitted to own them.

Generally anyone who mistreats animals should face the law.

Chrysaor686 wrote:A lot of people call me a sick, sadistic bastard for this, but I believe that within reason, you should be able to cause physical pain to a household animal if they've done something that could be considered wrong. Animals in general, unlike humans, don't have a firm grasp of morality, or much of an ability to reason, so pain is often the only barrier keeping a household pet from doing whatever the feth it wants to. Of course, I'll be sure to do my best to show an animal what it has done wrong before it receives it's punishment, so it can learn from it's mistakes.

If a dog takes a dump on my bed, I'm going to hit it. If a cat destroys something I've spent hundreds of dollars on, I'm going to hit it.

Needless to say, my roommate has learned to make sure that her cat stays out of my room at all costs. She's someone who believes that an animal should never suffer physical pain under any circumstance. Even if it burns your house down, it's innocent. We get in fights about this all the time.

Also, I think that unethical treatment of animals is far overblown by PETA and company. We are shown all of the bad cases, and none of the good ones. Therefore, most people are led to believe that it's all horrific, all of the time.

Not to say that it's not horrific when it does happen, or that it shouldn't be punished. I'm only saying that it doesn't happen as often as you are led to believe.

Hitting an animal, especially a dog doesnt really discipline them. Dogs respond better to scolding and isolation, although I think someone already mentioned this so i wont go on.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

ColdFire wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

ColdFire wrote:
Emperors Faithful: Im surprised you used Rhino as an example for why Trophy Hunting is ok. Trophy Hunters do not eat the animals they kill, they kill them to show how tough they are and what beasties they have taken down, its nothing but grotesque egotism. Especially Rhinos, historically they were favoured for their horns as trophies of a hunt, now they are killed for their horns for medicine and decore. This is a major waste of anamal life and a major environmental problem, sadly its caused by economic problems in other cultures who care more about money then they do about the products of thousands of years of evolution. I get upset because people "have" killed an endangered and "why" they justify it.

You obviously missed my point, and I don't really think reiterating will help you TBH.

By all means please, if I can learn something but from what I read of your post before I dont see how Ive missed anything, please reiterate if you think I have missed something dont just stomp off in a huff. It doesnt solve problems.

Essentially, it makes no difference 'why' you kill an animal, as the animal is dead. Whether you did it in self-defence, hunger, or the thrill of the kill, the end result is still a dead animal.

As for the 'save a human vs animal' here's an example:

If in the case of a burning building would you choose, at face value, to save the human or a boxful of kittens?
As adorable as they are, and as gak as I would feel afterwards for not being able to save them, the choice is always going to be the human. That doesn't mean that I would rather drown a cat than see a mass-murderer take a seat in the electric chair.

It's also been proven that a solely vegetarian diet is not as healthy as a balanced omnivorous diet. However, I would kill of the last of the panda population rather than eat my greens becuase that's not sustainable.

The issue is WHY because then we know how to judge the person, if a person was lost in the African savvanah with no food and his only hope was to take out an animal for food "I wont say Rhino because thats a terrible analogy" then i would not judge them harshly, thats survival. However if a poacher went out and shot a rhino to help him bring in the income to pay for another car in his summer home then I would be totally and completely against it. I simply found it odd that you chose a Rhino as an example, Rhinos are not a reasonable choice for meat compared to the other animals which inhabit the Savvanah. A predator judges many things before deciding on its prey, they make sure that the risk involved in hunting the prey is outweighed by the rewards, rhino's are dangerous and their meat is tough, not to mention the hard platings of armour on their body which help to make obtaining the meat even harder. Poachers outweigh the risk with the money reward in obtaining the Keratin from their horns and their superior firepower. A hunter looking for food should not be looking for Rhino.

As for your Vegetarian diet is not sustainable BS, I personally find it pathetic that you would rather kill off an endangered species rather then have the self discipline to allow them to repopulate while you eat your greens, proteins can be supplemented with mushrooms. The fact that we ARE omnivores is something not to be taken for granted, it is what has allowed us to live on this planet for thousands of years, we have a choice not to destroy our meat supply because we can eat elsewhere. A balanced diet is ideal true but if we were to eat all the pandas then there would be no pandas left and then we are stuck eating nothing but vegetables anyway, do you get it.

4M2A wrote:
The reason for my thoughts are that I don't see humans as anything more than advanced animals. I don't think being more intelligent makes us more important, I can understand seeing a human as better but thats because we are human and would have a biased opinion. While we only cause more damage because we can, we also have the intelligence to understand the effects of our actions but often still choose the selfish destructive path. I see animals as neutral and I see humans as having an overal negative effect.

I agree with a lot of what Luna said. Especially about animals being much close to humans than we admit. You just have to look at pet animals. When they have the luxury of being able to get everything they need without having to act in an animalistic way they start to show many traits which we typicaly see as human traits.

I completely agree with everything posted here.

Hawkward wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:

If you needed to travel great distances but had little access to technology would you really kill a horse instead of a human?

If my need to travel great distances with little access to technology was because my life was in danger and there was no other course of action, then killing a human and taking his horse would be justified. It would be more justified if the lives of my friends or dependents relied on my getting there quickly. If it was simply as a matter of convenience, I'd just go without a horse.

OK while were on the topic of morality and life value, heres one for you. What if this man riding this horse was fundamentally more important than you, would you sacrifice yourself to ensure that his contribution can be made which will benefit the lives of countless humans or do you kill him because survival ranks above all things.

I personally feel that animal life, unfortunately, has negligible inherent value comparable to humans. They do have value directly linked to the worth of the animal to humans. If I had to sacrifice a single human or every animal in the world I hope the person would understand that they'll be taking one for the team because of the suffering their absence would cause.

Otherwise, I agree that they shouldn't suffer any more than is reasonably necessary. I disagree with the killing of more intelligent animals for food unless necessary for human survival.

I also am strongly opposed to cases of animal welfare being blown out of proportion. If someone is unnecessarily cruel to an animal they may face punitive action. They probably don't deserve death threats and hysterical condemnation.

Also, I'd like to repeat that animals can be cruel, murderous, incestuous rapists. I have no doubt that most animals would blithely cause the deaths of a bunch of people in return for a treat if they had the power or intelligence.

ColdFire wrote:
OK while were on the topic of morality and life value, heres one for you. What if this man riding this horse was fundamentally more important than you, would you sacrifice yourself to ensure that his contribution can be made which will benefit the lives of countless humans or do you kill him because survival ranks above all things.

If sacrificing myself would benefit the lives of countless humans, I'd certainly consider it. If my own life was on the line, though, and if I had been thrust into the situation through no fault of my own, then I'd be perfectly within my rights to say "screw it" and fight for my own survival.

Also, I'd like to repeat that animals can be cruel, murderous, incestuous rapists. I have no doubt that most animals would blithely cause the deaths of a bunch of people in return for a treat if they had the power or intelligence.

Murderous yes but animals can't be cruel. This implies they get some pleasure from causing escess harm, which isn't something they understand. It may seem cruel to us but not to them.

Being "incestous rapist" doesn't have the same problems for animals as us. While unhealthy they don't see it as a problem. Dignity is a human emotion and so being animals don't have issues being raped. Animals don't breed for love they breed for the sake of reproduction so rape isn't really a problem.