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.

I have to admit, everytime I see one of these pictures I smile a little:



Edit: Hopefully a little better.

That's just a bit... graphic.

Just noticed his face, sorry.

Let me find something a little less bloody, if I can't I'll spoiler it.

Doesn't bother me. I consider it a succesful year if I've been shoulder deep in an animals chest cavity. But we do have younger folks here.

Edit: Much better, and more comical.

He said "what, what? in the butt?"

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 purplefood wrote:
A human could stockpile research relating to bulls, allowing him to understand the nature of bulls and therefore give him an edge in strategic play.

You mean, like, understanding that bulls are not a danger to any reasonnable human being and that we shouldn't try to engage them in combat?

Thats actually wrong. Bulls are VERY dangerous animals. The smaller the bull, the more dangerous. Dairy being the most agressive.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 purplefood wrote:
A human could stockpile research relating to bulls, allowing him to understand the nature of bulls and therefore give him an edge in strategic play.

You mean, like, understanding that bulls are not a danger to any reasonnable human being and that we shouldn't try to engage them in combat?

Thats actually wrong. Bulls are VERY dangerous animals. The smaller the bull, the more dangerous. Dairy being the most agressive.

Bulls? Hell, I've been charged by regular cows. They're an ornery animal.

I'm scared of wild donkeys.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 purplefood wrote:
A human could stockpile research relating to bulls, allowing him to understand the nature of bulls and therefore give him an edge in strategic play.

You mean, like, understanding that bulls are not a danger to any reasonnable human being and that we shouldn't try to engage them in combat?

Thats actually wrong. Bulls are VERY dangerous animals. The smaller the bull, the more dangerous. Dairy being the most agressive.

I said 'reasonnable human beings'. You know, the kind that develops skills that allow them to escape the tedious life of squeezing bovines mamaries at unspeakable hours of the day...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
I'm scared of wild donkeys.

I'm attracted by wild donkeys.

IfyouknowwhatImean.jpg

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 purplefood wrote:
A human could stockpile research relating to bulls, allowing him to understand the nature of bulls and therefore give him an edge in strategic play.

You mean, like, understanding that bulls are not a danger to any reasonnable human being and that we shouldn't try to engage them in combat?

That second bit more than anything...

Well, I guess Spain has no right to bailouts or economic assistance from the EU, if you catch my drift?

On a more on-topic note, so what if they don't have the right to freedom. You're still a complete fethwad for performing something like bull fighting. I don't really care if it's "part of their heritage", it was once part of Sweden's heritage to rape, burn and pillage Spanish coastal cities.

 daedalus wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
What's the difference between an animal and a human?

Our brain.

Which difference in our brain?

There's evidence to suggest that dolphins and some apes are self-aware.

Animals have been witnessed having enough problem-solving skills to use tools.

My dog knows how to be deceptive.

I can therefore conclude that there exist animals at least as intelligent as my coworkers.

It's an issue of degree. While there are animals that may display intelligence approaching the very lowest humans, they are few and far between, while humans achieve an average of "ridiculously op gamebreaker".

Further, rights are derived from the instinctive phenomenon of the "social compact". We have rights because rights are a nice thing to have, and so individually benefit from a society that acknowledges our rights. It's counter-productive and insane to apply rights to things that exist outside the social compact. In addition, as we are not, and cannot be, cattle, it doesn't serve us in the least to insist upon rights for them.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Well, I guess Spain has no right to bailouts or economic assistance from the EU, if you catch my drift?

On a more on-topic note, so what if they don't have the right to freedom. You're still a complete fethwad for performing something like bull fighting. I don't really care if it's "part of their heritage", it was once part of Sweden's heritage to rape, burn and pillage Spanish coastal cities.

And shame on the Swedish for giving up such a long and glorious tradition.

But really, how is this any different than a big game hunting television show? Especially bow hunting, where the principle is the same, except that I think the Spanish way of doing it is more fair. They are all examples of animals who are being "tortured" or killed for human entertainment. One happens in an arena, the other happens on your television. I personally don't see much of a difference between the two sports.

I can't comprehend the outrage greeting this statement- surely anyone who eats meat has already accepted the premise?

 Da Boss wrote:
I can't comprehend the outrage greeting this statement- surely anyone who eats meat has already accepted the premise?

Well, for me there is a difference.

I eat meat, but I want my meat to be raised as humanely as possible. I try to source my meat locally, ideally from a place where I can go and visit the farm. Free range chickens, free range beef, etc. Same with slaughtering the animals. Just because I know the animal will die and end up on my plate doesn't mean that I can't care about the animal and so I try to avoid mass farmed meat.

Just because the animal dies for food doesn't mean it has to be treated like gak and live a misserable life while it waits for slaughter.

 Ratbarf wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Well, I guess Spain has no right to bailouts or economic assistance from the EU, if you catch my drift?

On a more on-topic note, so what if they don't have the right to freedom. You're still a complete fethwad for performing something like bull fighting. I don't really care if it's "part of their heritage", it was once part of Sweden's heritage to rape, burn and pillage Spanish coastal cities.

And shame on the Swedish for giving up such a long and glorious tradition.

But really, how is this any different than a big game hunting television show? Especially bow hunting, where the principle is the same, except that I think the Spanish way of doing it is more fair. They are all examples of animals who are being "tortured" or killed for human entertainment. One happens in an arena, the other happens on your television. I personally don't see much of a difference between the two sports.

Neither do I, which is why I think hunting because it's fun is dumb.

Oh, well then, please trying stop taking away my fun when it doesn't hurt you directly. If one is so concerned about humanitarian acts that they start doing them for animals I suggest they move to Africa. Or actually Asia, I can't think of anything in Asia that I want to shoot for fun.

Heck, I will even agree that I don't see the point in hunting something just to put a head on your wall. If you kill it you better eat the dang thing.

 Ratbarf wrote:
Oh, well then, please trying stop taking away my fun when it doesn't hurt you directly. If one is so concerned about humanitarian acts that they start doing them for animals I suggest they move to Africa. Or actually Asia, I can't think of anything in Asia that I want to shoot for fun.

It's not so much about the animals, as it is about what a desire to be cruel to them says about us. It makes you a gakky coward of a person to want to hurt something weaker than yourself just for the fun of it. Which is why I would absolutely kick the feth out of anyone I saw abusing an animal for fun, and I'm not generally a violent person. I can't stand it. I once saw a guy kick a dog when I was living in Spain and it took four people to restrain me from going and booting that fether as hard as I could.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Well, I guess Spain has no right to bailouts or economic assistance from the EU, if you catch my drift?

On a more on-topic note, so what if they don't have the right to freedom. You're still a complete fethwad for performing something like bull fighting. I don't really care if it's "part of their heritage", it was once part of Sweden's heritage to rape, burn and pillage Spanish coastal cities.

And shame on the Swedish for giving up such a long and glorious tradition.

But really, how is this any different than a big game hunting television show? Especially bow hunting, where the principle is the same, except that I think the Spanish way of doing it is more fair. They are all examples of animals who are being "tortured" or killed for human entertainment. One happens in an arena, the other happens on your television. I personally don't see much of a difference between the two sports.

Neither do I, which is why I think hunting because it's fun is dumb.

What about hunting for fun AND food?

Most people that hunt do it for fun, but they also eat the meat. Or someone eats the meat. It doesn't go to waste.

That's pretty terrible.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:

Further, rights are derived from the instinctive phenomenon of the "social compact". We have rights because rights are a nice thing to have, and so individually benefit from a society that acknowledges our rights. It's counter-productive and insane to apply rights to things that exist outside the social compact. In addition, as we are not, and cannot be, cattle, it doesn't serve us in the least to insist upon rights for them.

So it's Hobbesian then.

If animals have a right to life what are we supposed to do if they keep eating each other?

We can recognise that a right to life is nonsensical in the case of animals AND at the same time decide we are not to be cruel to them.

The Spanish proposal is to ban the banning of bull fighting, which is the opposite.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:

It's an issue of degree. While there are animals that may display intelligence approaching the very lowest humans, they are few and far between, while humans achieve an average of "ridiculously op gamebreaker".

Without being cynical, I think you overestimate the richness of the average human mind.

Further, rights are derived from the instinctive phenomenon of the "social compact".

It's a gakload more complex than this. Social contract theories are one of many forms of theory concerning the origin of rights, and mainly a convenient way to explain why we should engage in restricting our freedom. They don't necessarily have a 'production of rights' aspect to it.

It's counter-productive and insane to apply rights to things that exist outside the social compact.

No it's not. We provide rights to the unborn, to the inanimate (art) and the immaterial (companies). There's nothing insane about it. Law doesn't seek any semblance of 'productivity'.

In addition, as we are not, and cannot be, cattle, it doesn't serve us in the least to insist upon rights for them.

You do not need to be identical to something to have a relationship to it. It's that relationship that is the basis for the dicussion on rights,


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If animals have a right to life what are we supposed to do if they keep eating each other?

Having a right isn't identical to recognizing or being able to exercice that right.

Sadly, I see very little in the way of rights being given to the unborn.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Sadly, I see very little in the way of rights being given to the unborn.

Well, a zygote is no more aware of itself and its surroundings than a dog, in fact, considerably less so.

Oh, wait - dogs don't have 'souls'.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Sadly, I see very little in the way of rights being given to the unborn.

True, but there are a few (of course depending on your State's legislation). Up here, for exemple, unborn children have a few rights concerning their future patrimony.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Sadly, I see very little in the way of rights being given to the unborn.

True, but there are a few (of course depending on your State's legislation). Up here, for exemple, unborn children have a few rights concerning their future patrimony.

Nice to know that. Lets hope it spreads.

 Albatross wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Sadly, I see very little in the way of rights being given to the unborn.

Well, a zygote is no more aware of itself and its surroundings than a dog, in fact, considerably less so.

Oh, wait - dogs don't have 'souls'.

If Dr Damasio is correct, self-awareness is something that is shared by pretty much all vertebrates. It's only less rich because our cerebral cortex is much more advanced. Of the three components of self-awareness (proto, core and autobiographical) we share the first two with all vertebrate species, and the third with a lot of higher forms, including dogs, dolphins and quite a few primates. Those animals remember and plan ahead.

http://www.ted.com/talks/antonio_damasio_the_quest_to_understand_consciousness.html?quote=1253

 d-usa wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
I can't comprehend the outrage greeting this statement- surely anyone who eats meat has already accepted the premise?

Well, for me there is a difference.

I eat meat, but I want my meat to be raised as humanely as possible. I try to source my meat locally, ideally from a place where I can go and visit the farm. Free range chickens, free range beef, etc. Same with slaughtering the animals. Just because I know the animal will die and end up on my plate doesn't mean that I can't care about the animal and so I try to avoid mass farmed meat.

Just because the animal dies for food doesn't mean it has to be treated like gak and live a misserable life while it waits for slaughter.

I agree with this d-usa, although living with my parents I have little choice over what I get for food other than a few recommendations.