People caring more about dogs/animals then people?!

[Rukoth]

Mostly everyone knows that Micheal Vick funded dog fighting and what not. Heck, we have a thread going right now about that.


Anyways, driving home today, I was listening to the radio and a guy called in to a radio talk show discussing the Micheal Vick trial.

The guy pretty much said that it is sad that the United States culture is so messed up that people will freak out over dogs getting killed, yet with people they don't.

Sure, what Micheal Vick did was wrong, and should be punished.

But to give a example of what this guy means, he goes on to say something similar to the fact that a Doctor killed three human patients through negligent practice, and the only punishment received was a revokation of his doctors license. Yet a dogs vet accidently kills a dog during a operation, and he is next seen in handcuffs.

I guess the thing is, is that people are treating dogs/animals more like people, and people less then people. The same people who will go ballistic to save the spotted owl eggs of the northern california forest will turn around and tell you that a human fetus is not a child, but a choice.

This is pretty messed up. What is all of your opinions on this?

Animals, while should not be abused. Are still animals and should not be treated like human beings, like some people tend to do.

[JHD536]

Humans are generally able to defend themselves and voice their opinions/objections.

Animals on the other hand cannot.

That and most animals are companion creatures that would invoke a sympathetic response at first glance, strangers would be more likely to bring out mistrust and caution.

[Rukoth]

A human fetus cannot voice its opinions at all. It gets no say whether or not it gets to become a person or just killed off. So saying that is kind of a hypocricy.

[JHD536]

Since when did animals vs humans equal an abortion rights debate? That's also why I used the word generally.

One or the other please.

[Mac_Bug]

We spend billions on ice cream, something that undoubtedly would go better towards saving lives in some third world country. You sir, get off the internet and do some good with your time and money.

[Rukoth]

JD, its the fact that people are getting arrested for the accidental killing of a animal during a surgery, yet people who accidently kill other people during a surgery don't even get investigated....

Its just amazing that in todays U.S. culture people will fight through hell and back to save a certain animal from being killed or its eggs, which like a human fetus, are not technically alive, yet will still try and save them. So you have a double standard going right there.

Its kind of a mixture of both in this topic.

[JHD536]

I haven't had ice cream in atleast 6 months, so pleh.

My point is that you're adding a third, unrelated side to the discussion.

Are you talking about people being more outraged by Vick deliberately killing dogs than people getting mugged/raped/murdered... Or voicing your opinion on whether or not an unborn fetus is a living creature or not?

Also, we don't have hundreds of species of human on the brink of extinction due to animal actions.

[Cable]

Notice how in film, when a dog gets run over or a cat gets chainsawed the audience are all like "Awww, thats horrible!" but when someone gets eviscerated they're like "Oooo, niiice!"?

[Rukoth]

Exactly my point cable.

JH, I will steer away from the abortion thing. Its kind of in my first post though. The fact that people will go try to save an egg, but can care less about a soon to be person.

Anyways, I just don't get why people are getting like this. People will keep their dogs alive forever instead of put them down if they are suffering, my aunts dog was a good example of that, poor thing was blind and deaf, could hardely move, yet they refused to put her down.

When did society become like this? We see in the news of a girl getting killed by a guy, we acknowledge thats wrong, but you don't have huge protests about it. Yet if a puppy or something is killed, there are people with signs up in front of the court house protesting animal abuse.

[MardiGrasBandit]

I just made an abortion thread so this doesn't get too off topic. Now back to the fun at hand courtesy of my position on one awsome type of animal fighting.

I'm interested in cock fighting. I once told a friend I was an aficionado of the sport to gain street cred in a bulls vs bears argument, and in the process of learning enough to be convincing I became fascinated. Different breeds of cocks have different fighting styles, and by cross breeding powerful multi skilled fighters can be created.

I really don't have a problem with the sport. Cocks are naturally aggressive towards each other and I don't think people have any right to stop them from behaving that way. I do have a problem with the various myths that people spread about cockfighting. Here is some examples, along with a healthy dose of debunking!

Myth: Game cocks are abused animals.
Fact: Game cocks are very well treated compared to the average foul. They are kept well fed, well sheltered and are well loved pets.

Myth: Game cocks have only a brutal death to look forward to.
Fact: Game cocks are better kept then any of their companions, and after a successful career they look forward to a life time of breeding.

Myth: Weapons result in painful deaths for game cocks.
Fact: Gaffs, long knives and other weapons create cleaner injuries and in the event of a kill, a quicker, more humane death.

My favorite cock fight was a great gaff (needle) match between a brownred and a Filipino mix. The brownred was expected to loose because it is a flying breed. Flyer's will jump and scratch in a fight, and aren't particularly powerful in gaff matches (usually they fight as glashers, or cocks with spur knives). The Filipino was a mix of two grounders, or cocks that try to pin and peck. Such birds traditionally do better in gaff matches, as the needles are more likely to pierce the skin of a pinned cock. This fight turned out to be a big upset, as the brownred managed to jump up and spur the the Filipino in the face. The needle went right in his eye and killed him instantly. I thought the brownred broke its leg, because the gaff got stuck and it spent a few seconds twisting around. The owner pulled it out fine though, and retired it undefeated. He actually won $7,000 on the match, which makes it something of a legend among Filipino cock fighters.

It's saved on my external hard drive. Assuming it's ok with the staff, I'll host it on YouTube in the morning and post a link.

[Rukoth]

Considering cock fighting is still illegal and using animals lives to gain money, it is still wrong.

The point I am trying to bring across is the fact that in todays society people are caring more about animals then other people in given situations.

[trash.the.ego]

I find people who put animals above other humans quite despicable, but I am talking about people - you know born people with functional brains in a degree that cant be compared to something we slaughter for feed and seen as anything near equal. There is nothing wrong when in the right situations to brings certain species of animals up to an equal standing or near to such with human beings though... this is actually something I believe in.

The same people who will go ballistic to save the spotted owl eggs of the northern california forest will turn around and tell you that a human fetus is not a child, but a choice.


You're opening up a very messing can of beans right here.

Human fetuses aren't children, they're fetuses. We categorize crimes against animals based on levels of brain functionality (and in a lot of cases a very backwards and dated representation). Guess what? Animals we slaughter, thousands upon thousands a day. They have more brain functionality than nearly all of the human fetuses that are argued over in the instance you bring up. They aren't human beings anymore than cows are while at that stage in development if you consider the laws.


Great Apes, even a large number of primates. Their brain functionality when matured is greater than that of toddlers. Great Apes themselves can rival 5-8 year olds when matured. They have complex emotions, many of them representations of an ego (an idea that they are unique, conscious of self), and above all can feel suffering. These are cases where the tag human really shouldn't hold a high water mark of rights, if we're talking about being humane.

When it comes to our species, we get stuck on the fact that we have this marvelous thing called language, spawned with it thousands of years of culture. We automatically separate ourselves from the 'beasts' because we can vocalize such patterns. While on the other hand we simply ignore the sides of us that are nothing more than 'beastly' and in most cases even more malicious.

When it comes to people ignoring human death. It happens, but it's natural for us to do so unless we had personal connections or can relate in some fashion. The idea of death is a mystery to every single one of us, anyone who says otherwise is delusional. When it comes to fictional representations of death and violence, you're underestimating our ability to see something as fictional even though we can easily engross ourselves into it emotionally. It's much better to be moved by fiction than to only know it through reality.


Just some scattered thoughts I rushed together...

[Rukoth]

I can agree with that trash. I understand that a "grown" animal has more brain function then a human fetus. It was the fact that people will try to protect a animal fetus, which still isn't technically alive just like a human fetus.

But getting away from that.

I wasn't talking about natural death. I was talking about people killing other people, intentional or not, and it hardely registering within the minds of people. Yet when a animal gets killed, people are up in arms about it, calling for reforms and what not.

[reki]

it is sad that the United States culture is so messed up that people will freak out over dogs getting killed, yet with people they don't.

What a silly statement. It's because Michael Vick is a celebrity that it's received so much publicity. An equivalent example would be OJ Simpson, and I don't think you could say that nobody got worked up over that one.

[MardiGrasBandit]

I made an abortion thread. (http://forums.relicnews.com/showthread.php?t=159992)

xxRFxx, let me ask you this? Are you ok with professional human fighters? McCain was right when he called the UFC a human cockfight. They are both violent sports of honor, the purest sense of competition there is. Cocks are like people, they choose to do these fights. No one forces them to, and if they don't want to, they don't perform. Breeders spend years (generation if you take into account the history of the sport) developing game cocks that have what it takes to be competitive. The cocks love it, they are naturally aggressive and are always looking to prove their dominance. Yet some clueless person always has to denounce it as animal cruelty and call it barbaric. Which bird looks more like it's being abused?

http://www.malaysiasite.nl/images/iban2.jpg http://www.petadishoom.com/action/images/chicken15-lrg.jpg

Chickens living in slaughter houses face ridiculously brutal conditions and are bred for meat, not for health. Game cocks are bred for strength and health, and live dignified and meaningful lives. I don't pass judgment on people for eating chicken, why pass judgment on someone for breeding chickens for what nature intended them to do?

[Rukoth]

Yes, true reki. But how long has it been since that happened? I can't really think of another case where a trial has been that big. The reason OJ was swamped was because he was a celebrity(or popular) like micheal vick. People kill others in fits of passion or the like all the time, yet don't attract half the publicity. But if a animal or such gets killed by people, everyone hears about it and goes crazy over it.


But I wasn't talking about celebrities/jocks. was talking about the general cultural standing on the fact we are seeming to value human lives less then animal lives now.

[trash.the.ego]

I can agree with that trash. I understand that a "grown" animal has more brain function then a human fetus. It was the fact that people will try to protect a animal fetus, which still isn't technically alive just like a human fetus.

Well, when you're considering an endangered species - which is the case with the owls. That is a whole other topic and I'm sorry, humans aren't anywhere near going extinct.

[Rukoth]

I understand that Trash. It has nothing to do with us going extinct, its a ethical thing. People are holding eggs of a animal in higher regard then the egg of a person if you will.

[trash.the.ego]

And I'd hold the egg of an endangered species with higher regard than one of a human, nothing is holding us back from pumping another out.

[MardiGrasBandit]

LOL. He certainly does. I suggest everyone here read the Sabong forum for a while to see what cockfighting is really about:

http://www.sabong.net.ph/forum/

To tie this back into the thread (since I'm now the one headed off topic), game cock breeders are highly dedicated to preserving and improving their breeds. We should look at them as we see dog breeders, but they are instead kicked down by a society run by special interest groups and uninformed politicians who hurt both the birds and the people. In trying to protect cocks, our society has done more to harm them then cockfighting ever could.

[Mac_Bug]

Never has beautiful been paired together with cock on these forums until today

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Dog breeders don't breed dogs to kill eachother. And when they do, it's a crime.

[Freightshaker]

Next year California will enact an anti-idling law directed at truckers. Truckers will receive citations for idling their engines longer than 5 min, regardless of weather conditions. This means that when it's 100 degrees in San Diego I'm not allowed to run my air conditioning while trying to sleep. Unless I have an animal in the truck. Then I have to run the AC for the benefit of the animal.

[Rukoth]

Chickens living in slaughter houses face ridiculously brutal conditions and are bred for meat, not for health. Game cocks are bred for strength and health, and live dignified and meaningful lives. I don't pass judgment on people for eating chicken, why pass judgment on someone for breeding chickens for what nature intended them to do?

True that guy has a beautiful animal. Which even if it is used for fighting, they fight as a honorable thing. The problem is that some people bet on animals deaths/killing for money. Thats my problem with it. If people are using animals lives for money, that is wrong(sure you can get into the whole animal slaughtering thing for food).

I doubt that guy with that cock is betting money on his fights. The animals that some cock fighters use look like that second picture of that slaughterhouse chicken.


Freight also brings up another point on what im trying to bring across. The fact that people are now being downgraded and animals are being given more worth.

I understand a ape or any other animal that is intelligent should be respected. But they are still not people. They cannot build things, do math, write books, or do art. It goes way beyond us being able to speak.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Freightshaker: Ehheh... thats not something thats going to be exactly heavily enforced.

[Rukoth]

Its the fact they even come up with a law like that. That makes people like freight go :confused:

[MardiGrasBandit]

Dog breeders don't breed dogs to kill eachother. And when they do, it's a crime.
Poultry breeders do breed birds with the intent to have them killed. The vast majority of the time no one blinks an eye, including myself. Chicken is delicious. It's only when people breed cocks for sport that the uniformed decide to try and stomp the practice out, unaware of the ironic damage their good intentions do.

Answer the question. Which bird looks more abused?

It's hard to maintain your prejudices with the ugly truth staring you right in the face. If it were up to industry breeders, we would have lost dozens of breeds by now. The fact is that game cock breeders do more to the preserve the integrity of the species then any other group, and treat their birds far better as well. Game cocks are well loved pets, while the chicken you eat was an abused freak.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Well, duh. We need food to live. We don't need blood sport to live.

i dont know about you but i eat organic / local ;p

[MardiGrasBandit]

I eat factory raised and support the maintenance, improvement and freedom of the worlds most beautiful breeds of chicken. Are our moral positions that different?

[Rukoth]

Heres a good point mardi.


Theres no problem with people raising really beautiful breeds of cocks. Theres no problems with people raising beautiful breeds of dogs.

The PROBLEM is having them kill each other for our amusement. THAT is the problem.

It is wrong to make animals seem to be on the same level as humans, but it is equally wrong for us to disrespect animal simply because they aren't on the same level of intelligence as us.

[CommodoreKitty]

I don't give a damn what animal it is, endangered or otherwise, a humans life is worth more. A human can do more to benefit Humanity than an animal ever could. I respect peoples opinions in that animals should be protected because they can't speak for themslefs, but I whole-heartedly disagree with it. Survival of the fittest, period.

I have met many people who hold their animals as more valuable then people, and I always got into arguments about it. Humanity first, animals later. Cynical? Maby, but I just think that any given member of my species is more important then that of another.

Now that I have made my bias known, I will say the modern society is more interested in the safty of the 'cute and cudully' animals over people. I don't really know why this is, but I see it all the time.

[MardiGrasBandit]

A cocks is naturally combative towards other cocks. Cock fighting is a spectator sport built around the birds natural desire to fight each other. Misguided attempts to ban it fly in the face of the natural order of things and natures intent for the participants. Is it cruel to race horses because nature has gifted them with speed and endurance?

EDIT: I 99.999% agree with Kitty. The 0.001% exception involves my own dog and Bin Laden.

[Mac_Bug]

If you value human life so much, what have you done lately for it? You could sit here and count the amount of money that's spent on pet food yearly around the world, but really, why are you guys using the interweb and arguing on the internet instead of volunteering your time and that money for computer games to save lives?

[MardiGrasBandit]

I try and improve all of our lives by defending our right to enjoy cock fights. I also made $10 selling my energy consumption to global warming do-gooders on eBay, and was almost martyred from these forums for my brave efforts. If that's not a strong* commitment to making the world a better place, I don't know what is.




*at the very least, it's a stronger commitment then Saddam Hussein's was.

[CommodoreKitty]

If you value human life so much, what have you done lately for it? You could sit here and count the amount of money that's spent on pet food yearly around the world, but really, why are you guys using the interweb and arguing on the internet instead of volunteering your time and that money for computer games to save lives?

Note: I said that I value any humans life OVER that of any animals, not that my love of Human life is so strong that I am willing to give up everything I own to help everyone I can. I'm not that beneficent.

[Freightshaker]

Freightshaker: Ehheh... thats not something thats going to be exactly heavily enforced.

New York has the same law and I've been told to shut my engine off when it was in the 30's outside.

[Zallis]

You know, I was thinking about this exact thing earlier when I was watching the news over whats his face funding dog fights.

Frankly, I despise people who have the idea that animals are more valuable than humans. Sure, they can be precious to you. But it's not like people are not precious to other people either.

On the other hand, why exactly should one hold the opinion that humans are better than animals? We are, after all, still animals. So what if we can communicate? Dogs can. Birds can. And strong evidence suggest squids can and DO communicate. We can build stuff? Well... sure... but a beetle crawling into a hole in the ground, while not having perhaps "built" the hole, still accomplishes the same thing: Shelter.

I keep seeing this commercial about aniamls all over the world living in horrible conditions, and how with YOUR help, we can end their suffering. And I have to think to myself, "Well... nice to know. There are people starving to death in third-world countries, and here we are saving bears that are locked up in cages." While I'll agree it's wrong to willfully inflict pain on animals, the commercial blatantly ignores the plight of thousands of people starving to death (especially considering once this commercial play right after one telling you about the filthy conditions that people in third-world conditions live in, and how for less than a dollar a day, etc).

As for things like cockfighting.... well, animals kick the crap out of eachother all the time in the wild. I suppose if you get enjoyment out of watching them kill eachother, well, go ahead. If you protest against it, well, I'll direct your attention to a lot of war movies, and movies where the entire plot consists of characters dying in grotesque ways, and ask why you don't protest that. I really don't care if it's fiction or not, as there are people trying to kill eachother in many countries around the world, and yet you're not going to the warlords over there and nagging at them.

It's not so much the fact that people ignore the plights of people that ticks many people off, but the fact that they'll go nuts over animal rights and stuff while ignoring other crap that happens.

[Mac_Bug]

I said that I value any humans life OVER that of any animals

But you don't value human life over ice cream, over steak and lobsters, over a new pair of shoes or a brand new video card or the new video game made by Relic. Frankly I don't know why you get pissed off at people who value animal lives more than humans', because you appear to be no different at all.

There once was a woman who committed adultery and was to be stoned to death in the public square. A wise man showed up and said that let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

[Rukoth]

But you don't value human life over ice cream, over steak and lobsters, over a new pair of shoes or a brand new video card or the new video game made by Relic.

Mac, how may I ask, do you happen to know everything about everyone?! How did you know I value all those things over human life? You must be a psychic!

Honestly, you have no idea what my values are, or anyone on this forum, so before you go giving out predetermined values for people..........

[Zallis]

I think the point he's trying to get across is that we could have donated the money we spent on this computer and internet connect to cheritable funds to save people.

And that leads him to imply that we cherish inanimate objects over human life.

Still, that isn't quite correct. Just, when it comes down to it, that I'd rather worry about my life than someone elses. Selfish? Damn right it is.

[Mac_Bug]

I am. Please proceed to ask everyone on this forum who have declared themselves to be sick of people who value animals over human lives when the last time they chastised others for eating ice cream or buying new shoes since there are oh so many human lives suffering and could use that money.

[edit] if your value of something is solely measured by the amount of punishment you extract upon someone for its destruction, then sure, a thief should get less punishment than a murderer, a vet who killed dogs should get less punishment than a doctor who killed patients; but if you think someone who tries to save some bird egg ought to be spending their time saving human lives instead, take a good look in the mirror.

[Akranadas]

I'd have to agree with Mac_Bug,

Many people who say "I'd value a human live over a animals any day" go ahead and purchase a T-Shirt that was made in a sweat shop in China by 10 year olds. Some value.

Me, I'm a Selfish Person in my own world, My Family (including Pets) & Friends get more thought than other things in this world. I spent more money on my pets this year then I've donated to charity. Why? Because those pets are my family.

[Blackmain]

I am. Please proceed to ask everyone on this forum who have declared themselves to be sick of people who value animals over human lives when the last time they chastised others for eating ice cream or buying new shoes since there are oh so many human lives suffering and could use that money.


I buy shoes so that little person in China does have a job and can go home to feed their family. If we stopped buying things made in China then they would suffer a lot more if we did not. And if it wasn't happening in China then it might be happening some where else.

I do not like people who consider animals more important then humans based on the fact that we are humans. What is best for animals isn't always best for us. I don't think we should kill off anything that is dangerous but we should look after ourselves first then help the animals.

[n0z3k1ll3r]

But you don't value human life over ice cream, over steak and lobsters, over a new pair of shoes or a brand new video card or the new video game made by Relic.I'd just like to say that if someone in this thread really does abstain from all these things, and is just posting from a library computer or something, then you're going to look pretty fucking stupid.

[Mac_Bug]

Well look at it this way, if we didn't have healthy pets a lot of people would be out of a job, like the vet, the groomer, the trainer, the breeder, the pet store owner, the pet food maker, the pet food supplier, so really, by saving animals, we're really saving ourselves.

n0z: there would be no shame in losing the argument to someone so saintly as that

[Blackmain]

Well look at it this way, if we didn't have healthy pets a lot of people would be out of a job, like the vet, the groomer, the trainer, the breeder, the pet store owner, the pet food maker, the pet food supplier, so really, by saving animals, we're really saving ourselves.

Thats true and my family does own 3 dogs and we take excellent care of them. But If I had to choose between saving a human life and one of my dogs. I would choose the human life because a humans life is more valuable in my eyes. Those dogs have been with my family for around 11 years and I love them. But I would rather have one of them die then have a mother lose her son or a son losie his father.

[Mac_Bug]

Of course, but would you be willing to give up your dogs and use the money to sponsor kids in third world countries instead? Isn't the fact that you haven't done so answer enough?

[Pengu]

Many people who say "I'd value a human live over a animals any day" go ahead and purchase a T-Shirt that was made in a sweat shop in China by 10 year olds. Some value.
I fail to see how purchasing a shirt made in a sweatshop devalues human life. In all likely hood if some one is working in a sweatshop they have very few options to begin with. Its not as if any amount of charitable donations or effort on my part could change that at all. The fact is if you do not live in an industrialized nation that is a possible reality. Sad but true. I also do not understand how valuing human life over animal life means I can't enjoy ice cream, tv or the internet. Just because I value human life it does not mean I will sacrifice all but the income I need to survive to help other humans. They may not be in a great position, and it may not be their fault, but that does not mean I am responsible for their welfare.

I also don't understand all the fuss about animal fighting. Is it cruel to the animal? Sure. Should it be illegal? Yes. Is it important enough to be on the news? No. Animals die everyday thats life. We slaughter millions of animals all the time for food. Not to mention all the animals that die in extremely gruesome and painful ways in the wild. It will happen regardless of human involvement. Suffering is part of the world and it sucks. Most of us in this discussion are likely not suffering to any real extent. That is just the luck of being born in a good place and as the dominant species.

[CommodoreKitty]

Mac, I said I value a humans life over an animals, never did I claim to be an all-loving person who holds a human life as the dearest thing possible: I think people are worth more than animals, thats it. My charitability, or lack thereof falls under an entirely different category. Maby I do value my material possessions over a strangers life. Maby I don't, and I try to limit how much I waste. You can't tell that from what I have said.

What it comes down to is, if I had to pick a between a strangers life and the last of an endangered species, I would pick the person. I don't know where you got all this stuff about me liking my computer over a person from, I never even mentioned something like that.

[Mac_Bug]

I suppose those who would save endangered species are then sacrificing human lives in order to do so then? you claim you value human live over animals and this is your very basis for denouncing those who appears to do the opposite, and yet my precise point is that you do not sacrifice your material possessions in order to save human lives, but it is somehow offensive to you that someone could be out saving bird eggs.

[Blackmain]

Of course, but would you be willing to give up your dogs and use the money to sponsor kids in third world countries instead? Isn't the fact that you haven't done so answer enough?

I give time to support poor people here in the states. I volunteer at Saint Mary's homeless shelter. I usually log in about 100 hours of service a year with the Knights of Columbus and I also sponsor the Cast Aways Against Cancer.

But you are right I don't think I would just give up my dogs to sponsor kids in third world countries because I love them. Its hard to just give up the love of a animal and the money I use to support those animals isn't wasted. It fuels the pet industry which hires people and keeps vets in business. I know my family could just stop getting pets and give all the money away but we want something out of life too. Animals are very nice things to have. They care about you and you care back.

But what I was trying to say earlier was that if I had to choose and the choice's affect was immediate. Either the dog lives or a human does. I would choose the human.

[Mac_Bug]

My hat's off to you sir. I'm sure most, even PETA, would choose their family members over their beloved pets - the thing seems to be (unless I need more sleep) people don't like the fact that others like PETA run around complaining about animal cruelty while ignoring human problems. I just think it's touch ironic to be demanding that ppl stop caring more about pets and well, care about humans lives like the most of us do.

[CommodoreKitty]

I suppose those who would save endangered species are then sacrificing human lives in order to do so then? you claim you value human live over animals and this is your very basis for denouncing those who appears to do the opposite, and yet my precise point is that you do not sacrifice your material possessions in order to save human lives, but it is somehow offensive to you that someone could be out saving bird eggs.

Okay, first off, this whole "If you are not sacrificing everything you have to save everyone you can then you don't value human life!" thing needs to stop. Because I don't give away everything I own does not mean I do not value human life, it means I value the comfort of my life over that of someone else's. This is supposed to be, otherwise I would make a poor candidate for survival: me first. I can't for the life of me see why you think you need to give away everything to charity in order to care for people, it's not natural, proof of that is in the number of people who actually do it.

That being said, there is nothing wrong with someone going out and saving an animal, just don't place that animal above a person. Now, I know you are going to say something like why don't they devote their time to helping people instead, to which I say... you know what, they should be out helping people instead if they are going to go about something like that. But you know what, that just doesn't hold water, there is a difference between playing an indirect role affecting people, like by choosing not to help them, and a direct one like passing a law that favors animal over people. Saving a bird species is not hurting someone, feeding your dog over your kid does.

[Mac_Bug]

Well, I can't help but agree, after all I am guilty of the same sort of thing I am attempting to charge everyone else.

[Blackmain]

Well, I can't help but agree, after all I am guilty of the same sort of thing I am attempting to charge everyone else.

Nothing wrong with playing the Devil's Advocate

[Lrkr]

What I dislike about this thought exercice:



guy in Chinese sweatshop : :cry:
Young western Human : "OMG I'm so Humane; look at me !"
Mac Bug : "You're not humane; you are an opportunist and a materialist and don't give a rats arse about other people"
Young Western Human: "But...."
Mac Bug: "search your feelings you know it to be true."
Young Western Human: " OMG i'm a neo-Darwinist; look at me !"
guy in Chinese sweatshop : :cry:



The internet : turning people into cynics since 1980 !

[trash.the.ego]

Well actually... currently it can easily be argued that a bee's life may indeed be worth more than a human life. That is if you hope to be eating food in twenty years. Calling every animal's life worthless in comparison to humans is pretty... well ignorant to future issues on this planet for us.

Survival of the fittest, period.

We aren't the fittest, no matter how powerful you think we are since we can easily destroy species after species, we rely on more things on this planet than any species that has ever existed and that is evolutionary weakness.

Our species is a few hundred years from applicable 'immortality' through technology (easily arguable that at that point, human would only relate to the expanse of our minds)... with the state of the planet there is a good probability we wont make it there with the manpower needed to continue down such a path.

If you actually think a red tooth and claw is our key to the future, you're highly misguided in your understanding of evolution in general, and what the human element has done.

[CommodoreKitty]

Like I said, survival of the fittest, if we arn't the fittest, then we will die off. But to ensure a better chance of survival, we don't need to put an animal above a person, that doesn't help or "cause", for lack of a better term. Also, never did I say that we are the baddest badasses around for being able to kill anything we want, nor do I condone killing everything we see. I simply said that I value a humans life much more so than an animals. That is it. I brought up survival of the fittest because I think that it is relevant, not 'fit' species places a higher value for another creature other than itself. I did not bring it up because I think that humans need to kill everything.

Lrkr, I am *assuming* that by 'young western human' you mean me. Not once did I say I was humane. I could hate everyone but myself, yet hate animals even more, and what I said would still be just as applicable. This is assuming, of course, you meant me, which I think you did.

Please, please, stop over-analyzing what I am saying. Human>animals, thats it.



But, really, I love you all because you are so unique! :)

[Grand Master]

First off everybody in a movie cinema will be sad to see an animal die/get hurt because chances are everybody in that cinema has had or does have a pet. Like Akranadas said, your pets become like your family so you can relate to an animal being hurt far more then a person in a movie screen. To see a persons guts get mauled on a screen makes the majority of people happy to see it because in general we are self conscious, selfish and violent people. You wouldn't be going "ooooh niice" if the same thing happened to you or to someone you loved, like your pet.
The simple fact that animals are forced to play second fiddle to humans makes most people have some conscious of what we do to them on a regular basis, like the Chinese keeping bears caged up for bile which is less effective or similar to equivalent medicines that are available.

When a shark by its natural instinct comes near to where potential prey may be, like a beach that we are all swimming at and having a great time in the sun, we shoot it so that none of us get hurt. So just by following it's nature it gets killed by humans. Humans needlessly kill animals to make money, we cage them up and torture them, we force them to do things that they obviously cannot say no to, we neglect them and we use them as forms of entertainment and you are telling me that because of some arse faced football player we hold animal life in greater praise then our own?
Gimme a god damn break man. Make another thread like this when you have been forced into fighting for your life in pits for other peoples entertainment, when you get abused and tortured then killed anyway and when your body is used to keep a dominant species from getting sick. We goto war with each other and needlessly kill ourselves because we are too thick-headed and self righteous to make agreements over things that would benefit the majority.
It's got nothing to do with devoting your time to other people or buying shirts made in sweat shops, thats just general human behaviour which also includes us being in general a pack of arseholes. We value ourselves over others and that is why we slaughter ourselves in wars. Doctors carrying out malpractice are in the minority to humans torturing animals for no reason. But we're talking ethics and not laws. Good chance is that those doctors are/were nut-cases anyway so don't argue that they were going to throw their licence away by intentionally killing someone. If they killed people then there is a good chance they knew exactly what they were doing.

I don't know if I can word it properly, but people valuing animals over the general population of a violent, dominant species that will kill anything (including that person) for the hell of it doesn't seem wrong to me. To value a minorities survival over another trophy on someones wall should be applauded, not frowned upon. To hold those minorities lives in higher regard then the general, mass population of the violent and dominant species that kills itself for no logical reasons is not crazy.

People can give up believing in humans ability to do right because we can't do right, we never have. To make a wide topic revolve around a single event is complicated. But, I think the simplest way to phrase it would be:

Q: Do we care more for animals lives then our own?
A: Well, yeah because we don't even care for our own lives in the beginning, we'll kill each other over anything we want.

Q: Is it wrong to value animals over ourselves?
A: In general, we don't value ourselves as a species anyway so there is no wrong in having higher respect for the minority

Q: But isn't it morally wrong to value your life in a higher regard to all else?
A: You answered your own question.

I hope that didn't sound too wanky but as a dominant species humans exceed. Yet they are still more concerned with themselves then the things that keep them a dominant species. We have only recently thought "What about this environment we are living off? What will happen to that after we abuse, pollute and neglect it?". For people to care about animals more then a general bunch of sadistic beings is nothing wrong.

I apoligise if this is too long to read, I need more caffiene.

[n0z3k1ll3r]

Well actually... currently it can easily be argued that a bee's life may indeed be worth more than a human life. That is if you hope to be eating food in twenty years.If I'm dead I won't be eating food in twenty years either so I'm not sure I follow your line of argument here.

[Cyberbob]

I despise people who think people who'd save an animal over a human to be somehow worth less than the rest of the population.

[CommodoreKitty]

Cyberbob, I don't think that anyone has said that someone who would save an animal over a human is worth lees than the rest of the population, or maby I am just not observant. Or you could just be stating something, in which case this reply is moot. >.<

[ChienAboyeur]

From the OP:

The guy pretty much said that it is sad that the United States culture is so messed up that people will freak out over dogs getting killed, yet with people they don't.

Another example of the debating trend I underlined in the thread about racism in Resident Evil 5(or 4): people opposing real situations against hypothetical situations.

I do not know in depth about the dog fight story but reading the thread entirely, it appears dogs were killed fighting in an entertainement.
But where are the pit fight entertainment in which human beings are killed? Personnally, I know none of this kind of fights going on in the US.

The two assertions are:
Dogs get killed in dog fights (to entertain).
Human beings get killed in pit fights (to entertain).
The conclusion is:
People in the US are more freaked out by dogs being killed than by human beings being killed in fights.

Save that the second assertion is unreal.
So basically, the comparison is mounted facing a real event against a hypothetical event and drawing a conclusion that actually nothing elsewhere supports.

When there are accidental deaths in events like boxing, wrestling bouts (whose charters straightly exclude death as being part of the event), there are already a large opinion to denounce the events and reclaim them to be abolished etc...

The rest of the thread is smeared with other debating trends only there to smoke up a little more the thread.

[Cyberbob]

Cyberbob, I don't think that anyone has said that someone who would save an animal over a human is worth lees than the rest of the population

Let's see here...

I find people who put animals above other humans quite despicable

Frankly, I despise people who have the idea that animals are more valuable than humans.

They're not saying it in so many words, but the implications are obvious.

[severijn]

Well, this is most amusing to read.

This entire thread started on generalising some currently popular events, evolved into a bipolar discussion, then changed into saying that the posters don't act like they say they would. Eventually, we get to the point that people write extremely wrong tirades about how we should cherish failing species more than ourselves.

From my point of view, all these ethics about treating animals and treating your fellow man is kinda absurd.

For starters, we aren't the tree-hugging nature and animal loving hippies as stated by the original poster. We cherish some animals, because we see them as companions and murder others, because we see them as disgusting or just as food. Some animals are actually worshipped and loved beyond the love for your fellow man, because they are very rare and endangered.

In some respects, prefering some animals over your fellow man is quite normal, when that man is a competitor of yours, or just far enough not to care about. In the end it's all about what benefits YOU more. Atleast, that's when it's viewed from a biological point of view.

Should we pay money to help those more unfortunate? We could, to give our conscience some rest and get rid off all that guilt, or we couldn't, because altruism doesn't pay off. Both can be backed up with good points that make either seem like the right thing to do, because that's how we work. Rationalising/justificating has been one of our most favoured things to do.

Now, I could go on about how foolish preserving nature around us is, because we aren't capable to do that anyways, we never were, anyways, and I could just as well give alot of reasons why you should favour either side of the argument.

Instead, I don't think that to be in my best interest. Instead, I'll just say that regardless of your stance on this, any discussion in this polarized way is going to be unfullfilling and a general waste of your time.

And even if the people in this thread could create a consensus about ethics concerning humans vs animals....it's of no value really, because ethics concerning humans is to me like ornithology must be for the birds.

[Zir]

I don't give a damn what animal it is, endangered or otherwise, a humans life is worth more. A human can do more to benefit Humanity than an animal ever could. I respect peoples opinions in that animals should be protected because they can't speak for themslefs, but I whole-heartedly disagree with it. Survival of the fittest, period.

Survival of the fittest is a valid concept, sure, but this is the most pure and unadulterated example of ignorant self appreciation. Humankind doesn't necessarily deserve "benefit". How the hell do we benefit nature and this planet in the first place? We're a parasite. Statements like yours are no different to "I am a bacteria, I must kill humans so that we may reign supreme" - selfish and arrogant. It's the attitude, not the concept, that I can't stand. The knowing and deliberate assumption that we deserve more and more of everything at the expense of absolutely everything else.

I could go out and kill someone less fit to make room for someone else, as far as raw nature is concerned that is a completely logical and valiant idea, especially from your point of view. So who wants it?

[Kratos]

This is a difficult discussion here!
To go with this bacteria: "Humanity is more like cancer! It spreads and destroys all its suroundings! Till one day everything is used up and it kills itself!"

Anyway, to value a human life more seems reasonable, because we are humans and have a language to communicate! But as we see daily, humans are incredible brutal! Humans are the only known species that has pleasure in torturing, destroying or killing other beeings (humans and or animals) or things! So you could say, I`d rather go with my peacefull horses or whatever here, because I despise the human habit to hurt the feelings or bodys of others!

Anyway, from a godly/objective view, I pretty much believe both lifes should be valued the same. Both have the same right to be here! But we are more developed, so we use those animals as we like!
I find it always surprisingly, that a animal life is measured before the law as something like object of value! So if you kill it, you only have to actually pay it`s worth! Some stupid kids (age 13,15,17) from another city, came to mine and cought a cat, tortured it and finally burned it to near death! A pedestrian later came across and saw this half dead cat (of course it died, it just somehow had to will to still life for a couple of hours) left alone and immediatly informed the police. The police pretty much caught them, all they recieved were some community work! Of course all my friends were very mad about this, as we read about this in the newspaper! Some even wanted to find out where they live, to beat the crap out of them. Well I pretty much understand that, such incredible cruel people get away with such low punishments, just because it was only an animal!

[Mr Carrot]

To quote a french 19th century philosopher 'Of mad dogs and englishmen'. In relation to more money being spent on Battersy dogs home (for rabid dogs to be caught and put down) than the local orphanges/hospitals etc.

The predications of a more ludicrous chapter of victorian philanthropism reaches its zenith in the anglosphere. We have been so divorced from the peasant class and the true nature of animal husbandry - the nature of the farm of what animals really are for so long that we give massive legal protection to animals (this excludes protecting biodiversity and other logical ecologicial concepts) on the one hand and yet tolerate halal butchery, battery farming on the other.

Our advanced care and morality, born from the freedom from the hardships of the land has developed in tandem with the economic forces that enabled that freedom. Its a dichotomy. We can now afford to love animals and keep them as trained pets (with no farm utility as cats and dogs traditionally had) but to the same extent we can now demand and implement the mechanical slaughter of billions of more intelligent animals (pigs).

I am not suggesting that animal welfare is wrong, it has simply gone too far whilst the methods in which we rear and kill animals has gone too far away from what we would have tolerated when we reared the animals ourselves.

Its interesting if you look at developed european countries which had a far more recent peasant class such as France or souther Germany's attitude towards animals when compared to the Anglo-Saxon world. Among the most stormont supporters of fox hunting etc. you would probably find the most stormont enemies of halal butchery.

[tatatank]

As the undisputed tops of the food chain. It is our responsibility to take care of the world, and its creatures. Yes food, shelter, etc, etc is fine. Abusing the world, and its inhabitiants is not fine, whether human or animal.

It is also wrong for us to believe that we are superior to animals. We rely on them much more than animals rely on us.

I guess i just feel that as the most successful species on the planet, that we have an obligation to respect it and help it.

No one says you have to be a be an animal rights advocate, But respect people for the choices the make.

Animals have saved more human lives than doctors. Medicines, products and other things have all been created from plants and animals and other organisms. Our world revolves around them.

[Zir]

We're superior, but not the top of the food chain. Put a person in a crocodile filled river and who is superior then?

[Kratos]

Of course we are superior, natural strength doesn`t mean your superior!

[tatatank]

let me have a spear gun, some chain mail. yep im superior. Or, i could dam the river and have it flow elsewhere and kill all those crocodiles. The fact is we can go into any environment and survive and prosper.

Humanity is capable of killing anything on this planet and we are.

[Noble]

What an inane thread. You cite a doctor losing several patients due to negligence getting his license revoked, and compare that to a veterinarian losing some patients and getting put into hand cuffs without linking to any information on either case and say that we are experiencing a trend of people generally caring more about animals than about other human beings. You also try to support your idea by saying that people care more about bird eggs than human babies simply by virtue of the fact that abortion is legal and there are people who are attempting to save endangered species of birds.

The guy pretty much said that it is sad that the United States culture is so messed up that people will freak out over dogs getting killed, yet with people they don't.

People freaked out about dogs getting killed for a couple of good reasons, beyond the fact that it is (arguably) immoral and illegal:

1) Vick is a high profile person, it was inevitable that any legal fuck up on his part would get a shit ton of news coverage, and that people would chat about it around the water cooler.

2) Vick is not only high profile, but he is a role model whether he likes it or not. He should be setting an example for the young people who look up to him. That is why the NFL has such a strict code of conduct.

Now this guy you quoted goes on to say that people don't get upset over human beings being murdered the way they do over dogs. How anyone can possibly come to that conclusion is beyond me. Look at footage of any of the tragedies that take place every day on your local news. People are shattered, crying, literally shaking with fear and sorrow. The sheer volume of news that gets put out on murders and violent crime is a testimony to how much people care about violence towards their fellow man. Look at the coverage of the O.J. Simpson trial, or the Ramsey investigation, or any of the high profile serial killers. It just doesn't add up.

Everyone has different priorities, but most people given a choice between another human being living and an animal living will choose the human being. You're going to have to do better than a couple of un-cited court cases and a tenuous (at best) link between efforts to save endangered birds and abortion to convince anyone that there is a trend in our society towards more compassion for animals than human beings.

[Rodimus]

A life is worth whatever value that some sentient being comes along and places in it, nothing more or less.

I can definitely see situations where human lives are worth less than dogs lives. Especially in survival situations. What's worth more, a dog that can hunt, that has ranges of sense far beyond what humans have, or a human that just whines and complains and consumes?

What's worth more to a human who's been nothing but mistreated and shunned by other humans? A dog who he perceives as giving him love unconditional, or another human being that probably won't make the time for him? Is his valuation of life somehow invalid because of your religious or moral configuration?

Now for that person, compare that dog's life to a clump of cells. You have your answer there.

[Starblade]

It's hard to maintain your prejudices with the ugly truth staring you right in the face.

Not really if you consider that I don't know if most chickens end up like that and if every cock (lolololol cock) ends up like that. You posted two pictures, and probably two extremes.

I don't pass judgment on people for eating chicken, why pass judgment on someone for breeding chickens for what nature intended them to do?

Just a sidenote, but I can't help but imagine a older bird training a younger how to kill with needles and shivs. :p

That said, I have no position on whether cockfights are good or bad because I don't know enough about it to have one. Those were just my random thoughts as I scanned the thread.

[tatatank]

I dont think nature intended cocks to be used in cockfights. yes cocks are aggressive towards each other, and yes they have means to defend themselves. But thats like saying that just because i have a sword in my hand, i should simply be stabbing people with it, maybe i should use it for protection instead?

[Mullertime]

"I am a bacteria, I must kill humans so that we may reign supreme"
If bacteria could talk, they would say that
We think of animals as altruistic, but they're just as bad as we are. If cats were supremely powerful, they wouldn't give a crap about us. Every animal is selfish, arrogant and only in it for itself. Dog saves its owner: hurrah. Naturally, who else would feed and pamper it? But this is dragging the topic to stupid levels, so let's bring it back to the main topic at hand...

@MacBug
True, true.
But in the little equation thing, we're missing something:

Human life > Animal Life

That's all well, but in relation to the points you made:

My Life >>>> Human Life > Animal Life

I'd comfortably say that most people fall under this category. The reason why we don't sell our stuff to give to the 3rd world is because we look out for ourselves. As much as we like to dress up the fact that we are altruistic and nice, in reality, we put ourselves first.
As much as I can say "I want to help people emotionally. If given a chance, I'd happily be an agony uncle, or just be someone to be there to help those feeling depressed, as happiness is something that gets overlooked... blah blah blah"
In reality, we generally only help others when we are taken care of. Once we are comfortable, we will give. If we win several million, we'd be in the position to give some away, as it's not needed.
But if you're on a tight income, you wouldn't.

With regards to animal welfare and stuff:

I think one of the main reasons why people might favour animals over humans, is that we liek some animals more than humanity.
When we say a human's life is important, we actually say: "A good human"
With these "who would you save scenarios...", you always get the image in your mind, of the animal, and a nice human. Someone who looks friendly, but in trouble.

But here's one: Would you save your dog/pet... or a hooded thug who you saw smashing a bus stop?

People see humanity doing worse things to others, than animals do. If a shark eats someone: it's nature. If a bear attacks someone: it's nature. It's justified.
If a human kills another in cold blood? You can't really justify it, can you?
An old woman gets beaten and killed by 3 young men? Justify it, anyone?
And we see these cases several times. The news shows it.

So when you look at the news:
Humanity kills eachother, and is juct violent for seemingly no apparent reason. They kill eachother, cheat to get stuff of eachother, hurt eachother for no good reason...
Then you have dogs. A few vicious ones go bad, but many provide company and are quite loyal, faithful and friendly. The news is not full of 'bad dogs' doing things to people. Compared to murder, it's rare (Of course, this is more down to there being more humans, than dogs. But that doesn't change the fact that there's more cases of human-on-human violence)
So, in short. Some people feel that animals are more worthy of help, simply because they have seen on several occasions, that other humans are not deserving of aid. Humanity has let them down. They think "Why should I give with wankers like that in the world!?"
So they turn to animals, who are more innocent, and appear more 'worthy' of their money/aid.
That's my guess, anyway.

[tatatank]

Interesting post mullertime, but i have to disagree.

i watched a person in a documentary get accepted into a wolf pack and be part of the family. He was even allowed to go inside the borrow where the pups where kept, when even the rest of the pack wasnt allowed even close.

I watched a man become trusted by Lions. To the point he could sit within 20 feet of them and actually get inside the circle. He even went on a hunt with them. He understood thier structure, and thier language, he knew when he wasnt welcome and when he was.

These are purely wild animals, that have no reason to think of us humans as anything but food. They display everything that we think that makes us superior. They have morals, language, intelligence, feelings( love, hate, anger, fear). They are as complex beings as humans.

That is what makes animals just as important.

[Zir]

If bacteria could talk, they would say that
We think of animals as altruistic, but they're just as bad as we are. If cats were supremely powerful, they wouldn't give a crap about us. Every animal is selfish, arrogant and only in it for itself.

Yeah, this is true. At no point have I tried to claim animals aren't like that. The bacteria thing wasn't meant as sarcasm. What I was getting at is most people would say "being human grants me the ability of being an arsehole, because I can". The only being as intelligent as us should be able to drop the ignorance in claiming baseless supremacy and the right to do what you like, and understand the subtlety of "furthering our race" as opposed to just doing what you like because you can. Being ignorant and arrogant when you have the intelligence to be more than that is lazy. Animals have an excuse, they can't ponder why they're so agressive and pro-survival at everything elses expense.

[tatatank]

read the above post your last one capa. animals can ponder whether to be aggressive and pro survival.

There was no reason for those wolves and lions not to eat those guys, obviously sitting in the middle of a pride of lions, they could easily have eaten him with minimal effort, immensely less effort than trying to hunt and track down other prey. Same goes for the wolves. Those animals knew damn well he wasnt thier species.

[Noble]

You give them too much credit. They recognized him as a member of their pack. The same thing happens with domesticated dogs. That doesn't mean they were pondering the ethics of killing other animals.


Animals are not sentient. They do not have ethical codes (with a few exceptions perhaps in the great apes), they do not have structured language and they do not ponder ethics and philosophy the way we are doing now. Their minds are no where near as complex as ours.

[Zir]

Well, they're sentient, but not sapient. That's nitpicking though.

[Starfisher]

The expansion of the moral circle is an interesting phenomenon. It's mostly argued about in abstract terms, but I think the actual reason (and justification, if you can call it that) are far simpler:

The closest thing most children come to watching an animal die is a Disney movie, or, in some cases, a pet.

Having been separated from the reality of food and death for a few generations now, the moral circuitry that used to be reserved for humans (or "things I can make a social contract with", basically) is now extended to animals in many individuals. Never having to kill anything, they developed a moral sense that included animals normally left out of the equation. Now that factory farms and other low people installations are producing so much of our food, even fewer people have to deal with actual animals on a daily basis. Those that they do are not food, but pets or part of the Disney outside, which we must accord respect and dignity, now that it has been suitably tamed. Ironically, factory farming is the very thing many vegans/vegetarians rail against once they are old enough to get riled up about things and make it stick.

I don't put much stock in arguments for animal moral compassion that rely on arbitrary metrics like complexity, social behavior, ability to feel pain - you can believe whatever the hell you want, but that doesn't make it morally compelling to someone who grew up fishing or hunting or on a farm. Especially when it's fairly easy to correlate the change in the way we view animals with the change in the way most of us live. As fewer hunters and farmers send their message to mainstream society, they'll be outweighed by the increasing numbers of those who take the opposite tact.

Eventually we'll all be vegans by law. Not looking forward to it, but then, it'll probably take another few generations.

[tatatank]

I Believe you do not give them enough credit.

Yes they accepted something not of thier species into thier family. He didnt just walk up there and the animals invited him to join. they spent months and years with these animals.

Thier minds might not be as complex but that doesnt make them without intelligence. Wolves had ethical codes. I watched a fight between 2 of the wolves which ended in 1 wolf leaving the pack. Weeks later he finally returned and was not allowed to rejoin for a while, he was forced out.

Humans are a big ball of learned behaviors just like animals, and we have not always been able to ponder ethics or philosophy.

You can make animals out to be as stupid as you want, but if you take the time to learn you find it totally the opposite.

Ever read anything on feral children. Most cases are not reversible, thier minds stops progressing because it was all about survival.


Star, the same thing can be said about religion. Those people chose be believe what they want, and will not be swayed. And if they can its because they were open to the idea. A hunter can be shown that his prey is more than just prey, it is then up to him to decide what is next.

[Hive_Node]

People develop emotional attachments to family pets so naturally they would freak out over one dying before it should, though you could argue that when something dies that was it's time. Obviously though when it's a family member that dies you will be very sad as well. But when it's just some random thing, like, for example "19 year old Heather Jefferson was brutally stabbed to death then dumped into a roadside ditch last Friday" you think "Shit, that's terrible" and you simply forget because you didn't know the person.

[Kratos]

Like I stated before, the only known species that has pleasure in killing and destroying things are the humans! And that what makes us so incredible brutal and dangerous!
Also animals are very loyal, which most humans are not, actually I haver only meet one or two that are really loyal in my whole life so far!
Animals kill because of hunger, status in the pack and / or because of territorial demands! Of course not status and territorial demands as we know it, predators only have those territorial demands, because they pretty much know, that there isn`t enough prey for both predators, so one of them would die on hunger if the other would stay! Also fatal casualties in status / territorial battles are very seldom, also injurys! Look at us humans, fatal casualties are the normal state if its about this!

[Starfisher]

Kratos, don't take this the wrong way, but do you shout every sentence in real life? Ending everything you say with an explanation point makes it sound like you're yelling excitedly, which given what you're saying is pretty funny.

Anyway, plenty of animals kill for the fun of it. Domestic house cats will hunt even if well fed, and seem to enjoy toying with their prey. This behavior has been observed in wild cats as well - I seem to recall a documentary showing a bunch of tigers annihilating a pack of small animals and only eating a few. Dogs do the same if there are small animals about, chasing and sometimes catching them despite there being no rational need for the action. The "noble animal" myth is just a myth.

[Kratos]

Yeah sure! I just realized that! OMG! (just kidding, typing while beeing constantly babbled by a little sister is troublesome)

I`m not sure about this Starfisher, they catch and kill small animals for a reason. They are beeing fead exactly, but it`s also in their nature actually to hunt and kill their prey they would actually eat! Another point is, most cats bring their dead prey to their owner, because they want to contribute their part to the pack. They cannot understand, that this is actually not needed. Which is pretty curel, but I read of you tie the dead prey around the "killers" neck for a couple of hours, it will stop killing and bringing things to you. Not sure if this works, just read about it.

[Noble]

If that were the case Kratos, cats wouldn't torture their prey before killing it. Have you never seen a cat slicing open a mole or a mouse little by little on your garage floor?

[Starfisher]

I owned a housecat from when I was about 6 to when it died when I was 19. During that time, I witnessed her catch numerous small animals, and then play with it like it was a ball. Sometimes she would kill the animal, sometimes she would get bored and wander off. Often she would break one of its legs so that it couldn't run off. During this time she was well fed - we rarely missed putting out a meal for her, and if we did, she'd remind us with plenty of noise.

I imagine that tying a dead animal around the cats neck would dissuade it from bringing you food in the future - "Why the hell should I give this ungrateful human a mouse if it's just going to do something nonsensical like that? I'll just play on my own, thanks." There are all sorts of theories as to why cats do that, as well - some think that they're trying to teach you how to hunt as they would a kitten (bringing dead or injured prey), others say that they're trying to bring you a kill to show you that they managed to kill something, identifying you with their mother. In either case, tying a dead animal to their neck would probably confuse the hell out of them.

I can't imagine why she'd bat around an injured chipmunk without killing it if not for fun or pleasure. Again, the noble animal myth is something that is quickly dispelled when you live around any animal that is even a little bit feral. If we accept that they have emotional states, why is it so hard to imagine a predator being happy when it makes a kill? Why is it so hard to accept a predator deriving pleasure from playing with its prey? I don't mean this at you directly Kratos, though it certainly seems to apply, but at society in general. People seem incapable of accepting that animals (humans included) aren't noble Disney characters but... animals.

[Zir]

An ape will slap you round the head just because it's in a bad mood. It's a bad idea to generalise using only the word "animals". It's a big family, very diverse.

[Stripe7]

There is a fear that if we allow people who mistreat animals, that they will take it to the next step and see other people as no more than other animals. So we have laws to prevent the mistreatment of animals. There are those who take it into absurdity, like PETA, the whole goal of the laws is to preserve human life and human society not to preserve the animals.

[tatatank]

no the whole goal of laws is not to preserve human life. why else do we protect endanger species.

humans are animals, never forget that.

[Retroboy]

I very much think this story is relative to the thread.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/08/29/helmsley.dog.ap/index.html?eref=rss_us

Nutshell: Leona Helmsley, the "Queen of Mean" hotel empress, left $12Million in a trust fund for her dog, which is more than her four grandchildren combined.

-- Retro

[Zir]

Crazy people don't count as an argument.

[Retroboy]

Capa, by referring to someone that leaves $12M to an animal as "crazy people", you actually underscored the point I was trying to make.

-- Retro

[Hive_Node]

To that lady leaving oodles of money to her animal, maybe her grandchildren were spoiled brats, if she was that rich in life as she was in death.

Like I stated before, the only known species that has pleasure in killing and destroying things are the humans! And that what makes us so incredible brutal and dangerous!
Also animals are very loyal, which most humans are not, actually I haver only meet one or two that are really loyal in my whole life so far!
Animals kill because of hunger, status in the pack and / or because of territorial demands! Of course not status and territorial demands as we know it, predators only have those territorial demands, because they pretty much know, that there isn`t enough prey for both predators, so one of them would die on hunger if the other would stay! Also fatal casualties in status / territorial battles are very seldom, also injurys! Look at us humans, fatal casualties are the normal state if its about this!People kill over territorial reasons aswell. "You're sleeping with MY wife, in MY house/bed" *the sound of a gun being shot fills the air*. Also, Dolphins kill for fun, if it is a different species or smaller.

[Retroboy]

Hive_Node, for frig's sake, TWELVE MILLION DOLLARS is enough to support twenty families in relative comfort for a complete generation, and here it goes solely to a dog that will, if lucky, live another twelve years? There is no justification for that magnitude of waste.

I don't care how rotten her family was. Although she left the vast majority of her billions to the Helmsley charitable foundation where it will do some good, in and of itself, a dog using twelve million dollars to live out the rest of its life in opulence is patently fucking ridiculous.

-- Retro

[n0z3k1ll3r]

Where does it go after the dog snuffs it?

[Retroboy]

Heh, or perhaps a better question: how does a dog communicate its will? "The Pooch Whisperer"?

-- Retro

[tatatank]

I see nothing wrong with her leaving the money to her dog, it is afterall her money. She could have done better things with it, but she made a choice. Do we know what she did with her money while she was alive?

Yes people kill for tons of reasons, which is what makes us no better than animals. If we were above animals we would have the judgement to go above our emotions. A dog strikes out in fear, anger, hunger, etc etc.

There are plenty of reasons why i would choose the life of an animal over a human, but each and every case would be its only reason.

it is never about the choice between the 2. It is a choice to make at the current moment. That turtle is in the middle of the road. That has no affect on a human, but i just decided to save it. That cat looks hungry, so i feed him. That man on the street asked me for some change, i gave him a few dollars. It is never a cat that looks hungry and a man standing next to that cat say he will work for food( ok maybe that cat is his pet, but if he is that hungry why not eat the cat? He would also share is food with that cat) forcing you to choose between feeding the cat and the man because you only have 1 chicken sandwich.

It is a choice you make each and every time.

[Hive_Node]

Hive_Node, for frig's sake, TWELVE MILLION DOLLARS is enough to support twenty families in relative comfort for a complete generation, and here it goes solely to a dog that will, if lucky, live another twelve years? There is no justification for that magnitude of waste.I see your point, a dog will NEVER need twelve million to live out it's life, but humans have a nasty habit of wasting money on unnecessary things and in surplus.

[MooFreaky]

Survival of the fittest, period.
I find this highly amusing.
If this was actually occuring, I would have no problem. Yet humanity scoffs at this concept, that is why people with disease and previously deadly illnesses are not dying, but are being treated with medicine. Rather than practicing survival of the fittest we are arificially pushing our species forward.
In doing so we are diluting the gene-pool and destroying everything that "survival of the fittest" stands for. Rather than allowing the weak to die out so the strongest can reproduce and move the species forward the "weak" are allowed to breed, thus passing on their defects to the next generation and increasing the chance that their offspring will suffer from it also.

You have absolutely no right to deride people who value the life of an animal over another human. Pets are part of the family and a significant bond is built between them and us, why should we not care about them?
If I was to choose between a stranger and my dog I would choose my dog without a second thought.

I would also choose my Clownfish or my Eel over a random person. Why? Because these are figures that are attatched to me and have meaning to me. I have a bond with them that is superior to that with a random person. Does that mean I value animal life more than human life? No. I would choose my significant other over anything else.

If I could prevent the extinction of a species of animal by sacrificing the life of some random person, I would do it. Why? Because, in grand scheme of things, we are talking about saving countless generations of this species. That is a legacy truely greater than a single human life.
I would also be traumatised for the rest of my life at having to make such a decision, and being responsible for the death of a fellow human would be permanantly shattering to say the least.


The biggest reason people get so upset for animals is they are completely innocent. They are unable to defend themselves or have their family care for them. While a child can be killed by a doctor (and the vast majority of people would be greatly disturbed by this) their family can defend them and press for justice to be brought on those responsible.
Animals cannot do this, as they have no voice and no manner to act on their own behalf. If some humans don't stick up for them, who will?
I doubt anyone would say an animal life is worth more than a human life, merely that we need to protect the innocent, who are incapable of protecting themselves.

[Mac_Bug]

If I could prevent the extinction of a species of animal by sacrificing the life of some random person, I would do it. Why? Because, in grand scheme of things, we are talking about saving countless generations of this species. That is a legacy truely greater than a single human life.
I would also be traumatised for the rest of my life at having to make such a decision, and being responsible for the death of a fellow human would be permanantly shattering to say the least.


You are that random person.

PS can someone correct the grammar in the thread title?

[Zir]

The first half of your post is win, MooFreaky. I don't think animals are exactly defenseless though. Many are, but the vast majority are able to attack and kill something that interferes with their life or family. We arguably have a weaker justice system, since we're not allowed to slaughter people who get in our way.

[tatatank]

a dog cant go to court and tell the judge that he has been beaten everyday for his entire life, But when he lashes out back its the end of the line for him.

Someone has to be a voice for the animals.

[Starfisher]

Why?

[CommodoreKitty]

I find this highly amusing.

I'm glad I entertain you.

First off, I am tired of people going between the words of others to find flaws that were never stated. Survival of the fittest. Thats what I think, I said nothing about what I think off the modern society allowing the 'weak' to reproduce and 'degrade' the gene pool, (Which, I might add, I do not approve of, but thats a different story.) Not to mention, I was referring to the species as a single entity, rather than individuals with the species. Second, I have not scorned people who value the lives of animals over those of humans; rather, I gave my reasons for why I think that animals are below humans. So this:

You have absolutely no right to deride people who value the life of an animal over another human.

is taken out of context, I have done no such thing.

You say that you would gladly trade the life of a human over that of your pet, stating that you have grown a bond with the animal that does not exist with the stranger. Thats fine, I would say that my 'duty' to my species overrides any feelings I have for an animal. You also say that you would trade in someones life for that of an endangered species, stating that the genetic heritage from the species is more than enough to make up for the human. That, too, is fine, but I would say that the genetic heritage of some bird in South Africa has nothing to do with humanity, but the human does. Unless, somehow, that bird dying effects humanity, I see no reason it trading a human life for it.

To me, Human life>>>>>Animal life. I said what I think. So, please, stop taking what I say out of context.

[tatatank]

who are you talking to star? Sounds kinda like its trolling.

[Starblade]

He's talking to you. He's asking why the animals need a voice.

[JAL-18]

Kitty, what "duty?" You have absolutely zero responsibility for what happens to anyone else but you. The biological imperative is to look out for "mine and mine own." That's survival of the fittest. You look out for yourself and those creatures and objects you value and screw everyone else, at the end of the day you don't want to be the loser. Any feelings of species loyalty you may have are the product of your own imagination and therefore just as foolish as MooFreaky saying he would sacrifice a random human over his own dog. In fact, you could say MF is more in the right than you are, since he is protecting something important to him and you are helping the competition get an advantage over you.

[tatatank]

why dont animals need a voice?

[Nurizeko]

If animals had a voice it would be a jumble of gibberish.

Sapience FTW.

*Does the I have free will and self awareness break-dance*

[CommodoreKitty]

JAL-18: Ahh, see, I put the quotations in because I knew that would get some replies. ;)

But, yes you are right, my sense of 'duty' to my species is entirely self-made. But this is also why I used survival of the fittest referring to the entire species, not just me. However, if my caring more for the human race than animals helps my enemies, and in turn becomes my disadvantage, then that will be one of my flaws that hinder me in being fit. I think that anyone or thing that can help humanity as a whole, like a human is better than something that does not, like an animal. There are flaws in that logic, of course, one being, like you mentions, it gives MY competitors an advantage.

However, stuff like this does not happen in a vacume. Modern society pretty much dictates that I can reproduce no matter how fit I am. Furthermore, aiding a stranger, in a modern society, really has no effect on me. It really does not effect
*me* whether or not an animal or a human dies, statistically that is. Letting that one human live, however, does more for humanity (and I use that loosely, as 'the best for humanity' can be interpreted too many different ways.) than an animal does.

Now, because everything does not happen in a vacume, what were to happen if I had to choose between my cat and my enemy at work, vying for my rightly deserved promotion? Well, even though my enemy can obviously do better for humanity, he is *actually* competing with me, unlike some random shmo in the previous cases being discussed. In that case, I would follow the order of: Me>>>>Humanity>>>>Animals, as it is in MY best interest he goes.

So while in theory letting an animal live over a person would hinder my ability to be 'fit', in practicality moder society and the likelyhood of ever even meeting the person, much lees having him/her compete with me is very, very small.

But, now we get into the grey areas, because many things need to be considered, what would I do given the choice between a criminal or an animal? A cripple an an animal? Disabled person? Even a family member who you don't like? Because of all the factors involved, it needs to be taken on a case by case basis. I hate the criminal, so he goes, but I also hate my uncle, but there is no way he is going. Because of this, when asked "Would you trade the life of an animal for that of a person?" I assume that OVERALL people are good willed, OVERALL they will not directly compete with me, OVERALL they will do 'good' for humanity and so forth. So, when you take everything into consideration, overall, I would say that the life of a random human is worth more than my dog, your cat, or a dying bird species in South Africa. This isn't taking into consideration the emotional trauma inflicted on the persons family members as compared to just you if your pet dies, or no one if some wild animal dies.

So, with flaws and all, I say that my 'duty' to humanity outweighs my feeling for an animal. You are right in saying that Moo could very well be the most logical in this situation, but because you can't really be 'correct' in this, it doesn't really matter. Not to mention, I wasn't calling Moo's or for that matter anybody's logic wrong, my opinion simply differs.

Sorry, but I forgot where in the mess my response transitions into general discussion, at some point I am just continuing the discussion, not replying with the whole thing. Or am I ;) It is always good to joke around a bit in these things, given the nature of text it is hard to tell if someone is angry int there response or just simply responding.

[tatatank]

Here is the big flaw in all your arguements.

It is not a choice between an animal and a human. Its never save the dog or save the person. Its the choice at hand. that turtle needs to get out of the road, or that homeless man is asking me for money. Its not like that turtle is starting to cross the road and i walk up to save it, and a homeless man interrupts me and says he needs 5 dollars in the next 10 seconds or he will die and during that 10 seconds im digging out my money and the turtle is now in the heavy trafficked road.

I am no albert einstein. He is infinitely more intelligent than me, does that make me just a plain dumb animal? I am infinitely more intelligent than a dog, does that make the dog stupid also?

I care about animals and humans. It is better to make friends than enemies. Humans didnt get to where we are now by survival of the fittest. Humans got here by combining efforts, socializing etc, just like lots of other animals do.

Survival of the fittest is just an illusion. Animals try to defend thier weak and sick as much as possible just like humans do.

[JAL-18]

Very good post Kitty. :)

[CommodoreKitty]

Why thank you! JAL :) XD


EDIT: Tatatank, you are right in that these things don't really happen the way they are being discussed, but for purpose of discussion, we need to have something to act as a reference in determining the value of lives. In this case, it is the one on one basis, an animals life for a humans, once you start to throw in the situational things, like the time, events, things involved, you won't get anywhere in the discussion as to to 'worth' of an animal or a person. So, while retaining some reality in the conversation is important, to go completely real makes it neigh impossible to discuss the ethics, practicalities and efficacy of choosing an animal over a person.

Also, only pack animals take care of others, and even then it is for the good of th pack. Survival of the fittest is very real, the controversy usually comes from whether or not to apply that to our modern times or not.

[Zir]

If animals had a voice it would be a jumble of gibberish.

Sapience FTW.

*Does the I have free will and self awareness break-dance*

Not really. "If they had a voice" is ambiguous, if you mean a way to communicate their feelings and "thoughts" coherently, then no it wouldn't be gibberish. If you shine a torch in a dogs face it doesn't think "argh oranges francais aeroplane". If it could properly communicate it'd say "BRIGHT OMG!" or something. If by "a voice" you mean the ability to make vocal sounds, they do, but they don't use this to for some reason create nonsensical gibberish, they use it to express their various feelings like fear or distrust. Randomness is a pretty difficult concept, as far as I know we're the only species that can intentionally make no sense or mislead.

[MooFreaky]

Also, only pack animals take care of others, and even then it is for the good of th pack. Survival of the fittest is very real, the controversy usually comes from whether or not to apply that to our modern times or not.

Often it is very bad for the pack. It becomes survival of the fittest on several levels. The weak and old, the ones that hold the back back, are targetted by predators and that weeds them out. While they are alive it slows the pack down and prevents them from operating in a manner that is ideal for themselves.
I am no expert on pack animals so I can only talk about what I have seen on National Geographic, but there were entire packs of grazing animals that have been wiped out by trying to carry through the weak. They either don't reach the new feeding grounds quick enough and many starve, or they are wiped out over a period of time because they were slowed by the weak and got into fights to protect them (obviously we aren't talking about the massive herds such as Buffalo, but smaller packs such as Monkeys and other social animals)

Meanwhile Carnivores who are weak are not carried along in many species, they are left to fend for themselves or even killed by an opportunistic underling.

So it can become survival of the fittest pack.

The weak ones also do not mate. They are forced out by bigger, stronger rivals and do not get to pass along their genes. That is probably the biggest key to survival of the fittest. The weak genes get eradicated by not reproducing.

Now if we could implement this type of thing on the idiots of society...

[Cyberbob]

Now if we could implement this type of thing on the idiots of society...

In before Godwin's Law.

-Edit-

Capa, I believe nuri was simply being a smartarse.

[MooFreaky]

I don't think there was much chance of it becoming a discussion about Nazis. The mention of Godwin's law probably gives more chance of it going in that direction.

I was more refering to the twits, such as Pauline Hanson and the general dickheads of society.

[trash.the.ego]

People continue to make the mistake of connecting human values to animals as either a reason they should or shouldn't be regarded as important. It's repugnant how easily some people see our social reasoning as sound evidence against or for animals. Moral ambiguities should come after things are rationally looked at. This doesn't mean that rational thinking should be blindly followed, but it should be the central force when coming to any conclusion.

'Survival of the Fittest' has been misused within this thread so many times now, it's somewhat depressing. The 'fittest' is never a singular gene, entity, pack, or species, any way you look at it. I personally have issues with people who seem to hold the saying as a philosophical rhetoric for their... well lazy beliefs. It's insanely shortsighted and completely ignorant of the human impact on nature.

This topic has bloated itself and moved into territories where the common 'moral' statutes don't apply and never should apply. Be it endangered species, basic species vs human discussions, and especially arguments about 'giving animals a voice'. There is too much at risk to throw them at the petty moral dogs for a tug fight. So, let me say this clearly.

Animals need a human voice.

Now let me also tact these on.

-That voice should never relatively put animals above humans.

-When considering the placement of given species A above humans, one must consider the connected effects to ecology all the way to ramifications for the human species.
-So yes, some species could be held above humans. Although such species would be 'carrying' a part of humanity with them.
-While weighing humans against species A any instances of human suffering in the present must be calculated with the relative effects of suffering in the future by the species in question.

Now getting back to my personal problem with those who abuse 'Survival of the Fittest' as rhetoric and little else. I love this planet, I love nearly everything about it, especially it's flaws but that's besides the point. I love it so much that I want it to be here as long as it physically can be, even if I'm not here with it. Now I'm talking about this world, the one seen through a human mind. So, here we are and some people seem to think 'hey! if they die they die, it doesn't matter to me!' well... I have issues when our species fills the role of 'they'. If such a thought process is kept for much longer, it will be inevitable. 'Oh but technology is our savior!' some will chant, it sure is... but it's also quite premature at this time and any 'nearby' time for that matter.

When it comes to present human society, morals should be a safety net. Not as the arm holding the hammer. Human morals are already too muddy to be used the way they are, especially concerning something like nature. Such ideas are nothing more than just that. It's dangerous melding the metaphysical with nature, that's not a moral statement but an equivocal consequence held within nature as we've seen. Morals have their correct uses. They're here to protect us from ourselves. But such things shouldn't be wielded in every instance or they'll only erode themselves, along with what they were there to protect in the first place.

[Nurizeko]

' _ ' @ Capa



Huhum...

*Does the I have free will and self awareness break-dance*




I am no albert einstein. He is infinitely more intelligent than me, does that make me just a plain dumb animal? I am infinitely more intelligent than a dog, does that make the dog stupid also?

Self awareness and conceptualization isn't the preserve of world renowned Genii. It is however as far as we currently know, the preserve of humanity.

I care about animals and humans. It is better to make friends than enemies. Humans didnt get to where we are now by survival of the fittest. Humans got here by combining efforts, socializing etc, just like lots of other animals do.

You just cited a perfect example of survival of the fittest as a counter argument to it???..

Sorry, arguing otherwise is essentially spitting in evolutionary science, and we all know how the forums feel about people who do that...

Survival of the fittest is just an illusion. Animals try to defend thier weak and sick as much as possible just like humans do.

Many species eat their young, old and weak, given the chance.

Many social creatures leave the weak, young and old to die, especially if a predator tries to carry them away.

You can't claim something you want to be true and suddenly it will become so. If you want to blanket claim animals are altruistic sentient creatures that care for all the others around them, and this somehow makes them equal to humanity, you gotta back it up. :)

[roflmao]

What happened to the food chain?

[trash.the.ego]

What happened to the food chain?

Science ate it.

[Malarky]

If it's deicious... I'm eating it.

:bigwave:

[Nanolathe]

A life is worth whatever value that some sentient being comes along and places in it, nothing more or less.I think I'll extend that and make it:
Anything and everything is only worth the amount someone places on it, which is why it's pretty much impossible to put a definite price on anything important, Animal life, Human life, The Earth, etc... everyone has a different opinion.

Personally I think that My life is much more important than anything else. After that I would say that I respect human life more that animal life (I eat animal flesh on a regular basis... nothing beats a nice "Bacon Sarny") But I would value any animal I knew, such as a pet differently.

Here is a Hypothetical: A house is burning down. Inside is one family member, one close friend, a pet (Owned by you), a total stranger and someone you really hate.
You can save all but one of them. Which do you leave behind?

A more interesting version would be: You can save all but two. Which do you leave behind?
I wonder how many people would save the pet over the total stranger?

Value is completely subjective, relative and will depend upon the person doing the valuing.

Would I save my pet or a total stranger? Pet.
Would I save my pet or a family member/friend? Family/Friend every time.
Would I save an animal (not a pet) or a stranger? The stranger...
...
...
probably.

I place more worth on myself and family, friends and to a lesser extent Pets, than I could ever do, sincerely, for any random, unknown person. I could say I think every and any human life is more important than the lives of my pets, but that would be a lie.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

i think we need to implement darwins law for whenever someone mentions survival of the fittest. :{

[Nanolathe]

The problem is that "Survival of the Fittest" does not mean that the individual most fitted for survival is guaranteed to live. Statistically the individual or species most fit for survival is most likely to survive and reproduce. This is not always the case.

"Survival of the Fittest" is not a natural law... it is a statistical probability.

[trash.the.ego]

'Survival of the Fittest' also isn't something for a human to judge when it comes to present circumstance, well unless that human is delusional.

-edit-
I have a horrible time with suffixes. Usually catch them before or after I post but didn't this time.

[Nanolathe]

'Survival of the Fittest' also isn't something for a human to judge when it comes to present circumstance, well unless that human is delusional.Why is a delusional person allowed to judge who or what is best fitted for survival and a rational person not?
Seams like a strange world you live in to me. Crazy people being allowed to make important decisions...

Oh wait... We already live in that world, never mind. ;)

I'm sure that isn't what you mean with that post, but I thought I'd just make you aware of it.

[trash.the.ego]

I still don't understand how people judge nature in instances that don't involve human beings or don't need to. God damn that book and it's declaration of ownership.

Cultural catch up around the world is going to kick us in the ass so hard... half of the world is hitting a meta-industrial-modern status and look what a quarter of the world did to the planet getting there before them...

-edit-
I'm sure that isn't what you mean with that post, but I thought I'd just make you aware of it.

The delusional man is allowed to think anything he wants, believe it, and spread it as far as he can. It's a right that comes with the condition.

[Nanolathe]

By gum your right! Or possibly delusional... in which case Right again! :lol: