Animal cruelty

Hapsburg said:
Because I think it's stupid for people to tell me what the fuck I can and what the fuck I cannot eat. My food.
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone was telling you NOT to eat meat, we're just telling you why you shouldn't.
And you were talking about all that health stuff, so you're in the same boat.
spuriousmonkey said:
What about malaria?
Click to expand...
Malaria is actively out to kill us (well, it's not TRYING to kill us, it's just trying to survive, but you know what I mean). That's a different story. I've never heard of killer chickens :p
spuriousmonkey said:
Amoeba belong to the same group as malaria: protozoa.

i think...
Click to expand...
yeah, neither of which are animals. They're protists.
amoeba are cool. I dunno why but I like 'em.
 
I don't think anyone was telling you NOT to eat meat, we're just telling you why you shouldn't.
Click to expand...
Which reverts back to you trying to force your moral/etical problems on to others, or teach if force is to strong a word for you.
 
TheAlphaWolf said:
Malaria is actively out to kill us (well, it's not TRYING to kill us, it's just trying to survive, but you know what I mean). That's a different story. I've never heard of killer chickens :p
Click to expand...

Bird flu.
 
You never been chased by an angry rooster? Oh, they get real mean, real fast, and they can seriously wound or kill children.
 
Kunax said:
Which reverts back to you trying to force your moral/etical problems on to others, or teach if force is to strong a word for you.
Click to expand...
Huh? ok, when you have an issue with others' ethics, don't you tell them? and wasn't this whole thread MEANT to discuss ethics? I mean, don't go crying to your mommy for willingly coming into a thread meant to discuss the ethics of how to treat animals.
spuriousmonkey said:
Bird flu.
Click to expand...
What point are you trying to make?
Bird flu isn't even alive. It's a virus.
Hapsburg said:
You never been chased by an angry rooster? Oh, they get real mean, real fast, and they can seriously wound or kill children.
Click to expand...
No, can't say I have. And the rooster is angry for a reason. comparing malaria that has to kill to survive, and roosters who only get mad if you make them mad is pointless. I've been around roosters (I admit I haven't been all that much around them, but I have a few times) and from what i've seen they don't get mad very easily. And I've seen plenty of little kids running in the middle of chickens/roosters. ... which really isn't the point... the point is that I'd feel no guilt if malaria was exterminated (without any side-effects of course) since it existing means death/pain/suffering, especially since it's just a microscopic protozoan that doesn't think or feel or anything.
Chickens are a completely different story.
 
That chickens can kill you.
Click to expand...
oh, you mean the chicken with bird flu?
Well, that IS a case of survival, therefore it's ok to kill the chicken. I'm not asking people to sacrifie their lives for chickens.
A virus is life.
Click to expand...
not according to most biologists, and I agree. It can't even reproduce itself.
 
What do you think makes something alive?
and I said most biologists, not all. There are rumors that one or two biologists in the universe are creationists, it's no surprise there are some that think viruses are alive.
(lol, I know, I shouldn't be comparing the two. the classification of viruses is very controversial)
 
i am not a biologist but i consider a virus alive
the fact that it needs a host means it's a parasite
i think most biologists will agree that parasites are a bonafide lifeform
 
spuriousmonkey said:
Is a virus dead?
Click to expand...
For something to be dead it must have been alive at some point. Was that some kind of trap you were trying to set? lol.
leopold99 said:
i am not a biologist but i consider a virus alive
the fact that it needs a host means it's a parasite
i think most biologists will agree that parasites are a bonafide lifeform
Click to expand...
So you consider prions, viroids, and others alive too? same goes for you suprious.
about your site (spurious):
There is no precise definition of what separates the living from the non-living. One definition might be the point at which an entity becomes self-aware. In this sense, someone who has had severe head trauma may be classified as brain dead.
Click to expand...
oh c'mon. I don't think ANYONE defines life like that! Well, I guess them weirdos who say matter is self aware or something may do that...
Your site doesn't really answer anything.
Generally biologists have agreed on these requirements for life (and that's what I was taught):
Organization - Living things are comprised of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
Metabolism - Metabolism produces energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (synthesis) and decomposing organic matter (catalysis). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
Growth - Growth results from a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
Adaptation - Adaptation is the accommodation of a living organism to its environment. It is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the individual's heredity.
Response to stimuli - A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. Plants also respond to stimuli, but usually in ways very different from animals. A response is often expressed by motion: the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.
Reproduction - The division of one cell to form two new cells is reproduction. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.
(from wikipedia, life)

If you consider viruses life forms, then why isn't fire a life form? I mean, you could think of fire as a form of energy that reproduces itself, responds to stimuli, that "metabolizes", adapts, and grows. The only thing it doesn't have is organization.
 
o_O... ok... isn't that the purpose of quotes? to select what you want to talk about?
I wasn't really quoting out of context or anything.
 
TheAlphaWolf said:
Well, I guess them weirdos who say matter is self aware or something may do that...
Click to expand...
but this is exactly what abiogenesis and evolution says
that matter becomes self aware
which is the subject of another thread
 
leopold99 said:
but this is exactly what abiogenesis and evolution says
that matter becomes self aware
which is the subject of another thread
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't.
I meant matter as in single atoms or tiny particles or something. I meant matter by itself, not matter aranged in a highly organized form capable of reproducing, blah blah blah.
And just like matter itself can't reproduce/make more of itself, matter itself can't have self awareness.
It's an emergent property. Just like life, reproduction, emotions, awareness, consciousnesss, etc.
here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergent_properties article on emergent properties. A single atom, chemical, or neuron can't think. Only a whole bunch of atoms, chemicals, neurons working together in perfect unison can be capable of thought.
It's really not that hard to understand. The bigger whole is greater than the component parts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top