Animal cruelty
- Thread starter razz
- Start date
Well, James, as I've said before, I can't make an ethical argument for the eating of other creatures. And in fact, I agree with most of what you are saying. I have never smoked cigarettes but find myself in (what I imagine to be) the position of a smoker who knows how bad it is for him, but can't muster the self disclipline/moral fortitude to stop.
I may just give the vegetarianism another try.
I may just give the vegetarianism another try.
James R:
It sounds like you're describing Jan Ardena, or any Creationist on this forum!
Android: Cannibalism was usually performed on a recently dead loved one or a great and honorable enemy. In either case the individual either died of unrelated causes or would have been slain anyway. And why waste meat?
Only a bare few groups, such as the Aztecs, slain their kin without provocation. In most cases even then, the slain individuals believed that they were being sent to be favored servants of their gods.
Only a bare few groups, such as the Aztecs, slain their kin without provocation. In most cases even then, the slain individuals believed that they were being sent to be favored servants of their gods.
So you're comparing killing chickens, a stupid fucking bird, to the killing of humans, an intelligent primate.James R said:
:bugeye:
Ach, mein gott in himmel!
There's a vast difference between the two. The most notable is: humans are better evolved. We're at the top of the food chain. Not them.
"bBt chickens are cute!"
I agree, but they are also delicious.
I agree, but they are also delicious.
lol, I like chicken...especially with roast potatoes and gravy
Hapsburg:
Both are intelligent. Both can experience pain, discomfort, distress, and basic emotions. Both can enjoy life.
Merely because chickens aren't exactly the same as humans doesn't automatically mean that they don't have basic rights.
Both are sentient beings.
Both are intelligent. Both can experience pain, discomfort, distress, and basic emotions. Both can enjoy life.
Merely because chickens aren't exactly the same as humans doesn't automatically mean that they don't have basic rights.
No. Just no. In evolution, there is no such thing as 'better evolved'.
And your point is...? Rape is prevalent in nature. Are you going to argue that rape is morally correct as well?
mountainhare said:
Better evolved for certain situation. Being delicious and defenseless, they are quite certainly not very well evolved for the situation they are in.
That's not really an argument. The chinese eat everything. 
Communist Hamster:
Let me get this right. Your argument is that because you can exert power over these innocent and defenseless creatures, that makes it right?
You could probably rape young children, too, and argue that they weren't were "well evolved" in terms of protecting themselves against you. Would that make your actions ok, in your eyes?
Let me get this right. Your argument is that because you can exert power over these innocent and defenseless creatures, that makes it right?
You could probably rape young children, too, and argue that they weren't were "well evolved" in terms of protecting themselves against you. Would that make your actions ok, in your eyes?
Let's see...mountainhare said:
Humans: Live in towns, cities, etc. Have the ability to articulate complex speech. Have the written word. Can think philosophically, etc. Have complex weapon and toolmaking abilities.
Chickens: Buk-buk-buk-buk-buk-buk-ah!
Let's see... nope, you've missed the point yet again. Human are no more 'better evolved' than chickens. They are, however, well adapted to urban environments. Intelligence is not necessary for survival... just look at how successful bacterium are.
How many chickens exist in the world today? They are far from becoming extinct, aren't they? So I wouldn't call them 'failures'. They are adept at surviving in their current environment.
James R said:
There we are, comparing chickens to humans again. It doesn't work like that.
Self-control and especially morality are traits of higher beings, not lower ones. This is the price of evolution. For a human to discount the reality of morality, I would use the term "sin" because it is the refusal to take responsibility for that which we knowingly have within our power. To be at the top of the food chain and compare yourself to animals for the sake of excusing behavior is total bs. Animals are not subject to this level of judgement because they are more innocent and are not as aware. They do not have the ability to curtail evil, we do. We can recognize it within ourselves and make decisions regarding it. With any and all knowledge comes responsibility and obligation. We must deal with this realization, morality. Nature gives us the information, how we deal with it is up to us. Our sentience is at a much greater degree than any lifeform on this planet. Because of this we must honor and respect LIFE because we are *sentient* and have been given this awareness and power. We are not only responsible to eachother but to all lifeforms on this planet and the environment. Though we enjoy the seat and priviledge at the top, does not give us the right to abuse it. This abuse does not have a one-sided repercussion but it is also at the expense of our own further evolution. Unfortunately, the majority of humans do not deserve to be at the top of the food chain. They do not want to take responsibility for their actions which is what humanity and this planet depend. Those who would be corrupt would find them easy followers. More evolved animals also possess an innate sense of morality. Just look at your pet, how it comes from a place of sincerity and how it loves you. How it does not mistreat you, and does not want to be mistreated. How it wants to be treated fairly and to treat others fairly. This is the truth.
Last edited:
James R, do you support the animal rights protestors who dug up that womans grave, because her children bred guinea pigs for animal testing? Do you support those who terrorised the workers who tried to build an animal testing facility?