Wearing fur is not cool.

[Famine]

Who gave you the right to use the animal for your own needs?

Answering a question with another question is not sound.

And "the law". I can kill any animal I want so long as:

1. I do not cause unnecessary suffering.
2. The animal is not on an endangered animals list.
3. It does not belong to anyone.


If you eat meat, you're using animals for your own desires (culinary). If you have a pet cat, you're using animals for your own desires (pleasure). If you wear fur, you're using animals for your own desires (fashion).

Saying that any one of these is acceptable whilst you believe any other one is not cannot be a tenable position.

 

[the_undrtaker89]

The fact is most animals aren't being hunted for anything more than their furs and tusks in the case of elephants. It's not only about using all the body parts and all the funny talk native americans came up with. It's about keeping all the species around, all the beautiful animals, are they really worth a ****in a coat. Hell no.

What really pisses me off is redneck americans (no offense to americans) who have to hunt deer and other animals for game. For christ's sake your taking down a living thing with a gun. It's no different then shooting a person. It's not justifiable. And I've seen time's where a gunner will shoot and miss, and really piss off the animal. And when that beast is coming right at the little ***** I'm hoping to god it tears the guy up.

 

[soptom]

God.


But if you don't believe in that kind of thing. You can just say that we're smarter.

Since I don't believe in that kind of thing, are you talking about humans in general or yourself personally when you say we're smarter, because one of those is debatable.
On the other hand, being smarter than something doesn't give you the right to use it for your own needs, that is a truly dumb thing to say. I'll be reasonable and assume that you have an average I.Q. Are you saying that 50% of the human race can use you for their needs? Wise up, people use animals because it's convenient, would you eat meat and wear fur if you had to go out and kill, prepare and cook it yourself? How about if you had a readilly available crop of various vegetables and fruit nearby to cater for your nutritional needs?

 

[Swift]

The fact is most animals aren't being hunted for anything more than their furs and tusks in the case of elephants. It's not only about using all the body parts and all the funny talk native americans came up with. It's about keeping all the species around, all the beautiful animals, are they really worth a ****in a coat. Hell no.

What really pisses me off is redneck americans (no offense to americans) who have to hunt deer and other animals for game. For christ's sake your taking down a living thing with a gun. It's no different then shooting a person. It's not justifiable. And I've seen time's where a gunner will shoot and miss, and really piss off the animal. And when that beast is coming right at the little ***** I'm hoping to god it tears the guy up.

Well, you were doing well until you said that shooting an animal is the same as shooting a human. So that would mean that hitting a dog with a car(by accident) is the same as hitting a person. Well, If I see a rabbit in the road and there is no escape route and I'm in traffic. I'm not about to slam on my brakes and cause a multiple car pile up. However, if that was a person, I certainly would.

Sorry, but there is a big difference between people and animals.

Since I don't believe in that kind of thing, are you talking about humans in general or yourself personally when you say we're smarter, because one of those is debatable.
On the other hand, being smarter than something doesn't give you the right to use it for your own needs, that is a truly dumb thing to say. I'll be reasonable and assume that you have an average I.Q. Are you saying that 50% of the human race can use you for their needs? Wise up, people use animals because it's convenient, would you eat meat and wear fur if you had to go out and kill, prepare and cook it yourself? How about if you had a readilly available crop of various vegetables and fruit nearby to cater for your nutritional needs?

Uh...we ARE smarter. Sorry, but it's pretty much the truth. And eating humans is cannibalism. Not eating meat.

LOL, so. If I have to work for the meat or there is easy vegetables, which would I take? Well that's a no brainer. But when has that been the case?

Some animals taste good. Some don't. I eat meat on a regular basis. Now, I'm not a fan of wearing fur. But at the same time I can't condem people who do for the reasons Famine mentioned.

 

[Famine]

The fact is most animals aren't being hunted for anything more than their furs and tusks in the case of elephants. It's not only about using all the body parts and all the funny talk native americans came up with. It's about keeping all the species around, all the beautiful animals, are they really worth a ****in a coat. Hell no.

Since I came into the world and added to the carnivore load, the populations of meat-bearing animals has increased. Thus my desire for meat and the subsequent slaughter of animals to meet (a-ha!) this need has benefitted the species.

Mink are also farmed and have seen a corresponding increase in their numbers.

So, how does the fur-trade result in species-depletion?

And, since 99.99% of all species of all living things ever to grace the planet have already become extinct (through man, being crap or big-ass rocks - mainly the last two), why do you/should we care anyway?

I'll be reasonable and assume that you have an average I.Q. Are you saying that 50% of the human race can use you for their needs? Wise up, people use animals because it's convenient, would you eat meat and wear fur if you had to go out and kill, prepare and cook it yourself? How about if you had a readilly available crop of various vegetables and fruit nearby to cater for your nutritional needs?

Human rights - such as the right not to be used in slavery as you touch on - are guaranteed in law. So, in a way, your example is analogous. The law says I can't kill and skin a human for his meat and leather, but that I CAN kill and skin a grey squirrel for his meat and fur.

And yes, I would.

 

[the_undrtaker89]

Well, you were doing well until you said that shooting an animal is the same as shooting a human. So that would mean that hitting a dog with a car(by accident) is the same as hitting a person. Well, If I see a rabbit in the road and there is no escape route and I'm in traffic. I'm not about to slam on my brakes and cause a multiple car pile up. However, if that was a person, I certainly would.

Sorry, but there is a big difference between people and animals.

Wait..did I ever say car? Don't make things up, ok. I said "shooting" with a gun or a weapon. A car is not a gun, it's used for transportation. A gun won't get you anywhere. I'm not talking about going into the forest to drive around and hit deer with your car.

 

[soptom]

Answering a question with another question is not sound.

And "the law". I can kill any animal I want so long as:

1. I do not cause unnecessary suffering.
2. The animal is not on an endangered animals list.
3. It does not belong to anyone..

Rubbish, if I see a stray dog that doesn't fit in any of your three "law" points above, I still can't kill it. Don't post "facts" that aren't.
I'm not on any side of this argument either, I eat meat but don't wear fur because I'd look a berk in it, but playing devil's advocate is fun especially when others hide behind untruths and rhetorical questions while only vaguely answering replies.

 

[smellysocks12]

Sorry, but there is a big difference between people and animals.

...from a people's point of view.



That's why I love the movie War of the Worlds, it wasn't even that great as a movie. It just reflects the behaviour of how people act towards other species. In that movie people are the animals and the aliens in the role which people currently have.

 

[smellysocks12]

By the way if there's ever a redneck open season where I can shoot them I'll be the first one to run to a store and buy a gun.

 

[Swift]

Wait..did I ever say car? Don't make things up, ok. I said "shooting" with a gun or a weapon. A car is not a gun, it's used for transportation. A gun won't get you anywhere. I'm not talking about going into the forest to drive around and hit deer with your car.

A car is as lethal a weapon as a gun is. It's simply not it's main purpose of design. You said shooting a deer is as bad as shooting a human. That's really extreme. That's putting you on the same level as a deer that doesn't have the good sense to move when the light on the road keeps getting bigger.

 

[Famine]

Rubbish, if I see a stray dog that doesn't fit in any of your three "law" points above, I still can't kill it. Don't post "facts" that aren't.

Actually, you can.

Don't refute facts you can't.

I'm not on any side of this argument either, I eat meat but don't wear fur because I'd look a berk in it, but playing devil's advocate is fun especially when others hide behind untruths and rhetorical questions while only vaguely answering replies.

I anwsered your question VERY directly. You answered mine with a question.

 

[smellysocks12]

Human rights - such as the right not to be used in slavery as you touch on - are guaranteed in law.

Nonsense. A lot of products you buy in a store today are fabricated with slavery. Cocoa being one of those products of which it is very clear. But I guess since it's just Africans who do it, it doesn't matter, as long as you can afford your cheap chocolate bar. As a matter of fact current governments and cocoa enterprises are doing their best to keep this situation intact to guarantee low costs.

 

[soptom]

Actually, you can.

Don't refute facts you can't.



I anwsered your question VERY directly. You answered mine with a question.

No, you can't, back up your claim, provide a link where this law is stated.
As for your question, there is no definitive answer to it, it can only be rhetorical, what do you expect the answer to be? "Because I don't like it" "Because it's naughty" "Because the animals don't want you to" Why not answer the question yourself and show us why you can use animals for your own needs.

 

[the_undrtaker89]

A car is as lethal a weapon as a gun is. It's simply not it's main purpose of design. You said shooting a deer is as bad as shooting a human. That's really extreme. That's putting you on the same level as a deer that doesn't have the good sense to move when the light on the road keeps getting bigger.

No form of life is greater than another's ok. (insects....uhh...not included). That's like saying your life is worth more than a mentally ill persons is. Or how about this. How would you like it if one day you were eating dinner and I just came and shot you in the back of the neck? Would that be fair? Do you think you would have a chance of getting away. No. Would you like that? What you have to do is put yourself in that animals position. Or if I let you get away and then I started blasting away at you just for fun. It's not even about how smart you are when your life is at serious jeperody, what the hell are you going to do?

 

[Famine]

Nonsense. A lot of products you buy in a store today are fabricated with slavery. Cocoa being one of those products of which it is very clear. But I guess since it's just Africans who do it, it doesn't matter, as long as you can afford your cheap chocolate bar. As a matter of fact current governments and cocoa enterprises are doing their best to keep this situation intact to guarantee low costs.

Really?

DO elaborate. And be careful what you say, precisely. You just stated that at least one company which sells chocolate bars uses slaves in Africa.

"Sweatshops", whatever your opinion of them, are not "slavery", since no-one is forcing the workers to work there and they are being paid. Not much, by your standards, but they ARE being paid. Slaves have no choice and no salary.

 

[Swift]

Nonsense. A lot of products you buy in a store today are fabricated with slavery. Cocoa being one of those products of which it is very clear. But I guess since it's just Africans who do it, it doesn't matter, as long as you can afford your cheap chocolate bar. As a matter of fact current governments and cocoa enterprises are doing their best to keep this situation intact to guarantee low costs.

Can you name many if any products that don't have a "sweatshop" environment somewhere in the timeline?

No form of life is greater than another's ok. (insects....uhh...not included). That's like saying your life is worth more than a mentally ill persons is. Or how about this. How would you like it if one day you were eating dinner and I just came and shot you in the back of the neck? Would that be fair? Do you think you would have a chance of getting away. No. Would you like that? What you have to do is put yourself in that animals position. Or if I let you get away and then I started blasting away at you just for fun. It's not even about how smart you are when your life is at serious jeperody, what the hell are you going to do?

How can you start your statement with a contradiction. That's just ludicrous.

No, I'm saying that YOUR life is worth more then the cat in the road that I'll run over. That's what I'm saying. All humans are on the same plane. But animals are simply under that plane. They deserve respect and to be treated well. But they are NOT people.

 

[Famine]

No, you can't, back up your claim, provide a link where this law is stated.

It is not my place to educate you on the laws of our country. Your parents/guardians ought to have done that.

YOU refuted it and called me a liar. Prove it.

As for your question, there is no definitive answer to it, it can only be rhetorical, what do you expect the answer to be?

I expect someone with intelligence to construct a reasonable argument why I, as a representative of the most intelligent species, one of only three that is self-aware and the only one known to have developed spoken, written and signalled languages and created complex multi-component tools to facilitate our continued existence should not, under any circumstances, be allowed to use an animal for any needs or desires I have.

But of course someone with intelligence wouldn't bother. They'd recognise that there is, in fact, no such reasonable argument.

What's more likely is that a meat-eater or pet-owner would attempt to engage me with weak ad hominems, and evade the point by answering questions with questions.


I asked why should I not be allowed to use an animal for my own needs. "Why should you?" is not a response. A response would be a reason why I should not be allowed to use an animal for my own needs. And, for as long as you consume animal flesh - which you do not need - to fulfil your own desires, you cannot deliver any such response.

 

[Anderton Prime]

If you eat meat, you're using animals for your own desires (culinary). If you have a pet cat, you're using animals for your own desires (pleasure). If you wear fur, you're using animals for your own desires (fashion).

I don't care how you word it, keeping an animal as a pet is NOT the same as killing an animal, whether for food or for fur or for both. If you can't see the fundamental difference here then there's going to be trouble communicating.

And, since 99.99% of all species of all living things ever to grace the planet have already become extinct (through man, being crap or big-ass rocks - mainly the last two), why do you/should we care anyway?

That's a bit like saying "We shouldn't bother finding the people responsible for the London bombings - or even mourn those that died, for that matter - because thousands of humans die each day and billions have died in the course of human history." Unless you're of the belief that a human life is more important / valuable than an animal one, in which case please see below.

Human rights - such as the right not to be used in slavery as you touch on - are guaranteed in law. So, in a way, your example is analogous. The law says I can't kill and skin a human for his meat and leather, but that I CAN kill and skin a grey squirrel for his meat and fur.

Quite handy to follow such a law when no other opposing law exists, mainly because animals cannot make their own laws to defend themselves from the greediest, most parasitic pleasure-seeking race ever to step foot on planet Earth (to our knowledge). The crap in the Bible about animals being created for man's personal use doesn't fly with me. As the dominant species on the planet, I believe we should be acting as caretakers for the rest of the world, not killing animals just because we believe we're justified because we declared we are.

 

[Thealosia]

Flame-Returns <~~~A name that sounds like a horribly expired comic book. You're a sadistic piece of ****. I say this with all sincerity. You must have: (a) Extremely low self esteem caused by an inferiority (typically intellect) meaning you're an idiot. (b.) Sociopathic (look it up if you suffer from diagnosis (a) or (c) you're just plain psychotic (which means you think I am talking about peanut butter and lesbians who entertain hiccuping pervert in Zurich. Please get help, and a Dictionary.

 

[Famine]

I don't care how you word it, keeping an animal as a pet is NOT the same as killing an animal, whether for food or for fur or for both. If you can't see the fundamental difference here then there's going to be trouble communicating.

You're taking an animal - which is now "domesticated" - out of a natural environment, robbing it of interaction with other animals it would normally encounter and, often, any bits of it you don't like (such as claws and genitals). Why? Because you "like" that sort of animal and derive pleasure from its company.

You are using that animal for your own personal desires. It's certainly devoid of "need".

 

[soptom]

It is not my place to educate you on the laws of our country. Your parents/guardians ought to have done that.

YOU refuted it and called me a liar. Prove it.



I expect someone with intelligence to construct a reasonable argument why I, as a representative of the most intelligent species, one of only three that is self-aware and the only one known to have developed spoken, written and signalled languages and created complex multi-component tools to facilitate our continued existence should not, under any circumstances, be allowed to use an animal for any needs or desires I have.

But of course someone with intelligence wouldn't bother. They'd recognise that there is, in fact, no such reasonable argument.

What's more likely is that a meat-eater or pet-owner would attempt to engage me with weak ad hominems, and evade the point by answering questions with questions.


I asked why should I not be allowed to use an animal for my own needs. "Why should you?" is not a response. A response would be a reason why I should not be allowed to use an animal for my own needs.

"Because I don't like it" "Because it's naughty" "Because the animals don't want you to" Why not answer the question yourself and show us why you can use animals for your own needs.

[/QUOTE]
No, you stated a "fact" I asked for proof of this fact, you are unwilling or unable to provide it, if you state that aliens exist, it is not down to me to provide proof that they don't, it is down to you to provide a factual back-up to your original claim,
Being smarter does not give you the right to use an animal for your own needs, but it is convenient and easy and seeing as the majority of humans do it, no-one of any significance minds.

 

[PS]

I like fur. My mom just got a mink coat. Smoooooth. Shiny. ****ing hot though.

 

[Famine]

You call someone a liar in the UK and you BETTER have facts to back it up. Libel law still exists on the internet.

 

[Swift]

Umm. Swift?

Would you mind awfully un-editing my post back to its original form?

Man, I'm really sorry. I didn't notice it till I was a few pages away. I couldn't get it back. Totally my fault. And were actually on the same side on this subject.

Again, totally my fault. I'll be more careful in the future(the edit and quote screens look identical )

 

[the_undrtaker89]

No, I'm saying that YOUR life is worth more then the cat in the road that I'll run over. That's what I'm saying. All humans are on the same plane. But animals are simply under that plane. They deserve respect and to be treated well. But they are NOT people.

Ok, but are you purposely hitting the cat? With a gun, you don't shoot the animal by accident. Cars aren't weapons, there is no intent for them to be used as weapons on the same level as guns are used as weapons. The only reason you could think that a person's life is worth more than let's say a deer's is, because you could be porsecuted for hitting a person. No one is going to take you to court for hitting a deer. Animals don't have law systems, they can't stand up for themselves(sounds kinda a weird when I say that), but it's true.

And I haven't learnt what a contradiction so o well.

 

[PS]

And I haven't learnt what a contradiction so o well.

What?

 

[soptom]

You call someone a liar in the UK and you BETTER have facts to back it up. Libel law still exists on the internet.

If you think you can bring a case..........................There's worse out on the big wide internet you know.

 

[the_undrtaker89]

What?

I didn't pay attention in english class ok....and it's been a while I don't remember if I did or not.... Jesus make me feel like an immigrant.

 

[Swift]

Ok, but are you purposely hitting the cat? With a gun, you don't shoot the animal by accident. Cars aren't weapons, there is no intent for them to be used as weapons on the same level as guns are used as weapons. The only reason you could think that a person's life is worth more than let's say a deer's is, because you could be porsecuted for hitting a person. No one is going to take you to court for hitting a deer. Animals don't have law systems, they can't stand up for themselves(sounds kinda a weird when I say that), but it's true.

And I haven't learnt what a contradiction so o well.

No, that's not why I believe a person's life is worth more then an animals. If you've ever read any of my other posts in the opinions forum you would know that I'm a christian. So, I believe that human life is more important than animal life. And there is nothing you can say to prove otherwise.

If you feel that deer and people are on the same level that's your choice. However illogical it may be. But, as far as value of life...yes, people will always outlaw animals. If given the choose between shooting a person and the last two bengal tigers in existance, I'm going to have a tiger skin rug...

 

[Famine]

If you think you can bring a case..........................There's worse out on the big wide internet you know.

Not in your case there isn't.

I suggest you familiarise yourself with:
The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
The Animal Rights and Welfare Act
All current regulations pertaining to libel law.

Before you set foot in this thread again. I KNOW the law (and in the case of the latter two items there, much better than you, it seems), and I absolutely will NOT tolerate being called a liar by an ignorant.

(and, unluckily for you, this site is based in the US, on US servers and governed by US laws)



Everyone else manages to exist in the opinions forum just fine. You waltz in with your "I don't know any better so you're wrong" attitude and ad hominem attacks in place of coherent thought...

Get a clue.