What fur farms really do.

[PS]

Doesn't the fact that we know better and the majority of humans choose to not act on the impulse to shoot someone for their house, or not even have the impulse to begin with, make us better.

Is that a question? If it is, I don't see why it makes us better. If we're capable of rational thought why would we need to protect ourselves?

Most humans don't kill or steal from each other. When someone does the rest try to find and punish the guilty party. In the animal kingdom it is survival of the fittest.

Ya, I've heard that 3 times now. Your point?

If humans lived that way we would never have built skyscrapers or organized a democracy of any form. In fact all of western civilization would have never existed.

When Hitler decided killing people for who they are or so that he could take their country over the rest of the world stood up to him. When a tiger kills other tigers for more territory and females other tigers do nothing.

Do tigers have telephones, morse code, TV, newspapers or radio?

Tigers don't care because they're unaware of it, and wouldn't need to do anything because of it. They can take care of themselves, what do they care if some other tiger's den got stolen?

The animals avoid fire out of instinct. They never run through the fire, only away from it. Nor do they ever jump in to save another.

Thanks for proving my point; animals calculate risk.

Mothers protect offspring as much as they can but in the end will choose to live another day if they have to. They can always have more offspring but they only get one life. Humans die to save others.

And that proves humans are "smarter". . . how?

I honestly believe that one day we will discover that murderers, rapists, and pedophiles have a different brain set up than others. Crimes of passion or necessity are on a different (or temporary) level but a premeditated crime of this nature requires an almost animalistic quality, for lack of a better term. For me it puts them on the level of an animal, as did the actions of the man in the video.

Some guy in the 1930's actually tried to see if there was a physical difference in the brains of law abiding citizens and those of criminals.

Will he be gentle?

If you did that to a living creature, I wouldn't.

 

[Swift]

If you did that to a living creature, I wouldn't.

Man, and you say I'm too serious. Even I could see that he was joking about the plunger thing.

 

[FoolKiller]

Ya, I've heard that 3 times now. Your point?

You were trying to say humans weren't smarter because they don't kill senselessly, yadda, yadda. I am trying to say that animals do all those things. And when humans do them others will step in to defend while animals don't. To me the show of compassion towards each other and the willingness to risk ourselves to save others shows a level most animals may never know. This may be different for some such as dolphins or sapiens, but that just makes them cooler in my book.

Thanks for proving my point; animals calculate risk.

I don't consider instinct to be calculating risk. When their entire brain just instantly says "Danger! Run!" I don't see any calculation going on.

Some guy in the 1930's actually tried to see if there was a physical difference in the brains of law abiding citizens and those of criminals.

I'm thinking something deeper than physically and only in crimes that an average person would consider sadistic. You are also talking about the same time period when they thought shock treatments helped mental disease.

Anyway, this is pointless. We are arguing a matter of opinion. We can just agree to disagree, because I am not getting caught up in something that could end up looking like the Creation vs Evolution thread.

 

[PS]

Man, and you say I'm too serious. Even I could see that he was joking about the plunger thing.

He was kidding, mine was satire. I can be quite cynical.

You were trying to say humans weren't smarter because they don't kill senselessly, yadda, yadda. I am trying to say that animals do all those things. And when humans do them others will step in to defend while animals don't. To me the show of compassion towards each other and the willingness to risk ourselves to save others shows a level most animals may never know. This may be different for some such as dolphins or sapiens, but that just makes them cooler in my book.

Animals don't consciously kill senselessly. That's the difference; people do.

I don't consider instinct to be calculating risk. When their entire brain just instantly says "Danger! Run!" I don't see any calculation going on.

If they didn't calculate risk they'd walk right into it; that's what risk calculation is.

I'm thinking something deeper than physically and only in crimes that an average person would consider sadistic. You are also talking about the same time period when they thought shock treatments helped mental disease.

Anyway, this is pointless. We are arguing a matter of opinion. We can just agree to disagree, because I am not getting caught up in something that could end up looking like the Creation vs Evolution thread.

I know all that. I said it because it was a screwy idea. Like saying saying "let's fill millions of peoples' homes with asbestos!"

 

[Swift]

He was kidding, mine was satire. I can be quite cynical.

That satire was quite pitiful. It sounded very very serious. Oh well.

For the second time....

I don't think in terms of "Who do I save" or "Who is more important"—that's just plain righteous thinking—I think in terms of "Who is held accountable for their actions", which, is actually a lot more logical and achievable.

Ok, so there's a drowning cat and a drowning child. You can't save both, who do you save?

 

[PS]

That satire was quite pitiful. It sounded very very serious. Oh well.

For the second time....



Ok, so there's a drowning cat and a drowning child. You can't save both, who do you save?

Why can't I save both? I'd save whichever one I could.

 

[Swift]

Why can't I save both? I'd save whichever one I could.

No, they are too far apart. By the time you get to one, the other one would have drown. So, choose.

 

[PS]

Whichever has the least chance of surviving on its' own then.

 

[FoolKiller]

Whichever has the least chance of surviving on its' own then.

See, the point of a rhetorical question is to not over analyze it as if it were a true situation. In this situation I believe that you are to assume that they have equal odds of surviving, or you just don't know the odds.

 

[PS]

Swift is just trying to get me to admit that humans are more important than animals. Even though without them we'd all suddenly get a lack of protein and iron and we wouldn't have any fertilizer for our crops.

 

[Swift]

See, the point of a rhetorical question is to not over analyze it as if it were a true situation. In this situation I believe that you are to assume that they have equal odds of surviving, or you just don't know the odds.

Exactly. You don't have a datasheet showing you life expectancies of the cat and the child. That child might have lukemia(sp) or may grow up to be a head of state. So, which would you choose?

You have equal ability to save both. That's all you know. What do you do?

 

[Swift]

Swift is just trying to get me to admit that humans are more important than animals. Even though without them we'd all suddenly get a lack of protein and iron and we wouldn't have any fertilizer for our crops.

And there you go. When did I ever say animals should disappear from the planet? When did I say they were useless? Never. All I'm saying is that if you saved a cat, chicken, dog or whatever over a human, then your sense of morality and righteousness is severly warped.

 

[Carl.]

How the heck any sort of human suffering is an excuse for letting anyone uselessly torture an animal? With this logic I should be able to get away with stealing, since there are far more greater crimes to be addressed out there. That's nonsense.

Don't get me wrong, I usually find PETA very annoying, but what we see in that vid is just plain horrible and unnessecary. These sort of behavior really is something that should be addressed by the law (which, thankfully is where I live, and it is in most US states too), and has absolutely NOTHING to do with other issues humans may have.

 

[PS]

Exactly. You don't have a datasheet showing you life expectancies of the cat and the child. That child might have lukemia(sp) or may grow up to be a head of state. So, which would you choose?

You have equal ability to save both. That's all you know. What do you do?

If I have equal ability to save both, then why not save both?

 

[Danoff]

How the heck any sort of human suffering is an excuse for letting anyone uselessly torture an animal? With this logic I should be able to get away with stealing, since there are far more greater crimes to be addressed out there. That's nonsense.

Don't get me wrong, I usually find PETA very annoying, but what we see in that vid is just plain horrible and unnessecary. These sort of behavior really is something that should be addressed by the law (which, thankfully is where I live, and it is in most US states too), and has absolutely NOTHING to do with other issues humans may have.

Oh? So we shouldn't skin raccoons alive huh? What about fish? Can we skin those alive? Can we throw a lobster into a boiling pot? Can we chop a snake's head off even though we know it will live for quite a while after?

Explain to me why you think it should be illegal to torture some animals but not others.

 

[PS]

And there you go. When did I ever say animals should disappear from the planet? When did I say they were useless? Never. All I'm saying is that if you saved a cat, chicken, dog or whatever over a human, then your sense of morality and righteousness is severly warped.

Typical Christian. Always telling me that my sense of morality and righteousness is warped. That's one of the reasons I love Marilyn Manson so much: he's a poster-boy for doing what you want and not doing what some organisation tells you what is right and wrong. Noone decides morality but yourself.

 

[PS]

Oh? So we shouldn't skin raccoons alive huh? What about fish? Can we skin those alive? Can we throw a lobster into a boiling pot? Can we chop a snake's head off even though we know it will live for quite a while after?

Explain to me why you think it should be illegal to torture some animals but not others.

I wouldn't skin a fish, snake, baby, wale, seal, or other animal alive.

And what part of the snake lives, the body or the head?

 

[Danoff]

I wouldn't skin a fish, snake, baby, wale, seal, or other animal alive.

And what part of the snake lives, the body or the head?

The head, but the body keeps wiggling too. What about the lobster?

 

[Swift]

Typical Christian. Always telling me that my sense of morality and righteousness is warped. That's one of the reasons I love Marilyn Manson so much: he's a poster-boy for doing what you want and not doing what some organisation tells you what is right and wrong. Noone decides morality but yourself.

All that and you still have answered the question.

 

[PS]

All that and you still have answered the question.

I'm not answering the question because I don't have the same train of thought.

The head, but the body keeps wiggling too. What about the lobster?

Wouldn't the spinal column be severed and it would thus feel no pain?

As for lobsters, I don't like lobster so I wouldn't do that.

 

[Danoff]

As for lobsters, I don't like lobster so I wouldn't do that.

Ok, but should it be illegal?

 

[PS]

Ok, but should it be illegal?

Boiling an animal alive...hmm. Probably, but I'm not sure how much it suffers. If it's dead soon, then I don't care. But if it takes like 10 minutes for it to die, then I would just recommend people finding an alternate method of killing them. Like, sticking them in the freezer first so they go into a coma.

 

[Swift]

I'm not answering the question because I don't have the same train of thought.

You're not answering the question because you believe that animals are as important as humans. And that means that cruelty to animals is as bad as cruelty to humans. So, I guess you're a vegetarian?

 

[Danoff]

Boiling an animal alive...hmm. Probably,

What about scientific testing on animals? Also illegal?

 

[PS]

You're not answering the question because you believe that animals are as important as humans. And that means that cruelty to animals is as bad as cruelty to humans. So, I guess you're a vegetarian?

Pfft, no. That's like saying "You don't like chocolate, so I guess you don't like coffee and coke."

I eat meat, because I need it. That cows' death served a purpose: Boots, jackets, car seats, food, steering wheel wrap etc. All I'm aware of is that the cow died, I may think it's wrong that that cow suffered if it did, but it's better of dead if it went through that much torment.

 

[Danoff]

Pfft, no. That's like saying "You don't like chocolate, so I guess you don't like coffee and coke."

I eat meat, because I need it. That cows' death served a purpose: Boots, jackets, car seats, food, steering wheel wrap etc. All I'm aware of is that the cow died, I may think it's wrong that that cow suffered if it did, but it's better of dead if it went through that much torment.

When you have a pet, is it yours? Is it your property?

 

[PS]

When you have a pet, is it yours? Is it your property?

No. Do I own my mom or dad? Are they my property?

 

[Danoff]

No. Do I own my mom or dad? Are they my property?

What??? Ok then, what gives you the right to keep your pet in your house. If someone else coaxed your pet into their house and your pet didn't want to leave, do you have to let them have it?

 

[PS]

My cats come back to the house. I've accepted responsibility for their well-being and it could be likened to someone adopting a child. I don't keep my pet from running away, and there's nothing preventing him from doing it.

I let the cat into my house the same reason that someone lets an adopted baby into their house. I know it's not the same thing, but it's a similar occasion with very similar reasons.

 

[Danoff]

My cats come back to the house. I've accepted responsibility for their well-being and it could be likened to someone adopting a child. I don't keep my pet from running away, and there's nothing preventing him from doing it.

I let the cat into my house the same reason that someone lets an adopted baby into their house. I know it's not the same thing, but it's a similar occasion with very similar reasons.

So if someone else managed to coax your cat into their house and gave it enough food and other cats to play with or whatever that it didn't want to leave - then you don't think you should be legally allowed to extract the cat... because the cat decided who it wanted to live with.