What fur farms really do.

[Danoff]

Well, I think I adressed that (in blue), and it's quite obvious.

Do you honestly believe that people are dumb enough not to take further steps towards a regulation frentzy leading to mandatory vegetarianism for everyone just because there's already a law against sadistic people to prevent torture on animals? I know masses can make dumb choices, but come on, we both know that's just not going to happen.

My question is, where do you draw the philosophical line here? Not you personally, but where must the line be drawn.

What is torture and what is not? Is keep a cow locked up in a pen torture? Is keeping your dog in your house for 1 day torture? 2 days? 500 days?

Is kicking your dog torture? What about smacking its nose when it does something bad? What about hitting it with a newspaper or putting its face in poo to show it what it has done wrong?

Should veal be outlawed? Do fishermen have to be extremely careful that the fish is fully dead before they gut the fish? Is lobster to be outlawed?

Don't pretend this is some kind of cut and dry scenario where one can just say "torture is bad and should be illegal." The definition of torture is a VERY fuzzy area and one that deserves a great deal of fleshing out. Personally I don't think skinning a raccoon alive is animal torture. But some people would think that certain kinds of dog food was torture.

 

[Swift]

I've already stated why I've valued myself more. Without me, I am nothing and neither is anything else. It comes hand in hand.

Sure, I might break or slow down, but if there's traffic behind me and nowhere to go, well, then another one just bit the dust. Survival of the luckiest it seems.


I noted they deserved respect, not for me to bend over backwards for their own good.

Well, if everyone has the same attitude as you. Humans are superior to animals because you will kill or injure an animal just so your insurance doesn't go up.

 

[Dave A]

I've already stated why I've valued myself more. Without me, I am nothing and neither is anything else. It comes hand in hand.

Sure, I might break or slow down, but if there's traffic behind me and nowhere to go, well, then another one just bit the dust. Survival of the luckiest it seems.


I noted they deserved respect, not for me to bend over backwards for their own good.

[edit]

Boy, I'm comming up with some really philisophical sh/t here!

Okay, answer this, your captured by some rebel forces wherever trying to achieve whatever. They hand you a gun with one bullet, they tell you to shoot either an animal that has nothing to do with you or a person you've never met before. You have no other choice you have to shoot either the animal of the human, which do you shoot. And the shot WILL kill whoever is shot.

 

[PS]

How is a television our demise?

I'm not even dignifying that with a response.

The animals you mentioned before, like the wasps and the ants do what they do instinctivley. The next wasps nest isn't better thant he last, it's the same, every wasps nest is the same basic design. We build mud huts, wood huts then brick houses, we improve. Animals do not. Not only that but we can copy what we see other doing, we have a higher level of creativity.

It's capacity. We are capable of doing it, they are not. It doesn't make us "better". If you could run for 10 miles and knew a guy with no legs, would that make you "better"? After all, you're capable of doing something he isn't.

And yes, in the post I last quote, you descibed humans and animals as very similar. But you said we had a higher mental capacity. If were very similar but better in that way, were superior then. It's be like two televisions, both identical, one doesn't have remote control capability but the features are the same, the one with the remote control capability is superior.

It's not similar in the least. The example I used showed that we merely evolved with a slight advantage, not the authority to rule over them.

 

[PS]

Okay, answer this, your captured by some rebel forces wherever trying to achieve whatever. They hand you a gun with one bullet, they tell you to shoot either an animal that has nothing to do with you or a person you've never met before. You have no other choice you have to shoot either the animal of the human, which do you shoot. And the shot WILL kill whoever is shot.

I've never met the terrorist before, so I'd shoot him.

 

[Dave A]

I've never met the terrorist before, so I'd shoot him.

So then the other rebels shoot you, I said rebel forces not a rebel. I also said you have no choice but to shoot one of the two they tell you to shoot. If you don't shoot one of them you get killed yourself. What do you do, no avoiding the question, the animal or the human?

 

[PS]

Well, if everyone has the same attitude as you. Humans are superior to animals because you will kill or injure an animal just so your insurance doesn't go up.

That was merely a perk. Cost:benefit ratios, remember?

 

[PS]

So then the other rebels shoot you, I said rebel forces not a rebel. I also said you have no choice but to shoot one of the two they tell you to shoot. If you don't shoot one of them you get killed yourself. What do you do, no avoiding the question, the animal or the human?

In that case, since I die if I don't, and assumingly get free if I do, and I don't know either one, and don't really care which one dies, I'd eeny-meany-miny-moe it.

 

[Dave A]

I'm not even dignifying that with a response.



It's capacity. We are capable of doing it, they are not. It doesn't make us "better". If you could run for 10 miles and knew a guy with no legs, would that make you "better"? After all, you're capable of doing something he isn't.



It's not similar in the least. The example I used showed that we merely evolved with a slight advantage, not the authority to rule over them.

comparing me to a man with no legs doesn't make me a better person, were not talking better, the person with no legs is still capable of using his brain in the same capacity as he was. I mental person who can't grasp the world around him will never run for president. Why is that?

Also you talk about this and that not giving us the right to rule them suddenly avoiding the idea of superiority, besides me not mentioning ruling them since my first post with regards to this recent part of the discussion. I still believe we have that right. Whats to say we don't. Evolution and god say we are whichever you beliveve and you either believe we were created by someone or something, theres not much else. If it's someone then the onyl evidence is god, if it's something then we evolved, survival of the fittest, we got to the top we rule because we are the fittest.

 

[PS]

comparing me to a man with no legs doesn't make me a better person, were not talking better, the person with no legs is still capable of using his brain in the same capacity as he was. I mental person who can't grasp the world around him will never run for president. Why is that?

Also you talk about this and that not giving us the right to rule them suddenly avoiding the idea of superiority, besides me not mentioning ruling them since my first post with regards to this recent part of the discussion. I still believe we have that right. Whats to say we don't. Evolution and god say we are whichever you beliveve and you either believe we were created by someone or something, theres not much else. If it's someone then the onyl evidence is god, if it's something then we evolved, survival of the fittest, we got to the top we rule because we are the fittest.

I'll respond to that when I can understand it. The grammar is horrible.

 

[Dave A]

If you can't understand that post go back to school, I'm not saying the grammars great but it's understandable.

 

[PS]

If you can't understand that post go back to school, I'm not saying the grammars great but it's understandable.

You're telling ME to go back to school, when YOUR post doesn't make sense?

Why am I even bothering with you?

 

[Swift]

It's capacity. We are capable of doing it, they are not. It doesn't make us "better". If you could run for 10 miles and knew a guy with no legs, would that make you "better"? After all, you're capable of doing something he isn't.

According to what you think about purpose in life, yes he is better then the parapoligic.

 

[Swift]

You're telling ME to go back to school, when YOUR post doesn't make sense?

Why am I even bothering with you?

Relax, I can tell he was just typing fast. L4S posts in a very respectful manner. Just relax and read it again.

 

[PS]

According to what you think about purpose in life, yes he is better then the parapoligic.

No, he simply may have more purpose in his own mind. Nice play on words, though.

But not having the use of your legs isn't that bad. I was talking about if you were like a vegetable or something. Quadrapolegia is just about as bad. Actually, I might go as far as to say its even worse: you're conscious of your own incapacity to do anything. That must be more frustrating than anything else. Like, being catatonic.

 

[Swift]

No, he simply may have more purpose in his own mind. Nice play on words, though.

But not having the use of your legs isn't that bad. I was talking about if you were like a vegetable or something. Quadrapolegia is just about as bad. Actually, I might go as far as to say its even worse: you're conscious of your own incapacity to do anything. That must be more frustrating than anything else. Like, being catatonic.

I take it you don't know anyone that is/was a parapolegic then?

 

[PS]

comparing me to a man with no legs doesn't make me a better person, were not talking better, the person with no legs is still capable of using his brain in the same capacity as he was. I mental person who can't grasp the world around him will never run for president. Why is that?

"I, mental person who can't grasp the world around him, will never run for president. Why is that?"

Because you are mental person who can't grasp world around him.

Also you talk about this and that not giving us the right to rule them suddenly avoiding the idea of superiority,

Not sure what you mean about that, but I don't see where I avoided the idea of superiority. In fact, I've responded to every single post, something Swift and 17 got used to not doing in the Creation Vs. Evolution thread.

besides me not mentioning ruling them since my first post with regards to this recent part of the discussion. I still believe we have that right. Whats to say we don't.

What's to say we do? Do you think other species that are "more superior" to others rule over them? No. They just eat what they need.

Evolution and god say we are whichever you beliveve and you either believe we were created by someone or something, theres not much else. If it's someone then the onyl evidence is god, if it's something then we evolved, survival of the fittest, we got to the top we rule because we are the fittest.

No, evolution simply suggests we came from a common collection of acids. Creationism suggests we were put her by God. And depending on which one I accept, I may or not think something of another species. There's no rule saying I must think one thing if I think another, especially since the origin of life isn't even remotely related to this conversation.


But since I accept Evolution, all that means is that were are currently the species that has most taken advantage of its environment. It doesn't mean we are the fittest at all. We're not suited to much of our environment, we can't naturally swim, we can't outrun predators, we can't out-wrestle them, or incapacitate them on our own. So what do we do? Run away, get a stick, and stab whatever chased us. Really, when you think of it, we're quite cowardly.

 

[PS]

I take it you don't know anyone that is/was a parapolegic then?

Yes, I do. And there is a difference between quadrapolegia and parapolegia.

 

[Swift]

Yes, I do. And there is a difference between quadrapolegia and parapolegia.

My fault, I meant to say quad.

No, evolution simply suggests we came from a common collection of acids.

No, that's a different theory and study. Evolution is the stuff of life AFTER it had started.

 

[PS]

My fault, I meant to say quad.



No, that's a different theory and study. Evolution is the stuff of life AFTER it had started.

Evolutionary theory, states...*sigh*

Do I really have to go back into that thread and dig up Famines explanation of "life" "spontaneously appearing" on Earth? Because I really don't want to have to resort to that.

 

[Swift]

Evolutionary theory, states...*sigh*

Do I really have to go back into that thread and dig up Famines explanation of "life" "spontaneously appearing" on Earth? Because I really don't want to have to resort to that.

Famine was the one that stated on many occaisions that they are NOT the same study.

 

[PS]

Famine was the one that stated on many occaisions that they are NOT the same study.

Okay then, but he still explains how life evolved out of a collection of acids and gasses.

 

[Swift]

Okay then, but he still explains how life evolved out of a collection of acids and gasses.

Evolutionary Theory deals with the evolution of life from one form. The Primordial Soup was not alive. Ever. It contained chemicals required to form life - much as your blood does - but wasn't alive. Cut yourself open and poor your blood into a test tube. Is it alive? No. Does it contain organic chemicals. Yes. The same goes for the Soup.

Evolutionary theory DOES NOT CARE where life started. All that is required is that a species of lifeform goes in one end and either becomes extinct, persists or is replaced by lifeforms which are more suited to their environment at the other end. Primordial Soup is not a species of lifeform since it was never alive and so it plays absolutely NO PART in Evolutionary Theory.

If one were to remove "Primordial Soup" - it never existed, whatever - and replace it with bugs which hitch-hiked to Earth on a meteor, Evolutionary Theory would still function as, whatever the method employed to get life onto the planet, life on the planet is subject to Evolutionary Theory.

Similarly, the existence of the Earth through the Accretion Disk theory is not beholden upon the Big Bang. The physics surrounding the Big Bang do not play any part in the physics surrounding the Accretion Disk so, the Accretion Disk theory would still be valid if the universe didn't start in a Big Bang, but was instead farted out of the arse of a giant space weevil. All that is required for the Accretion Disk theory is an awful lot of stuff and gravity. Accretion Disk theory doesn't care where the awful lot of stuff and gravity came from, just that it is there.

But you said that it was the same study. And it's not. So, yeah, you were not correct there. It's ok. I've done it before.

 

[PS]

Does anyone have a goal in this thread? With this conversation is anyone trying to achieve something?

 

[Swift]

Does anyone have a goal in this thread? With this conversation is anyone trying to achieve something?

Wow, I catch you on your own point and you change direction. Sounds like what you say I've done in other threads.

I'm just trying to get you to see that human life is more important for all intesive purposes then animal life. In EVERY situation you would choose to kill the animal and spare the human. Everytime. So, in your mind, the animals have less value.

 

[PS]

But you said that it was the same study. And it's not. So, yeah, you were not correct there. It's ok. I've done it before.

It's not. But the result of those acids was life, and that life is where the evolutionary theory starts. If they suddenly realized that "bugs hitchhiked to Earth on a meteor" then the evolutionary theory would have to change. So yes, I was 99% wrong.

 

[Dave A]

Evolution is life changing and adapting to it's surroundings and needs. It's covers survival of the fittest and that covers dominance and submission which we see in the animal kingdon all the time. I'm not agreeing with evolution here, just stating even that backs up dominance over one another, there isn't a single thing that tells me I should value my parents pet cats the same as other humans. I'm off for the night, I hope to see a still clean debate going on tomorrow, have a good one guys.

 

[Danoff]

Does anyone have a goal in this thread? With this conversation is anyone trying to achieve something?

I hope you wrote that BEFORE swift caught you there and then got the reply in late, because if you wrote it after the fact than yea you're guilty of one of the main guidlines in the opinions forum.

 

[PS]

Wow, I catch you on your own point and you change direction. Sounds like what you say I've done in other threads.

I'm just trying to get you to see that human life is more important for all intesive purposes then animal life. In EVERY situation you would choose to kill the animal and spare the human. Everytime. So, in your mind, the animals have less value.

I was posing a question, not a new direction. Am I not allowed to do that? Your questions used to take us all over the place.


And if you're trying to get me to see what's so important about human life, do what scientists do: Provide evidence.

 

[PS]

I hope you wrote that BEFORE swift caught you there and then got the reply in late, because if you wrote it after the fact than yea you're guilty of one of the main guidlines in the opinions forum.

Which one?

Honest mistake if I did.