What fur farms really do.

[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.

I'm not sure what you mean, but I wrote that then checked on dinner then clicked submit. I'm still not sure what's wrong with it, I'm not making the connection between that quote and what Swift wrote above. . .

 

[Swift]

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.

99% you were dead wrong. Period what you said was wrong. Can you not admit that?

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

This is truly funny. Seriously, that statement makes me laugh. Provide evidence? Your existance is the evidence. If I might borrow a thought from Danoff. You think, rationalise, have the ability to overide emotion with logic and logic with emotion. Animals CAN'T DO THAT. You are your own evidence. Unless of course you sitting next to your dog that's reading shakespeare or something.

 

[Danoff]

Which one?

Honest mistake if I did.

The one that says "if you're proven wrong, just switch the subject." That was one of the tips for the opinions forum.

Didn't we use to have that stickied?

Edit: Yea it's still stickied up there.

 

[PS]

99% you were dead wrong. Period what you said was wrong. Can you not admit that?

I was referring to our current Evolutionary theory, as it stands. Not what an evolutionary theory is. Sorry if I caused confusion or didn't communicate myself well enough.

This is truly funny. Seriously, that statement makes me laugh. Provide evidence? Your existance is the evidence. If I might borrow a thought from Danoff. You think, rationalise, have the ability to overide emotion with logic and logic with emotion. Animals CAN'T DO THAT. You are your own evidence. Unless of course you sitting next to your dog that's reading shakespeare or something.

You're trying to make me believe humans, as a whole are more important to animals, as a whole. Why is that? And what can you offer to prove that?

 

[PS]

The one that says "if you're proven wrong, just switch the subject." That was one of the tips for the opinions forum.

Didn't we use to have that stickied?

Edit: Yea it's still stickied up there.

I don't find it an effective debate method, ignoring what has just been said. It's a bit cowardly and can be taken as irresponsible; running from the consequences.

 

[Swift]

You're trying to make me believe humans, as a whole are more important to animals, as a whole. Why is that? And what can you offer to prove that?

I don't have to. You've already done it for me.

 

[Carl.]

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.

Isn't torture is purposely inflicting great pain? How does skinning an animal ALIVE, then letting him die slowly doesn't fit the bill? That case looks pretty cut and dry to me. The other cases you mentioned are just not comparable.

 

[Gil]

I don't know how I missed this one for so long...
My personal opinion is if God didn't want us to eat animals, they wouldn't be made out of meat.
If he didn't want us to wear them, they wouldn't be made out of leather, and fur.
I personally, don't care for fur. Not because it isn't stylish. But it just doesn't get cold enough here for fur to be really practical. Not over Gore-Tex anyway.

 

[Saleen Man]

I don't know how I missed this one for so long...
My personal opinion is if God didn't want us to eat animals, they wouldn't be made out of meat.
If he didn't want us to wear them, they wouldn't be made out of leather, and fur.
I personally, don't care for fur. Not because it isn't stylish. But it just doesn't get cold enough here for fur to be really practical. Not over Gore-Tex anyway.

That's not really the point here. It's whether or not it's right for animals to be skinned alive for their fur, not if people can wear it or not. Although, the debate has gotten much deeper since then.

 

[PS]

I don't know how I missed this one for so long...
My personal opinion is if God didn't want us to eat animals, they wouldn't be made out of meat.
If he didn't want us to wear them, they wouldn't be made out of leather, and fur.
I personally, don't care for fur. Not because it isn't stylish. But it just doesn't get cold enough here for fur to be really practical. Not over Gore-Tex anyway.

Why are the molars in humans' mouths geared more towards plant pulpitation than meat evisceration then?


And wtf would they have been made out of then? Dirt?!

 

[Famine]

Why are the molars in humans' mouths geared more towards plant pulpitation than meat evisceration then?

Those damned canines and premolars. They get everywhere.

And wtf would they have been made out of then? Dirt?!

Why not? Humans apparently were...

 

[Gil]

That's not really the point here. It's whether or not it's right for animals to be skinned alive for their fur, not if people can wear it or not. Although, the debate has gotten much deeper since then.

Perhaps not,
Perhaps the animals should be properly killed before skinning them.
I personally have no angst if people wear fur, leather, cotton or hemp.
I do have great angst about them going nekkid in public.
Not because I don't appreciate the naked human bod. But because the other drivers may appreciate it too much.

And I'm not going too deep on the subject of killing animals for their pelts or for meat.

 

[Danoff]

Isn't torture is purposely inflicting great pain? How does skinning an animal ALIVE, then letting him die slowly doesn't fit the bill? That case looks pretty cut and dry to me. The other cases you mentioned are just not comparable.

The animal dies relatively quickly in those videos. I'd be more likely to call it torture if they were abused for years than a few minutes.

I think the other cases I mentioned are quite similar.

 

[Grand Prix]

Humans are superior, sure. Only because of our brain though. We don't have claws or fangs designed to kill, we don't really have strength, and we're slow even by two-legged animal standards. Let's face it, a human without tools is prey. With tools, we are predators. Does this mean that we are cowardly? By human standards, yes. By other animals', no. Most of them don't know what morals are. That doesn't mean they can't survive though. Parrots can live as long as humans, and some experts say that Great White Sharks can live up to 150 years. Surely these animals can survive as well as humans?

These two animals can live as long as a human, without causing great harm to the environment they live in. Amazing really. Why can't humans do that? Well, I guess by our own moral standards, we aren't too smart in that area. However, if we can only live up to 100 years because of our harm to to the environment, then we are flawed, and "do not deserve" a high ranking on the list of longest living animals. Other animals are simply more efficient at what they do. They rely on instinct, but maybe they still have instinct because they don't need it in the first place? We need rational thought to survive, we need to construct claws and serated teeth (knives, forks).

Of course it all depends on what your moral standards are. For example, if a light car were to win a race, it could be considered a dishonorable achievement because it needed less weight to win. On the other hand, if a heavy V12 monster were to win, it could looked down upon because it needed all that power to win.


Sometimes I look at my cat and pet her. The only things she does are sleeping, eating, and expelling waste. Sometimes she sits in a sleeping position, staring through the window at the construction site down below. Some people in this forum said that animals are not capable of rational thought. Then why does she spend long hours staring at nothing? If she was resting, the instinctive thing to do would be to close the eye lids, yet she does not. I think that animals are capable of thought, but in their own simple version of it. The only reason, I think, that most humans assume that animals do not think, is because they don't understand the animals' language, or because the animals' don't have a language.

An infantile human does not have the capacity for understanding language. If language were needed to form thoughts, a baby wouldn't have any thoughts. Alas, we know this is not the case. We know that babies have thinking capacity, if they didn't, they wouldn't be able to form language. Perhaps terrestrial animals can think as well? After all, they're smart enough to associate plants/prey as food, and most animals are smart enough to go around a tree instead of over it. I find it impossible to believe that other animals are not capable of thought.

 

[FoolKiller]

However, if we can only live up to 100 years because of our harm to to the environment, then we are flawed, and "do not deserve" a high ranking on the list of longest living animals.

By this rationale humans should have been living longer before ths industrial age than they do now, yet it is the opposite. I doubt our harm to the environement (for those who believe that) has any effect on our age.

Sometimes she sits in a sleeping position, staring through the window at the construction site down below. Some people in this forum said that animals are not capable of rational thought. Then why does she spend long hours staring at nothing? If she was resting, the instinctive thing to do would be to close the eye lids, yet she does not. I think that animals are capable of thought, but in their own simple version of it.

I am sure her thoughts, if we could understand them, would equate to "Colors! Maybe it's food." It is probably much like a person in a vegetative state will follow a bright red balloon around. They are brain dead but they want to follow that bright thing. While I am not a veterinarian or biologist I am sure that it is just something bright that caught their attention. Or maybe from your height the men look like possible food.

I know what you are saying here because many animals do things that make them appear to be thiking just as well as we do, but when my cat stares at my TV screen while I play GT4 I know he is not just two opposable thumbs away from racing against me. He also reacts to my moods by staying away when i am angry, being playful when I am happy, and being cuddly when I am sad. I doubt he understands the complexities of my emotional state better than a therapist, he just knows when the time to get what he wants is. He has been trained in his four years of life to know that a red face means hide, a smile means play time, and laying around with a frown means I will pet him.

And as for humans being superior because of their brain; what else do we need? Physically we should never have made it. It takes our bodies years to fully mature and yet even our brains are under developed and small when we are born so that we do not kill our mothers at birth. We stand upright with heads too large for our relatively tiny bodies and our necks exposed. If you are to believe evolution then you could say that our bodies adjusted to no more than the necessary as our brains grew. If you believe creationism then we were given everything we needed to survive.

Anyway if we can develop things to stop a charging tiger at 100 meters then why do we need anymore and who has developed the better adaptability over the years? We can't adjust to the climate the way many animals can, so instead of marching thousands of dangerous miles or sleeping unprotected for months we built shelters and ways to control the climate indside them. We have adapted to all the things that animals have, yet we found more efficient ways of doing it.

Some people here have called using a weapon on an animal cowardly, I call it superior adaptability. The range of my weapons is hundreds of meters or farther, the range of a tiger is only as far as it can reach or jump, meaning it must out run or sneak up on prey. We have found ways to do everything an animal needs to do with much less work.

This debate started out about an arrogant attitude. After a night's thought. You are right, it is arrogant because I am arrogant because I have outwitted the animal kingdom at their own game. Sure some of them may occasionally get the jump on a human or surprise him/her but we kill many more of them on a regular basis, sometimes without trying.

 

[PS]

*stuff*

Out of curiosity, how old are you?




By the way, you haven't out-smarted the animal kingdom. It took us 10,000 years to get here. I'm sure the t-rex was the top predator relatively quickly.

 

[FoolKiller]

Out of curiosity, how old are you?




By the way, you haven't out-smarted the animal kingdom. It took us 10,000 years to get here. I'm sure the t-rex was the top predator relatively quickly.

Older than you, according to your profile. A quick click will tell you how old I am. Here's a hint: old enough to be married, own a house, and be a project coordinator for a national company. And I don't know what this has to do with anything.

And Discovery Channel, about six months to a year ago, ran a special showing evidence that T-Rex may have been a scavenger, not a predator.

Putting that aside, they are dead now through natural selection, bad luck, fate, or whatever you want to call it. Either way we are here now and they are not. Had they not been wiped out things may be different. Mammals may have never become what they are, meaning that humans wouldn't have gotten a chance to even exist in any form. However, I doubt T-Rex just appeared big and mean. I am sure it took many years to become what it was too. Dinosaurs weren't just one group of animals but many groups ever changing over millions of years.

I can't believe I stepped back into this discuission after I intended to step out. My wife is right, I can argue with a wall.

Anyway, I am out for the weekend. Have a good one. I may pop in Sunday night while my wife is at the Kenny Chesney concert.

 

[PS]

I may pop in Sunday night while my wife is at the Kenny Chesney concert.

Well it's Monday. I missed you, FoolK.

Got any more morals you'd like to enforce on me?

 

[FoolKiller]

Well it's Monday. I missed you, FoolK.

Got any more morals you'd like to enforce on me?

Nope. I never considered myself trying to enforce them on you so much as debating why I thought what I did. Perhaps I should precede all my statements with things like "I think" and "In my opinion" because I believe you can believe and think whatever you want. On many issues we may never know who is wrong or right until we die, of course if there is nothing after death then no one will ever know.

 

[PS]

That's a bit of a downer, eh? No chance to go "Haha! Told y'so!"

 

[FoolKiller]

That's a bit of a downer, eh? No chance to go "Haha! Told y'so!"

That's one of the reasons that I keep crossing my fingers that the Christian heaven I believe in exists. I'd love the chance to do my little happy dance.