# Peta seeks to expand 13th emendment to protect animals



## TheDivineWing22 (Oct 26, 2011)

Peta wants to expand the 13th amendment to protect animals. Link

oh peta...


----------



## pink freud (Oct 26, 2011)

While a bit facepalm worthy, I believe there will come a time when we will need to define "person' as something not exclusively human. If whales evolved to be sentient (or if we found that they already are) I would support this full-heartedly.


----------



## AySay (Oct 26, 2011)

Peta needs new management. The idiots in charge are hindering their cause rather than helping it. Suing SeaWorld for slavery doesn't help raise awareness for animal rights. It just makes you look like a retard...


----------



## ShiftKey (Oct 26, 2011)

reminds me of when apes were granted basic human rights in spain, funny how all these 'rich/developed' nations treat animals better that the humans of other nations though...or at least agonise about the rights of animals when humans that dont speak the same language or live under a different colourd bit of cloth called a flag are not a problem
/rant
heres a link to the the ape rights
Spanish parliament approves 'human rights' for apes | Law | guardian.co.uk


----------



## Edika (Oct 26, 2011)

I don't agree with fair coats but if I saw a PETA representative throwing red paint to ruin the coat I'll gladly hold him so the guy/woman wearing the coat can beat him/her up! Gladly!!


----------



## Ill-Gotten James (Oct 26, 2011)

I like animals, but I don't see how they can have equal rights as humans. If I am correct, animals (not including humans) lack moral reasoning, which to me means that they cannot be treated the same as human beings. Not that this is a valid reason to restrict animals equal rights as humans, but I think they taste really good and I would like to continue eating them.


----------



## Jakke (Oct 26, 2011)

I see a big hole in this... If animals are to be considered people, then if an animal would do as animals do and kill another animal (person), then it would constitute as murder.... That would completely wreck the system, because that would make us need animal prisons, to a great cost of tax payers money, not to mention that if PETA is suing Sea World for for keeping animals locked up, then what would they think about an animal prison? How do we know if a lion is criminally insane?

An animal would never be able to speak for itself in court, which if they were not allowed to do so, would violate their human rights. The american system is of course based around a jury of the accused's fellow men, but in these trials we could not have humans judging animals... We would need animals to sit in the jury for animals, but how could they ever be able to discuss or cast a vote without eating each other, and we would have another trial on our hands

Even better in states like Texas, where the animal would get the chair... And how is that different from killing an animal for food?

Sometimes I think the world would be a much better place if people just thought things through.. But then if that was the case, PETA wouldn't have any members left


----------



## pink freud (Oct 26, 2011)

Ill-Gotten James said:


> I like animals, but I don't see how they can have equal rights as humans. If I am correct, animals (not including humans) lack moral reasoning, which to me means that they cannot be treated the same as human beings. Not that this is a valid reason to restrict animals equal rights as humans, but I think they taste really good and I would like to continue eating them.



Infants and sociopaths also lack moral reasoning, but I don't see us nomming on them.


*discreetly closes oven door*


----------



## Jakke (Oct 26, 2011)

pink freud said:


> Infants and sociopaths also lack moral reasoning, but I don't see us nomming on them.
> 
> 
> *discreetly closes oven door*



But they are the same species, and we are not per definition a cannibalistic species..


----------



## vampiregenocide (Oct 26, 2011)

I certainly agree animals should have more rights in society, especially highly intelligent animals such as apes, dolphins, whales etc. Apes in particular should be treated as people where possible. They have the intelligence of a retarded child according to tests, and should have the same rights. 

However, putting laws into place would have to be done properly. As mentioned there would be a few implications in doing it that would need to be addressed. I do think we need to start viewing animals on a more equal level though. They can feel pain and many have the capacity for emotion. This doesn't mean we can't still 'use' them, we just have to be more thoughtful about how we do.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Oct 26, 2011)

Oooh, does that mean I'd have the same rights as animals, too? I can't tell you how often I've made myself miserable trying to find a clean public bathroom when I'm far from home and have a huge burrito in my gut. It'd be such a relief to be able to just pop a squat and drop a deuce on a patch of grass or whatever. Also, who needs a cheap motel room for that late-night drunken tryst? Just bend 'er over right there in the bar. _Dogs_ don't get arrested for having sex in public, and neither should I!


----------



## Rev2010 (Oct 26, 2011)

pink freud said:


> If whales evolved to be sentient (or if we found that they already are) I would support this full-heartedly.



sen·tient
&#8194; &#8194;/&#712;s&#603;n&#643;&#601;nt/ Show Spelled[sen-shuhnt] Show IPA
adjective
1.
having the power of perception by the senses; conscious.
2.
characterized by sensation and consciousness.
noun
3.
a person or thing that is sentient.
4.
Archaic. the conscious mind.

I'd say whales are sentient just as I would say dogs and other animals are.

This debate always kills me because people always try to proclaim people having moral standards absent of animals. That's already been proven to be 100% bullshit. Dolphins have saved people in the ocean from sharks and drowning several times. No, that doesn't indicate direct thought and decision making with some likelihood of moral, of course not. Apes have at times rebelled against cruel leaders beating them so harshly they never recover to regain their status among the group - this has even been done by a group of female chimps after the leader attacked a favored member of the group.

But nah, animals are just stupid because they don't speak english and make iPhones. No, instead we're far superior because humans are the only species on the planet to mass murder millions of people and create atomic weapons of mass destruction. We're awesome! We also destroy entire animal habits and rainforests for paper to wipe our asses.

Carl Sagan once said, "It is of interest to note that while some dolphins are reported to have learned English -- up to fifty words used in correct context -- no human being has been reported to have learned dolphinese."

Makes me sick when people just throw out any respect for animals based on a perceived human superiority. I'll say one thing, WE are going to ruin this entire world, the animals won't.


Rev.


----------



## AxeHappy (Oct 26, 2011)

Meh, humans are just smart enough to fuck everything up and not smart enough to fix it. 

Animals aren't even that smart. But I think the entire intelligence arguments is fucking stupid anyways. That animals is smart...so what? 

I'm a human, other things aren't. Things that aren't human shouldn't have human rights. They should potentially have a whole other set of rights but with rights come responsibilities etc, etc, etc and we run into all kinds of problems. Animals shouldn't be beaten or tortured or whatnot. I think that the law views them as property instead of a living thing is pretty fucked up, but other than that the laws in place are pretty good. They just actually need to be enforced and have harsher punishments.


----------



## Infinite Recursion (Oct 26, 2011)

When animals progress beyond their current level (which is at best that of a retarded child), then I'll stop considering myself superior to them. I am superior because the level of intelligence I possess is exponentially higher then that of the smartest animal. I hate the "we're not superior because war, slavery, whatever" argument as well. Do you really thing hyper-intelligent dolphins would do any better? Humans have made many bad choices, but they have also created amazing works of art, discovered science, and advanced as a race beyond any other on this planet so far.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Oct 26, 2011)

That's a poor argument, and it won't amount to much when we've exhausted all natural resources and become over populated. That's the likely way of things. Then our technology and pretty buildings will account for fuck all because we'll be at each other's throats for a bottle of water.


----------



## Explorer (Oct 26, 2011)

Does treating animals as humans mean they have the same responsibilities? If not, that's not right. 

If I am forced to wear pants when I go to 7-11, then a dog shouldn't be allowed to have the family jewels dangling down in public view. 

"Oh, wait, animals are different in *that*!"

Then, acknowledge that animals are different. Don't try to have them more equal than humans.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Oct 26, 2011)

I don't think it's a case of giving animals the same rights and privileges as people, that would be silly. Animals are obviously very different and we can't apply human rules to them. We can however, make our society fairer and more balanced, showing animals respect. Particularly in the case of intelligent animals such as apes, which understand pain, loss and loneliness, we need to rethink how we view and treat these animals. In my opinion killing an ape should be a crime comparable to murder or manslaughter. As studies have proved they're capable of learning our language (though unable to speak it), learning sign language and have shown a variety of emotions. They're too similar to us to ignore, and if we can accept another animal other than us can exhibit those qualities, then that shows we need to redefine how we view our 'superiority' over nature.


----------



## Infinite Recursion (Oct 26, 2011)

vampiregenocide said:


> That's a poor argument, and it won't amount to much when we've exhausted all natural resources and become over populated. That's the likely way of things. Then our technology and pretty buildings will account for fuck all because we'll be at each other's throats for a bottle of water.


Yes, yes it will. We are resourceful enough that, given a crisis situation short of total annihilation, we can find a way to work around the crisis and survive as a race. We could isolate those affected by a pandemic and try and cure them, devise a new way to extract water, mass produce synthetic meat, etc. Now consider a chimp. The chimps may shun the infected, they may have an idea that something is wrong, but they aren't able to consciously process an event of that magnitude. The chimp would have no chance trying to extract potable water from a polluted sea. If their food source dried up, they would have the idea "no food, need food", and maybe try eating new things, but would a chimp be able to think of chaining carbon and proteins? 

In short, our capacity for logical reasoning, combined with our technological aptitude, proves that we are superior to chimps as we have a significantly stronger ability to survive.

More to the point, I agree that animals should be protected against abuse and maltreatment, and befitting their enhanced intelligence animals such as chimps should not be held captive unless under extremely favorable conditions (i.e. huge habitat, think nature park instead of zoo), and even then only held captive for breeding purposes; but suing Seaworld to emancipate the dolphins is retarded. In theory (if the dolphins received the care and habitat they should), the dolphins would live a better life then they would in the wild. No fear of predators, no need to frantically hunt for food, all they would need to do is basically live there and perform tricks. If they aren't receiving adequate care, then that becomes an animal abuse issue, not an animal rights issue.


----------



## Blind Theory (Oct 27, 2011)

PETA will continue to do these outrageous things because we see it and acknowledge what they are doing. It is the same with many other organizations. 

Now as far as the animal rights goes, I agree that they should be given better...help. I won't call it rights. It is help. Animals don't understand the idea of them having rights. My dog doesn't understand that he has the right to eat or drink water. He does understand that he needs my HELP to get water and eat food. So I think we should provide them with better help. Strictly enforces laws with hefty punishment should cut down animal cruelty over time. Who is going to change how they treat animals when all they get is a fine and probation at the most? Not a whole lot of people. But if you throw in a minimum jail sentence of, say....3 years, well that is a little more incentive to feed your cat/dog/iguana/liger/unicorn/whateverthefuckitis. 

And as far as animals understanding emotional or moral situations I agree to an extent. I visited a Wolf sanctuary years ago for my birthday and while there, one of the researchers told us something interesting. She said that a while back one of the Wolves they had had for years had to be put down but its partner was still living. After a day or so the surviving Wolf stopped eating, stopped being active, stopped everything. The remaining Wolf did not return to normal until a new partner was introduced and a little time passed. So in that instance I agree. ANY animal will act that way. As for the moral side of things, that is a little iffy for me because not all animals will show signs of that which tells me it can't be a broad rule put in place because not every animal can adhere to it. That's just my two cents.


----------



## The Reverend (Oct 27, 2011)

I'm not sure where I stand on this. The same applies with the whole artificial intelligence debate, although I'd venture to say the question of animal rights is quite a bit more practical to think to about.

I feel that laws against animal cruelty should be passed in some cases, and more strictly enforced in others, but I'm not sure what 'rights' we could really give them. A right is only a right because one perceives it as such; if the concept is never learned or thought about, it reverts to meaninglessness. I think we'd have to wait for some more science magic to be done before we can understand just to what extent animals can think and feel.

I'm certainly not going to say that humans have more value than animals, which I think is being lost by those who advocate that intelligence equals superiority. Just because we value intelligence more than anything else doesn't make it inherently better, in fact the argument could be made that a cheetah is better than a human because its ancestors didn't _need_ to be resourceful as fuck to survive. Life in general should be valued fairly equally, and should be treated with at least some dignity.


----------



## wlfers (Oct 27, 2011)

Infinite Recursion said:


> When animals progress beyond their current level (which is at best that of a retarded child), then I'll stop considering myself superior to them. I am superior because the level of intelligence I possess is exponentially higher then that of the smartest animal. I hate the "we're not superior because war, slavery, whatever" argument as well. Do you really thing hyper-intelligent dolphins would do any better? Humans have made many bad choices, but they have also created amazing works of art, discovered science, and advanced as a race beyond any other on this planet so far.



Well maybe some animals are better than us, because they can do cool shit like see UV or Infrared, or sense magnetic fields .

Anyway animals have been documented to kill for fun. Ants wage war, and actually own slaves.


----------



## Jakke (Oct 27, 2011)

athawulf said:


> Well maybe some animals are better than us, because they can do cool shit like see UV or Infrared, or sense magnetic fields .
> 
> Anyway animals have been documented to kill for fun. Ants wage war, and actually own slaves.



But.... We have opposable thumbs! Suck on that other animals!


----------



## vampiregenocide (Oct 27, 2011)

Infinite Recursion said:


> Yes, yes it will. We are resourceful enough that, given a crisis situation short of total annihilation, we can find a way to work around the crisis and survive as a race. We could isolate those affected by a pandemic and try and cure them, devise a new way to extract water, mass produce synthetic meat, etc. Now consider a chimp. The chimps may shun the infected, they may have an idea that something is wrong, but they aren't able to consciously process an event of that magnitude. The chimp would have no chance trying to extract potable water from a polluted sea. If their food source dried up, they would have the idea "no food, need food", and maybe try eating new things, but would a chimp be able to think of chaining carbon and proteins?
> 
> In short, our capacity for logical reasoning, combined with our technological aptitude, proves that we are superior to chimps as we have a significantly stronger ability to survive.



I wouldn't count on our resourcefulness too much. We're still to be seriously tested, and most of the problems we've had to resolve, we caused. Animals have simple lifestyles and therefore don't need to be as complex.


----------



## Jakke (Oct 27, 2011)

vampiregenocide said:


> I wouldn't count on our resourcefulness too much. We're still to be seriously tested, and most of the problems we've had to resolve, we caused. Animals have simple lifestyles and therefore don't need to be as complex.



I would disagree, we are a tool-using species. Everything we do now, technological advances etc, are in our nature. Tigers have claws, teeth and camoflague, we use tools.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Oct 27, 2011)

Jakke said:


> I would disagree, we are a tool-using species. Everything we do now, technological advances etc, are in our nature. Tigers have claws, teeth and camoflague, we use tools.



What part exactly are you disagreeing with?


----------



## Jakke (Oct 27, 2011)

vampiregenocide said:


> What part exactly are you disagreeing with?



That the simple lifestyle for other animals is the reason they don't use tools as we do.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Oct 27, 2011)

Does an animal having similar intelligence to a human necessarily mean that they have the same sense of right and wrong or that they can be taught to answer questions more or less implying that they have the ability to retain knowledge--perhaps to a greater degree than other animals, but this in no way makes them human.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Oct 27, 2011)

Jakke said:


> That the simple lifestyle for other animals is the reason they don't use tools as we do.



I never said that wasn't the case?


The fact of the matter is, we're not more superior than animals. We think we are because we have more brain power, but then sharks are more superior than us because they're bigger and can breathe underwater. Every animal has it's own strengths and advantages, we are no exception. However, we do have the ability to be more aware of our advantages and their effects on the environment. That is sapience, our main evolutionary advantage and the reason we are the dominant species on this planet. We've come to throw off the shackles of nature and care not about how we damage life around us if it benefits us in the short term. That is why we are a failure and will continue to be unless we change, and that is why we aren't superior. We don't understand our place in the scheme of things, and we're still struggling with the weight of this intelligence we so proudly proclaim makes us better than animals. Once we have understood that and formed a balance with nature, then we might be considered 'superior'. But at the moment, we're just very clever chimps.


But I digress.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Oct 27, 2011)

One way to decide where you stand on human-animal equality:

Think of an animal. Any animal. Ready? Good job! Now, imagine that you're in some strange scenario where that animal and a human are trapped in a burning building, and you only have time to save _one_ of them. Which do you save? Why?

Note that isn't to assert any one stance over the other, it's to maybe get the ol' gears working.


----------



## Jakke (Oct 27, 2011)

vampiregenocide said:


> I never said that wasn't the case?
> 
> 
> The fact of the matter is, we're not more superior than animals. We think we are because we have more brain power, but then sharks are more superior than us because they're bigger and can breathe underwater. Every animal has it's own strengths and advantages, we are no exception. However, we do have the ability to be more aware of our advantages and their effects on the environment. That is sapience, our main evolutionary advantage and the reason we are the dominant species on this planet. We've come to throw off the shackles of nature and care not about how we damage life around us if it benefits us in the short term. That is why we are a failure and will continue to be unless we change, and that is why we aren't superior. We don't understand our place in the scheme of things, and we're still struggling with the weight of this intelligence we so proudly proclaim makes us better than animals. Once we have understood that and formed a balance with nature, then we might be considered 'superior'. But at the moment, we're just very clever chimps.
> ...



Then I agree with you, we are not superior to other animals. But given the choice, I would save a human 100% of the times over the life of another animal. This is in regards to Tim's post


----------



## vampiregenocide (Oct 27, 2011)

Jakke said:


> Then I agree with you, we are not superior to other animals. But given the choice, I would save a human 100% of the times over the life of another animal. This is in regards to Tim's post



Same, down to a loyalty to my own species which is completely natural.


----------



## Jakke (Oct 27, 2011)

vampiregenocide said:


> Same, down to a loyalty to my own species which is completely natural.



Not to PETA it isn't


----------



## vampiregenocide (Oct 27, 2011)

Jakke said:


> Not to PETA it isn't



Hence I think they're nutjobs.  PETA don't just lack loyalty to their own species, they are pretty much anti-human. I mean I am to an extent, but not to the extent that I would actually go out and harm innocent people to make a point.


----------



## Jakke (Oct 27, 2011)

vampiregenocide said:


> Hence I think they're nutjobs.  PETA don't just lack loyalty to their own species, they are pretty much anti-human. I mean I am to an extent, but not to the extent that I would actually go out and harm innocent people to make a point.



Yeah, they support one particular nutjob who lectures on campuses and theaches the students how to make fire bombs. 

I am very loyal to my species, so I can't even begin to imagine how it is to sacrifice your own to a completely different species. Kinda like the indoctrinated in V


----------



## renzoip (Oct 27, 2011)

If corporations can be treated as legal persons, then animals could surely be treated as legal person too.


----------



## Dvaienat (Oct 27, 2011)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> One way to decide where you stand on human-animal equality:
> 
> Think of an animal. Any animal. Ready? Good job! Now, imagine that you're in some strange scenario where that animal and a human are trapped in a burning building, and you only have time to save _one_ of them. Which do you save? Why?
> 
> Note that isn't to assert any one stance over the other, it's to maybe get the ol' gears working.


 
I think that would depend on the relationship between myself and the animal/human. If it were a stranger and my dog, then I'd save my dog. If it were my aunt and a strange dog, then my aunt. Both due to closeness of relationship. If it were between a strange person and strange dog, then I'd have to save the person based upon loyalty to my species.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Oct 27, 2011)

For the sake of this conversation, it'd make the most sense to go with a person you don't know and an animal you have no personal relationship with. Otherwise you aren't discussing whether or not animals are equal to humans in your eyes, but rather whether or not your relationship with with one specific animal means more to you than the life of a stranger. Incidentally, I'm not even sure what I'd pick given _that_ situation.


----------



## AxeHappy (Oct 27, 2011)

I'd let both my cats (and all my guitars...and the guitars are above the cats) burn to save one human life. Stranger or not. 

Unless I knew the dude and he was a total waste of life or something. But other than that human life>other life/possessions/etc. Maybe it's just because I'm human or whatnot but I think that's a good instinct that we should be fostering. Maybe skip on that 5th M6 and give some money to help homeless people? Maybe don't buy that 4th tiger and help that dude who just lost his house?

Anyways:
I don't think a lot of people who support PETA (Which from what I gather includes NOBODY on this board. Good.) understand what PETA is really all about. Total animal "Liberation."

If they honestly think domesticated cats and dogs would do better on the street they're fucking...I don't even have a word. I work as a special needs bus driver and the kids I drive to school aren't that fucking retarded.


----------



## Guilha (Oct 27, 2011)

I think PETA just wants to stop animals from being used as machines to load stuff and whatnot...? as the 13th Amendment's about slavery


----------



## Explorer (Oct 28, 2011)

Having worked at a zoo when PETA was talking about how the animals we had would be better off in the wild, where they were pretty much hunted to extinction... epic utopian thinking fail.

Anytime someone proposes, If only everyone did this, the world would be a great place!, you know the plan will fail. I'd love to see PETA out in force doing something like patrolling areas of Africa and such where poachers kill unlawfully. If PETA was to dedicate themselves for a while to stop illegal elephant and rhino harvesting, they will have had more impact than all their whining while embedded in the comforts of western culture. 

It's just easier to whine than to do, of course, and putting one's life on the line for one's ideals, especially over some dumb animals in Africa, just doesn't seem worthwhile, I guess....


----------



## The Reverend (Oct 28, 2011)

Explorer said:


> Having worked at a zoo when PETA was talking about how the animals we had would be better off in the wild, where they were pretty much hunted to extinction... epic utopian thinking fail.
> 
> Anytime someone proposes, If only everyone did this, the world would be a great place!, you know the plan will fail. I'd love to see PETA out in force doing something like patrolling areas of Africa and such where poachers kill unlawfully. If PETA was to dedicate themselves for a while to stop illegal elephant and rhino harvesting, they will have had more impact than all their whining while embedded in the comforts of western culture.
> 
> It's just easier to whine than to do, of course, and putting one's life on the line for one's ideals, especially over some dumb animals in Africa, just doesn't seem worthwhile, I guess....



This. My lord, this.

It's such a Western thing to do, you know? We have the freedom from survivalist labor to care about shit like the welfare of animals, yet we're so entrenched in the sloth that results from effectively neutering nature that we subconsciously refuse to do anything more proactive than complain about it. Or at least, PETA does. 

Now that I think about it, being lab animal liberators is sort of prioritizing in a stupid manner. Wouldn't it make more sense to do as Explorer suggested, and get some of that celebrity money flowing towards actually protecting endangered species? At least theoretically lab animals can benefit mankind in some way. Their deaths don't _have_ to be meaningless. White rhinos being killed so their horns can be used as a pseudo-viagra? Not so much. Perhaps PETA should stop bitching about animal slavery and start bitching about what nations around the world are doing to protect those animals we've nearly wiped from the face of the planet.


----------



## Explorer (Oct 28, 2011)

Shit. Apparently, Rev, I can't rep you again so soon....


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Oct 28, 2011)

Hahaha, me neither.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Oct 28, 2011)

Someone gave me what I assume was supposed to be neg rep for one of my comments, saying 'so technology has never solved anything?'.

That's not what I was saying. Technology has been vital in furthering mankind and helping us become what we are today (positive or negative). However, we've never really faced something on a large scale that's forced us to work together in the sense of a race who are aware of their actions. I'm talking pollution, renewable resources etc. These are issues that may be solved by the few, but need support of the many. It's only when the human race wakes up collectively and seeks change that we will get it. Otherwise, it may be too late and by then the damage will be done and technology will not save us.


Sorry for rant.


----------



## ZXIIIT (Oct 28, 2011)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> One way to decide where you stand on human-animal equality:
> 
> Think of an animal. Any animal. Ready? Good job! Now, imagine that you're in some strange scenario where that animal and a human are trapped in a burning building, and you only have time to save _one_ of them. Which do you save? Why?
> 
> Note that isn't to assert any one stance over the other, it's to maybe get the ol' gears working.



If my best friend (who might weigh 300 lbs) and my dog (about 20lbs) were in this scenario, I would save the animal.

I see what you mean, but is it safe for ME to save my friend who weighs 2-3 times as me? no, just a matter of survival and what I can do within my limits.


----------



## Guilha (Oct 28, 2011)

vampiregenocide said:


> Someone gave me what I assume was supposed to be neg rep for one of my comments, saying 'so technology has never solved anything?'.
> 
> That's not what I was saying. Technology has been vital in furthering mankind and helping us become what we are today (positive or negative). However, we've never really faced something on a large scale that's forced us to work together in the sense of a race who are aware of their actions. I'm talking pollution, renewable resources etc. These are issues that may be solved by the few, but need support of the many. It's only when the human race wakes up collectively and seeks change that we will get it. Otherwise, it may be too late and by then the damage will be done and technology will not save us.
> 
> ...



I agree.

We're in the face of climate changes but not many people changed their habits except for recycling, tbh. 
I think Mankind will only come together when the fucking aliens approach and we face death, only then we'll shit our pants and actually do something collectively


----------



## Jakke (Oct 28, 2011)

Guilha said:


> I agree.
> 
> We're in the face of climate changes but not many people changed their habits except for recycling, tbh.
> I think Mankind will only come together when the fucking aliens approach and we face death, only then we'll shit our pants and actually do something collectively



Except that recycling anything but aluminum really isn't worth it, otherwise, totally agree

Who can contacting the System Lords? Humanity could use a good scare


----------



## Rev2010 (Oct 28, 2011)

Konfyouzd said:


> Does an animal having similar intelligence to a human necessarily mean that they have the same sense of right and wrong



Just had to comment on this. People keep slinging around morals and such but the truth of the matter is humans have shown to revert back to primitive means with total lack of morals under times of extreme hardship, societal chaos, or lack of a present policing force. For example, after a major disaster that leaves people without water, food, and shelter people will revert to thieving, murdering, raping, all sorts of acts that violate our supposed sense of morality.

The way I see it we have this "moral sense" when we are living relatively normal lives in a society in which there are repercussions for our actions - meaning a society with an active policing force. Even under these circumstances there are many humans that commit theft, rape, murder, etc.

So the whole "we have morals" argument is just pure BS to me. And again, animals have been scientifically documented to show signs of morality as well.


Rev.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Oct 28, 2011)

In the aftermath of the Japanese tsunami, people returned millions of dollars worth of money they found that had been lost in the disaster. In one shopping centre, people were trying to buy supplies and the tills stopped working. The shoppers calmly put back their shopping. 

Not everyone has the same sense of right and wrong, but then that is the very nature of morality. It is choice. Choosing whether to be a decent human being, or letting primal urges over take you. In an extreme situation, the truth will emerge as to where you stand morally.

However as you say, animals have a sense of right and wrong too. Many animals adopt babies of other species to rear them. Why is this? Do they recognise that a baby holds no threat? Do they see past the species boundary and just see vulnerable innocence? It's odd.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Oct 28, 2011)

ZOMB13 said:


> If my best friend (who might weigh 300 lbs) and my dog (about 20lbs) were in this scenario, I would save the animal.
> 
> I see what you mean, but is it safe for ME to save my friend who weighs 2-3 times as me? no, just a matter of survival and what I can do within my limits.


 
In this case you aren't taking in to consideration the equality (or inequality) of the life of a person or the life of an animal, you're considering your own life. You've completely missed the point. I wouldn't let your best friends know that you'd save your dog before you'd save them, though .


----------



## Rev2010 (Oct 28, 2011)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> You've completely missed the point. I wouldn't let your best friends know that you'd save your dog before you'd save them, though .



I don't think he's missed any point because there is no one finite point to be made, it's all opinion. I would save my dogs over my parents, even my brother. Why? Because I love them far greater. Simply put, life is based on personal experiences and the result of those experiences are how you base your choices. The best way I can explain this is as such - I would save my wife over any family member or even my entire family, or hers for that matter. Most would say, "But your mother and father are your blood, they gave you life" as if that is sole reason to favor them. Well yes they did, but my experiences in life with my wife lend a far greater affinity towards her, so to me she is by far most important. I feel this way about certain best friends as well. I also would take the risk of personal death to jump in front of a car to save my dogs from injury. I guess I'm nuts huh?... because my human life is worth far more according to some of you, but that is personally how I feel.

I'll leave it at one thing to consider. Some mention the greater importance of human life due to our capability for understanding, creation, etc. But the way I see it.... billions of other life forms existed on Earth way before any of us. Just as many see their existence as having been rather pointless I see human existence being rather pointless in the grand scheme of the universe. If anyone thinks we'll live on forever you need to rethink things cause we won't. And when the human race is gone and there's nothing long standing to show for it then at that point how can anyone look back and put greater/lesser values on the life of any being?


Rev.


----------



## AxeHappy (Oct 28, 2011)

ZOMB13 said:


> If my best friend (who might weigh 300 lbs) and my dog (about 20lbs) were in this scenario, I would save the animal.
> 
> I see what you mean, but is it safe for ME to save my friend who weighs 2-3 times as me? no, just a matter of survival and what I can do within my limits.




Get your best friend on a blanket and drag him. Way easiesr than lifting him, you can move faster too.

I think the moral argument is bullshit. I mean, if we randomly discovered beyond any question that Cows are more moral than humans would you stop eating them (no fucking way) and let them fuck you up. Feral Cows are insane killing beasts. I mean, non-feral bulls will still kill the hell out of just about anything, imagine one going feral. You going to let it eat you? (Of course, it wouldn't, it would just kill you and then some scavenging animal would come eat you).

I think a lot of people put a warm fuzzy, disney-esque on the animal kingdom though. Apes eat their young. Mother apes will keep their babies away from male apes because they will eat them. Just because. Maybe baby apes taste really good and we should get in on that shit? Alligators eat their young too. Hedgehogs as well. Ants have already been mentioned, all kinds of animals species kill for fun. Blah blah blah. I could go on. 

And you can't possible use the defense of, "They're just animals, we can't hold them to standards (whatever standard you're using to say humans are evil is the typical one)" because they defeats your entire argument. 

I think we should treat animals better because we are better. If we're not better than animals than FUCK THEM! THEY POSE A THREAT TO MY SPECIES AND I'M GOING TO TREAT THEM THE EXACT SAME WAY THEY TREAT OTHER ANIMALS THAT POSE A THREAT. By killing them.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Oct 28, 2011)

Rev2010 said:


> I don't think he's missed any point because there is no one finite point to be made, it's all opinion. I would save my dogs over my parents, even my brother. Why? Because I love them far greater.


 
So you, like the poster I quoted above, seem to have missed my second post where I specified that the animal and the human in question are unfamiliar to you. And yes, obviously it's all opinion. That was the point. It wasn't an exercise to prove that people are better than animals, it was an exercise to help people better understand their own thoughts on the matter. I should've anticipated people chiming in with "well if it was a stranger versus the beloved family pet...", but it is what it is.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Oct 28, 2011)

I think we're all trying to split hairs over it too much. We're all going to value animals differently compared to people, especially depending on relationships. The key point is whether you view animals in general as less than people or not, whether they deserve more respect in society in general etc. Personally I believe so.


----------



## Jakke (Oct 28, 2011)

AxeHappy said:


> I think a lot of people put a warm fuzzy, disney-esque on the animal kingdom though. Apes eat their young. Mother apes will keep their babies away from male apes because they will eat them. Just because. Maybe baby apes taste really good and we should get in on that shit? Alligators eat their young too. Hedgehogs as well. Ants have already been mentioned, all kinds of animals species kill for fun. Blah blah blah. I could go on.
> 
> And you can't possible use the defense of, "They're just animals, we can't hold them to standards (whatever standard you're using to say humans are evil is the typical one)" because they defeats your entire argument.
> 
> I think we should treat animals better because we are better. If we're not better than animals than FUCK THEM! THEY POSE A THREAT TO MY SPECIES AND I'M GOING TO TREAT THEM THE EXACT SAME WAY THEY TREAT OTHER ANIMALS THAT POSE A THREAT. By killing them.



This so much!

Many people seems to be living with the Disney-delusion, PETA in particular. In truth, nature is neither good nor kind. Mother nature is a cold-hearted bitch, shark babies eat each other in the womb.

I remember, a friend on the master programme at my uni told me an amusing story yesterday. One of the communist youth organizations in the small town where she grew up organized some sort of festival, it was called something along the lines of "the resistance festival" or something equally stupid. Anyway, they had invited a green anarchist supported by PETA as a lecturer. This guy was american, from the west coast, and he was a city-boy.
This did not affect him in his great dream to move out in a forest (like the swedish forests) and live off mother nature (better her than his parents, right?). He had some sort half-baked idea that all animals have an instinct that tells them what is edible (they don't), and humans has that one too (we haven't either).

The resonably intelligent and non-reactive clique she belonged to toyed with the idea to send him out picking mushrooms, anything to get rid of that idiot. Would they have done so, he would probably have disappeared, see, swedish forests have a higher ratio of extremely poisonous mushrooms than those that are actually edible. So imagine that idiot feeling his instincts pointing him to one of those, too bad for him, not to mention if he would meet a möösë, he would have shat his pants.

So, what do I want to have said with this long ass post? The Disney mentality can actually be dangerous, like in the case with this idiot, given he would only have been dangerous for himself. Other examples are these aggressive groups, like PETA, that attacks anyone mercilessly that interferes with that image, they are the real danger.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Oct 28, 2011)

vampiregenocide said:


> I think we're all trying to split hairs over it too much.


 
Seems to be an issue where one can't help but split hairs.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Oct 28, 2011)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Seems to be an issue where one can't help but split hairs.



True. I guess to me it just seems obvious that we value the life of all things, as for all we know we could be the only planet with life in the universe and it seems a shame to abuse and waste that. It should be nurtured and respected. Granted, make use of life as nature intended, but respect it. On the same topic, I can understand a loyalty to one's own species as that's wired into us. We protect our own when possible. That to me seems like the way things should be, its just a case of working towards it.


----------



## Jakke (Oct 30, 2011)

I just realized that the article said "orca wales", I guess just writing killer wales would give the wrong impression


----------



## Stealthtastic (Oct 30, 2011)

Sure, it's great to protect the Indus river dolphins, and the Golden humped lions, but as soon as you put that animals life over that of another human, you have gone WAY to far.

Thats like pulling your'e ant farm out of your'e burning house instead of your mother in a sense. 

I guess it just depends on your personal beliefs, but those are mine.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Oct 30, 2011)

Jakke said:


> I just realized that the article said "orca wales", I guess just writing killer wales would give the wrong impression



They're not even whales. Whoever named them so was silly.


----------



## Rev2010 (Oct 30, 2011)

guitar-rob89 said:


> but as soon as you put that animals life over that of another human, you have gone WAY to far.



By your mentality we should eradicate all animals on the planet cause they're nothing more than a fucking nuisance to human life. We should say fuck the tigers, lions, bears, wolves, etc etc all because the land they live on is something we will eventually _need_ to strip bare to provide the resources for our ever expanding population, and we're more important you say so why protect any animals?

And it doesn't stop there, who the fuck needs the rain forests??? Shit, there's no need for a boring lame huge plot of land just sitting there with a shit load of trees, plants, and other life forms just doing nothing but nature - GOD... nature??? Soooo fucking lame. Let's get rid of all those life forms living there because they AREN'T DOING ANYTHING! That's right, the rain forests are pointless because they're not doing cool human advancement type things so we should just use all the shit that's there then build shit on the land after we strip it bare.

Seriously, I don't understand such narrow minded ignorance. On a similar note I've heard many people during the BP oil spill in person say, "What's the big deal? I don't eat seafood anyway and we need the oil" - I shit you not.


Rev.


----------



## ZXIIIT (Oct 30, 2011)

guitar-rob89 said:


> ...but as soon as you put that animals life over that of another human, you have gone WAY to far.



Not really, friend or stranger, I would save whatever LIVING specias I am capable of saving if it doesn't end my life.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Oct 30, 2011)

Rev2010 said:


> By your mentality we should eradicate all animals on the planet cause they're nothing more than a fucking nuisance to human life.


 
I don't think that's the direction he was going at all. I'm not sure how "Not choosing an animal life over a human life" equates to "let's eradicate everything we don't need." It doesn't follow. I'd save my family before I'd save strangers, but that doesn't mean I'm going to go murder everybody I'm not related to.



Rev2010 said:


> And it doesn't stop there, who the fuck needs the rain forests???


 
Humans. We're awfully fond of oxygen.


----------



## AxeHappy (Oct 31, 2011)

Over 80%(the figures around their, consider that a very approximate number) of our oxygen cause from Seaweed and other ocean plants. 

We could actually destroy the entire rain forest with very little effect on humanity at all.


Also:
Tigers are pretty. Lets not kill all the tigers


----------



## vampiregenocide (Oct 31, 2011)

I wouldn't go that far, a 20% drop in oxygen levels globally is a pretty big deal.  Also, I was sure that rainforests were responsible for more oxygen than that.


----------



## Jakke (Oct 31, 2011)

vampiregenocide said:


> I wouldn't go that far, a 20% drop in oxygen levels globally is a pretty big deal.  Also, I was sure that rainforests were responsible for more oxygen than that.



Out of an oxygen perspective, we can do without them, but they are worth conserving out of an ecological perspective.


Fun fact: one of the heads of PETA is a diabetic, that means she uses insulin made by animal testing to prolong her own life. Apparently she does not see herself as a hypocrite


----------



## vampiregenocide (Oct 31, 2011)

I looked it up, 30% of the world's oxygen is created from rainforests. If they disappeared that would have a big effect. A 30% drop in oxygen is huge.


----------



## -42- (Oct 31, 2011)

This is why I consider PETA less of an activist group and more of a self-perpetuating publicity machine. They know full well that this suit will fall flat on its face.

"Awareness" is all well and good, but taking constructive action something they seem want to do as of late in deference to publicity stunts. What makes it all so frustrating is that it isn't like there isn't anything productive they _could_ be doing. They should probably be spending more time looking out for species on brink of extinction, or working to reduce cases of animal abuse before they start talking about freeing animals from zoos, or banning animal testing.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Oct 31, 2011)

Jakke said:


> Fun fact: one of the heads of PETA is a diabetic, that means she uses insulin made by animal testing to prolong her own life. Apparently she does not see herself as a hypocrite


 
She very well may be unaware... Or she's like those ppl who will quote one Bible passage while simulatneous going against another... 

Ppl... They can't be helped.


----------



## Jakke (Oct 31, 2011)

Konfyouzd said:


> She very well may be unaware... Or she's like those ppl who will quote one Bible passage while simulatneous going against another...
> 
> Ppl... They can't be helped.



I thought so first myself, but it isn't like that at all. She has been confronted with the fact several times, and every time she has answered that she do not see herself as a hypocrite.


----------



## Explorer (Oct 31, 2011)

Wait... so she doesn't see herself as a hypocrite, while acting hypocritically?

Fail, especially when it's hugely obvious. "Oh, no, that might be true, but I don't see that as hypocrisy, even though it's the definition of hypocrisy!" *laugh*


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Nov 6, 2011)

What's with people so vehemently arguing that their superiority to other creatures somehow justifies unnecessary use of any one of them? I'm "superior" to children and old folks. Does that mean I can use them to whatever end I see fit? Humans rarely favor fact and unbiased logic to emotional responses when a sensitive subject such as 'the necessity in using animal products' is brought up. Opposing ideas are seen as threats, stupidity, and outrages, which is the result of a built in defense mechanism we all have. In this day and age, we're smart enough to be able to survive without harming any animals, as well as conduct studies that shed light on the sentience of many species, yet the norm is stubbornly protected, often with proud resistance.

With that said, PETA is retarded.


----------



## Cabinet (Nov 6, 2011)

Ill-Gotten James said:


> I like animals, but I don't see how they can have equal rights as humans. If I am correct, animals (not including humans) lack moral reasoning, which to me means that they cannot be treated the same as human beings. Not that this is a valid reason to restrict animals equal rights as humans, but I think they taste really good and I would like to continue eating them.



Well I like eating animals too, but I'm not a fan of keeping dolphins in tanks for our amusement. They seem to be very intelligent animals, I guess that's what strikes the chord with me.


----------



## Explorer (Nov 6, 2011)

The idea that humans should avoid exploiting resources means turning away from a very natural behavior. There's something schizophrenic about some trains of thought.

To say that humans shouldn't consider themselves better than animals, but still expecting humans to abandon a normal animal behavior (exploiting resources, including other species and each other) because they are better than that, is actually pretty humorous. I've always found PETA's straight-faced assertion of both of those to be ironic.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Nov 6, 2011)

vampiregenocide said:


> as for all we know we could be the only planet with life in the universe



Isn't the universe REALLY big and ever-expanding? To think that this planet is the only one w/ life on it, to me seems a tad vain... Not saying that it couldn't be true... I just think there's too much space out there for that. 

We're not even sure if we've found all forms of life on this planet alone... It wouldn't surprise me if there were life all over the universe.

/Off topic


----------



## Konfyouzd (Nov 6, 2011)

Explorer said:


> Wait... so she doesn't see herself as a hypocrite, while acting hypocritically?
> 
> Fail, especially when it's hugely obvious. "Oh, no, that might be true, but I don't see that as hypocrisy, even though it's the definition of hypocrisy!" *laugh*



Hipocrisy and irony all at the same time... Plus ignorance... That trinity is the essence o' PETA, no?


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Nov 6, 2011)

Explorer said:


> The idea that humans should avoid exploiting resources means turning away from a very natural behavior. There's something schizophrenic about some trains of thought.
> 
> To say that humans shouldn't consider themselves better than animals, but still expecting humans to abandon a normal animal behavior (exploiting resources, including other species and each other) because they are better than that, is actually pretty humorous. I've always found PETA's straight-faced assertion of both of those to be ironic.


 
So animals are resources, then? 

Regardless of what the answer to that question is, if we are intelligent enough and capable enough to avoid using certain resources without losing anything in the process, then its irresponsible to continually use those resources, granted that said resources are living things, or scarce. To say, "oh, its perfectly natural for us to do *this*, so we can ignore all of that resource that advises against doing so" is pretty much a cop out, and nothing more than emotional response.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Nov 6, 2011)

Anything you use is technically a resource, no?

If I ask a dude for help at work he becomes a resource. The word in itself isn't necessarily a bad thing; it's when you begin to ignore that said resource is ALSO a living thing that it gets a little hairy...


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Nov 6, 2011)

That's true, I guess, but I've never heard it put that way


----------



## Konfyouzd (Nov 6, 2011)

Explorer seems to have a certain way with words.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Nov 6, 2011)

Konfyouzd said:


> Isn't the universe REALLY big and ever-expanding? To think that this planet is the only one w/ life on it, to me seems a tad vain... Not saying that it couldn't be true... I just think there's too much space out there for that.
> 
> We're not even sure if we've found all forms of life on this planet alone... It wouldn't surprise me if there were life all over the universe.
> 
> /Off topic



You should know I agree with you. Didn't say I believed it, but for all we know that could be the case. Statistically the odds are there are life on many planets. But we haven't seen any of it yet, and so we have to treat the life we do know of with respect. If we were the only planet with advanced life in the universe, it would be a shame if we destroyed it out of idiocy and selfishness.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Nov 6, 2011)

That's a notion I can get behind.


----------



## Explorer (Nov 6, 2011)

@Adam: As has already been noted, anything which can be used/exploited is a resource. To use an extreme example, humans, rats and fleas were the resources exploited by the black plague. Wood termites exploit wood. It's likely at least one virus exploits rats and cats, and also resides in humans, causing schizophrenia. And, of course, wasps using caterpillars as food sources for their eggs/offspring is another easy example of exploitation. 

To appeal to humans with the claim that they are better than other animals, and should therefore reject being better than animals, just strikes me as funny. 

And, of course, I have no problem with being intelligent, or with conserving resources (oil, money, an environment which stays within certain parameter to allow my offspring to continue). I just think that it's flawed to say that deny one thing while affirming that one thing at the same time. 

----

BTW, I have a couple of friends who go into war-torn areas because they work with Doctors without Borders. Here are people who spent at least 12 years getting an education, but who are still willing to make huge sacrifices for their beliefs... instead of just hanging out in the First World, talking about what others should do. 

To me, that shows that humans are capable of being better most other animals, when using a rubric of self sacrifice... as well as worse, when one thinks of the atrocities being inflicted by humans in those same areas. 

----

You ever notice how most utopian schemes require everyone to adhere to one person's philosophy? "If only everyone..." what? Accepts a particular religion? one philosophy? 

Pretty words, which appeal, but which can't overcome primate politics. Sad, no?


----------



## Konfyouzd (Nov 6, 2011)

Somehow you're always able to find the irony.


----------



## Explorer (Nov 6, 2011)

It's a gift, and serves me well when dealing with so many things which would otherwise bring me to the point of despair....


----------

