Would a species of higher intellect than homo sapiens have the right by nature to kill off humanity for their own gains?
Printable View
Would a species of higher intellect than homo sapiens have the right by nature to kill off humanity for their own gains?
If you wanna act a fool that's on you. :choc2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Spaceman Spiff
Orchestral symphonies, Animals can also make noises that they find appealing. Politics, Animals that live in groups have politics. Language, they have their own ways of communicating with each other. Philosophy, Animals have their own ethics and conduct that they live by that varys between species. An on the subject of artwork an the like, they have their own forms of art, an things they find visually pleasing.Quote:
Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF
Chickens and holocaust victims are/were (confused!) kept in very similar conditions. The holocaust is almost unbearably disgusting, so why not with these chickens?Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Manus
Right. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by ShlupQuack
Also, one argument is that it's cheaper. That's part of the reason it's so bad. They don't treat animals thta way because it's the only way to do it. They do it because it's saves money and effort. They're greedy bastards. People will do anything if it makes them a profit. They really will.
Having them treated better might mean the food is more expensive, but I'd honestly say it's worth it. It's just as greedy to value that little bit extra money over those animals.
Can mentally retarded people? Can they do much that we can? No? And what about the ones that can't even manage what animals can? So lets just kill them! They're below us! And, look, we're back to the holocaust.Quote:
Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF
I find it interesting how people keep saying that we are superior to other animals ^^ If so, shouldn't we hold that true to ourselves morally, too? Animals in the wild kill other animals in painful ways to eat them (although it doesn't compare to what some humans do to animals), but aren't we 'superior'? We obviously have the intellectual capacity to realize that animals feel pain, that pain = bad, and most of us feel that torturing others and making them feel pain is morally/ethically wrong as well. We don't only have our teeth and claws to kill animals, either; we are in every way capable of killing quickly so that they will feel minimal pain. So why are we comparing ourselves to animals in the wild, who need to kill and eat to survive and does that in the only way they 'know' how?
If you eat meat, okay. If you torture animals in the process of getting your meat, not okay. I eat meat, and I would be willing to pay more for my chicken. I'm a college student and I don't feel that I would starve and become broke if the price of meat rose. Most Americans/people in developed countries eat much more meat than is healthy for them, anyway. Eating a bit less or not going to fast food restaurants as much really won't hurt you at all; in fact, it will probably do the opposite.
On a different matter, am I missing something here? o_O;; Why can't they just simply behead the chicken? *blinks*
I'm sure the majority of vegetarians here haven't been vegetarians since birth, so they will be well aware of what their "missing".Quote:
Originally Posted by Ifirit's Fury
English should be capitalized, go capitalization rules ;) Also, *people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ifirit's Fury
Oh please, I'm in college, Shlup is like, ancient, and there's plenty of people over the age of fifteen who think that torturing animals is wrong. ;) And yeah, I'm sure that as people grow older and mature, they lose their sense of sympathy. Don't play that game. :tongue:Quote:
And secondly, age is starting to show. Most of the posts I've read saying "poor chickens" are from people like 15 and under. Ironically, these will be the same people working at KFC later in life to pay for college. Are the practices cruel? SURE but these chickens were manufactured for this purpose. You think that the meat in the grocery store comes from some guy who used a velvet covered knife to cut the things head off?
It sort of makes me wonder when people say, "Yeah, what we do is cruel, but it's getting me cheaper meat so who cares?"
One, there is a difference between pleasing noises and music. Rain hitting my tin roof is a pleasing noise, but hardly orcastrated music made with thought.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anaisa
Two, as far as I know animal polotics arn't as complex as humans. Sometimes its instinct based, some animals its the biggest gnarliest thing in their midst, however there can be exceptions to this. Can't think of any on the top of my head though.
Also, Communication and language are two different things. I could run up to someone, grunt angrily and hit them with a club and that would communicate dislike, but thats hardly the same as Language.
While they do have ethics of sorts, they still act on instinct moreso then humans, meaning their own morals are most likely weaker than humans.
And as for art, see my example on music. what they are cabable of is obviously much more basic than humans, even the most intelligent animals couldn't hope to create well known master pieces like the last supper, the sisteen chapel, or even random paintings by unknown artists in local museums.
While some things need to change, we are in fact above animals.
It dosent matter if we are superior to other animals, we have no right to treat them how we do, we have no right to even kill them...
Don't tell me other fast food companies do that. :whaaa:
Animals can make noise with thought behind it. The concept of an Animal making a noise which pleases it, is the same as us making noise which pleases us, music if you like.Quote:
Originally Posted by corncracker
Their politics are as complex as required.Quote:
Two, as far as I know animal polotics arn't as complex as humans. Sometimes its instinct based, some animals its the biggest gnarliest thing in their midst, however there can be exceptions to this. Can't think of any on the top of my head though.
Language is just a form of communication. If you said to somebody that you were angry with them, or made a noise that let them know you were angry with them, it wouldn't really matter which way you did it, you're still making the same feeling known.Quote:
Communication and language are two different things. I could run up to someone, grunt angrily and hit them with a club and that would communicate dislike, but thats hardly the same as Language.
There are so many different species of Animal with different sets of morals that it would vary. But considering the vast majority of Humans think their so far above Animals yet treat Animals the way they do, this just stands to contradict their whole point.Quote:
While they do have ethics of sorts, they still act on instinct moreso then humans, meaning their own morals are most likely weaker than humans.
It is only a fact that we are above Animals in status. Whether we are above them in worth is a matter of opinion, not a fact. We do the best with our capabilities, an they do the best with theirs. If they were exactly the same as us they wouldn't be Animals, they'd be Humans. Personally if asked what I thought was more striking, the painting of the last supper, or a Tiger, I'd say the Tiger.Quote:
And as for art, see my example on music. what they are cabable of is obviously much more basic than humans, even the most intelligent animals couldn't hope to create well known master pieces like the last supper, the sisteen chapel, or even random paintings by unknown artists in local museums.
Riiiight... While I will grant that some animals do have a great deal of intelligence, I have a hard time buying the arguement that chickens have art and philosophy. :rolleyes2 While I do agree with treating animals humanely, I don't agree with elevating them to the status of humans.Quote:
Orchestral symphonies, Animals can also make noises that they find appealing. Politics, Animals that live in groups have politics. Language, they have their own ways of communicating with each other. Philosophy, Animals have their own ethics and conduct that they live by that varys between species. An on the subject of artwork an the like, they have their own forms of art, an things they find visually pleasing.
I never claimed Chickens had art an philosophy. I said Animals. But of course Chickens do have philosophy. Chickens have their own set of ethics. That's all a philosophy is. It's not complex.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkLadyNyara
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreddz
then that means animals who are equal to eachother have no right to kill eachother, so therefor, they are guilty and should be punished to death and then their carcasses used for food. mmmm bear meat.
this thread is pointless. Especially since I debated the philosophy of animals and the ethical treatment of back in winter in EoEO.
Animals don't have philosophy because they cannot comprehend ideas. They run on instinct (one could say that humans run on instinct, which is true), where-as humans run by instinct and reason. there is reason to mass produce food, it's cheaper. who cares if its inhumane for chickens. If we notice, humane come from human, so of course it should be inhumane treating because they are not humans. Case in point, you're wrong. if you want to advocate vegatarianism or veganism, then grow your own crops, do not use pesticides, and do everything you can to save every animal because no death, besides old age, is "humane"
No, that's not what it means. Animals don't have the food available to them that we do. There are only certain foods they are capable of eating. That's not the case for us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dignified Pauper
If we were to dispose of every thread that contains something that had already been discussed, how many topics would we have left to talk about?Quote:
this thread is pointless. Especially since I debated the philosophy of animals and the ethical treatment of back in winter in EoEO.
Animals do not just run on instinct. An that's not just an opinion, it's a fact. It's documented in enough Animal books, wildlife programmes, etc that it is blatantly obvious that's not the case. It would be cheaper for us all to be vegetarians than it is for us all to eat meat. The word humane is not only exclusively to be used to refer to humans, you don't need to take my word for it, look in the dictionary. We don't all have the land to grow our own crops.Quote:
Animals don't have philosophy because they cannot comprehend ideas. They run on instinct (one could say that humans run on instinct, which is true), where-as humans run by instinct and reason. there is reason to mass produce food, it's cheaper. who cares if its inhumane for chickens. If we notice, humane come from human, so of course it should be inhumane treating because they are not humans. Case in point, you're wrong. if you want to advocate vegatarianism or veganism, then grow your own crops, do not use pesticides, and do everything you can to save every animal because no death, besides old age, is "humane"