The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
It may seem quite controversial to argue against animal rights but I have a raging feminist girl in my college class who argues about absolutely everything and she has pushed me to the psychological limit and provoked a bit of deep thinking on my part.
Since the dinosaurs perished and mankind became the dominant species on Earth, we have remained unchallenged. Well over 2000 years have gone by and we haven’t had a challenge to our power, a single species (namely us) has pretty much unlimited power. People talk about how intelligent dolphins and dogs are and how they are almost as clever as humans and even show human traits so should be treated equally. A few hundred years ago before the slave trade was abolished, black people were treated worse than animals despite the fact that they were in fact human.
Before the world decides to give animals all these special rights I think we need to sort out human rights before. Racial hatred is at an all time high and before animals start getting treated the same as humans, other humans need to start respecting each other and treat each other as equals.
If animals are smart enough to understand they aren’t treated equally then why don’t they go ahead and do something about it? Why, because they aren’t that smart. I am against animal cruelty for sure, I love animals and hate so see battery farming, fox hunting and animal testing going ahead but we need to develop a perspective. Our fellow man is more important than any animals. No matter how much you love your little pet hamster, a human life is more valuable.
I’m interested to listen to your views on the matter, so go on, discuss.
Since the dinosaurs perished and mankind became the dominant species on Earth, we have remained unchallenged. Well over 2000 years have gone by and we haven’t had a challenge to our power, a single species (namely us) has pretty much unlimited power. People talk about how intelligent dolphins and dogs are and how they are almost as clever as humans and even show human traits so should be treated equally. A few hundred years ago before the slave trade was abolished, black people were treated worse than animals despite the fact that they were in fact human.
Before the world decides to give animals all these special rights I think we need to sort out human rights before. Racial hatred is at an all time high and before animals start getting treated the same as humans, other humans need to start respecting each other and treat each other as equals.
If animals are smart enough to understand they aren’t treated equally then why don’t they go ahead and do something about it? Why, because they aren’t that smart. I am against animal cruelty for sure, I love animals and hate so see battery farming, fox hunting and animal testing going ahead but we need to develop a perspective. Our fellow man is more important than any animals. No matter how much you love your little pet hamster, a human life is more valuable.
I’m interested to listen to your views on the matter, so go on, discuss.
Page:
Yes but the Llama is more likely to stand up and do something.
Or George Bush and a Llama
fellow man rather
Yeah but it is only natural to put the life of yourself and your feller man before the life of a different creature. Unless it was Osama Bin Laden or a really cute little dog that did backflips, but that is the ONLY exception.
Bouncer wrote:
> Does a hamster have the mental capability to make a decision like
> that?
Maybe not, but the point seems to ring true regardless - the relative value of human life against animals is purely subjective.
> Does a hamster have the mental capability to make a decision like
> that?
Maybe not, but the point seems to ring true regardless - the relative value of human life against animals is purely subjective.
So in a way you're saying it's natural, but we should have progressed away from it, as we become more civilised (allegedly :^) ).
(To Timmargh)
(To Timmargh)
Timmargh wrote:
> Yes: I would pick my mother. But, if it was the hamster making the
> choice?
Does a hamster have the mental capability to make a decision like that?
> Yes: I would pick my mother. But, if it was the hamster making the
> choice?
Does a hamster have the mental capability to make a decision like that?
Dr Duck wrote:
> As food, it can be difficult to meet certain nutrition requirements
> on a vegie lifestyle, such as protien. There are alternatives, such
> as processed stuff, or unnatural quantities of nuts, but I'd argue
> such measures are far less natural than eating meat.
They are less natural, yes, but it means we don't have to kill anything to do it.
> Using animal skins can be traced back to when it was necessary too. A
> more 'natural' source of materials than machine-woven faberic.
I agree, but when we were cave men we wore animals skins to survive. Nowadays we have synthetic fibre we can use instead.
> It's natural for animals to group together in colonies, it's natural
> for some to use basic tools. Isn't our society a mere extension of
> these principles?
Yes, but not at the expense of other creatures.
> As food, it can be difficult to meet certain nutrition requirements
> on a vegie lifestyle, such as protien. There are alternatives, such
> as processed stuff, or unnatural quantities of nuts, but I'd argue
> such measures are far less natural than eating meat.
They are less natural, yes, but it means we don't have to kill anything to do it.
> Using animal skins can be traced back to when it was necessary too. A
> more 'natural' source of materials than machine-woven faberic.
I agree, but when we were cave men we wore animals skins to survive. Nowadays we have synthetic fibre we can use instead.
> It's natural for animals to group together in colonies, it's natural
> for some to use basic tools. Isn't our society a mere extension of
> these principles?
Yes, but not at the expense of other creatures.
Bouncer wrote:
> I know humans do a lot of bad to the world but they also do a lot of
> good. They have invented cures to diseases, something animals couldnt
> have done. However i do beleive humans will probably be the end of
> this world we live in.
"Natural selection: the process whereby only the strongest animals survive to breed and therefore ensure the progression of a species."
As an example: I have muscular dystrophy which was caused by a faulty gene. I am cared for and looked after and am perfectly capapble of having children who are 50% likely to inherit my condition. In the natural world, an animal with a similar condition to me would die young and therefore the condition would stop there, ensuring the survivial of the species.
I'm not saying that caring for sick people is wrong but that's because I'm a human and, quite frankly, I want to be cared for! But it's not natural.
> It does annoy me that people put animals before humans in a state of
> welfare though. Some humans are callous idiots who don't deserve the
> air they breathe but if someone asked you to choose between your
> mother or a fluffy little hamster, I know who you would pick.
Yes: I would pick my mother. But, if it was the hamster making the choice?
> I know humans do a lot of bad to the world but they also do a lot of
> good. They have invented cures to diseases, something animals couldnt
> have done. However i do beleive humans will probably be the end of
> this world we live in.
"Natural selection: the process whereby only the strongest animals survive to breed and therefore ensure the progression of a species."
As an example: I have muscular dystrophy which was caused by a faulty gene. I am cared for and looked after and am perfectly capapble of having children who are 50% likely to inherit my condition. In the natural world, an animal with a similar condition to me would die young and therefore the condition would stop there, ensuring the survivial of the species.
I'm not saying that caring for sick people is wrong but that's because I'm a human and, quite frankly, I want to be cared for! But it's not natural.
> It does annoy me that people put animals before humans in a state of
> welfare though. Some humans are callous idiots who don't deserve the
> air they breathe but if someone asked you to choose between your
> mother or a fluffy little hamster, I know who you would pick.
Yes: I would pick my mother. But, if it was the hamster making the choice?
Timmargh wrote:
> Humans can live quite happily on things other than meat, but we still
> breed animals purely for food. But, worse still, we slaughter other
> animals purely for their fur, skin, ivory or whatever for nothing but
> vanity. How is that natural?
The point was a general one about killing.
However, for those specific things:
As food, it can be difficult to meet certain nutrition requirements on a vegie lifestyle, such as protien. There are alternatives, such as processed stuff, or unnatural quantities of nuts, but I'd argue such measures are far less natural than eating meat.
Using animal skins can be traced back to when it was necessary too. A more 'natural' source of materials than machine-woven faberic.
As for the rest? Well, ultimately we've reached this stage of evolution within nature, whatever we do has cropped up through nature's development, and so must be within what we consider 'natural'.
It's natural for animals to group together in colonies, it's natural for some to use basic tools. Isn't our society a mere extension of these principles?
> Humans can live quite happily on things other than meat, but we still
> breed animals purely for food. But, worse still, we slaughter other
> animals purely for their fur, skin, ivory or whatever for nothing but
> vanity. How is that natural?
The point was a general one about killing.
However, for those specific things:
As food, it can be difficult to meet certain nutrition requirements on a vegie lifestyle, such as protien. There are alternatives, such as processed stuff, or unnatural quantities of nuts, but I'd argue such measures are far less natural than eating meat.
Using animal skins can be traced back to when it was necessary too. A more 'natural' source of materials than machine-woven faberic.
As for the rest? Well, ultimately we've reached this stage of evolution within nature, whatever we do has cropped up through nature's development, and so must be within what we consider 'natural'.
It's natural for animals to group together in colonies, it's natural for some to use basic tools. Isn't our society a mere extension of these principles?
Page: