The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
monkey_man wrote:
> Timmargh wrote:
> ...
> I never said it was. I said it was going above the natural order of
> things.
monkey_man, I was using your quote to reply to Dr. Duck ... no offence meant.
> Timmargh wrote:
> ...
> I never said it was. I said it was going above the natural order of
> things.
monkey_man, I was using your quote to reply to Dr. Duck ... no offence meant.
Dr Duck wrote:
> A.D. is Anno Domini (sp?), latin.
> Though it may mean 'after death' translated.
> But I don't think so.
My primary school lied to me.
I have beleived After Death since I was about 7, GRR!
> A.D. is Anno Domini (sp?), latin.
> Though it may mean 'after death' translated.
> But I don't think so.
My primary school lied to me.
I have beleived After Death since I was about 7, GRR!
Timmargh wrote:
> I'm sorry but I totally disagree. Animals have just as much right to
> live as humans, if not more. No single animal has brought more
> suffering or destruction to others and the planet than the human
> being.
I guess that you are infact right here and I did like that quote about humans being the only creatures to blush or have need to. 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.
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.
> I'm sorry but I totally disagree. Animals have just as much right to
> live as humans, if not more. No single animal has brought more
> suffering or destruction to others and the planet than the human
> being.
I guess that you are infact right here and I did like that quote about humans being the only creatures to blush or have need to. 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.
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.
Bouncer wrote:
> And the year now, 2003 AD, After Death, if it was after his birth it
> would be 2003 AB.
Acutal, AD stands for "Anno Domini" which translates as "in the year of our Lord".
> And the year now, 2003 AD, After Death, if it was after his birth it
> would be 2003 AB.
Acutal, AD stands for "Anno Domini" which translates as "in the year of our Lord".
Timmargh wrote:
> monkey_man wrote:
> Taking a life is going above the natural order of events.
>
> Dr Duck wrote:
> Hmm. Food Chain ?
>
> Taking a life to preserve your own is a cornerstone of evolution.
>
> Whether that's good or not is debatable, but surely it's 'natural' ?
>
> 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?
I never said it was. I said it was going above the natural order of things.
> monkey_man wrote:
> Taking a life is going above the natural order of events.
>
> Dr Duck wrote:
> Hmm. Food Chain ?
>
> Taking a life to preserve your own is a cornerstone of evolution.
>
> Whether that's good or not is debatable, but surely it's 'natural' ?
>
> 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?
I never said it was. I said it was going above the natural order of things.
monkey_man wrote:
> If it lives and breathes it has the right to live by nature's decree.
> Taking a life is going above the natural order of events.
"Nature's decree" eh ? I must've missed the Discovery program about that exciting archaeological find....
Basically, our "laws of nature" are just morals, which are formed by any culture, they are not rights, they are now laws, just socially created rules. Same goes for the natural order of events, it's a moral theory, but not law, and not inarguably right.
Both are just a point of view, equally as valid as anyone elses, but nothing says they should be true judicial laws.
> If it lives and breathes it has the right to live by nature's decree.
> Taking a life is going above the natural order of events.
"Nature's decree" eh ? I must've missed the Discovery program about that exciting archaeological find....
Basically, our "laws of nature" are just morals, which are formed by any culture, they are not rights, they are now laws, just socially created rules. Same goes for the natural order of events, it's a moral theory, but not law, and not inarguably right.
Both are just a point of view, equally as valid as anyone elses, but nothing says they should be true judicial laws.
Bouncer wrote:
> And the year now, 2003 AD, After Death, if it was after his birth it
> would be 2003 AB.
A.D. is Anno Domini (sp?), latin.
Though it may mean 'after death' translated.
But I don't think so.
> And the year now, 2003 AD, After Death, if it was after his birth it
> would be 2003 AB.
A.D. is Anno Domini (sp?), latin.
Though it may mean 'after death' translated.
But I don't think so.
monkey_man wrote:
> Taking a life is going above the natural order of events.
Dr Duck wrote:
> Hmm. Food Chain ?
>
> Taking a life to preserve your own is a cornerstone of evolution.
>
> Whether that's good or not is debatable, but surely it's 'natural' ?
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?
> Taking a life is going above the natural order of events.
Dr Duck wrote:
> Hmm. Food Chain ?
>
> Taking a life to preserve your own is a cornerstone of evolution.
>
> Whether that's good or not is debatable, but surely it's 'natural' ?
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?
Dr Duck wrote:
> Yep, but I was just suggesting that for the same reasons you found it
> 'wrong but acceptable', the same arguments could apply equally to
> humans.
Sorry if it seemed that way, I was rather brief with my detailing and it seems it has been misunderstood.
> Yep, but I was just suggesting that for the same reasons you found it
> 'wrong but acceptable', the same arguments could apply equally to
> humans.
Sorry if it seemed that way, I was rather brief with my detailing and it seems it has been misunderstood.
monkey_man wrote:
> Bouncer wrote:
> I meant the date that we live our lives by. 2003 is 2003 years since
> jesus's death.
>
> Sorry to correct you again, but it's not. 2003 is 2003 years since
> Christ's birth. Hence B.C. - before Christ.
And the year now, 2003 AD, After Death, if it was after his birth it would be 2003 AB.
> Bouncer wrote:
> I meant the date that we live our lives by. 2003 is 2003 years since
> jesus's death.
>
> Sorry to correct you again, but it's not. 2003 is 2003 years since
> Christ's birth. Hence B.C. - before Christ.
And the year now, 2003 AD, After Death, if it was after his birth it would be 2003 AB.
Page: