BeachGoat
DARTH MENSES  Posts: 431 Registered: 10/31/2003 Offline
|
1/8/2006 at 08:05 |
"And, please, stop this anthropomorphizing bullshit. You've seen too many Disney documentaries. Nature is indifferent. It wants to survive, thrive and reproduce. If you fall dead in the kitchen, your cat will eat your face because all that rubbing on your leg wasn't love, it was marking you with glands near its whiskers."
Yep
As far as puppies, I've had to do in litters for free. If you cannot provide a decent home, you should at least take the reponsibility to prevent their suffering. That's one of the hallmarks of humanity; to prevent suffering when possible through concious action. Anyone on a farm has had to put animals down, be it for food, to stop suffering or sickness, or to cull out the weak. The runt is almost always rejected by the rest of the litter and mom, so you kill it at birth to save it the pain of starvation. We used to do that at home with sickly and weak children, but thanks to modern medicine (but the same stupid ass "spawn until you die" ideology), we now have families with 15 kids where all of them live to their uneducated, prison filling adulthood. If we would apply the same standards to ourselves that we do to animals, there wouldn't be a population problem, let alone such a vast ocean of useless, souless fuckheads wandering around sucking up oxygen and creating filth.
Where will you live tomorrow?
____________________
|
| |
jwalker
Token Discordian   SSHOLEPosts: 949 Registered: 8/6/2005 Offline
|
1/8/2006 at 08:34 |
BeachGoat: The runt is almost always rejected by the rest of the litter and mom, so you kill it at birth to save it the pain of starvation. We used to do that at home with sickly and weak children, but thanks to modern medicine (but the same stupid ass "spawn until you die" ideology), we now have families with 15 kids where all of them live to their uneducated, prison filling adulthood. If we would apply the same standards to ourselves that we do to animals, there wouldn't be a population problem, let alone such a vast ocean of useless, souless fuckheads wandering around sucking up oxygen and creating filth.
My guess is that (I have nothing to back this up - just a thought) in human society, the "runt" is typically going to be the outsider nerdy type, unable to defend themselves, and therefore more likely to use their brain to get ahead in life, and the least likely to turn to crime.
If your suggestion were in practice when you were born, would you still be here to offer your oppinion? You seem to be saying that since animals don't have rights, then neither should humans - I have to disagree.
____________________
To the dog who has money, men say "My Lord Dog". |
| |
BeachGoat
DARTH MENSES Posts: 431 Registered: 10/31/2003 Offline
|
1/8/2006 at 09:48 |
My suggetion WAS in common practice still when I was born. No one had to register their children before they started school for anything, there was no welfare state, and I personally know of at least one kid in my neighborhood that was whacked and buried in the backyard for being sickly. I didn't come from a family that bred like rats, but out of our litter of three, my sister would definitely be the one who would have been culled. I have never been a grand physical specimen, and I have always been a social outcast, but never have I been weak.
My experience is that the runt is a tagalong who will do things to impress the group that the others would never think about doing. Theft, vandalism, attacking those unable to defend themselves (yes, even the sad little nerds); all typical behaviours of the very people I have to support in the prison cells they put themselves into. In the 50's when we had a bad seed, we snuffed them early. Just like a mad dog or a sick cow, it was a mercy thing.
Have you ever raised livestock? I have. It's a messy and horrible business. You have to make real decisions based on how much suffering will be alieviated against how much good can be achieved, often without a vet or another person to consult. If you manage to be right 4 out of 5 times, you're doing good. There are no clear cut definitions of what animal should be put down, which should be put through the torture and fear of treatment, and what the bottom line financially will be.
People who don't have first hand experience with their lunch should really take the time to go to "farm camp" to see what its about before they preach. If you want to raise and eat lettuce, right on. if you want that taco or steak, learn that there are realities connected with it.
And humans are just another animal that have the need of population control, disease erradication, quarrantines, breeding controls, and occasional culling. Maybe that's just the German in me talking, but objectively, it's the only way that we, as a species, have a chance of survival.
Animals, like humans, suffer, have fears, and are motivated by their own survival needs. We, as their stewards, need to take the responsibility of deciding when to nurture or destroy, when to eat or befriend, and when to eliminate or replenish. If we don't, we are still just another grub justifying our own wants without looking at the big picture.
____________________
|
| |
LOki
Refusenik  SSHOLEPosts: 484 Registered: 3/8/2002 Offline
|
1/8/2006 at 14:42 |
LOki:
I do find it interesting however, that you inject the "environmental" issue into the discussion. It is my opinion that the current species environmental activist, like these aninimal rights activists, are less concerned with the consequences their actions and policies have on the environemt or animals than they are with their capacity to curtail the rights of their fellow human beings, and tell them exactly what to do with their lives.
dinozoa:
I'm of the opinion that environmentalism starts at the home, ie recycling, riding a bike/bus instead of driving a car, converving energy, buying environmentally safe products, etc. I think the environmentally destructive aspects of our society can all be attributed to capitalism, and it's not much use haranguing individual people about why they should change.
Dumbskull:
I am of the opnion that you are a shit filled cunt and no one cares what the fuck you say! LOLERFEST!1111!!!
I am of the opinion that environmentalism starts at the home, ie recycling, riding a bike/bus instead of driving a car, converving energy, buying environmentally safe products, etc., and that environmentalists could care less so long as they can influence the government in to forcing others to do what they say.
I think the environmentally destructive aspects of our society can all be attributed to socialism, and the facts support me. Capitalists are fully aware that that killing the planet that their capital resides on, and that they, and their customers live on, is bad for the bottom line. Socialists believe they can get something for nothing by governemt action, and that principle is resposible for the environmentally destructive aspects of our society.
Which, of course, brings us back to a bunch of asshoels who have zero concern for the environment, animals, or YOU--apart from telling you exactly what to do with yourself in every detail of your life.
____________________
|
| |
jwalker
Token Discordian SSHOLEPosts: 949 Registered: 8/6/2005 Offline
|
1/8/2006 at 17:32 |
BeachGoat: My suggetion WAS in common practice still when I was born. ...and I personally know of at least one kid in my neighborhood that was whacked and buried in the backyard for being sickly.
Yikes. Point taken.
I still say it's a long stretch from culling livestock to culling humans. But that's another topic.
LOki: Socialists believe they can get something for nothing by governemt action, and that principle is resposible for the environmentally destructive aspects of our society.
I'm having trouble following this - can you explain a little more how that works, maybe an example or two?
On 2006-01-08 at 11:37:32, dreymers enjoyed furrysex
____________________
To the dog who has money, men say "My Lord Dog". |
| |
Acidburn
I am El Chupacabra  SSHOLEPosts: 777 Registered: 8/1/2004 Offline
|
1/8/2006 at 17:53 |
If we want the human race to succede, and are not allowed to test unknown drugs on humans than we must test them on animals. Vegitarians won't eat meat but a majority of them wear leather shoes and carry leather purses. As long as the testing and killing is not done infront of me than I don't really care. I have more important things to worry about than what a rabbit feels while his legs are being ripped off his furry body so I can have a key chain. I won't swerve to miss an animal and risk my life or anyone elses.
____________________
No you can't have my rights. I'm not through with them!
You got Down Syndrome so bad you probably have up,left and right too.
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
This is Rabbit. and it kills everyday.
|
| |
Lumpy_McKwiz
All I know is I don't know  SSHOLEPosts: 63 Registered: 12/18/2004 Offline
|
1/8/2006 at 19:03 |
"If we really believe that animals have the same right to be free from pain and suffering at our hands, then, of course we’re going to be, as a movement, blowing things up and smashing windows … I think it’s a great way to bring about animal liberation … I think it would be great if all of the fast-food outlets, slaughterhouses, these laboratories, and the banks that fund them exploded tomorrow. I think it's perfectly appropriate for people to take bricks and toss them through the windows ... Hallelujah to the people who are willing to do it."
— Bruce Friedrich, PETA’s vegan campaign coordinator, at the “Animal Rights 2001” conference
-----------------------------------------------------
Just to let you all know I loathe PETA, and feel the same way about any moron that will rant about animal rights and donate money to scam organizations like PETA about "the poor kitty" when they are plenty of piss poor kids in America that could use the help and support from these people willing to throw their money away. http://www.activistcash.com/ for the good dirt on these players.
I have developed my views from many years of helping to fight Breed Specific Legislation against dogs (The Banning of American Pit Bull Terriers, Staffordshires, Rottweillers, Bulldogs etc.). All across North America this fight continues and some battles are lost, some won. Mostly because of unsubstantiated claims brought by the same jaded individuals that are members of orgs. like PETA. You truly don't understand these freaks until you deal face to face with a "humaniac".
Some people are easily swayed by their base level emotions like "poor kitty syndrome". These people are either overly emotional in general, or really , really naive. I love animals, we have 2 pitbulls, an American Bulldog, a cow (for food) a pony, a llama, 2 degus, 4 cats, and a lovebird. I have no children so these critters became my children. Now I would kill to protect my dogs, fight to the death even, but the cats and the rest of them... not a chance. Is that hypocritical? Not to me it isn't. The cats or "insert critter name here" are cute and fun, but they don't love you, protect you, or try to please you like your dog will. Now if my dogs hurt my family, myself, or any human, without just cause, they would be in the ground that day.
Everything is relative.
By the way, as usual, I completely agree with BeachGoat. He stole alot of my thunder...
____________________
Doesn't expecting the unexpected make the unexpected become the expected?" |
| |
Acidburn
I am El Chupacabra SSHOLEPosts: 777 Registered: 8/1/2004 Offline
|
1/8/2006 at 20:55 |
BG tends to do that
____________________
No you can't have my rights. I'm not through with them!
You got Down Syndrome so bad you probably have up,left and right too.
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
This is Rabbit. and it kills everyday.
|
| |
dinozoa
SENATOR BABYHEAD  Posts: 319 Registered: 7/18/2004 Offline
|
1/9/2006 at 05:24 |
Loki:
I agree with you on this one. Socialist/Communist countries have no better environmental track records than capitalist countries in most cases, and here I am thinking of benign countries like Sweden, which is similar in per capita consumption to the rest of the EU, and not much better than the US. The USSR had an incredibly environmentally destructive economy. China is very destructive too, but I attribute this to overpopulation and preference for economy over environment, which is a somewhat different argument than capitalist environmentalism and socialist environmentalism.
I feel that anarchism is the only way to go, environmentally speaking, because it's the only system of government, or non-government in this case, where there is not enough organization to build dams for rivers or chop down forests or strip mine or whatever. This makes me sad, because for the most part I'm not anarchist.
Having thought about this, I retract my comments. I don't think that there is evidence for an argument that capitalism is worse than socialism or communism, environmentally, and perhaps some evidence that, in the long run, stupid environmental play-toys like the prius and recycling, which are part of our capitalist society only because of consumer demand, not because they are actually environmentally friendly, will turn out to be the best we can do in terms of environmental sustainability. I will think about this more. |
| |
Lefen
I think Clavis wins my heart <3  SSHOLEPosts: 897 Registered: 9/16/2003 Offline
|
1/9/2006 at 11:51 |
The uncomfortable truth for any animal rights activist must be that their lives and the lives of their friends/family are greatly enchanced and extended through research carried out on animals in the name of medical science. You think anyone of those fukers would refuse chemotherapy on the basis of ethics? What about if it was for their kids? Doubt it.
The fact is, that current technology (computers, cell culture etc etc) can't accuratley substitute for a whole living animal if you want to look at the body as a living system. That is, cell culture will tell you about the reaction of a particular cell-type to a compound. But it won't tell you, for instance, if your new wonder-drug will fuck up one organ at the same time it's helping another.
We're going to be reliant on the whole animal model for drug development for the concievable future, and no amount of firebombing and protesting is going to change that. Put simply: you want a cure for HIV? Support animal testing.
The trouble is, that a lot of animal research is difficult to justify in those terms. If you support animal testing for one purpose, shouldn't you support it for all others?
If you believe that animals are soulless entities without the ability to feel fear, despair, anxiety, pain etc etc then the answer is yes. But when you consider that even reptiles probably have the ability to feel 'primal' emotions that aid survival (i'm thinking about fear or something analogus) then you'd have to believe that any bunny being injected with the next HIV vaccine candidate could largely give a fuck as to the nature of the reserch it's taking part in because the fear, pain etc etc is concievably the same, whatever the situation.
The whole issue is a bit of a moral headfuck. But as far as I'm concerned, if my health is looked after by drugs that were developed at the expense of animal testing then so be it.
*edit for goddamn, typos. there are probably more.
On 2006-01-09 at 05:53:01, Lefen enjoyed furrysex
____________________
< barfass> hey, fuck your crumpets, postman pat |
| |
LOki
Refusenik SSHOLEPosts: 484 Registered: 3/8/2002 Offline
|
1/9/2006 at 14:06 |
dreymers: LOki: Socialists believe they can get something for nothing by governemt action, and that principle is resposible for the environmentally destructive aspects of our society.
I'm having trouble following this - can you explain a little more how that works, maybe an example or two?
____________________
|
| |
|
