|
Post by katz on Oct 3, 2009 20:18:16 GMT -5
Also, percybyssheshelly, here's the different between children and apes, or mentally disadvantaged people and animals for that matter.
Yes, apes are smart, sometimes as smart as children, but for the most part childhood is a temporary condition on the way to more functional adulthood. A fetus pretty much has the abilities of a tapeworm, but this is temporary. It had a potential to be a fully functioning human being. An ape will always be an ape.
As for the mentally disadvantaged, they are an abnormality to "personhood", as you put it. They are not the ideal goal for a person, their condition is caused because something is wrong, whereas say a pig of the same intelligence is a perfectly good pig. Why do we not treat the mentally disadvantaged like animals? Because they are not normal animals, they are abnormal humans.
And as far as nature goes, the majority of the planet's most intelligent animals are carnivores. Just because we are the only ones able to domesticate our prey, I'm no longer sure how that changes our given role.
|
|
|
Post by lumberjackninja on Oct 3, 2009 20:42:02 GMT -5
Besides, I've you've ever swatted a fly or mosquito (and don't try and claim you haven't at least tried), you've essentially killed something that ZOMG, FEELS PAIN!!11! Just becase it was a inconvenience you and thus your whole argument fails. I don't think all invertebrates feel pain. For such a small organism, developing pain nerves is really a waste of energy and was thus pruned by evolution's algorithm. Any of that chicken breast left over?
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Oct 3, 2009 20:52:38 GMT -5
Besides, I've you've ever swatted a fly or mosquito (and don't try and claim you haven't at least tried), you've essentially killed something that ZOMG, FEELS PAIN!!11! Just becase it was a inconvenience you and thus your whole argument fails. I don't think all invertebrates feel pain. For such a small organism, developing pain nerves is really a waste of energy and was thus pruned by evolution's algorithm. It would definately be less advanced than more complex vertebrates, but insects still feel pain. Sensory nerves are still rather important, particularly for a flying animal. Besides, the same argument could apply to anyone who's had mice or rats in their house. Having a spring-loaded bar clamp down on your neck would not be the most pleasant way to go. Any of that chicken breast left over? Nope, just a small patch of gravy.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Oct 4, 2009 3:28:55 GMT -5
The thing is, I don't see how you can advocate hunting. Hunting is a very uncontrollable act. You can't ensure what you hunt dies painlessly every time. With domesticated animals that you can control, you can. Yes, there are places where such processes need to be improved, but that is a complaint against specific farms, not the institution of animal farming. Actually, I see hunting as far more humane than livestock. I mean, wouldn't you rather live free in a woods your whole life before dying than cooped up in a farm? That and if humans didn't hunt, populations would get pretty out of control pretty quickly. All the hunters I know are concerned with quick kills. No, even if it ends badly, the odds are that life in the woods would end worse. This is especially true if I'm a cow as I wouldn't stand a chance against various predators. And unlike humans, they aren't particularly concerned if I'm dead before they start eating, just that I'm not able to fight back. This isn't even going into the very real possibility of dying slowly and miserably from a disease that I can get rapid treatment for if I'm on a farm.
|
|
|
Post by katz on Oct 4, 2009 9:48:40 GMT -5
Actually, I see hunting as far more humane than livestock. I mean, wouldn't you rather live free in a woods your whole life before dying than cooped up in a farm? That and if humans didn't hunt, populations would get pretty out of control pretty quickly. All the hunters I know are concerned with quick kills. No, even if it ends badly, the odds are that life in the woods would end worse. This is especially true if I'm a cow as I wouldn't stand a chance against various predators. And unlike humans, they aren't particularly concerned if I'm dead before they start eating, just that I'm not able to fight back. This isn't even going into the very real possibility of dying slowly and miserably from a disease that I can get rapid treatment for if I'm on a farm. I'm not talking about letting cows loose in the woods, wild animals have their defenses against predators, and I don't think wolves would take to vegetarianism well; it's just simple nature. I suppose it's just a matter of personal choice, freedom vs. comfort.
|
|
|
Post by Yaezakura on Oct 4, 2009 12:16:53 GMT -5
As I said before, domestication is 100% beneficial for the animal. They get their species' survival ensured, as we will ensure it survives for our benefit. They get treatment for disease, protection from predators, and a population count impossible in the wild. In exchange, we get food, and the countless other things we use animal products for, such as clothing.
The only possible downside is that some farms need to improve their conditions and kill methods. There are bad farms, and they need to be changed, and hopefully in time they will. But, again, that's an argument against specific farms, not the act of farming.
|
|
|
Post by rookie on Oct 4, 2009 14:21:58 GMT -5
In exchange, we get food, and the countless other things we use animal products for, such as clothing. And jobs. I make my money to buy my family things by, well, making raw dead animals into heated up dead animals. And there's a few guys where I work who make money by cleaning up after me. Then there's Rex who brings me the dead animals via a truck. And there's someone like Rex who brought the critters to the warehouse. And the rancher, the butcher, the tanner, the seamstress, the guy who sells feed. All these people are fed in one way or another by the cow who ended up on our menu. In these hard economic times, jobs are hard to come by. To deny these people their jobs (myself included) to assuage the guilt of some is, well, it's bad. As far as hunting goes, the "quick, clean kill" is what I'd guess 98% is going for. See, a deer can take a 30.06 round to the heart and run like a bitch for another few hundred yards, normally right into a thicket. So if I don't drop him in one shot, I have to track the little bastard for a few hundred yards into that thicket. And while I'm on the hunting thing, the deer population here in Maryland can't sustain itself. There are too many deer, there's more deer than food. So the ones I take I know will not starve to death this winter. Make no mistake, I hunt because I like to hunt. But the fact that now the herd has that much more of a chance of making it this winter is a very good thing.
|
|
|
Post by lumberjackninja on Oct 4, 2009 14:40:08 GMT -5
And while I'm on the hunting thing, the deer population here in Maryland can't sustain itself. There are too many deer, there's more deer than food. So the ones I take I know will not starve to death this winter. Make no mistake, I hunt because I like to hunt. But the fact that now the herd has that much more of a chance of making it this winter is a very good thing. Yeah, your deer are tiny (compared to the ones out here, anyways). I also heard that you can harvest several deer on one tag, because there's so many of them. I wish I could find it, but there was a graph that correlated number of car accidents to deer population in Maryland and Virginia. The little bastards have that habit of jumping out in front of a car, and in places with such heavy traffic, nothing good can come of it.
|
|
|
Post by rookie on Oct 5, 2009 7:54:38 GMT -5
Well, this seems as good a place as any. I got my first deer of the season this morning. Got her behind the ear so she went right down like a sack of bricks. Decent size, around 120 pounds. I should get about 70 pounds of meat from her.
Lumberjackninja, you can't put any more than one deer on a single tag. But you start with like 20 tags and you can get more from our DNR (Dept. of Natural Resources) just by asking. And the limits are insane, like 66 deer a year. 22 for bow, 22 for muzzle loader, 22 for "firearms season".
The traffic thing is no joke. I've lost two cars to deer in my life.
|
|
|
Post by tygerarmy on Oct 5, 2009 17:13:02 GMT -5
It ain't breakfast unless a pig dies. (gives rookie a hug) That ... damn near brought a tear to my eye... But does the pig have to die before I start eating it?
|
|
|
Post by RavynousHunter on Oct 5, 2009 18:15:48 GMT -5
Of course not!
|
|
|
Post by rookie on Oct 5, 2009 21:17:02 GMT -5
But does the pig have to die before I start eating it? I suppose not, but then how are you going to get the bacon grease to cook the eggs? Or get at the "unclean" parts to make sausage or scrapple? Or get that lovely brown sugar curing on the ham? Excuse me, I'm starting to drool. The thought of pig parts slowly roasting and basting in their own juices... I need to get a napkin.
|
|
lightmelon
Junior Member
Don't swallow the seeds! You'll asplode!
Posts: 95
|
Post by lightmelon on Oct 15, 2009 23:58:14 GMT -5
Doesn't being in the fucking dictionary make something a word? Maybe I'm wrong, but here you go.
spe⋅cies⋅ism /ˈspiʃiˌzɪzəm, -siˌzɪz-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [spee-shee-ziz-uhm, -see-ziz-] Show IPA Use speciesism in a Sentence See web results for speciesism See images of speciesism –noun discrimination in favor of one species, usually the human species, over another, esp. in the exploitation or mistreatment of animals by humans. Origin: 1970–75; species + -ism
Related forms: spe⋅cies⋅ist, adjective, noun Dictionary.com Unabridged Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009. Cite This Source | Link To speciesism
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Oct 16, 2009 13:56:12 GMT -5
As I said before, domestication is 100% beneficial for the animal. They get their species' survival ensured, as we will ensure it survives for our benefit. They get treatment for disease, protection from predators, and a population count impossible in the wild. In exchange, we get food, and the countless other things we use animal products for, such as clothing. The only possible downside is that some farms need to improve their conditions and kill methods. There are bad farms, and they need to be changed, and hopefully in time they will. But, again, that's an argument against specific farms, not the act of farming. OK, this seems like circular logic, and it's been bothering me since it was first introduced as a valid argument. Of course continued domestication is good for domesticated animals and of course if they were released in the wild they may do poorly as a species -- except for the feral hog problem in the Deep South, of course, as that is a good example of a formerly domesticated animal doing just fine in the wild. But that "argument" only works because humans have bred the wild out of the animal. Of course it's not going to do well in the wild -- we bred it to be dependent on us. We can't then turn around and justify its existence as though we're doing it a favor, when we're responsible for the fact that it is in that condition in the first place. The things you've mentioned, like protection from predators and high populations do not benefit the animal per se -- they benefit us. It's not like cows can go off and do their own thing with their massive herds -- they're under our control. They need protection from predators because they're bred to be docile -- for us. Their survival is "ensured" because we want to eat them/use their skins. Not because they were having trouble surviving on their own in the wild. Dogs are a great example of why this argument is largely fallacious. Pure bred dogs have a host of physical and mental problems brought on by us deciding we want certain characteristics in dogs. As I mentioned in another thread, the majority of bulldog females cannot even birth their own pups, because the pups heads are too big to pass the birth canal! So of course that domesticated animal relies on us 100%, because it needs us to take it to the vet for a c-section or it will die whelping its pups. I can't for the life of me see how that benefits the bulldog. I can't understand how genetic disorders bred into a species benefit the animal. But more generally, both cats and dogs do not survive very well on their own if they are abandoned by their owners. They are bred to be dependent on us, so that when they become strays for whatever reason, the average lifespan of a stray is about 2 1/2 to 3 years -- it's obviously much higher for a cat or dog with an owner. I don't think the "it's better for them to be domesticated" argument holds much weight.
|
|
|
Post by Yaezakura on Oct 16, 2009 14:16:21 GMT -5
On the individual scale, perhaps not. It's on the long-term scale, the scale of the entire species. By linking to humans, the animal is ensured survival because we need it. I said that. It's selfish of us, yes, but it benefits the animal species with ensured survival, and even if we go back to the first generations of cattle before domestication really took hold, herds under human protection would suffer fewer predator attacks, as the humans wouldn't want anything else taking out of their claim.
The dogs issue is valid, but not really the point. Dogs were domesticated as work animals, and later turned into fashion accessories. There are problems with over-specialized breeds, yes, and I believe for the dogs' sake, we should stop giving a fuck about purebreeds and shit. But even still, we work like mad to ensure the survival of our furry friends, and some dogs still do actually work, such as service animals for the handicapped, and sledding dogs, plus there are still hunters who run dog teams.
Cats... heh. Cats are damned good survivors when they don't have a human pampering them. I've known strays as old as 10 years. There's a reason the things so rarely listen to people. They take the easy route when it's available, but they are nowhere as dependent on us as dogs are.
|
|