[dj_venom]

Yes, I saw it coming that someone could take my post a bit too seriously and don't be offended about the harsh words I use, my english isn't very good(I'm finnish so try to understand ).

Yeah, the problem with online things is that wording is really critical. Just remember though, for me, what happens in a thread, stays in that thread.

If you'd have to kill an animal which would you kill, a rat or a dog? And no other factors involved. Think it trough.

I would kill the weaker and safer animal, not the more asthetically pleasing.

Now the original point was to make clear that humans and animals are not on the same level and that animals are for humans to use.

This is me being podantic about wording, but the word 'use' just sends shivers up my spine. To me, that implys total control, and I simply cannot agree there. I do realise you have been saying up until limits, but it's just that wording, and for the wording, I guess the best way of putting it is, until such point where it become inhumane, rather than just listing a few acts, because there are several others that could be covered (eg. hunting them for sport).

Not always, sometimes you will have to choose between man and animal. Certain animals can spread diseases (rats, a whole host of insects), others damage important structures (muskrats undermine dikes, termites eat wooden structures) or eat up stored food (too large a list).

I see that as different however. That is a self defence act, not an unnecessary act. As I mention later, there is a big difference between killing, and killing for survival.

Originally Posted by Aztaroth

So do you have the right to do something just because you can? Yes, you do! However, it's not about right and wrong, it's about what is sensible and what is just plain dumb. Beating a kitty to death would be the latter, unless you were planning to eat it. We humans are odd creatures, aren't we? Most would consider it wrong to beat a kitty to death and eat it even if they were starving! If I was millions of miles from civilasation, in, let's say an artctic wasteland, and came across a kitty, I would beat it to death and eat it when I got hungry. It would be sheer idiocy to try to keep the kitty alive as well as yourself. Sooner or later you'd both starve, while I with the kitty in my belly would live longer, and thus have a greater chance of surviving. Am I a horrible person for this? By human standards, I am, but as we've already stated, humanity isn't all that great.

I think I would have to disagree here, on a number of technicalities. First of all, your wording, 'beat to death'. I would create a human trap or something like that, or at least end the animal's life humanely, rather than leaving it to suffer so much before the merciful death. I'm sure you didn't intend to be taken that way in your wording, but I did have to point it out, because it sounded extremely barbaric to me.

Secondly, I don't think it is apt. Killing to survive is completely different to killing/hurting/other things. So yes, I would kill the thing, because it could be a massive difference, however in the arctic, I'm not sure if I could cook the thing, so therefore, I may not be able to eat it.

About the whole jokes added in, when I get fired up about something, I tend to lose my sense of humour . As such, I'll end up taking things as offensive, and therefore something to argue, rather than something to lighten the mood. Sorry about that guys, all you have to do is clear it up later, and I can disregard what I said earlier/what you said.