Curiousity makes me wonder...

[Magrus]

Originally Posted by Aramant

Liberal hippy animal-loving commie!

Hmm...nah. I just love animals. Well, I suppose I am liberal in some ways too. I'm no hippy though. Although, I don't mind their women, they take it anywhich way you give it.

Seriously though...wow. The sheer arrogance.

Thanks for the song Fiona!

[Darzog]

To everyone that said it would be justified for animals or an oppressed culture to raise up and throw off the yoke of "us", you're a bunch of hypocrites. I'm assuming you think it's justified since we did it to them first, but that makes them just as wrong as we were in the first place. Two wrongs don't make a right.

And it might be amusing to have a herd of chickens attack some random, un-named community. But how about if you came home and found your wife and children slaughtered in your house? You wouldn't be laughing, but if I don't know you, can I laugh? Is that the message?

If anyone or anything threatened me, my family, etc. I would do what it took to defend myself and those around me. I wouldn't stop to question if this person had been persecuted, I wouldn't stop to wonder if the animal had been forced out of its homeland. I would react with decisive action with the single purpose of stopping harm to me and mine. The attackers point of view, and even their health is less than secondary to me.

That being said the original thought of deer riding snowmobiles hunting people in the park is an amusing thought (as an abstract imagining). If it actually happened, I would expect all deer in the city shot within a week. We're a selfish species, we always have been, we always will be. That's why it sucks to be anything else on this planet. But if I had my choice, I'd rather be part of the top of the food chain and have the luxery of the choice to be nice or not.

[Lestat]

Sorry Magrus, I fail to see what's so "disturbing" and "disgusting" about Masa's post. I've seen quite a few things more disturbing and disgusting than what he expressed, though it is fairly crudely or bluntly expressed.

[ch85us2001]

Actually, Masas post reflects what I think quite nicely.

Human life means more to me than animal life.

That being said, I'm heading to the Lonestar in a minute to have a big Steak . . .

[Aramant]

I also agree with Masa (or whatever his name was). I like animals, I think they're pretty neat, and I like having pets... but animals aren't people, and nor do I think they're anywhere close to people.

And really, if a wolf could kill and devour deer after deer with ease, I'm fairly certain it would. Granted, it can't, and we can... but that's why the more sensible among us now take efforts to regulate these things.

[Chimaera182]

Ugh. I can just see where that would go: species A suddenly becomes capable of attacking people and attempts to reclaim its old territory. The attack is carried out, there are dozens of casualties, several fatalities, the terror alert is raised to tangerine, and then there's a call for action. So, a committe is formed to decide what to do. Liberal pansy tree-hugging stoners with a lot of free time on their hands protest and make signs, using the opportunity to say that any attack committed against species A is just the government wielding its power in a not-so-benevolent fashion. They then claim that the attack is a way to line the pockets of corporate fat cats, and then have a protest where half the people in the crowd don't even know jack about the situation. Meanwhile, species A, which may be dumb as a sack full of door knobs, is lounging about its former territory when humans come swooping in, submachine guns at the ready, and cut them down. The situation is ended, protests continue to ensue, the people return to their newly reconquered territory, and species A is not only repulsed, but a campaign is instigated to brutally wipe them out so as to prevent this happening again. Someone says that's not right, and the area species A came out of is designated under government control as an endangered species area; a species which they made endangered in the first place. The hippies are happy, and life quickly returns to normal, because people don't give a crap.

Originally Posted by dj_venom

What Aztar just said made me think of something.

Over here in Aus, being an island, we have plenty of beaches. Being an island in oceans, we have plenty of sharks. Sharks + Beaches = Chaos. For some insane reason, when a shark comes into beach, or is off the coast, and it kills or badly hurts someone, it is hunted down. If it is not found, they simply kill some other sharks. I think that humanity wouldn't batter an eyelid if it was considered genocide as the best option to save our own skins.

JAWS syndrome. It's not the official term, as far as I know, but it's what happens when an animal attacks a person. What sucks, too, is that sharks generally attack people by accident, or are doing it just to figure out what the heck we are. It's an innocent probe, and that's justification for mass genocide. And yet we're the ones invading their territory, and then we freak out when we get attacked. The irrationality of people just doesn't surprise me anymore.

As for Masa's post, I see why Magrus was insulted. Greatest race ever my eye. I don't see wildebeast killing each other over some crazy notion that their wildebeast god is better than another wildebeast's god, or because they happen to have a better kind of grass to eat, or because they have more grass than another does. You don't see oppossums fighting over imaginary lines. You don't see Siberian Huskeys attacking Dalmations simply because they're Dalmations, or Rottweilers attacking Labrador Retrievers for simply being Labrador Retrievers. And animals are not here for us to experiment on or exploit however we see fit; the Nazis exploited and experimented on the Jews and other undesireables because they saw them as "not human," which "animals" are not (animals may not be human, but humans are animals, I don't know why I needed to add that but there it is). And pets are loyal to their masters because that's all they know; a human slave could be loyal to their human master because that's all they know, but if the slave (or pet) were mistreated, then yes they might try and run away (and we cut off the male parts of our dogs to keep them from doing that). Just because we feed them doesn't make them any less a slave, and pets are not for amusement. They're companions; I've always thought--and I know my mom does, too--of my dogs as part of the family, not as pets. [The more I write on this, the more I feel like one of those hypocritical idiots in PETA, so I need to stop before I feel the compulsion to spraypaint on someone's fur coat].

Cow Tse Tongue That's hilarious.

I love animals, too, but I'm also not blind. We do need animals to survive; we wouldn't have gotten where we are today without them. And as Darzog said, two wrongs don't make a right (actually, in my world, they do, but I come from a much more interesting place ). We're a selfish species, we always have been, we always will be. That's why it sucks to be anything else on this planet. I have this weird feeling we're on opposite ends on this debate even though I'm kind of in-between in my feelings, but frankly, I think that line I put in bold is pretty much pure genious. It's true, it's frank, it's life.

[dj_venom]

Originally Posted by Chimaera182

JAWS syndrome. It's not the official term, as far as I know, but it's what happens when an animal attacks a person. What sucks, too, is that sharks generally attack people by accident, or are doing it just to figure out what the heck we are. It's an innocent probe, and that's justification for mass genocide. And yet we're the ones invading their territory, and then we freak out when we get attacked. The irrationality of people just doesn't surprise me anymore.

Yeah, we dress up in black swimsuits, lie on a board, and paddle around with our arms and legs. To an animal like a shark, it looks like a seal, or something else which forms their diet.

@Masa: I'd have to agree with Magrus. I don't think our superiority over them means we have a right to use them as we want. To me, that kind of thinking reminds me of the original thought of colonisation, considering the native humans as 'uncivilised' and 'beast-like'. For this reason, terra nullius came to pass, and we continued to treat them like animals.

I don't think we have a right to impose our will upon others. I am by no means a vegetarian or anything like that, but I think it is the right of a stronger group to protect a weaker group, not to abuse them.

[Lestat]

Well, you can object to Masa's calling humans the greatest race, but if you strip the word "great" of the moral content and purely look at achievement, he's right. No other species has been able to adapt its environment to it's need in the way humans have, most other animals (excluding some insect specieses) have to adapt fully to their environment.

Secondly, I don't see in Masa's post anything that points to his supporting abuse of animals. He does say "use to a certain point" and later points out that he objects to molesting and torturing animals. While the choice of words might be poor, the basic ideas are, as far as I can see, not really that far out.

And if a threat is to come from the animal world, I frankly see it not coming from mammals or other vertebrates. They have shown no skills in adapting their environment and shaping it to their needs. If we have to watch out for anyone it's the little buggers within the Hymenoptera & Isoptera . Thats wasps, bees & ants on the one hand and termites on the other hand. "social" insects

[dj_venom]

I am not denying our greatness, and that we are the most advanced, I am debating the encouraging of Imperialism, that is, the right for a stronger group to enforce its will on another.

Secondly, I don't see in Masa's post anything that points to his supporting abuse of animals. He does say "use to a certain point" and later points out that he objects to molesting and torturing animals.

They just act upon their senses and that is what gives us the right to "use" animals to our own advantage(this may sound horrible but don't take it that way)to a certain point to entertaining purposes

So because they are living how they choose, we can exploit that? Such as boxing kangaroos perhaps? Or maybe dancing pandas? Or how about using electro-therapy on animals to make them sit still while having their photo taken?

...and yes testing too but I think they use mainly those lowlife creatures such as rats and other critters(can you honestly demand the tests to be done with humans or no testing at all, and animal activists I think they care more about animals than humans, which to me is absurd).

I think that statement there does push for animal cruelty. So you personally think rats are disgusting, so that gives you a right to use them as you will. Frankly I think some people are disgusting, but I don't think that gives me the right to use them as I want.

We have a right to protect and help these animals, not to abuse them.

And if a threat is to come from the animal world, I frankly see it not coming from mammals or other vertebrates.

I don't expect a threat from these either. But that doesn't mean we can treat them like dirt.

[Denethorn]

Originally Posted by dj_venom

We have a right to protect and help these animals, not to abuse them.

I think his point is that they should not receive equal, or even superior status to humans. Push comes to shove, yes a rat is expendable for a human life - is it not?

Vivisection is a grey area in my book. I think animals can be justifiably 'abused'; in the interests of medical science, animal testing is just about acceptable. I do not like it, but to protect animals at the possible expense of curing a terminal disease or condition is worse.

Animal testing for cosmetics - well lets not go there.

[Lestat]

Originally Posted by dj_venom

So because they are living how they choose, we can exploit that? Such as boxing kangaroos perhaps? Or maybe dancing pandas? Or how about using electro-therapy on animals to make them sit still while having their photo taken?

He said: to a certain point. Since he has not clearly defined up to which point exactly, I'm willing to give him the benefit of doubt.

Originally Posted by dj_venom

I think that statement there does push for animal cruelty. So you personally think rats are disgusting, so that gives you a right to use them as you will. Frankly I think some people are disgusting, but I don't think that gives me the right to use them as I want.

Nowhere he pushes for cruelty. As I said before his choice of words is poor, especially here the word "lowlife".
But please explain how that phrase "pushes for cruelty". You think it does, I think it doesn't. You're reading things that are not stated in the phrase. At most you can read in this phrase: "I prefer they use these animals I find disgusting in animal testing than other animals I find not disgusting, or humans or no testing."

Originally Posted by dj_venom

We have a right to protect and help these animals, not to abuse them.

I assume you mean duty.
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).

Originally Posted by dj_venom

I don't expect a threat from these either. But that doesn't mean we can treat them like dirt.

That was to lighten the mood a bit and go back to the original question. Nowhere I or even Masa suggested that we should treat animals like dirt.

That's as far as I read his comments. And others apparently too. So maybe wait until he comes back to explain further.

[Masa]

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 ).

Well I think I have some explaining to do about certain words I used so:
That last part part of my post wasn't meant to be taken so seriously(maybe I have a bad sense of humor).

that is what gives us the right to "use" animals to our own advantage to a certain point

When I talked about a certain point I meant like raiping and torturing etc...
And to clarify my meaning I wrote

Of course I object molesting and torturing animals

And yes, maybe I chose my words wrong about the lowlife creatures, but let's take an example:
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.

When I mentioned entertaining purposes I didn't mean them doing circus tricks and stuff like that. I do think too that my pet is sort of a family member but not like parents or sister or brother.
I have 2 cats.

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.
Now some people may think that by using I mean anything you can do with it,
no, I mean for eating, as a companion, for working and stuff that doesn't involve molesting or torturing. I hope I've made point clear enough.

P.s thanks Lestat for the benefit of doubt

[Magrus]

Originally Posted by Darzog

To everyone that said it would be justified for animals or an oppressed culture to raise up and throw off the yoke of "us", you're a bunch of hypocrites. I'm assuming you think it's justified since we did it to them first, but that makes them just as wrong as we were in the first place. Two wrongs don't make a right.

That wasn't my point, not at all. My point was...species were forcibly removed from their habitats, and are being or were killed off because of it. It isn't a notion of "getting even", it was reclaiming their homes. I became curious as to people's view on the subject. I've gotten that now.

Originally Posted by Lestat

Sorry Magrus, I fail to see what's so "disturbing" and "disgusting" about Masa's post. I've seen quite a few things more disturbing and disgusting than what he expressed, though it is fairly crudely or bluntly expressed.

No? I've been around some things which are worse, but the viewpoints expressed, I find to be disturbing and disgusting.

Originally Posted by Masa

Animals are only animals, they can't think as we humans. They just act upon their senses and that is what gives us the right to "use" animals to our own advantage(this may sound horrible but don't take it that way)to a certain point to entertaining purposes and yes testing too but I think they use mainly those lowlife creatures such as rats and other critters(can you honestly demand the tests to be done with humans or no testing at all, and animal activists I think they care more about animals than humans, which to me is absurd).

Animals are only animals, including humans, as humans are animals. Masa, most humans can't think on the same level I do, does that make me a superior being? I took an IQ test, while I had a migraine and scored higher than 97% of American citizens on that test. Does that in and of itself give me the right to cage, experiment on, "use to my own advantage" all of those people, or just kill them if they displease me, because I am superior intellectually than they are?

I am also stronger than many people. Not all, not by any means. However, I am a fairly large, adult male, who happens to be stronger than a large percentage of the population. Does this, by the right of being physically stronger than others, the right to force those weaker than me to do my bidding? To grab someone off of the street, drag them home, and under an unspoken agreement of the fact that I dominated them, I feed them and they entertain me?

"Of course I object molesting and torturing animals.Who can honestly tell if an animal is suffering even if it is in a gage, humans still feed them."

Oh yeah, well, of course all those people in prison are thrilled that they get three meals a day, even if they are stuck in a cage and forced to do as others tell them. And I can tell when an animal isn't happy. You don't need to be able to speak the same language as another human being to be able to tell if he/she is upset, angry or happy, do you? If I went over to Russia, and started beating on an old woman, I wouldn't be completely clueless as to her emotional state during or after it. I can tell when a bird, cat, dog, or ant is angry or upset. They act differently than normal.

"Pets are different case they enjoy being around humans because they are raised to be that way and we feed them too, waht more could an animal possibly want. If they wouldn't like it they would run away wouldn't they..."

"Pets", in the sense you are using, are species of animals who have been deliberately and specifically captured, trained, and raised for hundreds of generations in order to instill subservience and a need for companionship in the species. Humans found species with certain traits, and ended up manipulating those traits to get what they wanted out of those species. I could raise a baby to fetch my paper and cut my lawn in exchange for decent treatment, shelter and food. Keep him locked up on a chain in the backyard, and feed him kibble from a bowl, and, since he never learned anything better, that's as good as life has gotten for him. He's happy as a pig in ****, ain't he?

"hypotethically speaking, if a predator race would appear I would fight back any means possible. It wouldn't be justified fo them to wipe out the human race. And if that was to happen I would give them a lot of credit for destroying the greatest race ever, which would make the predators superior."

Hypothetically speaking...Hmm. Well, lets see. Where can I take that. Ah yes, modern science has found that my brain works differently than other humans in an "abnormal and inexplicable manner" according to EKG and EEG's done years ago. Doses of chemicals which were predicted to kill me a few years ago have not done so. My metabolism also doesn't work the same as other humans. Hypothetically speaking, I could be a new variation on the species known as humans. So if that were the case, I could put you in a cage, and tear you apart and figure out whats so different about me and you, and that'd be perfectly fine with you?

"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.
Now some people may think that by using I mean anything you can do with it,
no, I mean for eating, as a companion, for working and stuff that doesn't involve molesting or torturing. I hope I've made point clear enough.
"

You made that perfectly clear. So, I'm supposed to say "Oh, ok, well so long as you aren't torturing or raping anything, it's ok"? I mean, there's nothing bad that can be done to something if you exclude those two, right?

Originally Posted by Lestat

I assume you mean duty.
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).

Hmm, all things considered with how far humans have spread on this planet, does it not surprise you that other species would need to damage human structures and eat "human" food in order to survive? If a huge area is covered in fields of say...corn, in the center of the US. That means the whole area is then devoid of much else besides...corn. If, other species needed to eat grass, or acorns, or dandelions, and lived in that area....they would be forced to eat that corn, or vacate their natural habitat in order to survive, correct? What right does humanity have to claim ALL the land in the world and take whatever they are capable of, just because they can?

I mean, really, what makes my species as a whole believe they have this divine right to take anything they want, from anything, so long as it can't stop them? To take everything in sight, and claim it as their own? Other species set up areas which they claim as their own habitat, and share it with species with similar needs. They may kill each other, but only in self-defense and for food to survive or while protecting their young from predators looking for food. They don't specifically target and kill another species off in order to shoo them from large plots of land in order to make sure they are they only species on it. They don't capture, corral and detain a whole species for the express purpose of food consumption.

I see absolutly nothing superior in what humans have accomplished. Granted, they have taken what they wanted by force and learning how to make tools to use in violent actions, but really? How does that make them overall superior to another species? I can beat the ever loving hell out of many people, that doesn't make me better than those people. I could beat them to death, take everything I want that they own, and I would be superior to them only in the area of combat. Not in personality, or intentions, or anything else.

Honestly, that supremely arrogant viewpoint of "I'm human, so I'm the best this planet has to offer" attitude disgusts me. You were born as a human, it is nothing you did, or can do that made you that way. That's the exact same ideal that racism is formed from. A cat is born a cat, a rat a rat, and a human a human. Believing yourself better than something else because of something that you have no control over is a belief born of ignorance and delusion. I think myself no better than a black or asian person that I do a cat. Why? Any one of those animals can most definately do at least 1 thing better than I can. Regardless of what that is, it proves that I am only different, not better.

[Luis Antonio]

@Masa, your views on torturing animals really make me sick... Pfeh, I guess someone needs a teddy bear as a pet.

[ch85us2001]

@ Mag: There is a difference between humans and animals. No matter how you try to ... classify them with us, theyre different. Where I was raised, we had a mutt tied up on a chain in the back yard. That being said, my Chiauaua wants to sit on my lap at the moment . . .