Curiousity makes me wonder...

[Aztaroth]

Nice, long rant you got there, Mag I see what you mean, your point trascends validness, you are right etc, etc.

But have you considered that "superiority" can mean a whole lot of things? We are superior to animals in the sense that we are more intelligent, for example. That at least you *can't* argue against. Does this give us the "right" to do what we want with animals?

The answer is as far from "yes" as it is "no". The concept of right and wrong was concieved of by us, the humans, and animals do not understand "right and wrong". So if we kill an animal, they are *incapable* of thinking that we are heartless monsters. So from a human point of view we are heartless monsters if we beat a kitty to death, but the kitty won't understand this. I don't know how intelligent a kitty is, but it would most likely think we are a predator. One who is quite weak, having to actually beat a kitty to death, but it wouldn't think of us as evil, any less than a gazelle thinks ill of the lion trying to bite it's throat off. The real difference here is that the lion will eat the gazelle, whereas I doubt a human would eat a bloody, beaten kitty.

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.

So more on superiority... if you are physically superior to someone then, yes you ARE better than them. Lots of animals fight for the right to be the leader of a pack, and the leader has to be the best individual so that the offspring can be as strong as possible among those animals that allow only the leader to get any women (eg. Lions and most apes) . Of course, among humans this has been turned into something amusing that weaker individuals look at and admire. I am, of course, talking about sports. Among humans, too, it is undeniable that those with physical prowess have a much easier time at attracting the ladies. Same principle.

So is sports wrong, then? Because isn't that the same thing? The strong defeateing the weak? The physically superior boxer beating up the weaker one, just because he can? It was this very realization that years ago stopped me watching sports

So, that's my opinion on this matter... hope ya don't get too mad

[Chimaera182]

Originally Posted by Magrus

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.

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.

Not that an IQ test really determines one's intelligence. But that's neither here nor there.

Humans seem to believe that the ability to warp the world to fit their needs makes them superior. In fact, that need for us to twist the world into something we can live in only proves our weakness. It is not a strength. I feel like I had more to add to this, but I've lost all ability to concentrate on this issue. Plus, I should be getting to my homework...

Edit:

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.

So more on superiority... if you are physically superior to someone then, yes you ARE better than them. Lots of animals fight for the right to be the leader of a pack, and the leader has to be the best individual so that the offspring can be as strong as possible among those animals that allow only the leader to get any women (eg. Lions and most apes) . Of course, among humans this has been turned into something amusing that weaker individuals look at and admire. I am, of course, talking about sports. Among humans, too, it is undeniable that those with physical prowess have a much easier time at attracting the ladies. Same principle.

So is sports wrong, then? Because isn't that the same thing? The strong defeateing the weak? The physically superior boxer beating up the weaker one, just because he can? It was this very realization that years ago stopped me watching sports

Why would a kitty be in the Arctic?

The strong survive is so Darwinian, and was adopted by Hitler and the Nazis to justify their purge of the Jews and other undesireables. And I've always hated sports. Sports is just wrong because it is, not because of what you said.

[Lestat]

The simple fact that this discussion is going on proves the fact that humans are 'superior' or at least different. There is some sense of responsibility or reflection on that responsibility towards the rest of "creation", which is somewhat lacking in the rest of the animal world.

I'm not against the humane treatment of animals, as far as that is not to the detriment of the well-being of humans, but I think treating animals as humans is an anthropomorphic fallacy.

@ Luis: You find it disgusting Masa is against the torture of animals?

[Luis Antonio]

Originally Posted by Lestat

@ Luis: You find it disgusting Masa is against the torture of animals?

The way he deals speaking about it. Its so clinical - as if it wouldnt hurt him by looking at it. Really, I'm being honest here.

[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.

[Masa]

@Magrus
Attention americans: Don't be offended about the next. It's just the icecold truth. It has been researched.

Do you think it's a great achievement to be smarter in an IQ test than most of americans? Maybe you haven't heard but americans are not the smartest people in the world. Why do you think there are so many laws and so many lists with any item you buy of what not do with it?(there are also numerous other things that americans have done which are not so smart,
like putting a cat in to a micro) But I'm not here to insult americans.
IQ tests measure several factors of intelligence including logical reasoning, math skills and general knowledge. They also measure your ability to understand analogies and relationships and to classify things according to various attributes.
The IQ is, at best, a rough measure of academic intelligence.Such a strict classification of intellectual abilities would fail to take account of social elements such as home, school, and community. These elements are not adequately measured by present intelligence tests.
And for your knowledge I have scored around 130 on numerous IQ tests including the Mensa-test.

And again you're twisting and turning my words upside down, I mean do you just want to create conflict and conversation deliberately or do you honestly think I am an awful and disgusting human being?
I just used torturing and raiping as an example(as an Example!!, pay attention) of various other bad things to do with animals, coz it's pointless to list all the things I consider bad to do with animals.
I do know there are many ways to torture and abuse animals apart from the physical side.

From what you wrote I'm beginning to think that you honestly believe we're not so much different from animals and humans and animals should be (almost?)considered as equals. I presume you also believe in evolution theory.

Look despite what you're trying to tell me humans and animals are incomparable. Animals can't tell right from wrong, humans have free will, Animals act on instinct. Animals, with few exceptions, notably cetaceans and simians, do not have a sense of self as do humans, humans have the ability to conceptualize, animals do not as evidenced time and time again. Humans have sex for pleasure, animals do not with the exception of dolphins and Pygmy chimpanzees. This has been proven time and time again. Animals don't murder out of lust or greed, but in defense of young and territory, and on instinct alone, not premeditation. The differences go on and on.

You may think that you can be born as an animal, well I don't, I believe animals don't have a soul.
At least not the kind of soul that humans have. We aren't just brain, heart and body.

Humans stand above and apart from the animal world, which “we enter as lords of the earth bearing strange powers of terror and mercy alike.” - Matthew Scully

[Chimaera182]

Humans stand above and apart from the animal world, which “we enter as lords of the earth bearing strange powers of terror and mercy alike.” - Matthew Scully

And who exactly is this person who thinks he knows what's best or true?

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.

Well, that's useful. Lemme just file that in the folder marked DUH. A lot of animals are not on the same level as other animals. A snail is not on the same level as a cow. A dog is not on the same level as an elephant. A lemur is not on the same level as an octopus. To say that animals are not on the same level as humans is like saying the sky is blue.

Originally Posted by Masa

Look despite what you're trying to tell me humans and animals are incomparable. Animals can't tell right from wrong, humans have free will, Animals act on instinct. Animals, with few exceptions, notably cetaceans and simians, do not have a sense of self as do humans, humans have the ability to conceptualize, animals do not as evidenced time and time again. Humans have sex for pleasure, animals do not with the exception of dolphins and Pygmy chimpanzees. This has been proven time and time again. Animals don't murder out of lust or greed, but in defense of young and territory, and on instinct alone, not premeditation. The differences go on and on.

You may think that you can be born as an animal, well I don't, I believe animals don't have a soul.
At least not the kind of soul that humans have. We aren't just brain, heart and body.

Damnit, I wrote a whole long analysis on this and it got lost due to the stupid computer being a piece of crap. Damn university computers. Anyway, right and wrong are human concepts, and are opinions at that. Sure, some "rights" and some "wrongs" are universal, that is the majority of people agree on them, but they're still opinions. And the fact that animals behave on instinct may be true, but humans do, as well. The sum of our experiences are what our instincts are based on; if someone feels nervous when approaching an old, rickety house (which looks haunted, to give you the visual), they're instincts tell them to turn away. People act on instincts every much as animals do. Also, the fact that animals kill only on instinct is actually an arguement in favor of humans being inferior compared to other animals. Why? Animals don't kill for money, for greed, for ideas. They kill because they need to. Humans don't kill other humans because they need to; they choose to do it, and we always view it as gruesome and wrong. Animals kill because they need to, whereas a person can choose to torture and kill other people for the sheer pleasure of it. And this is supposed to make us better than animals?

Free will is an illusion. It's another human concept people came up with, and applying it to animals is again not going to prove or disprove anything. You cannot put human characteristics or concepts on animals and use it as justification for why humans are better than other animals.

More than just dolphins and that race of chimps have sex for pleasure. It's documented throughout the animal kingdom. There was one instance of a video that was on some animals funniest videos or some such show. Anyway, there was a lion in a cage, and it was rubbing itself on the bars in order to "get off." He sprayed all over the camera and the cameraman. You can't tell me that wasn't a lion that was "choking the chicken" to procreate.

Souls are another concept people came up with to distinguish themselves from other animals. It is arrogant conceit to assume animals do not have souls, or that people do. You do not know that animals don't have souls. Just because you strongly believe you have a soul does not make it so.

[Masa]

Well that last quote was supposed to lighten the mood a bit.

Lets put it this way if an animal is afraid of a dungeon it would never go there, but if a human is afraid of a dungeon he can decide to there anyway.
Humans can control themselves despite instincs but animals are controlled by their instincs. To animals there is just breeding and surviving but to humans there's much more to it.

And chimaera182 don't you think that there's right and wrong?
Do you think that murdering a small child in some level couldn't be wrong?

[Fiona]

Originally Posted by Masa

Lets put it this way if an animal is afraid of a dungeon it would never go there, but if a human is afraid of a dungeon he can decide to there anyway.

What about Lassie?

Humans can control themselves despite instincs but animals are controlled by their instincs. To animals there is just breeding and surviving but to humans there's much more to it.

Not all animals are the same. This is too big a generalisation about both humans and animals, perhaps?

In the end I do not think it is possible to demonstrate any conclusive difference between humans and animals. Whatever dimensions you pick, there is overlap. For example there are human beings so badly disabled that they demonstrate no discernible intelligence at all. They are still human but in functional terms they are less intelligent than many animals. We have speech, but again there are human beings who do not share that gift. They are still human though they have less capacity to communicate than a cat. I could go on.

I do put humans above animals. I do not pretend that is entirely rational. As with many things we draw our lines where we draw them, and if pushed we cannot completely defend them. Most of us make distinctions within the field of humanity, starting with ourselves as top; then family and friends; perhaps compatriots. Our horizons hopefully grow wider as we mature, and we can care about a bigger range of people and perhaps animals. But I confess I am always partial. " I wish I loved the human race/ I wish I loved its silly face...." I can aspire to it, but so far I cannot achieve it. And the further from me you get the less I truly value you, in the sense that I would not, for example, save you from a burning building if it was a choice between you and my mother.

I am tempted to say that is part of the human condition, and I believe we should try to overcome it so far as we can by making moral choices as honestly as we may. We are lucky in that we seldom have to make very extreme choices and it is possible to offer respect to most people and animals most of the time. In this kind of discussion I do not find it very helpful to consider the worst things that happen as a first move. While exaggeration can be useful in many fields, it is not so helpful here. We need to tease things out a bit more. For example, it was mentioned about using animals in medical research. Well that seems easy, but sadly it is very complicated. If every experiment on every animal was guaranteed to either make sure the drug or whatever was safe for humans; or effective for humans; that would be one thing.That is not true. It might make it more likely, but it is not certain. There are competing values that need serious thought here, not simple positions. At least not for me

[Darzog]

Originally Posted by Masa

Lets put it this way if an animal is afraid of a dungeon it would never go there, but if a human is afraid of a dungeon he can decide to there anyway.
Humans can control themselves despite instincs but animals are controlled by their instincs. To animals there is just breeding and surviving but to humans there's much more to it.

I have to disagree with this as a blanket statement. In the animal kingdom a mother (and sometimes a father) will do something that she is frightened of to protect her babies. They can make a cognitive assessment of the situation and decide based on the factors involved if there is a reason. You can also get peer pressure in some animal packs.

Where I grew up we were right on the edge of a washed out riverbed that lead into the mountains and there were lots of coyotes. By themselves they would never come across the street into the neighborhood, but I've witnessed a group of them walking nearthe street, then one will walk away from the pack, hesitate, then run across the street dashing between the houses before running back to the pack. It looked exactly like a bunch of middle school kids daring each other to run up to a haunted house.

And in training, I've gotten my dog to do plenty of things he was scared of (running through a tube, running across a balance beam 5' off the ground, running over a teeter-totter). He used my comforting presence to overcome the fear, just like a child will do with their parents.

Humans do have a generally higher level of functioning than animals but in a lot of aspects, they aren't significantly different. And if it came down to it, I don't think my decision would be based entirely on human vs. animal but on the aggressor. If my dog attacked someone, I would protect the person. If someone attacked my dog, I would protect my dog. And if it came down to killing in that defense, I would kill someone that attacked my dog (or kill my dog if I had to to protect someone he attacked), so in that instance I would choose animal over human.

[Masa]

I was trying to imply if a an animal was scared of the place and had no reason to go in there, anyway animals aren't capable of doing crazy things for no reason.

[Fiona]

Originally Posted by Masa

I was trying to imply if a an animal was scared of the place and had no reason to go in there, anyway animals aren't capable of doing crazy things for no reason.

Really?

[dragon wench]

Originally Posted by Masa

I was trying to imply if a an animal was scared of the place and had no reason to go in there, anyway animals aren't capable of doing crazy things for no reason.

A specialist in animal behaviour, are you?

[Luis Antonio]

Originally Posted by Masa

I was trying to imply if a an animal was scared of the place and had no reason to go in there, anyway animals aren't capable of doing crazy things for no reason.

Just cause something dont think as you do you think they're as predictable as you would be?

[Lestat]

Originally Posted by Fiona

In the end I do not think it is possible to demonstrate any conclusive difference between humans and animals. Whatever dimensions you pick, there is overlap. For example there are human beings so badly disabled that they demonstrate no discernible intelligence at all. They are still human but in functional terms they are less intelligent than many animals. We have speech, but again there are human beings who do not share that gift. They are still human though they have less capacity to communicate than a cat. I could go on.

Sorry Fiona, but this is saying as much as that a child that a crippled is proof that human species has not always four functioning limbs. Yes there are people that are so disabled that they don't seem to have discernible intelligence, there are also people that are blind, deaf or otherwise physically impaired, but as a species we are a seeing, hearing and thinking species.

It is not the outliers of the population that should be considered but the bulk of the population in these judgements in the first place. And in that sense mankind is fairly unique in its capability of creating concepts as responsibility, rights and duties.

And for those within the humans species that do not have this capability, we do deny them certain rights we give to others and appoint guardians to take decisions for them.