Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Exposition: It seems that any thread that has a news article about animal abuse is immediately filled with posts about the various tortures that ought to be inflicted upon the perpetrator of the animal abuse. Even the posts that are not advocating heinous vengeance are emotionally charged. However, it seems that any thread involving crimes of humans against fellow humans is met with less outrage.

Statement: The observation of the disparity between animal abuse threads and human abuse threads may be mistaken.

Reiteration: Why are animals regarded more highly in some respects than humans?

(Clarification: The abuse of animals by humans provokes more outrage than the abuse of humans by humans and thus seems that people hold the animals in higher regard than humans.)

Originally posted by FeceMan
Exposition: It seems that any thread that has a news article about animal abuse is immediately filled with posts about the various tortures that ought to be inflicted upon the perpetrator of the animal abuse. Even the posts that are not advocating heinous vengeance are emotionally charged. However, it seems that any thread involving crimes of humans against fellow humans is met with less outrage.

Statement: The observation of the disparity between animal abuse threads and human abuse threads may be mistaken.

Reiteration: Why are animals regarded more highly in some respects than humans?

(Clarification: The abuse of animals by humans provokes more outrage than the abuse of humans by humans and thus seems that people hold the animals in higher regard than humans.) I feel the same response given to abuse against animals is the same as abuse against babies or children. It's the fact that it's a semi-sentient creature being tortured or harmed and is unable to defend itself.

ever tried to torture a kitten?


those F*ckers can sure as hell fight back....

Originally posted by FeceMan
Exposition: It seems that any thread that has a news article about animal abuse is immediately filled with posts about the various tortures that ought to be inflicted upon the perpetrator of the animal abuse. Even the posts that are not advocating heinous vengeance are emotionally charged. However, it seems that any thread involving crimes of humans against fellow humans is met with less outrage.

Statement: The observation of the disparity between animal abuse threads and human abuse threads may be mistaken.

Reiteration: Why are animals regarded more highly in some respects than humans?

(Clarification: The abuse of animals by humans provokes more outrage than the abuse of humans by humans and thus seems that people hold the animals in higher regard than humans.)

that's sort of a roundabout way of looking at it, though i see your point...

Originally posted by Martian_mind
ever tried to torture a kitten?


those F*ckers can sure as hell fight back....

Originally posted by Martian_mind
ever tried to torture a kitten?


those F*ckers can sure as hell fight back.... Originally posted by Tangible God
I feel the same response given to abuse against animals is the same as abuse against babies or children. It's the fact that it's a semi-sentient creature being tortured or harmed and is unable to defend itself. I think you hit the nail on the head with that. Even if the dog is 15 years old they would still view it like a baby.

Originally posted by FeceMan


Reiteration: Why are animals regarded more highly in some respects than humans?

(

Humans don't taste as good with Ketchup.

Close the thread please!

Originally posted by Martian_mind
ever tried to torture a kitten?


those F*ckers can sure as hell fight back....

Not if you put them in a bag and punch it a few times first.

Originally posted by FeceMan
(Clarification: The abuse of animals by humans provokes more outrage than the abuse of humans by humans and thus seems that people hold the animals in higher regard than humans.)

You get the same reaction from people over children, too. In fact, I think the point of your question does a lot to illustrate how humans react. Children and animals can't defend themselves as well as another adult human being, so I think it's safe to say that people sympathize with the animal or child much more easily than they do another adult human.

It's a knee jerk human reaction to seeing a totally one sided fight. I don't think it has anything to do with how much regard you have for a turtle v. a human being, it's what kind of a chance the turtle had from the beginning.

People don't really care; they just think it is the right thing to say. It is not about being so inhumane; people just don't want to seem like they don't give a **** at all which in turn makes them seem heartless.

Originally posted by chithappens
People don't really care; they just think it is the right thing to say. It is not about being so inhumane; people just don't want to seem like they don't give a **** at all which in turn makes them seem heartless.

So, you're saying people are apathetic about not being empathetic?

Right. Most people find it mroe important to feel how one should feel, as opposed to as how they really feel, imo. For example I could really give two shits if a kitten is knocked out, put in a bag, and tossed onto the freeway or something. I hate cats anyway.

Good. We'll knock you out, toss you into a bag, and throw your ass on the freeway.

Originally posted by BobbyD
Good. We'll knock you out, toss you into a bag, and throw your ass on the freeway.


animals_bunny2 No you won't.

Originally posted by Yo Mom loves it
animals_bunny2 No you won't.

Of course, I won't.

It's not that I'm upset that he doesn't like cats. It's the general disregard for the sanctity of life that pisses me off about people.

My conversely related rebuttal was to illustrate that exact point.

Originally posted by BobbyD
Of course, I won't.

It's not that I'm upset that he doesn't like cats. It's the general disregard for the sanctity of life that pisses me off about people.

My conversely related rebuttal was to illustrate that exact point.

But it's an animals life. What's your point? I believe in using animals to test cosmetics on etc. They have no souls after all.

Originally posted by Yo Mom loves it
But it's an animals life. What's your point? I believe in using animals to test cosmetics on etc. They have no souls after all.

It's deeper than that, Yo Mom; and if that's the way you feel about things, then of course it is your perogative.

An animal having or not having a soul has nothing to do with it.

I think it's because animals can't fight back as well. If I ever see anyone hurt an animal, I'm doing double to them.

Originally posted by eggmayo
I think it's because animals can't fight back as well. If I ever see anyone hurt an animal, I'm doing double to them.

animals_bunny2 No, you're not! Dramatic, but no!

Originally posted by BobbyD
W/o a regard for the sanctity of any life, then what is thought of when it comes to human life?

There is sufficient evidence and many studies that have shown that brutality of animals also means that there is reason to believe that violent behavior towards humans is present in that same person's life.

Umm.... No! Cosmetics companies do it so people aren't hurt by cosmetics, as do drug companies. Are you saying the testers go home and put potentially hazardous materials on their families?

Originally posted by Yo Mom loves it
Umm.... No! Cosmetics companies do it so people aren't hurt by cosmetics, as do drug companies. Are you saying the testers go home and put potentially hazardous materials on their families?

Forget the cosmetics companies example. That is one small subset in the whole picture.

Originally posted by BobbyD
Forget the cosmetics companies example. That is one small subset in the whole picture.

I bet drugs companies, labs and cosmetic companies torture more animals than anyone outside of Abbatoirs. Damn I love eating animals! I need a Pork Chop about now. I might go fishing or Rabbiting this week.

tasty...

animals_bunny1

I don't have a problem with you or animal consuming an animal.

Originally posted by BobbyD
I don't have a problem with you or animal consuming an animal.

These Beagles get free smokes! They look happy.

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/acigawis/smoking_beagles.jpg

There is a difference between what drug and cosmetic companies do in their testing compared to beating a cat or dog with a stick. It also depends on what you would consider torture, most animals that are for testing also are given pain medication to there is no needless suffering and many of the tests that are done are not done to cause pain.

Animals have been respected by the Indians long ago. They believed that without animals such as the Buffalo they would die. And sometimes they could tame wolves who would help them in hunting (maybe) and protect them. Some Indian cultures even believed that an Eagle represented God. So they had a great respect for other creatures. It's no suprise to me that animals would be treated with the same respect as people are today. Today when someone has an animal, they become a member of the family.

Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
There is a difference between what drug and cosmetic companies do in their testing compared to beating a cat or dog with a stick. It also depends on what you would consider torture, most animals that are for testing also are given pain medication to there is no needless suffering and many of the tests that are done are not done to cause pain.

Not really, Universities open up mice and pump food additives in them whilst conscious to test physilogical effects for ubdergraduates all the time. No pain medication is given. You can't tell me that doesn't hurt the mice?

Seems like an unfounded claim.

Look what these animals do

http://www.wfmynews2.com/news/mostpopular/article.aspx?storyid=86779&pr

Originally posted by Yo Mom loves it
Not really, Universities open up mice and pump food additives in them whilst conscious to test physilogical effects for ubdergraduates all the time. No pain medication is given. You can't tell me that doesn't hurt the mice? Never said it didn't, as I stated that most not all test. Some are to induce pain and other illnesses, many of the early studies were cruel and unnecessary.Originally posted by backdoorman
Seems like an unfounded claim. Most studies of violent behavior among serial killers and others have shown that many did in fact abuse and kill animals as children.

And how does that equate with "Most people that would torture and animal will do the same to humans down the road."?

Originally posted by Yo Mom loves it
animals_bunny2 No, you're not! Dramatic, but no!
You shouldn't tell people what they will or will not do.

It's your opinion, not mine. I find someone kicking a cat, I'll be kicking them.

Originally posted by eggmayo
]

You shouldn't tell people what they will or will not do.

It's your opinion, not mine. I find someone kicking a cat, I'll be kicking them.

Owned.

Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
Most studies of violent behavior among serial killers and others have shown that many did in fact abuse and kill animals as children.

You don't have to make it serial killers, Pittster. You can make it Joe-Schmoe civilian too.

Its a matter of life versus choice.

If an animal attacks a human, it is because it needs food. Sometimes, though mostly rarely now, the other way around occurs with humans hunting animals.

Now take any ordinary hunter, or someone who just abuses animals...with the methods today, our weapons, etc...it is purely for sport and killing, assuming you are the superior, and what you put them through is just for your entertainment. People with any disregard for life as to think that killing any random dog is less bad than killing any random human is wrong. They are still killing either way, and one usually may lead to the other.

Its just the way we think of it. We cant imagine veiwing things through the eyes of an animal. We just see the object, that moves around and barks or whatever. They think, if only with the intelligence of a one-year-old, although some are more intelligent than others. This is the age of robots and machines, we think of animals as machines, not really living.

If you abuse animals, you likely abuse humans as well or will. And you're probably a shitty person too, in general.

Now I dont think torturing animals is any better or worse than hurting humans. It has to do with innocence, and choice. We choose to kill/torture(either innocent humans, or animals), out of our own choice. When we fight eachother with guns or whatever, it is out of mutual consent (or nonconsent)- we choose poorly and end up fighting (animals do this to eachother too)- I cant feel any pity for them. But when one person decides to kill someone who is just innocent, or even an animal, thinking it is alright, theres a blood rage at hearing that. Those people I hate.

Originally posted by backdoorman
And how does that equate with "Most people that would torture and animal will do the same to humans down the road."? Most studies of serial killers and murders have been shown to kill animals for fun as children; this is one of the warning signs that have been used to demonstrate homicidal behavior. While this is not an absolute by any means saying that if you brutally kill animals for fun you going to do it to humans but there is a correlation between the type of harm and the mentality.

http://ezinearticles.com/?Animal-Cruelty:--The-Key-to-Serial-Minds&id=35856
http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=132

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
Its a matter of life versus choice.

If an animal attacks a human, it is because it needs food. Sometimes, though mostly rarely now, the other way around occurs with humans hunting animals.

Now take any ordinary hunter, or someone who just abuses animals...with the methods today, our weapons, etc...it is purely for sport and killing, assuming you are the superior, and what you put them through is just for your entertainment. People with any disregard for life as to think that killing any random dog is less bad than killing any random human is wrong. They are still killing either way, and one usually may lead to the other.

Its just the way we think of it. We cant imagine veiwing things through the eyes of an animal. We just see the object, that moves around and barks or whatever. They think, if only with the intelligence of a one-year-old, although some are more intelligent than others. This is the age of robots and machines, we think of animals as machines, not really living.

If you abuse animals, you likely abuse humans as well or will. And you're probably a shitty person too, in general.

Now I dont think torturing animals is any better or worse than hurting humans. It has to do with innocence, and choice. We choose to kill/torture(either innocent humans, or animals), out of our own choice. When we fight eachother with guns or whatever, it is out of mutual consent (or nonconsent)- we choose poorly and end up fighting (animals do this to eachother too)- I cant feel any pity for them. But when one person decides to kill someone who is just innocent, or even an animal, thinking it is alright, theres a blood rage at hearing that. Those people I hate.

Good post, but I would like to add one thing: even though we are the most intelligent animal on Earth, we are still animals.

Originally posted by eggmayo
You shouldn't tell people what they will or will not do.

It's your opinion, not mine. I find someone kicking a cat, I'll be kicking them.

No you won't. You're being dramatic, in real life you'd be scared. I can tell.

Originally posted by Yo Mom loves it
No you won't. You're being dramatic, in real life you'd be scared. I can tell. I wouldn't, done it before to a guy kicking his puppy.

Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
I wouldn't, done it before to a guy kicking his puppy.

All these people on the internet who go round assaulting people.

Not, really, they don't!

Originally posted by Yo Mom loves it
No you won't. You're being dramatic, in real life you'd be scared. I can tell.

Ah, you must be psychic. It's good, at least you must know how much of a moron you seem.

Originally posted by Yo Mom loves it
All these people on the internet who go round assaulting people.

Not, really, they don't!

I promise, anyone does it in front of me, I'll personally post the news article.

Originally posted by eggmayo
Ah, you must be psychic.

Not really "egg mayo". Tell me about your criminal record for violent assaults or your street fights though.

I don't have a criminal record for fighting, I've never been arrested for it. Doesn't mean for a second its never happened and never will.

Originally posted by eggmayo
I don't have a criminal record for fighting, I've never been arrested for it. Doesn't mean for a second its never happened and never will.

Of course it doesn't... flex whistling

Right. Well, I'm not gonna waste my time replying to you, because after a skim through this thread, you seem to just be doing your all to offend anyone who likes animals.

- Waiting for your complete contradiction of what I've just said, as you've done in every single post so far.

Originally posted by Yo Mom loves it
All these people on the internet who go round assaulting people.

Not, really, they don't! More like defending

Originally posted by eggmayo
Right. Well, I'm not gonna waste my time replying to you, because after a skim through this thread, you seem to just be doing your all to offend anyone who likes animals.

- Waiting for your complete contradiction of what I've just said, as you've done in every single post so far.

Well at least you're not threatening to come round and beat me up.
chair

Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
More like defending

Not really, defending would be asking him to stop, attacking him would be assault.

Originally posted by Yo Mom loves it
Not really, defending would be asking him to stop, attacking him would be assault.

Not really, and I did ask him what they hell he was doing and it all went down hill from there, and it would be called defense of others. I could say that I'm going to kick his butt and that would be considered assault as well.

Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
Most studies of serial killers and murders have been shown to kill animals for fun as children; this is one of the warning signs that have been used to demonstrate homicidal behavior. While this is not an absolute by any means saying that if you brutally kill animals for fun you going to do it to humans but there is a correlation between the type of harm and the mentality.

http://ezinearticles.com/?Animal-Cruelty:--The-Key-to-Serial-Minds&id=35856
http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=132
Dude I never denied there was some link between hurting animals and serial killers. You said most people that hurt animals are going to wind up hurting humans, that is an unfounded and likely untrue claim.

Originally posted by backdoorman
I see, doesn't make the least bit difference. I'm not trying to give you a hard time but it really is an unfounded claim. These studies are not only about serial killers but also murders and other violent crimes.

Originally posted by backdoorman
I see, doesn't make the least bit difference. I'm not trying to give you a hard time but it really is an unfounded claim.

No dude...He's right...There is a strong psychological link between torture of animals and an escalation to violent crimes committed against humans. In fact, it is almost common knowledge. Just about everyone I know, knows that children who torture animals could one day become murderers or commit other violent crimes against other humans. I don't feel like looking one up. You guys can do that...and when you find one...you will need to admit you are wrong...something I highly doubt any of you will do.

The answer to the question posed in this thread is simple. Because in some respects animals are better than humans.

Originally posted by BackFire
The answer to the question posed in this thread is simple. Because in some respects animals are better than humans.

Originally posted by BobbyD
Good. We'll knock you out, toss you into a bag, and throw your ass on the freeway.

You can try, I'd break your ass in half though. Hence why I am > An Animal.

Originally posted by BlaxicanHydra
You can try, I'd break your ass in half though. Hence why I am > An Animal.

I don't know about you, but a wolverine could kick my ass any day...there is a reason that marvel comics chose a wolverine's name for Logan's mutant name.

Those things are rather small. If you didn't have your human tools but only had you hands and smarts...a one on one match with a lot of animals would be one sided.

That's irrelevant, though. Being smart enough to actually make such tools to equal the playing field is what makes us superior. Obviously, if it was only decided by strength or speed then Lions, or Gorrilas or whatever would rule the world.

But alas they don't.

Originally posted by BlaxicanHydra
That's irrelevant, though. Being smart enough to actually make such tools to equal the playing field is what makes us superior. Obviously, if it was only decided by strength or speed then Lions, or Gorrilas or whatever would rule the world.

But alas they don't.

But you said you could "break" his "ass" meaning you would load his donkey up with some much stuff, that his donkey would collapse and you would have to punch the donkey. tee hee.

Originally posted by BackFire
The answer to the question posed in this thread is simple. Because in some respects animals are better than humans.


Better with mustard and ketchup!

Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
Not really, and I did ask him what they hell he was doing and it all went down hill from there, and it would be called defense of others. I could say that I'm going to kick his butt and that would be considered assault as well.

It wouldn't be called defence of others an animal is not a human. He "might" be found guilty on animal cruelty charges, you certainly would be found guilty of assault. Tell me more about your online fight record Mr. Liddell.

Tasty....... Chicken.

Originally posted by dadudemon
But you said you could "break" his "ass" meaning you would load his donkey up with some much stuff, that his donkey would collapse and you would have to punch the donkey. tee hee.

DUd shut upz before I have to tiger uppercut j00!

Originally posted by BlaxicanHydra
DUd shut upz before I have to tiger uppercut j00!

Or use a donkey punch.

Neg. Tiger Cannon FTW.

Originally posted by BlaxicanHydra
Neg. Tiger Cannon FTW.

Have you tried a "Donkey Punch"?

Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
These studies are not only about serial killers but also murders and other violent crimes. Originally posted by dadudemon
No dude...He's right...There is a strong psychological link between torture of animals and an escalation to violent crimes committed against humans. In fact, it is almost common knowledge. Just about everyone I know, knows that children who torture animals could one day become murderers or commit other violent crimes against other humans. I don't feel like looking one up. You guys can do that...and when you find one...you will need to admit you are wrong...something I highly doubt any of you will do.
What the hell? My point is not up for debate.

"strong psychological link between torture of animals and an escalation to violent crimes committed against humans" does not equal "Most people that would torture and animal will do the same to humans down the road." no matter how bad you'd like it to.

Originally posted by backdoorman
What the hell? My point is not up for debate.

"strong psychological link between torture of animals and an escalation to violent crimes committed against humans" does not equal "Most people that would torture and animal will do the same to humans down the road." no matter how bad you'd like it to. What ever, I explained my post and you don't want to accept it and that is fine.Originally posted by Yo Mom loves it
Better with mustard and ketchup!



It wouldn't be called defence of others an animal is not a human. He "might" be found guilty on animal cruelty charges, you certainly would be found guilty of assault. Tell me more about your online fight record Mr. Liddell.

Tasty....... Chicken. blahblah

Originally posted by backdoorman
What the hell? My point is not up for debate.

"strong psychological link between torture of animals and an escalation to violent crimes committed against humans" does not equal "Most people that would torture and animal will do the same to humans down the road." no matter how bad you'd like it to.

Yes...that is exactly what I meant and that is exactly what it is supposed to mean. Are you a criminologist? Are you a psychologist? Of course not...and neither are we...look up that "shit" online and when you find out you are wrong..."How about a nice warm cup of shut the hell up?"

Originally posted by FeceMan
Exposition: It seems that any thread that has a news article about animal abuse is immediately filled with posts about the various tortures that ought to be inflicted upon the perpetrator of the animal abuse. Even the posts that are not advocating heinous vengeance are emotionally charged. However, it seems that any thread involving crimes of humans against fellow humans is met with less outrage.

Statement: The observation of the disparity between animal abuse threads and human abuse threads may be mistaken.

Reiteration: Why are animals regarded more highly in some respects than humans?

(Clarification: The abuse of animals by humans provokes more outrage than the abuse of humans by humans and thus seems that people hold the animals in higher regard than humans.)

I think it's partially religious and partially philosophical. If someone is religious, maybe pagan, they may see animals as some sort of spiritual order, placing them on the same level as humans, and at times, having greater spiritual value, (cats come to mind in the sense of have some sort of spiritual value to people who are into Egyptian occult or derivates of that spiritual order). The philosophical aspect would have to do with what I've heard about animals having the inability to reason, and so, b/c they are disadvantaged, they need extra protection from evil humans who will use that disability to their amusement.

Originally posted by backdoorman
What the hell? My point is not up for debate.

"strong psychological link between torture of animals and an escalation to violent crimes committed against humans" does not equal "Most people that would torture and animal will do the same to humans down the road." no matter how bad you'd like it to.

I know a lady who adores her cat like her cat is a little infant, but she is totally untrustworthy and has said she doesn't even like people at all, she honors and worships cats.

Originally posted by Tangible God
I feel the same response given to abuse against animals is the same as abuse against babies or children. It's the fact that it's a semi-sentient creature being tortured or harmed and is unable to defend itself.

Don't know because they are animals?I would be mad if a human was abuse more then an animal.I hate animal abuse but a human to me is more imporant.
And some of the laws are annoying.jm

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
Don't know because they are animals?I would be mad if a human was abuse more then an animal.I hate animal abuse but a human to me is more imporant.
And some of the laws are annoying.jm And why is a human more important? Just playing devils advocate

Originally posted by BlaxicanHydra
You can try, I'd break your ass in half though. Hence why I am > An Animal.

You bore me.

You're the kind of guy who is looking for a fight that I bump into at a bar......

and when I ask you to show me the way to the parking lot, the next thing you're doing is buying me a beer.

Loser.

Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
And why is a human more important? Just playing devils advocate

Because humans are top of the food chain.

Originally posted by Yo Mom loves it
Because humans are top of the food chain. So if a human doesn't have his tools then he is not that important?

Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
So if a human doesn't have his tools then he is not that important?

Early Hominids were also top of the food chain.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Exposition: It seems that any thread that has a news article about animal abuse is immediately filled with posts about the various tortures that ought to be inflicted upon the perpetrator of the animal abuse. Even the posts that are not advocating heinous vengeance are emotionally charged. However, it seems that any thread involving crimes of humans against fellow humans is met with less outrage.

Statement: The observation of the disparity between animal abuse threads and human abuse threads may be mistaken.

Reiteration: Why are animals regarded more highly in some respects than humans?

(Clarification: The abuse of animals by humans provokes more outrage than the abuse of humans by humans and thus seems that people hold the animals in higher regard than humans.)

To start off with, we ARE animals; I'm not sure if you figured that out, but, most people seem to think we are not. But we are. Being cruel to an animal is as bad as being cruel to a human, in my view, since we are all animals.

Originally posted by Yo Mom loves it
Early Hominids were also top of the food chain. Only because the use of tools, without them we are very low on the food chain.

Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
Only because the use of tools, without them we are very low on the food chain.

The ability to work together and make tools, plans etc. is more the point. It is the diversity and ability of mans achievements that sets him and his predecessors above the animal. Speech, Poetry, Art etc.... The ability for self sacrifice and to believe in things bigger than himself. Tell the War heroes who gave their live for you they are animals.

I disagree, we're all as evolved as each other.

Originally posted by Yo Mom loves it
The ability to work together and make tools, plans etc. is more the point. It is the diversity and ability of mans achievements that sets him and his predecessors above the animal. Speech, Poetry, Art etc.... The ability for self sacrifice and to believe in things bigger than himself. Tell the War heroes who gave their live for you they are animals.

Originally posted by The Grey Fox
I disagree, we're all as evolved as each other.

Originally posted by Yo Mom loves it


How about you respond instead of just avoiding my points?

Originally posted by FeceMan
Exposition: It seems that any thread that has a news article about animal abuse is immediately filled with posts about the various tortures that ought to be inflicted upon the perpetrator of the animal abuse. Even the posts that are not advocating heinous vengeance are emotionally charged. However, it seems that any thread involving crimes of humans against fellow humans is met with less outrage.

Statement: The observation of the disparity between animal abuse threads and human abuse threads may be mistaken.

Reiteration: Why are animals regarded more highly in some respects than humans?

(Clarification: The abuse of animals by humans provokes more outrage than the abuse of humans by humans and thus seems that people hold the animals in higher regard than humans.)

I believe that some people do regard animals higher than humans. Though logically speaking there is not much difference between us and them, either way (regarding Humans or Animals higher) is basically just a specicist few on par with racism or xenophobia.

I can admit though that I am specicist, and though future generations may condemn me...**** them...animals are my slaves.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I believe that some people do regard animals higher than humans. Though logically speaking there is not much difference between us and them, either way (regarding Humans or Animals higher) is basically just a specicist few on par with racism or xenophobia.

I can admit though that I am specicist, and though future generations may condemn me...**** them...animals are my slaves.

Shut up, Bardock.






















Hope all is well.

Heh, people who say that animals are equal to us fail.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Heh, people who say that animals are equal to us fail.

Please define equal. Do you mean stronger? Do you mean more disease resistant? Do you mean can live in more extreme environments? Or do you mean has the biggest ego?

no animal can be more or less evolved than another

there are instances where you can compare change in genetics from a common ancestor of two species to know which has undergone more evolutionary changes, and in the case of chimps and humans, we have had less changes than them. Calling them more evolved is rather meaningless though.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Please define equal. Do you mean stronger? Do you mean more disease resistant? Do you mean can live in more extreme environments? Or do you mean has the biggest ego?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Or do you mean has the biggest ego?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Please define equal. Do you mean stronger? Do you mean more disease resistant? Do you mean can live in more extreme environments? Or do you mean has the biggest ego?
How about sentient?

Originally posted by FeceMan
How about sentient?

I understand what you are saying, but I think you might be looking for language or abstract symbolic representation rather than sentience.

Originally posted by FeceMan
How about sentient?

Prove to me that other animals, other then the human animal, is not sentient. My cat has a sense of self. Chimpanzees know that the image in a mirror is not another chimp, but themselves.

Originally posted by BobbyD
You bore me.

You're the kind of guy who is looking for a fight that I bump into at a bar......

and when I ask you to show me the way to the parking lot, the next thing you're doing is buying me a beer.

Loser.

*yawn*

Come back when your insults are above 4th grade level.

Statement: In order to prove that other animals are sentient, Shakyamunison must provide the proof that they are sentient--it is impossible for FeceMan to prove that they lack sentience.

Addendum: However, as animals lack the raw mental capacity of humans, they are lessers.

Anticipated Query: "Why does intellect equal superiority?"

Pre-emptive Reply: Intellect equals superiority because humans have the ability to do things that animals cannot. Humans can create art and philosophy; humans have a conscience and the ability to know right from wrong; humans are entirely separate from animals in this regard.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Statement: In order to prove that other animals are sentient, Shakyamunison must provide the proof that they are sentient--it is impossible for FeceMan to prove that they lack sentience.

Addendum: However, as animals lack the raw mental capacity of humans, they are lessers.

Anticipated Query: "Why does intellect equal superiority?"

Pre-emptive Reply: Intellect equals superiority because humans have the ability to do things that animals cannot. Humans can create art and philosophy; humans have a conscience and the ability to know right from wrong; humans are entirely separate from animals in this regard.

Therefore a mentally retarded person is an animal and has no rights. If intellect is your only measure of superiority, then you will fall very short because there are a lot of stupid humans walking around on this Earth.

Statement: Shakyamunison is confusing "common sense" and "knowledge" with "intelligence."

Statement: Mentally retarded people are part of the human race, a race that, except in a few cases, vastly succeeds any other species in mental prowess.

Declaration: FeceMan would not classify a retarded person as an animal, just as he would not classify an exceptionally intelligent dog as a person.

Originally posted by BlaxicanHydra
*yawn*

Come back when your insults are above 4th grade level.

Ohhh, did I hurted your pooor lil feelings?

Figures you'd take the bait. Grow up.

Respond again-show me your wrath. C'mon. Oooooo....I'm sooo scardy of you.

Originally posted by BobbyD
Ohhh, did I hurted your pooor lil feelings?

Figures you'd take the bait. Grow up.

Respond again-show me your wrath. C'mon. Oooooo....I'm sooo scardy of you.



If that's your idea of wrath you must be a pretty sensitive kid.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Heh, people who say that animals are equal to us fail. We are not better at least.

We are animals, we are sentient ones, no doubt...but...you can prove that's a good thing?

Maybe, dunno. The Liosn and Tigers won't save the world when Athe Aliens invade. The Gorrilas won't fly a space ship up to the giant asteroid and blow it up before it hits Earth.

Originally posted by BlaxicanHydra
Maybe, dunno. The Liosn and Tigers won't save the world when Athe Aliens invade. The Gorrilas won't fly a space ship up to the giant asteroid and blow it up before it hits Earth.

And they will not cause global warming.

Originally posted by Bardock42
We are not better at least.

We are animals, we are sentient ones, no doubt...but...you can prove that's a good thing? "Good" for who?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
And they will not cause global warming. Neither will humans.

Originally posted by BlaxicanHydra
Maybe, dunno. The Liosn and Tigers won't save the world when Athe Aliens invade. The Gorrilas won't fly a space ship up to the giant asteroid and blow it up before it hits Earth. And that's a good thing?

How? Because humans survive? Are you already going by the premise that Humans are awesome to prove that humans are awesome? Seems circular in a way.

Then again circular reasoning is valid due to circular reasoning being valid.

Well they were here before us and will be here after us unless we kill them all off.

Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
Well they were here before us and will be here after us unless we kill them all off. We are "they".

Originally posted by Bardock42
We are "they". Well if you put it that way

Originally posted by Yo Mom loves it
O.K. let me get this straight, you roll around in your faeces? Hump peoples legs. Sniff peoples butts when you first meet them?

Good for you.

Moron, those animals are AS EVOLVED AS US -- fact. They are as evolved as they need to be, they don't need the skill to create items and hold them -- but they might need a long neck to reach a high-up branch, as does the giraffe. The slug is as evolved as us, as it survives in the world. Anything alive today WORKED and so still exists... creatures that died out years ago didn't evolve enough and thusly -- they died. By 'evolved' I mean 'at the stage of almost perfect survival'. Go do your homework, Yo Mom. Seriously.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Statement: Physical power is merely physical power. It can be used in one way. Human intelligence, on the other hand, can be used in a variety of ways, as FeceMan has already demonstrated.

Declaration: Humans are superior because of their mental capacity. No other species has a conscience, the ability to produce and ejoy art, the ability to invent and produce. No other animal can communicate as humans communicate.

Statement: I'm human therefore I am better no matter what you say.

Declaration:

As far as art:

http://www.flatrock.org.nz/topics/animals/are_animals_conscious.htm

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Statement: I'm human therefore I am better no matter what you say.

Declaration:

As far as art:

http://www.flatrock.org.nz/topics/animals/are_animals_conscious.htm
Statement: FeceMan was unaware that "art" consisted of a single medium.

Quotation: "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

Originally posted by FeceMan
Statement: Physical power is merely physical power. It can be used in one way. Human intelligence, on the other hand, can be used in a variety of ways, as FeceMan has already demonstrated.

Declaration: Humans are superior because of their mental capacity. No other species has a conscience, the ability to produce and ejoy art, the ability to invent and produce. No other animal can communicate as humans communicate. You define one ability as superior so you can call the animals that posess it superior.

Originally posted by FeceMan

Declaration: FeceMan would not classify a retarded person as an animal, just as he would not classify an exceptionally intelligent dog as a person.

Ooooh, Brian won't be too happy to hear about that.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Statement: FeceMan was unaware that "art" consisted of a single medium.

Quotation: "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

I see the problem: you believe the bible. The bible is wrong.

Statement: The problem is made visible to FeceMan.

Assertation: Shakyamunison is a believer in a false god and has exchanged the truth for a lie.

Declaration: Shakyamunison will be able to make statements such as those found in the quoted material with impunity, but members of KMC will leap upon FeceMan's assertation like wolves on a wounded moose.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Statement: The problem is made visible to FeceMan.

Assertation: Shakyamunison is a believer in a false god and has exchanged the truth for a lie.

Declaration: Shakyamunison will be able to make statements such as those found in the quoted material with impunity, but members of KMC will leap upon FeceMan's assertation like wolves on a wounded moose. I like moose, I will defend thee pitt_guns

Originally posted by FeceMan
Statement: The problem is made visible to FeceMan.

Assertation: Shakyamunison is a believer in a false god and has exchanged the truth for a lie.

Declaration: Shakyamunison will be able to make statements such as those found in the quoted material with impunity, but members of KMC will leap upon FeceMan's assertation like wolves on a wounded moose.

Lets see... you believe that a book is the word of god, is that correct? I referee to God as a short cut for the mythic law. To say I believe in a false god would mean I believe in a god in the first place. I am sorry if my attempts to communicate with you has lead you to an incorrect conclusion.

So, the only reason you believe that humans are not animals and therefore above other animals is because some goat herders 3000 years ago said so.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Lets see... you believe that a book is the word of god, is that correct? I referee to God as a short cut for the mythic law. To say I believe in a false god would mean I believe in a god in the first place. I am sorry if my attempts to communicate with you has lead you to an incorrect conclusion.

So, the only reason you believe that humans are not animals and therefore above other animals is because some goat herders 3000 years ago said so.
Statement: Shakyamunison believes in a false god.

Evidence: Shakyamunison does not believe in the God, YHVH.

Conclusion: Shakyamunison believes in a false god.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Statement: Shakyamunison believes in a false god.

Evidence: Shakyamunison does not believe in the God, YHVH.

Conclusion: Shakyamunison believes in a false god.

baby

donatello

Originally posted by FeceMan
donatello

Thank you.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Statement: Shakyamunison believes in a false god.

Evidence: Shakyamunison does not believe in the God, YHVH.

Conclusion: Shakyamunison believes in a false god. Isn't that circular reasoning?

Originally posted by Creshosk
Isn't that circular reasoning?

Isn't Christianity dominated by circular reasoning, or have I been reading to many posts by JIA?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Isn't Christianity dominated by circular reasoning, or have I been reading to many posts by JIA? I think it's more of an appeal to authority.. trace back arguments far enough it becomes "because God said so"... *shrugs*

Originally posted by Creshosk
I think it's more of an appeal to authority.. trace back arguments far enough it becomes "because God said so"... *shrugs*

And ultimately it is because momma and dada said god said so.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
And ultimately it is because momma and dada said god said so. and so forth back ad naseum.

Originally posted by Creshosk
and so forth back ad naseum.

Ending with some goat herders who saw a natural gas leek on fire and thought the hissing was god speaking to them.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Ending with some goat herders who saw a natural gas leek on fire and thought the hissing was god speaking to them. Well, I'd be nauseated if it turned out that my god was nothing more than something akin to a flaming fart.

(Methane gas)

I am 100% for animal rights, but I find it hypocritical when a person who defends animal rights supports the death penalty or abortion.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Statement: Physical power is merely physical power. It can be used in one way. Human intelligence, on the other hand, can be used in a variety of ways, as FeceMan has already demonstrated.


You beleive that animals were meant to serve us, if that is so, then why do the majority of animals not serve us at all?


Why is it that thousands of species of animals live thier own lives, independent from and of human beings, if they were created to serve us ?




Originally posted by FeceMan
Declaration: Humans are superior because of their mental capacity. No other species has a conscience, the ability to produce and ejoy art, the ability to invent and produce. No other animal can communicate as humans communicate.


1) Mental Capacity...I certainly hope you are not speaking on behalf of ALL humans....we have done such great damage to this world, and to eachother. How is higher mental capacity an automatic advantage, when it has also lead to incredible pain ?


2) How do you know we are the only species with a concious ? I suggest you read up on the psychology of dogs, horses, dolphins, and other mammals.


3) The ability to produce and enjoy art serves nature in no way, and therefore cannot be used as an example as to how we are superior.


4) We cannot communicate the way Dolphins communicate.

We cannot communicate the way bats can.

We cannot survive underwater the way whales and many fish can.

We cannot fly on our own.

We cannot naturally detect cancer cells in our body the way a dog can.

We cannot see more than a few hundred colors the way certain insects can.

We do not have anywhere the amount of disclipine an army ant has.

We cannot survive certain weather conditions the way polar bears or penguins can.

WE cannot survive extreme temperatures the way certain insects can either.



There are so many things that animals can do, that we cannot. There are so many things animals survive and endure that we could never overcome.


You clearly know very little of the animal kingdom, and it is scientific fact that human beings are animals.


Did you know that there were other species of human that existed before homo sapien ?

We are animals. Get over it.

I am for animal rights, they are alive too and can feel pain as much as humans. God made them for a purpose just like he made everything for a purpose. To kill anything is wrong. I don't believe we should eat animals either, Christ was a vegetarian. Eating a lobster is just like eating a cockroach or any other kinda bug. I also don't understand how some think creation appeared out of no where. Go outside and gaze at the stars if you believe that and then tell yourself there is no God and I think you might finally get it.

Originally posted by kevdude
I am for animal rights, they are alive too and can feel pain as much as humans. God made them for a purpose just like he made everything for a purpose. To kill anything is wrong. I don't believe we should eat animals either, Christ was a vegetarian. Eating a lobster is just like eating a cockroach or any other kinda bug. I also don't understand how some think creation appeared out of no where. Go outside and gaze at the stars if you believe that and then tell yourself there is no God and I think you might finally get it.


The Bible says that the animals were meant to be reigned by man. Therefore, according to your religion, they were meant to serve us.


Jesus ate fish...so did his apostles....nice try



The Universe has always existed, and no imaginary being created it. It simply changes form. First Law of Physics will tell you that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, it always changes states.


That means, all material and energy is eternal, no beginning no end, it only changes form. The Universe, and all its stars and planets, are born, die, and are reborn in different forms.


Science demands we study our universe. So instead of staring at our universe and concluding that there is a god, why not study it, and see whats really there ?

Animals can't defend themselves? Pick a fight with my Pitbull and tell me that.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
The Bible says that the animals were meant to be reigned by man. Therefore, according to your religion, they were meant to serve us.


Jesus ate fish...so did his apostles....nice try



The Universe has always existed, and no imaginary being created it. It simply changes form. First Law of Physics will tell you that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, it always changes states.


That means, all material and energy is eternal, no beginning no end, it only changes form. The Universe, and all its stars and planets, are born, die, and are reborn in different forms.


Science demands we study our universe. So instead of staring at our universe and concluding that there is a god, why not study it, and see whats really there ?

I don't think we will truly know everything about it or until we die if God might reveal how he did it. About the eating of fish ive always heard that he was a vegetarian until now which i've looked into, it would seem he did eat fish.

Originally posted by kevdude
I am for animal rights, they are alive too and can feel pain as much as humans. God made them for a purpose just like he made everything for a purpose. To kill anything is wrong. I don't believe we should eat animals either, Christ was a vegetarian. Eating a lobster is just like eating a cockroach or any other kinda bug. I also don't understand how some think creation appeared out of no where. Go outside and gaze at the stars if you believe that and then tell yourself there is no God and I think you might finally get it. Tell me.. what does Romans 14 tell you?

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
The Bible says that the animals were meant to be reigned by man. Therefore, according to your religion, they were meant to serve us.


Jesus ate fish...so did his apostles....nice try



The Universe has always existed, and no imaginary being created it. It simply changes form. First Law of Physics will tell you that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, it always changes states.


That means, all material and energy is eternal, no beginning no end, it only changes form. The Universe, and all its stars and planets, are born, die, and are reborn in different forms.


Science demands we study our universe. So instead of staring at our universe and concluding that there is a god, why not study it, and see whats really there ?
Query, exasperated: How many times must FeceMan explain this to Urizen?

Statement: When speaking of God, one cannot deal in "impossibles" and "cannots."

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
You beleive that animals were meant to serve us, if that is so, then why do the majority of animals not serve us at all?

Why is it that thousands of species of animals live thier own lives, independent from and of human beings, if they were created to serve us ?
Statement: "Thousands of species of animals live their own lives, independ from and of human beings" because human beings have no need for them.

Statement: Much like the ability to feel pain, higher mental capacity is both a blessing and a curse. However, whether or not it is a "good" attribute is irrelevant; FeceMan's statement was that it made humans superior to animals.

Declaration: FeceMan believes that animals may have sentience, and he believes that animals can think. However, FeceMan realizes that no other animal has human degree of sentience.

Statement: Superiority does not necessarily equate to the ability to "serve nature."

Statement: The ability to appreciate and create art indicates a higher level of consciousness that is not present in any other animal.

Conclusion: The ability to create and appreciate art demonstrates human superiority.

Statement: Urizen is correct, as humans lack the ability to echolocate.

Statement: Humans can communicate on an infinitely deeper level than dolphins, though, and humans automatically find ways to produce language.

Evidence: FeceMan has read about a psychological study where deaf children were kept living together and they created their own sign language (as seen here).

Statement: Humans have also worked to overcome the natural limitations to imitate sea-dwelling creatures.

Declaration: Urizen may send FeceMan a private message when a fish creates a device that allows it to survive on land.

Statement: As with the above, humans are working to overcome natural limitations and have achieved a degree of success.

Statement: And yet, humans have discovered that dogs can detect cancer cells and that insects see colors that humans cannot.

Statement: Humans have created for themselves ways to survive such extremes, and army ants are directed by a single entity: the queen.

Declaration: A hive mind is not an advantage.

Statement: Erroneous. FeceMan knows much of the animal kingdom and is totally aware that humans are animals.

Declaration: Humans are a higher degree of animal.

Statement, sarcastic: No, Urizen, FeceMan was completely ignorant of this fact.

Statement: FeceMan has never denied that humans are animals.

They would, if we had need of there services. However, note that any Animal mankind wishes to use, for whatever reason, it can and does with minimal effort.




Simply and only because we allow them too. No Animal in the world can hope to actively resist us, at least successfully so.




So? Doing damage to one another does not diminish our intelligence, only our judgment. Actually, having the ability to wipe out nearly all forms of life on the planet in a short amount of time is another reason why we are superior to all the other Animals of the world.



Dolphins can not communicate the way Humans can. Anyware in the world near instantly.






Fish can not survive on land the way Humans can.

They can't fly into space either.



So? This again proves how our intelligence alone makes us superior to all other animals.



A Dog can not fight and rid oneself of Cancer the way we can.



Who needs too? Thats what binoculars are for. No Insect can see Venus, I'm pretty sure. Our minds allow us to make devices that can enable us to do so, however.



Army ants also can not form independent strategies of there own and imrpovise. Also, no Human army depends solely on one person, as an Army ant depends on it's queen. The United States would function just as well with Bush or a general dead as usual.



Polar Bears and Penguins can not survive in certain weather conditions we can.



Certain insects can't survive certain certain weather climates that we can survive either. Actually, Humans can survive any climate given the right technology.





There are three times as many things that all other Animals can never hope to do that Humans can do.




You're clearly overlooking the obvious ability Humans have over every other Animal on the planet, the sole ability that makes us completely and unquestionably superior. And duh, we're Animals. But we're just the best type of Animals.

EDIT: Damn, Fece beat me to it.

Originally posted by Violent2Dope
Animals can't defend themselves? Pick a fight with my Pitbull and tell me that.

Okay, I'll bring my M-16 though.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Tell me.. what does Romans 14 tell you?

Do not judge others?? I don't think I have, just trying to make a point creshosk. god knows i've made my own mistakes

Originally posted by kevdude
I am for animal rights, they are alive too and can feel pain as much as humans. God made them for a purpose just like he made everything for a purpose. To kill anything is wrong. I don't believe we should eat animals either, Christ was a vegetarian. Eating a lobster is just like eating a cockroach or any other kinda bug. I also don't understand how some think creation appeared out of no where. Go outside and gaze at the stars if you believe that and then tell yourself there is no God and I think you might finally get it. You do know there are easier explanations than a God, right?

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
I am 100% for animal rights, but I find it hypocritical when a person who defends animal rights supports the death penalty or abortion. I figure you are a vegetarian then.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Statement: The problem is made visible to FeceMan.

Assertation: Shakyamunison is a believer in a false god and has exchanged the truth for a lie.

Declaration: Shakyamunison will be able to make statements such as those found in the quoted material with impunity, but members of KMC will leap upon FeceMan's assertation like wolves on a wounded moose. Stop trolling Shakya, we know he is an idiot.

Now reply to my points, *******.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I figure you are a vegetarian then.


I still eat fish. Can't beat the protein sources. Besides, to kill for food is survival, not sport. Living off vegatables alone is not healthy at all, in fact, it can destroy muscle mass

Soy protein alone cannot compensate, and plant proteins, which are incomplete amino acid chains, cannot supply the same muscle maintaining, organ revitalizing, iron efficient, and immuno strengthening benefits that fish and meat do.


Not to mention your Omega 3s from fish like Salmon.



To be a strict vegan is not healthy, and I do not care what anyone says, it's not. We are omnivores, and therefore must balance a totality of food sources.



However...that does not give us the right to torture an animal of any kind, or to kill the animal for our own pleasure.



And I stand behind what I said...It is hypocritical for one to defend animal rights to the death, but still be okay with the death penalty and abortion.


Likewise, it is hypocritical for one who critisizes abortion or the death penalty, to be okay with animal cruelty.





Originally posted by Bardock42
Stop trolling Shakya, we know he is an idiot.



He is far far wiser than you. And far more attractive.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
He is far far wiser than you. And far more attractive.


How do you know he is more attractive?