The Dink Network

Wow, sounds like the prophet has sinned.

Maybe they'll stop trying to tell me to quit eating unhealthy amounts of meat now. Hopefully...

and i though peta helped animals NOW I HATE PETA

PETA never was a good organization really.

I'm concerned with animal wellness, but PETA is a crude terrorist movement to be honest. They have very questionable morals, if at all.

PETA is just an organization filled with freaks, didn't anyone of you learn from that South Park episode?

Welcome to the adult world of hypocrisy and lies.
It really sucks though. I do volunteer work for the Dutch SPCA, but if it proves to be too difficult to catch an animal in a park or on the streets which is in need for some help in one go, they just can't be bothered. That's something else than killing them, however. As far as I know, that has never happened here.

I'm think the Dutch SPCA probably kills-off some animals as well. If they've become a threat to people I'm think they will kill them.

Still, that's something different entirely as what this article is about.

Hipocrites, I hate Hipocrites. You know how a woman will go on a strict vegeterain diet so as to not 'Kill an innocent life' and if they get pregnant and don't want the child, they'll 'Do away with it'. Tells you alot about the donkeys around the world.

Walk in freezer? I can cremate them on the spot...

Didn't click the link, but PETA is pretty much the last group you want to support if you care about the treatment of animals.

GlennGlenn wrote:

"PETA is just an organization filled with freaks, didn't anyone of you learn from that South Park episode?"

I learned...THEY ARE MARRIED TO ANIMALS AND THEY LOVE TO KISS THEMSELVES WITH TONGUE! Plus they have kids with half animal half human and thus...Spiderman was born!

So, it's like Dink Network then, but instead of animals we have Tal? Wait a minute, Tal is an animal.

Woo! Go Virginia!

VAG... oh wait.

Agreed! There are many other ways to let yourself heard for animal rights. If you want to help, do some volunteer work and/or give something to an organisation with GOOD morals and ideals...

@meta: you're probably right, the SPCA might kill off some animals they've picked up in Holland too, but (I still dare to hope, and actually believe) only in special circumstances, if, indeed, a dog or cat (or any other pet for that matter) has become too feral to make anyone's pet, or if they suffer from some kind of disease. Still, I suspect those decisions are sometimes made a little too easily, as happens only too often...

But hey, they're only animals, it's not like they actually matter, like humans.

I hate it when people use that argument

But hey, they're only animals, it's not like they actually matter, like humans. That's a common thing one hears all the time, Noone looks at the world through the perspective of the animals themselves, unless they're writing a book and are using an animal as a character.

Humans are actually the most scared of death than any other animal, and Krisknox just proved it with his comment. Sure, animals must have feelings, but they aren't scared of dying because they're not cowards like humans. Sure, you could learn a pet of yours to be scared of things, because they are not stupid.

I've been trying to not be scared of death. Sure, I feel bad if somebody other dies, but I've learned to not be scared of myself dying. Why would I, because I know that someday I will die without a guestion.

Animals are very much afraid to die. In fact, the most important thing in life for an animal is to survive.

this was the only topic i could find that was slightly relevant.Spiders on drugs

But hey, they're only animals, it's not like they actually matter, like humans.

Even in that argument it fails. Because animals matter very much to humans, which is the reason we have so many animal protection groups out there. If only humans matter, and humans care about animals, then animals matter as well.

That's actually good reasoning!

So we arn't all immature slightly uninteligable banana loving dink addicts?

I never thought we were capable of good points! (Oh wait, my religion thread...)

That wasn't good, Fireball In relation to the discussion at hand, All nature struggles to A.) reproduce and B.) survive. Some plants in the desert put so much effort into reproduction that they actually kill themselves in the process. See also praying mantids, black widows etc.

I have never been a big fan of PETA for various reasons(for one I do not buy into vegetarianism as a universally healthy way to live) but my 'Skeptic's sense' is tingling right now because the above article is found at a site called "PETA Kills Animals.com" which is sort of like getting your political news from Fox News or your science from Creationists.

Animals avoid death just as much as we do - even more, actually, depending on which specific species of animal, of course. I think he meant that they don't consciously fear the time their death comes. Which, again, is specific to species and also something we'll never know without some kind of telepathy.

You are talking against yourself, Vukodlak. First you say that animals avoid death just as much as we do or even more, but then you say "we'll never know without some kind of telepathy". Well, if we never know without anykind of telepathy how can YOU be so sure about that?

Animals are sentient...they just are not abstract thinkers. WE don't need telepathy to know this, just a good understanding of neurology, behavioral science/anthropology etc. Chimps freak out if you put a mirror in front of them because they are unable to distinguish self from 'not self'. They think the reflection is another chimp gesturing at them and they try frantically to make contact with the reflection.

Dogs and dolphins do not have intelligence on par with humans and we know this for a fact because there are several physiological adaptations requisite for the development of abstract thought. An un-constricted larynx, fine manipulators and a decent sized brain with all the nifty features our brains have. We humans would never have become intelligent without the adaptations of hands and our larynx(needed for complex communication).

Animals are paranoid. See Meerkats. And Retarded. And Russian.

After my cat had six kittens she was so paranoid a slight and gentle sound awoke her and caused her to be alert for next half hour.

Just because Dogs can't speak doesn't make them stupid! if a person was born without their voicebox (the usual term for larynx or whatever the organ is) would that make them automatically stupider than a normal human being? Try to look at the world from their perspective, maybe they understand things we don't.

Yeah, but we care too much about animals. I mean, there are a whole bunch of bears, rabbits, dogs, cats and all sorts of animals out there, but none of them probably look after humans. None of them are thinking "I wish that human was okay". We have become too caring about outher animals.

People of Windemere are good example of what we will become, in about 1000 years, if we continue the same way.

You can't be serious, Skull?

Obviously, animals know no morality, but us humans do. That's why we can't just do anything we want with animals, we have to respect them, just like we have to respect other humans.

Why should humans care about animals? They don't give a dang about us. I'm sure that if they knew how to build an AK-47, they sure would shoot us all to death and eat us. Humans used to kill animals for food, but like you say we have morality these days and that will be the death of us in the future.

Morality will be the death of us? That's interesting. You should read some Nietzsche, I'm sure you'd agree with him.

It consequently also means I can kill you for my pleasure, and you couldn't disagree with me.

Yes, it means, but in much lesser possibility.

"It consequently also means I can kill you for my pleasure, and you couldn't disagree with me."

Of course he couldn't. He would be dead, sillybear.

Dude. I just cannot get over the fact you think we care about animals too much... I say we care about them waaaaayto little about them!

Just because we have the power, we give animals lifes not worth living, sticking them in wired cages, clip off their teeth, nails or even whole beaks, letting them rot in their own filth, kicking them if they don't move on their own because they're too ill to stand up, transporting them with way too many at once in hot trucks for days without water to save a few cents... And all that because we want some meat on the table for rediculously low prices...and you say that we care too much?!?!

You forgot the /rant.

i like dgs.

Joycielaanie: The amount of people who actually make animals suffer or make the decisions that lead to that is a very, very small percentage.

Really, it's just a matter of standards. What you think is caring too little is caring too much for someone else. I'm more concerned about getting my meat cheap and safe than about animal welfare if I'm honest.

But feel free to disagree.

By the way, here is an interesting article I read the other day...

Honestly, what has safety to do with anything?

I can understand (though strongly disagree) that you think price is more important than animal welfare, but organic meat is healthier and saver for our society than "normal" meat.

Humans care about animals because they are a source of food (obviously not for vegans), can be used to do work we are too lazy to do ourselves, as test subjects for crazy experiments, and something warm to cuddle up to (obviously not hedgehogs)

Apparently, there was a study that people who had pets lived longer than those who lived solitarily

Androrc, that very simply not true. If you buy cheap meat in the supermarket, it is you who makes the animals suffer. It's all about supply and demand. You demand cheap meat, so, indirectly (but still validly) you approve, no, you encourage the meat industry and the hardship that brings with it.

I lol'd

Good fight Dink Network

Are you referring to the 'free ranged animals have more chance to get diseased due to spreading germs in the fresh air?' I know that was a topic a while ago... is that what you mean by safe?

If you are, that's a mismatched idea. If you'd put all the industry-animals outside, they are likely to get more diseases, because their immune system is very low, due to the high doses of antibiotics they get, even if they're not sick. That's also the reason why those animal diseases can spread so easily, the virus has become resistant to the antibiotics.

Animals who are not injected with antibiotics during their whole lifes (and yes, you will get those antibiotics into your body when you eat this meat too) won't risk any more chance (or even less) than the cooped up industry animals.

I agree with Chris, free ranged meat is much more healthy for you and the animals, and it's way better for the environment, since the meat industry takes up more than 15% of the world's pollution problem.

XD, It said 'cow' at the bottom.

"Just because Dogs can't speak doesn't make them stupid! if a person was born without their voicebox (the usual term for larynx or whatever the organ is) would that make them automatically stupider than a normal human being? Try to look at the world from their perspective, maybe they understand things we don't."

You misunderstand kiddo. There is a good reason I did not call nonhuman animals "stupid" and instead simply point out that they, like many humans(especially the brain damaged, very young etc.) lack abstract thinking capability.

No one is saying that inability to speak = "stupidity". If that were the case then any mute person would score abysmally low on IQ tests.

What I was trying to explain was that the physiological evolution of abstract thinking is directly tied into these other adaptations including the non-constricted larynx, the tongue, and opposable thumbs. If not for evey one of these adaptations we too would be no more capable than other primates as far as abstract thinking goes.

The larynx enabled complex speech-communication. Opposable thumbs enabled tool use, etc. There is a LOT more that goes into how 'intelligent' a species is than simple brain size and complexity.

So... basically, speach was required to develop abstract thinking, although now that we have it we no longer need speach, so long as there is no need for abstract thinking to be redeveloped?

Skull, what you are saying is silly and thoughtless even for a kid.

Most animals have morals and the complexity of those morals is in direct correlation with their ability to think abstractly and empathize.

Empathy and self interest are the root of all morality and altruism is largely a nonsensical myth. The reason we are generally(those of us who are sane anyway) not capable of curb stomping a defenseless puppy but do not have much problem stepping on insects is because it is far easier to anthropomorphize and therefore empathize with these animals who are much more like us. Hollywood constantly uses this fact to get us crying at movies about dogs, monkeys and so forth.

Just taking dogs as a specific example, they feel and exhibit joy, fear, concern(for you and other dogs) and they do so with much greater frequency than they exhibit hatred/aggression(which when they DO exhibit these traits is more often than not because some donkey human has 'taught' it to them via beatings/torture). Spiders, ants etc. do not exhibit these emotional qualities in a way that we humans can recognize. They do not have facial expressions, shiver with fear or cry.

Skull, it pains me to even read what you wrote above. Not because I am overly concerned with or active in 'Animal rights'(As I said I am no vegetarian or PETA fan) but because if you actually believe what you are saying here then you have all the earmarks of a sadistic, psychotic who will one day graduate from torturing defenseless puppies and kittens to killing children and NONE fo that is good.

One of the worst criminals ever to play professional football was the former QB of the Atlanta Falcons Michael Vick. Why? Because what he did was no different than kidnapping retarded or infantile human children and torturing them to death. I have heard puppies screaming in pain before and for any sane, moral person this will give you nightmares.

Again, animals ARE sentient.

"So... basically, speach was required to develop abstract thinking, although now that we have it we no longer need speach, so long as there is no need for abstract thinking to be redeveloped?"

Not really. Individuals CAN get by being mute because we have highly developed civilization and, while speech communication was necessary for the evolution of abstract thought, it is not so much a necessity for individual survival in our current environment.

Yes, animals are sentient.

Something else that determines wether an animal is 'curb stomping' or not is its actions. If a dog ran at me and bit my leg, I would kick it with my other. If I see an ant trail in my backyard on a nice sunny day I don't run in my room and grab a magnifying glass... although it is fun sometimes.

Sure, appearences and emotion are some factors that a judge an animal by, but you can easily anthropomorphise any creature if you really wanted to, so that doesn't entirely count.

Also, I believe altruistic behaviour can exist, I've just yet to have seen it.

Skull, it pains me to even read what you wrote above. Not because I am overly concerned with or active in 'Animal rights'(As I said I am no vegetarian or PETA fan) but because if you actually believe what you are saying here then you have all the earmarks of a sadistic, psychotic who will one day graduate from torturing defenseless puppies and kittens to killing children and NONE fo that is good.

I normally avoid internet debates as much as I can, but this comment is absurdly disproportionate to anything I can see Skull wrote in this thread. Many moral philosophers have considered and advocated views similar to Skull's without turning into sadistic psychotics.

SkeleTony, you are obviously a curious and intellectual sort of person, which is great, but most of what you have written on these forums is oversimplified. This is a problem when you apply the oversimplifications to people. You also said earlier that brain damage can lead to loss of abstract thought. Nonsense. There is no neurological condition that involves loss of abstract thought and you stigmatize people to suggest so.

Thank you, Someone. Also, SkeleTony, I have graduated without turning into a sadistic, psychotic who will one day graduate from torturing defenseless puppies and kittens to killing children (and never been close), although I wouldn't think it would be a surprise with everything I've been through.

But back to the topic:
Joycie said "Just because we have the power, we give animals lifes not worth living, sticking them in wired cages, clip off their teeth, nails or even whole beaks, letting them rot in their own filth, kicking...". Now, what I think about this (and you don't have to agree with me) is that we have complete right to do so, because I am sure that if for example, dogs were in humans position, they would do the exact same things to us.

EDIT: And also, I give epic lols for Sabre.

Are you referring to the 'free ranged animals have more chance to get diseased due to spreading germs in the fresh air?' I know that was a topic a while ago... is that what you mean by safe?

No, not at all.

What I mean is that I don't want to get sick when I eat meat, plain and simple. So I'm completely in favor of meat being tested before it's send to the consumer, even if it costs me extra money. I don't want to contract Creutzfeldt–Jakob because testing meat is too expensive.

Obviously the best option here is to stop using bone meal. And probably the very best in terms of safety is to eat organic. But when I'm in the supermarket buying meat I tend to think economical, and I feel that buying organic meat isn't worth the higher price-tag. For me it's a matter of balancing taste, price and safety, with animal welfare coming fourth. And I'm generally happy with the safety of meat. Though I agree that the amount of antibiotics that are given to animals is worrying.

I have my doubts about organic meat being better for the environment because animals raised for organic meat take up more space. Yes, you might have less of a problem with waste products, but I doubt if it weighs up to the use of extra space being used. (Unless the higher price-tag means you're going to eat less meat.)

Worrying... Nah - downright terrifying wot the "powers that be" see fit to toss into the food chain without tellin everyone.!! It's cuz of the antibiotics in our food that we are fast becoming so used to them so when we get sick and need antibiotics - they are no longer able to work as efficiently (in some people they do nothing) because we are fed them constantly in every day food without our knowledge Ohhhh now you got me started...

Flouride (in our water) in big enough doses is actually a mind control substance,

They wanna put stuff in our bread - might be good for some but if you are a male watch out cause it causes increases in testicular cancer Ouch not good for the nibbly bits at all!!

Organic animals (lol thats so funny like WE made them organic *snort Chuckle*) are only better for the environment cause ya cant use chemicals therefore it HAS to be better for the land... i could rave on but then this thread would end up like the poor religion one and I was so good not to join in that one

Heyas Fireball,

"Something else that determines wether an animal is 'curb stomping' or not is its actions. If a dog ran at me and bit my leg, I would kick it with my other. If I see an ant trail in my backyard on a nice sunny day I don't run in my room and grab a magnifying glass..."

Agreed. There is no compelling 'moral' argument for not defending yourself. But what I was talking about was not self defense so much as it was about general cruelty and/or undeserved aggression against animals because someone has the silly belief that animals hate humans or some such.

"Sure, appearences and emotion are some factors that a judge an animal by, but you can easily anthropomorphise any creature if you really wanted to, so that doesn't entirely count.

I wasn't saying that you cannot anthropomorphisize other animals/insects. I was merely pointing out why it is that we(and ALL species really) generally treat those creatures that are most similar/familiar to us better than we/they treat species which are alien. This is basic anthropology stuff here.

"Also, I believe altruistic behaviour can exist, I've just yet to have seen it."

Perhaps I should be more specific here. RECIPROCAL ALTRUISM does exist, yes. But the sort of altruism found in fiction where someone does something 'good' and is not getting ANYTHING in return for the behavior does not exist. Any moral act you can possibly state I can easily show you where the 'reward'/benefit is for the individual.

Someone:

"I normally avoid internet debates as much as I can, but this comment is absurdly disproportionate to anything I can see Skull wrote in this thread."

Then you should try reading what both he and I wrote again...this time without your presuppositions and biases.

"Many moral philosophers have considered and advocated views similar to Skull's without turning into sadistic psychotics."

Appeal to anonymous authority much?

You will have to be a bit less vague with these assertions. Also, it is completely irrelevant to my point if Skull or your anonymous "moral philosophers" advocate such nonsense without themselves actually becoming sociopaths or psychotics.

Again, read what I wrote and pay closer attention this time. I am notoriously careful and specific with my wording and for good reason.

How comepeople don't get what i'm saying? I'm speaking clear english (Or whatever your computer translates it as) and am not posting excruciatingly long posts too long for the average person to read in ont sitting.

SkeleTony:
Nobody cares to read you long posts, because you really can't seem to agree with what other people say. You think you're very smart, and yes you are, but when you try to ALWAYS come up with more correct explanation you are sometimes spreading misinformation.

I think YOU should read Someone's post paying more attention, because I don't think you pay much attention to others' post. You're just trying to come up with "correct" explanations as fast as you can. Someone is absolutely correct.

Skull:

Again...your reading comprehension skills are lacking.

"Also, SkeleTony, I have graduated without turning into a sadistic, psychotic who will one day graduate from torturing defenseless puppies and kittens to killing children (and never been close), although I wouldn't think it would be a surprise with everything I've been through."

I cannot even parse that bizarre run on sentence. What does your "graduating"(from school?!) have to do with this? I would be seriously shocked if you actually WERE a psychotic individual BTW. You seem to have entirely missed my point.

Hint: Take note of my wording in the previous post directed at you. It leaves room for a much more likely option than your actually being an immoral psychotic who will one day become a serial killer. If you actually believed in what you wrote in those previous posts about it being alright to kill defenseless animals because you are having difficulty with a perceived lack of concern for humans on their part then yes, you would be someone that psychiatrists should keep an eye on.

" Now, what I think about this (and you don't have to agree with me) is that we have complete right to do so, because I am sure that if for example, dogs were in humans position, they would do the exact same things to us."

You see THIS is the sort of childish nonsense that is getting you in trouble here. You are somehow putting non-abstract thinking animals on par with humans and, for whatever bizarre reason, assuming that IF they were capable of human-like thinking and the cruelty that often goes along with such, they would hate us. And you are using this groundless assumption as justification for inflicting cruelty on them...when they are NOT even capable of the 'What if' postulation you cited as justification for your antagonism.

To call that 'foolish' would be a grave injustice against fools!

Quote from Skull
Nobody cares to read you long posts, because you really can't seem to agree with what other people say. You think you're very smart, and yes you are, but when you try to ALWAYS come up with more correct explanation you are sometimes spreading misinformation.[/quote]

You think nobody cares to read his long posts? People respond, so who's nobody?

I agree with SkeleTony on this one. Skull, if you really act on these silly ideas, you're one sick kid and need help as soon as possible.

Skull, if I had not read and understood Someone's post I would not have been able to so soundly refute it. You are just a kid. When I was just a kid I got schooled in many debates. But unlike you, I did not keep forcing my own foot into my mouth out of anger. I paid attention, asked questions, studied and LEARNED from people who knew better than I.

And why don't we apply YOUR reasoning to all manner of destructive and cruel acts? We could, for example justify burning down all of the rain forests because, after all if the forests were capable of thinking and behaving as humans, they would surely do the same to us right? Hell, next we could blow up everyone's houses and cars because after all, if those houses and cars were capable of thinking like us and doing the things we do...

Also, one last bit of free advice which I am sure you will not heed:

If YOU think my posts are too long for you to handle, that is fine. Buit speak for yourself and let others speak for themselves. The childish "Everyone agrees with me..." and "No one wants to hear what you have to say..." crap is grade school tripe.

Wether you joined in or not, it just keeps growing...

Flouride (in our water) in big enough doses is actually a mind control substance,


Finally, someone gets this. Which is why I always drink spring water/distilled if I can. Thankfully Austria doesn't put any fluoride in its water. There's an article on Wikipedia about levels. And a movie called Doctor Strangelove that proves it all to be a communist plot for mind control. Apparently Christchurch doesn't fluoridate its water.

No they have a system of running it thru miles of rock / stones etc apparently they have very pure water - personally with all the smog they also have (theyre in a valley so smoke etc cant "move on") I suggest you drink it quick before it settles
And yes fireball it has a life of its own now hehe They say every was started is caused by religion - such passion

EDIT: was = WAR lol <-- Git!

Yeah...not to beat a dead horse but I would truly appreciate if Skull could point out a SINGLE piece of "misinformation" I have spread. If I have done such a thing then I want to apologize for it and correct myself immediately.

But it is hard for me to do so when you simply assert that I have done so without giving a single example. I have been wrong before and I strongly suspect I will be wrong again but it does no one(including me and you) any good to baldly assert such without specifics.

IT'S AN ABOMINATION OF NATURE!



At least now I can proudly say:

I made something with artificial intelligence
what have YOU done with your life?

*waits impatiently*

Hmm.... Sat on something with artificial intelligence??

This is such a nice example of why I avoid Internet debates.

It's clear after reading your new reply to Skull you take a very different interpretation of what he said. I apply the principle of charity to interpret his argument as:

1) A system of morality should only be applied to an entity if that entity also respects that system of morality.
2) Non-human animals do not respect human morality.
Therefore human morality should not be applied to non-human animals.

There is absolutely nothing implying psychoticism. My mention of moral philosophers was not an appeal to authority. It was a reference to the fact that there are people who BELIEVE in the argument and are not and do not become psychotic.

You obviously do not follow the principle of charity to both interpret Skull's argument in the worst possible way and to misinterpret my argument as a standard fallacy. From this and your recent reply to Skull, it appears you are just interested in winning debates.

Once again, Someone said exactly what I said and was thinking.

What does your "graduating"(from school?!) have to do with this? I would be seriously shocked if you actually WERE a psychotic individual BTW. You seem to have entirely missed my point.

Well, you said yourself that when I graduate I'm gonna turn into a pyscho. Well, I said that I have graduated without turned into a psycho. So, yeah, I don't think I missed the slightest bit of your point.

You think nobody cares to read his long posts? People respond, so who's nobody?

I think some people are with me on this one. And I think SkeleTony is a "nobody". I doubt he himself gets really the point of other people. He just tells others to get the point.

You see THIS is the sort of childish nonsense that is getting you in trouble here. You are somehow putting non-abstract thinking animals on par with humans and, for whatever bizarre reason, assuming that IF they were capable of human-like thinking and the cruelty that often goes along with such, they would hate us. And you are using this groundless assumption as justification for inflicting cruelty on them...when they are NOT even capable of the 'What if' postulation you cited as justification for your antagonism.

I only said my opinion about things. So, once again we come to the fact that people pick on me for having opinions, but don't pick on others.

Skull, if you really act on these silly ideas, you're one sick kid and need help as soon as possible.

I think YOU need help on understanding other people's opinions.

Skull, if I had not read and understood Someone's post I would not have been able to so soundly refute it. You are just a kid. When I was just a kid I got schooled in many debates. But unlike you, I did not keep forcing my own foot into my mouth out of anger. I paid attention, asked questions, studied and LEARNED from people who knew better than I.

Maybe that's the reason why you have become the annoying brat that you are these days.

Sigh. You're disproving yourself by replying to SkeleTony's posts. If you truly thought him a nobody you would completely disregard him.

It'd better not be my religions thread! It was just starting to get incomprehensible, too!

yeoldetoast, I was replying to ExDeath. Read his post before commenting on my reply to him. I didn't mean nobody as nobody. I meant nobody as what ExDeath used nobody as.

I am nobody, i don't care to read 'Tony's long posts. I'm bored.

I think some people are with me on this one. And I think SkeleTony is a "nobody". I doubt he himself gets really the point of other people. He just tells others to get the point.

Now, to be completely honest, it matters diddly squat whether or not you read or respond to SkeleTony. It's almost like taking up your arms in vendetta against newbs, like several of us *looks in a mirror* have done. Let him have his discussions with the higher-sentients of the DN and actually have a read through if you can be bothered, you might find something interesting or actually want to get involved in the conversation properly, but if its to tell people to shut up about it, GF. Let bygones be bygones.

PS: Strange, diddly and bygones didn't get a Spellchecker line, but Sentients and newbs did

Even though I get the idea of reasoning Skull and Someone point out, I totally, and very strongly, disagree.

In my eyes, it is completely ridiculous to treat every living creature who isn't up to your 'morality levels' with non-morality, because they can't be morally involved with you. The fact that you can be moral and think about your consequences, gives you the power, or better yet, the responsibility to act upon it.

As many others have pointed out, animals can experience a lot of different emotions and feelings (ooh I sound like a downright hippy right now). Even though animals cannot think abstractly, that doesn't give humans the right to just mistreat them, because they can't figure out why. They experience it and suffer from it, therefore it is abuse.

If I were a pig, and I was given a human mind, dang right I would make humans suffer as well, they deserve it for all those decades of cruelty. This has nothing to do with a natural tendency to make less intellectual beings suffer, but simply with a matter of 'what comes around goes around'.

You kind of seem to contradict yourself..

On the one hand you say that you don't mind paying more for healthier food and meat, but yet you say that you don't really mind about that when you have to make economical decisions.

Okay, you say you are 'generally happy' with the quality of industry meat, but then again you say that those antibiotics worry you (and they should )

Organic meat is better for the environment for a fact. You're right it takes up more space (and yes, space is a big issue in our land), but the pollution the meat industry produces is very vast.

You're forgetting that, besides space, the meat industry requires loads of food for those animals, which are mainly produced on highly polluting soy bean farms, usually in third worlds countries who fell loads of trees and habitat of endangered species to make room.
Soy bean production is very polluting (in large numbers, in which they are now), and right now about 80% of the soy production goes to animal fodder. Since organic meat requires organic fodder with much variety, this problem will definitely decrease if we'd all switch to organic meat.
Also, because so many animals are packed together on meat industry farms, they produce a lot of manure in high density, polluting the surrounding environment.

I don't contradict myself, I'm saying that it's a balance between health, taste, price, environment and animal welfare. Not every piece of meat has these elements equally, so you need to figure out which are the most important to you. As I said I mainly care about health and price, and as I think food safety is sufficient around here it mainly boils down to price and taste.

And the use of antibiotics worries me mainly because of the development of resistance, not my own individual health when eating the meat. As such I feel that it is up to the vets to help cut down on antibiotics, rather than me buying more expensive meat. (Cutting down on antibiotics won't actually make meat a lot more expensive!)

Someone:

"It's clear after reading your new reply to Skull you take a very different interpretation of what he said. I apply the principle of charity to interpret his argument as:

1) A system of morality should only be applied to an entity if that entity also respects that system of morality.
2) Non-human animals do not respect human morality.
Therefore human morality should not be applied to non-human animals."

Major problems with all of the above.

For starters, no...I do not apply this "principle of charity" you made up to rationalize away Skull's obvious irrational nonsense. If someone posts something that is at all ambiguous and actually COULD be sensibly taken more than one way then yeah, I will not assume the worst either. But Skull's posts do not apply here. His argument is basically:

p1 -Animals hate humans and would treat us cruelly if they were capable.
c1 - Therefore it is right for us to treat them with cruelty and aggression.

That is nonsense no matter how you slice it. The very premise he cites is false(or if you are being "charitable" then it is without rational justification).

Secondly, in regards to YOUR above argument, saying that "animals do not respect human morality" is little different than saying "Cars don't care if my kid dies...so I am going to blow up all cars I see!". Animals do not think abstractly and there ability to conceptualize morality is limited to the thoughtless(largely survival driven) instinctive behaviors such as chasing off pack members who steal food or try to eat before the alpha male.

And finally, your first premise is just silly. By that reasoning we should be slaying human babies and some retarded people as well since they do not respect human morality(and WTF IS "human morality"?!).

"There is absolutely nothing implying psychoticism.

What I said and what I stand by is that if Skull were to be believed(that he actually believes the crap he posted) then he bears the earmarks of someone who will one day get tired of killing defenseless animals and move on to killing humans. It is an almost universal trait of all psychotics and serial killers that they begin as children torturing and killing animals.

My mention of moral philosophers was not an appeal to authority.

It is a fallacy called the Appeal to Anonymous Authority. When you cite a nebulous/unspecified source as allegedly supporting your views this is exactly what you are doing. Otherwise why even mention the anonymous "moral philosophers"?!

"It was a reference to the fact that there are people who BELIEVE in the argument and are not and do not become psychotic."

Largely irrelevant since my point was NOT that anyone advocating a stupid irrational belief becomes a psychotic.

"You obviously do not follow the principle of charity to both interpret Skull's argument in the worst possible way and to misinterpret my argument as a standard fallacy. From this and your recent reply to Skull, it appears you are just interested in winning debates.

?!

No...I try to lose as many debates as I can of course. I mean who doesn't? Obviously YOU are not so foolish as to be trying to win THIS debate now are you?

Think before you type kiddo.

Skull:

"Once again, Someone said exactly what I said and was thinking."

SUUUURRREEE he did....*facepalm*

If what he said was what you were thinking then why didn't you just say that?! You are trying to fool everyone with this childish cheer leading routine. You are excited that someone seems to be trying to support you(for whatever reason) adn doing the "What he said!" gambit. I won't say that this is not fooling ANYONE because for all I know there is someone here just as poor at debate as you and Someone who wants to buy into this...but you are not fooling anyone with greater than a double digit IQ.

"Well, you said yourself that when I graduate I'm gonna turn into a pyscho."

?!?

How in the F*** did you come away with THAT?! I never said any such thing and my usage of "graduate" had nothing to do with school kiddo. I said that if you were to be believed in what you were advocating then you would probably one day GRADUATE from torturing/killing animals to torturing and killing humans.

I have to run and take care of some business right now so I will deal with the rest later.

You raise some good points.

"I was merely pointing out why it is that we(and ALL species really) generally treat those creatures that are most similar/familiar to us better"

Some parasites and bacteria seem to treat us well... Some, but not all, but still - where is the similarity? (Some people can be considered "parasitic" but thats not what I mean...)

"But the sort of altruism found in fiction where someone does something 'good' and is not getting ANYTHING in return for the behavior does not exist. Any moral act you can possibly state I can easily show you where the 'reward'/benefit is for the individual"

I'm sure you could, but is it always the persons intention? What did Mahatma Ghandi get? Imprisonment?

SkeleTony I don't think Someone is saying that there is no problem in treating animals cruelly, just that the SAME standard of morals we might apply to humans we wouldn't necessarily apply to animals, cars, or whatever.

Just my 2 cents...

Principle of charity I "made up"? Go put it in Google and see how much comes up.

As I said, I am not appealing to authority. The moral philosophers was an example not a source. I do not say who because it is such a basic idea I don't think it is attributable to anyone. It's not anonymous either: my point is that it is not an uncommon argument in moral philosophy among non-psychotics. Unfortunately, judging by your use of quotes in an earlier post, you don't even know the field of moral philosophy even exists.

Secondly, in regards to YOUR above argument, saying that "animals do not respect human morality" is little different than saying "Cars don't care if my kid dies...so I am going to blow up all cars I see!"

No it isn't. It's more akin to saying "cars don't care about morality, so I see nothing wrong with sending my car to the compactor when I am done with it".

Nothing in Skull's posts says that he enjoys torturing and killing animals. The issue is whether morals should constrain us in how we treat animals. Even if someone had absolutely no respect for the life of animals does not mean they would enjoy killing them, or kill them. It would just mean, if they had some other reason to kill them (e.g. for food), they would not feel restrained in doing so.

I am not saying the argument is sound or not, or whether I agree with it. I am just saying it does not indicate psychoticism.

"..it appears you are just interested in winning debates."

No...I try to lose as many debates as I can of course. I mean who doesn't? Obviously YOU are not so foolish as to be trying to win THIS debate now are you?

It appears my insult was too subtle for you. Since you insist to make this all personal, I am suggesting that you only have the shell of an intellectual. The principle of charity as you naively mock is what you apply when you actually want to learn from people and try to counter your own confirmatory biases. Instead, you seem motivated to misinterpret other people's arguments, and hold onto the misinterpretations even when corrected. Your posts are full of emotional appeals and vitriolic attacks.

I am not interested in a dick measuring contest. No I'm not scared of you. It is humorous that you are so confident to mock me here. A debate would be heavily biased in my favour since you are a newcomer. But you can say what you want. The only reason I entered this 'debate' is to defend Skull against the absurd notion that his argument is in any way indicative of psychoticism.

Hey Fireball,

"Some parasites and bacteria seem to treat us well... Some, but not all, but still - where is the similarity? (Some people can be considered "parasitic" but thats not what I mean...)

They are NOT "treating us well". They are doing what they do, without any thought given to the matter at all and if that hap[pens to also benefit us in some way then that is just an incidental matter. "Treating" implies intent. Similarly, if while eating a hamburger or breathing or bathing I happen to also be killing some microscopic species, it is not because I am "treating" said species with malice. I am simply doing what I must do to nourish or keep myself healthy.

"I'm sure you could, but is it always the persons intention? What did Mahatma Ghandi get? Imprisonment?"

Consciously? No...most people are probably not conscious of the self-interest that drives their acts of reciprocal altruism. Would Gandhi have acted as he did if the universal reaction by others were indifference or antagonism? Nope. But the fact that reverence and even idolization are the typical 'rewards' for such acts is the driving force.
And it does not matter one iota whether the person is going to live to enjoy such rewards directly. The knowledge or belief that he will be thought well of is itself a powerful motivator.

Sparrowhawk:

"SkeleTony I don't think Someone is saying that there is no problem in treating animals cruelly, just that the SAME standard of morals we might apply to humans we wouldn't necessarily apply to animals, cars, or whatever."

Granted and that is how I took his post as well but it does not change my points or contentions with what he said. remember he came into this defending Skull's posts which were, let's face facts, not at all remotely similar to that point. Skull is/was saying we SHOULD be treating animals who DO have similar morals to us in many ways and DO feel emotions and pain, with antipathy and cruelty.

Someone:

"Principle of charity I "made up"? Go put it in Google and see how much comes up."

Don't have to. I am familiar with what you are talking about(and I don't use Google for my own personal reasons), though I admit my wording and rush to snap at you was poor.

And still, this principle does not apply to what Skull posted since the Principle of Charity only applies when one can (more or less equally) infer either a rational Or an irrational interpretation. Skull did not try to adopt YOUR take until he started cheer leading for you because you were defending him. If he had wrote something similar to what YOU wrote in your most recent replies then I would have far less a problem with it.

"No it isn't. It's more akin to saying "cars don't care about morality, so I see nothing wrong with sending my car to the compactor when I am done with it".

No because sending a mechanical object which is no longer usable to the junk pile is not an act of malice/cruelty. Killing or torturing a sentient creature because you believe that if they were capable they would hate you...that is just nonsense!

"Nothing in Skull's posts says that he enjoys torturing and killing animals."

And...? What does that have to do with my positions here?

"The issue is whether morals should constrain us in how we treat animals. Even if someone had absolutely no respect for the life of animals does not mean they would enjoy killing them, or kill them. It would just mean, if they had some other reason to kill them (e.g. for food), they would not feel restrained in doing so.

Agreed. Unfortunately for you though, that is not what Skull was advocating for. His assertions were that we SHOULD mistreat/abuse/kill animals and his reason was not for food, it was because he believes that animals would do the same to us if only they had opposable thumbs and bigger brains.

"It appears my insult was too subtle for you. Since you insist to make this all personal, I am suggesting that you only have the shell of an intellectual."

Why are you assuming I am making this all personal? Above you even admit that you were insulting me(but for some reason you believe your insult was "too subtle"?!) and in the same breath you accuse ME of getting too personal?
Not saying that I have not taken jabs as well but it does bear noting that I am not the one who started down that road...

"The principle of charity as you naively mock is what you apply when you actually want to learn from people and try to counter your own confirmatory biases."

Agreed and I have been doing exactly that for many years guy. But the principle does not apply to just ANY claim or argument one might state. Applying that principle to the grand Wizard's speech at a KKK rally for example is ill advised.

"Instead, you seem motivated to misinterpret other people's arguments, and hold onto the misinterpretations even when corrected. Your posts are full of emotional appeals and vitriolic attacks."

Well, my ability to convince you otherwise is constrained by your own willingness to consider you may have me all wrong here. So I think we will just have to agree to disagree here...

"I am not interested in a dick measuring contest."

And I am even less interested in such than you, I assure you.

" No I'm not scared of you."

That is good since if I were inspiring fear in people I had discussions with then that would mean I was doing something horribly wrong.

"It is humorous that you are so confident to mock me here."

Yeah...sorry but I am not in the habit of fearing people I debate either. And I also do not base my decision on whether to mock or challenge someone on how important or established they feel they are at a particular forum.

"A debate would be heavily biased in my favour since you are a newcomer."

Oh F***! I forgot all about the "newcomer" rule in debates! $#!T! I would never have disagreed with you if I remembered that rule that I cannot be at all correct in any debate until I have established myself for a certain length of time at a forum!

(/Sarcasm)


Seriously guy, I have nothing against you and you seem to be more rational than some of your positions here would indicate. I think you felt compelled to defend someone you are familiar with against a "newcomer" and that is what is at the heart of our disagreement.

I apologize for mocking or insulting you.

I Love Nietzsche. Is there a t-shirt for that?

Actually, altruism is impossible. Give me one example of altruistic behaviour - I don't believe you can.

Every war started by religion? Bulldust! A few wars stem from religion. Most stem from excessive self-interest and greed. Also, fluoride is good for your' teeth.

Seriously you actually think that fluoride is good for teeth??? ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Kay

EDIT: theres my proof of brainwashing PML!!

"Once again, Someone said exactly what I said and was thinking."

SUUUURRREEE he did....*facepalm*

If what he said was what you were thinking then why didn't you just say that?! You are trying to fool everyone with this childish cheer leading routine. You are excited that someone seems to be trying to support you(for whatever reason) adn doing the "What he said!" gambit. I won't say that this is not fooling ANYONE because for all I know there is someone here just as poor at debate as you and Someone who wants to buy into this...but you are not fooling anyone with greater than a double digit IQ.

Well, EXCUSEME for not understanding everything and not being very good to explain stuff. I'm a Finnish, I try my best to understand and speak/write english. I thought you of all, would be smart and wise enough, to understand that.

As Someone already said, I do not enjoy hurting and torturing animals. But if the ywere on our brain-level, they would do that to us. So why should we not be able to do so, to them.

I don't see anything psycho or sick in having an opinion. In fact, I could say that Christiaan or Joycielaanie is complete psycho for caring animals and having a total different opinion about things. But you don't see me doing that now, do you? You don't see me doing that because I'm not gonna start saying they're wrong, I just want to defend my point of view.

Also, I can see you're starting to have pressure, now that there is more than just one guy against you. Your "information" is pure false, and your replies to people who are right, are just ridiculous. In half of the replys you don't even explain anything, but still say you're right. So STFU, and go play your Nintendo brain training.

Also, fluoride is good for your' teeth.

That's what the communists at the head of the scheme want you to think, which means they have power over you. Sodium Fluoride is used in Rat Poison. A tube of Colgate will kill a baby. Do some research before you shoot off crap by toothpaste companies.

Every war started by religion? Bulldust! A few wars stem from religion

What about the 100 year war? Catholics and Church of England. WWII, Jews and Catholics. Iraq war, Christians hating Muslims. I'd say that few wars didn't stem from religion...

Hi 5's YeOldeToast - I see someones done some homework

"If I were a pig, and I was given a human mind, dang right I would make humans suffer as well, they deserve it for all those decades of cruelty."
If Hitler rose to power, and people would follow him, dang right he would make Jews suffer as well, they deserve it for all those decades of taking advantage of the Germans.
You see what I mean? Two wrongs don't make a right. Meat-eaters aren't being cruel to the animals which are dead, any more then you are supporting the war in the East by using oil-based products like plastic and petrol.
BTW, I was almost killed today by a girl who supports animal rights. I was talking to some physics students who were saying that by trapping humans in some sort of magnetic machine you could create an eternal supply of electricity. I - being of humanistic tendency - suggested using animals instead. Apparently we are less important then animals, though mother nature herself does not support this; when has she ever tried to eliminate those dreadful humans who hurt her as they heal her?

Also, SkeleTony: You call me and Someone familiar with eachother. It's funny you say that, because Someone just may be the Dinker (who is still active) I've been dealing most little with. I don't think we have ever even commented on eachothers posts. I was completely stunned that he came to defend me.

"Skull is/was saying we SHOULD be treating animals who DO have similar morals to us in many ways and DO feel emotions and pain, with antipathy and cruelty."
Ok mate - give us some evidence, lest you 'appeal to anonymous authority' and become a major hyppocrite.

Skeletony said: "Agreed and I have been doing exactly that for many years guy. But the principle does not apply to just ANY claim or argument one might state. Applying that principle to the grand Wizard's speech at a KKK rally for example is ill advised."
What? Do you say that the Grand Wizard has no enlightenment, no wisdom which you may learn? Are you so close-minded as to think that some group that Popular culture and society despises has no truth, no good? Remember that such things were once thought of Marxism and Social/Communism.

"Sodium Fluoride is used in Rat Poison. A tube of Colgate will kill a baby."
Ahh. But the Enamel of the teeth also contains Sodium fluoride, yet we are not poisoned. You say a tube of Colgate will kill a baby as fluoride kills rats, yet so will a punch that would merely bruise a grown-up. I can easily down five beers. A baby or rat would die if they drank five beers.

Now you and MsDinkAlot claim that Fluoride is a mind-controlling drug. It does not actually alter the mind. And about the Communists wanting me to believe it is good? I guess the Communists also invented cars to kill innocent drivers and pedestrians, just as they created World of Warcraft to kill "Snowly" and alchohol to kill Bon Scott.

"What about the 100 year war? Catholics and Church of England. WWII, Jews and Catholics. Iraq war, Christians hating Muslims. I'd say that few wars didn't stem from religion..."
No, you're wrong - although, yes, religious groups are regularly involved, most wars stem from greed: The Hundred Years War Was a conflict between the House of Valois and the House of Plantagenet for the then-vacant French throne.
World War II had absolutely nothing to do with religion. It started mainly as a response to the tragic Great German Depression, a direct result of the unjust clauses of Treaty of Versailles and the previous World War. WWII was declared when German troops under Hitler invaded Poland, one of several desperate invasions. Japan was also in desperate need of resources that the tiny country lacked, and by invading China, she sort to gain access to these resources. Because then, as today, China was in America's financial/ capitolistic interests, America declared an embargo on Japan, effectively stimulating the Pearl Harbour Bombing response.
Jews and Catholics There is no such war; in fact The Holy Church of Rome largely defended the Jews throughout the Crusades in the Holy Lands. The Catholic church was also supportive of Jews during and following the Holocaust. Even during the Roman conquest of the known world from about 30 BC, Rome was patient with the Jews, and during the destruction of Jerusalem in the 60's AD, they endeavoured to respect the then-diabolical Jewish zealots.
The Iraq Conflicts Were initiated allegedly as Missile-riddled America's response to atomic-missile-developing Iraq. Personally, I believe this was more an excuse for America to flex her ugly military-muscles and to gain access to the Middle-East's extensive resources. About Christians hating Muslims: a majority of Christians do not hate Muslims. There are many non-Christian Muslim-haters. The hate is NOT of religious origin (Because they worship Allah or Mohammed), but because of the misconception that Islam promotes brutal terrorism and Jihads. The general statement is not OMG - look at all those Mohammed-worshippers, but OMG - look at all those filthy terrorists and woman-haters.

Let's stop here before this becomes a full-blown (Hehe, full-blown) Flame war. Back on topic My cat ran into the screen door and walked away as if nothing happened.

That has nothing to do with the topic.

What has nothing to do with the topic? The cat or the door?

You.

Me? Wow. I feel special now.

Good for you. Too bad you're not.

Moist Crabcake.

Also, fluoride is good for your' teeth.

That's what the communists at the head of the scheme want you to think, which means they have power over you. Sodium Fluoride is used in Rat Poison. A tube of Colgate will kill a baby. Do some research before you shoot off crap by toothpaste companies.

Communists? You think communists work together with toothpaste companies to poison us? That seems a bit far fetched.

What I have heard (a couple of years ago) is that there is an ion exchange reaction that replaces the hydroxide groups in Hydroxylapatite with fluoride. The (partial) reaction being:

Ca5(PO4)3(OH) + F- -> Ca5(PO4)3F + OH-

It is known that cavities come from bacteria in the mouth who live of sugar and have acidic waste products which damage the teeth. When the Hydroxylapatite is fluoridated it becomes much less sensitive to acids, slowing down the rate at which the teeth decay. I don't know for you, but for me this reaction sounds pretty logical, fluoride being more electronegative than hydroxide.

I looked shortly into the toxicity of fluoride, and a simple calculation seems to indicate that a person weighing 75 kilograms would need to drink at least 4000 liters of water in one go to have had enough fluorine to reach the lowest observed lethal dose. And this is using water that has been fluoridated to the maximum set by US law. And if you drink 4000 liters of water in one go you'd have other things to worry about.

Though I must admit that it seems that a tube of Colgate might actually contains enough fluoride to kill a 2kg baby under optimal conditions. (Optimal meaning that the toothpaste contains no additional elements with a high affinity for fluoride (such as calcium), as well as that the baby must be quite weak.) But feeding your baby an entire tube of Colgate to a baby is just irresponsible behavior. You could have predicted that one.

And I've also looked into the statement that fluoride is a mind control substance, and to my surprise found out that there might be a relation between insomnia/headaches and high concentrations of fluoride in drinking water. But I found no reason to see that it can actually be used for mind control. If 2% rather than 1.5% of the population suffers from insomnia this isn't going to conquer the world.

I want to flame someone too

Just aim the thrower!

My cat was horny, so he started to fight cats. Now my neighbor's pissed 'cuz his cat has kittens

And the use of antibiotics worries me mainly because of the development of resistance, not my own individual health when eating the meat.

But, that kind of is the point, right? If you eat those antibiotics which are in the meat, your chances of falling ill due to resistance are much higher, so your individual health does suffer.

Otherwise I agree with you, cutting down on antibiotics isn't a big deal, and we should all encourage it! We're one of the few countries which uses them in a large excess anyway... I don't know if it's all in the hands of the vets though (since they make money on it, and they, like you, are probably more inclined to go for personal profit rather than the animal's heath overall). Also, sedating animals before they're killed or neutered (which still doesn't always happen) doens't cost the consumer more than €0,10 cents on the price tags in the supermarkets, which is another issue though. By now, I'd say you can almost guess my further points of view on these matters, so I'll stop my endless rants (for now, mwhuhahahah )

I roflmao'd

Like ExDeathEvn said - Good fight, Dink Network

ahh america. where cults and scam organizations can run rampant. such bliss.

whoops, sorry. gotta go. i need to deposit my daily 1000 dollars to the "DEFEAT ZENU!" fund or tom cruise will have my head. BRB