Dont get me wrong folks, I love animals!(T)eflon(S)hadow wrote:
Yup. It is.
sarge I do appreciate your threads.... Just wondering if you will ever make a thread with out a post-thread?
They taste great!
Poll
Is Human Life More Valuable than Animal Life?
| Yes | 64% | 64% - 110 | ||||
| No, all creatures are valuable | 24% | 24% - 41 | ||||
| No, endangered species are more valuable | 4% | 4% - 7 | ||||
| No, animal life is more valuable | 7% | 7% - 12 | ||||
| Total: 170 | ||||||
They taste great!
No, I'm just another hypocrite.deeznutz1245 wrote:
Serge, not an intended flame just a question. Are you a vegetarian?
Protecting your young is how the evolution thing works. It is how we and nearly all animals have survived. It is a necessity for nearly all creatures. To exclude parental instincts from the debate of importance is just silly.genius_man16 wrote:
How is it fair? I don't think you'd find a human on earth that would chose the dog over the child, it's just what you do, i think it's called the Mother Reflex or something like thatKmarion wrote:
The question is fair. It's simpler than what you guys are portraying it to be. Primal instincts tell us how to survive, mate, and go about our lives. It is who we are.genius_man16 wrote:
That is one of the most unfair arguments to give in something like this. Primal instincts will dictate that us humans will choose a human, just like if you sent a dog into the burning house it would get the puppy and NOT the human
Xbone Stormsurgezz
All of God's creatures have a place on this earth. Ironically, that place is sometimes in between the mashed potatoes and the green beans on my plate.
Malloy must go
Use Bush in your example.Kmarion wrote:
Protecting your young is how the evolution thing works. It is how we and nearly all animals have survived. It is a necessity for nearly all creatures. To exclude parental instincts from the debate of importance is just silly.genius_man16 wrote:
How is it fair? I don't think you'd find a human on earth that would chose the dog over the child, it's just what you do, i think it's called the Mother Reflex or something like thatKmarion wrote:
The question is fair. It's simpler than what you guys are portraying it to be. Primal instincts tell us how to survive, mate, and go about our lives. It is who we are.
I am being serious. I'm just wondering if you exclude fish and meat from your diet in accordance to your views.sergeriver wrote:
No, I'm just another hypocrite.deeznutz1245 wrote:
Serge, not an intended flame just a question. Are you a vegetarian?
Malloy must go
Dude.sergeriver wrote:
Use Bush in your example.Kmarion wrote:
Protecting your young is how the evolution thing works. It is how we and nearly all animals have survived. It is a necessity for nearly all creatures. To exclude parental instincts from the debate of importance is just silly.genius_man16 wrote:
How is it fair? I don't think you'd find a human on earth that would chose the dog over the child, it's just what you do, i think it's called the Mother Reflex or something like that
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Was that necessary?sergeriver wrote:
Use Bush in your example.Kmarion wrote:
Protecting your young is how the evolution thing works. It is how we and nearly all animals have survived. It is a necessity for nearly all creatures. To exclude parental instincts from the debate of importance is just silly.genius_man16 wrote:
How is it fair? I don't think you'd find a human on earth that would chose the dog over the child, it's just what you do, i think it's called the Mother Reflex or something like that
Malloy must go
And where the fuck is Bubbalo?
Malloy must go
If you're not kidding, you're one sic bastard...sergeriver wrote:
Not at all. If it wasn't a baby I'd go for the puppy.Kmarion wrote:
lol.. I like how arguing my hypothetical situation. Anyways, the fact that you said you would go for the baby first answers the question of which is more important.sergeriver wrote:
No time for both? The dog is a puppy? I'd save the baby, just because I have a 2 months old son, and then I'd try to save the dog even if you say there's no time for it.
No, I eat meat, I don't eat fish coz I hate it, but I'm serious man, I'm just another hypocrite like millions out there. I just happen to admit it.deeznutz1245 wrote:
I am being serious. I'm just wondering if you exclude fish and meat from your diet in accordance to your views.sergeriver wrote:
No, I'm just another hypocrite.deeznutz1245 wrote:
Serge, not an intended flame just a question. Are you a vegetarian?
1. Asshole who just robbed my house, lying on the ground in my backyard bleeding with a big gashing hole in his throat from my dogs bite.Gawwad wrote:
Human life isn't any more valuable than animal life, but in these situations you just rather save your fellow man's life instead of a Tiger.
2. My dog with a knife or gunshot wound after his encounter with asshole #1.
I would save my dog. And make sure #1 is dead. No witnesses...
I can't resist the temptation man, sorry.deeznutz1245 wrote:
Was that necessary?sergeriver wrote:
Use Bush in your example.Kmarion wrote:
Protecting your young is how the evolution thing works. It is how we and nearly all animals have survived. It is a necessity for nearly all creatures. To exclude parental instincts from the debate of importance is just silly.
excellent point. Same here. So does that dismiss any of our theories out the window? Not so fast, obviously you have an emotional attatchment to your own pet. Its part of your family. That is no different than having to choose between your wife and a complete stranger, but you opened am angle we havent looked at.Ilocano wrote:
1. Asshole who just robbed my house, lying on the ground in my backyard bleeding with a big gashing hole in his throat from my dogs bite.Gawwad wrote:
Human life isn't any more valuable than animal life, but in these situations you just rather save your fellow man's life instead of a Tiger.
2. My dog with a knife or gunshot wound after his encounter with asshole #1.
I would save my dog. And make sure #1 is dead. No witnesses...
Malloy must go
Depends on the situation. If I found a small child and a puppy in the city I would choose the child, but in a foreign land with a lack of resources I would choose the dog(if I find the species to be an asset). Logically speaking the dog would benefit a lot more than the child in either situations.
wait what? i think we're arguing about 2 different things hereKmarion wrote:
Protecting your young is how the evolution thing works. It is how we and nearly all animals have survived. It is a necessity for nearly all creatures. To exclude parental instincts from the debate of importance is just silly.genius_man16 wrote:
How is it fair? I don't think you'd find a human on earth that would chose the dog over the child, it's just what you do, i think it's called the Mother Reflex or something like thatKmarion wrote:
The question is fair. It's simpler than what you guys are portraying it to be. Primal instincts tell us how to survive, mate, and go about our lives. It is who we are.
Well, Serge, I agree with you to an extent. I mean, I think those who torture animals are sick and should be shot. Guys like Vick disgust me but I cant put the police men or the zoo on that level. Not yet at least. I would say that perhaps some things should be evaluated. Review the training zoo officials have been through for these circumstances and amend it to incorporate protocol for these situations. The police that have zoo's in their cities should receive some training and equipment as well possibly. But I can not fault the cops for what happened. Humans are naturally afraid of things they don't understand, it's instinct. And I have to be honest man, not many average citizens know a whole lot about tigers unless you live in fuckin Sri Lanka or something. It is counter intuitive for a human to attempt to subdue a massive, powerful creature especially when they can kill it if a threat is immenent. I would not put blame on anyone, I would assess the problem and fix it.sergeriver wrote:
No, I eat meat, I don't eat fish coz I hate it, but I'm serious man, I'm just another hypocrite like millions out there. I just happen to admit it.deeznutz1245 wrote:
I am being serious. I'm just wondering if you exclude fish and meat from your diet in accordance to your views.sergeriver wrote:
No, I'm just another hypocrite.
Last edited by deeznutz1245 (2007-12-26 16:37:49)
Malloy must go
No he didn't.deeznutz1245 wrote:
excellent point. Same here. So does that dismiss any of our theories out the window? Not so fast, obviously you have an emotional attatchment to your own pet. Its part of your family. That is no different than having to choose between your wife and a complete stranger, but you opened am angle we havent looked at.Ilocano wrote:
1. Asshole who just robbed my house, lying on the ground in my backyard bleeding with a big gashing hole in his throat from my dogs bite.Gawwad wrote:
Human life isn't any more valuable than animal life, but in these situations you just rather save your fellow man's life instead of a Tiger.
2. My dog with a knife or gunshot wound after his encounter with asshole #1.
I would save my dog. And make sure #1 is dead. No witnesses...
Would you try to save that robbers life anyway?
I don't have a pet at the moment (dead) but I wouldn't think twice if I had to choose between a beloved pet and a complete stranger.
A humans life (if he's not done something really bad to me or my family) is always the most important thing for me.
But that is my point, the human has done wrong in his scenario.Gawwad wrote:
A humans life (if he's not done something really bad to me or my family) is always the most important thing for me.
Malloy must go
Well, that's really besides the point.deeznutz1245 wrote:
But that is my point, the human has done wrong in his scenario.Gawwad wrote:
A humans life (if he's not done something really bad to me or my family) is always the most important thing for me.
We can counter that by having an animal that's done something wrong to us.
Again: Would you try to save the robbers life anyway? Even if there was no dog. If not for court, that is.
Last edited by Gawwad (2007-12-26 16:49:10)
- A healthy but complete stranger versus my dog caught in a fast moving river. I would try to save my dog first.Gawwad wrote:
I don't have a pet at the moment (dead) but I wouldn't think twice if I had to choose between a beloved pet and a complete stranger.
A humans life (if he's not done something really bad to me or my family) is always the most important thing for me.
- Any elderly person versus my dog caught in a fast moving river. This time, I would try to save the old man.
- Any child versus my dog caught in a fast moving river. Once again, I would probably try to save the child first.
Strange how one's mind works...
You need to have both the animal and human in the same situation (i.e. both need help to survive, but you can only help one)Ilocano wrote:
- A healthy but complete stranger versus my dog caught in a fast moving river. I would try to save my dog first.Gawwad wrote:
I don't have a pet at the moment (dead) but I wouldn't think twice if I had to choose between a beloved pet and a complete stranger.
A humans life (if he's not done something really bad to me or my family) is always the most important thing for me.
- Any elderly person versus my dog caught in a fast moving river. This time, I would try to save the old man.
- Any child versus my dog caught in a fast moving river. Once again, I would probably try to save the child first.
Strange how one's mind works...
If you make one of them more vulnerable, we're not disgussing the same topic anymore.
/sleepytime
The cops aren't to blame, but the zoo should get a huge fine. They'll be sued besides. This, of course, won't bring the tiger back to life. But, let's hope this incident helps to avoid others in the future. They need to learn from their mistakes. That's the only positive thing I can find here.deeznutz1245 wrote:
Well, Serge, I agree with you to an extent. I mean, I think those who torture animals are sick and should be shot. Guys like Vick disgust me but I cant put the police men or the zoo on that level. Not yet at least. I would say that perhaps some things should be evaluated. Review the training zoo officials have been through for these circumstances and amend it to incorporate protocol for these situations. The police that have zoo's in their cities should receive some training and equipment as well possibly. But I can not fault the cops for what happened. Humans are naturally afraid of things they don't understand, it's instinct. And I have to be honest man, not many average citizens know a whole lot about tigers unless you live in fuckin Sri Lanka or something. It is counter intuitive for a human to attempt to subdue a massive, powerful creature especially when they can kill it if a threat is immenent. I would not put blame on anyone, I would assess the problem and fix it.sergeriver wrote:
No, I eat meat, I don't eat fish coz I hate it, but I'm serious man, I'm just another hypocrite like millions out there. I just happen to admit it.deeznutz1245 wrote:
I am being serious. I'm just wondering if you exclude fish and meat from your diet in accordance to your views.
That's why circumstances dictate the action. There is no single answer. This is not B&W.Gawwad wrote:
You need to have both the animal and human in the same situation (i.e. both need help to survive, but you can only help one)Ilocano wrote:
- A healthy but complete stranger versus my dog caught in a fast moving river. I would try to save my dog first.Gawwad wrote:
I don't have a pet at the moment (dead) but I wouldn't think twice if I had to choose between a beloved pet and a complete stranger.
A humans life (if he's not done something really bad to me or my family) is always the most important thing for me.
- Any elderly person versus my dog caught in a fast moving river. This time, I would try to save the old man.
- Any child versus my dog caught in a fast moving river. Once again, I would probably try to save the child first.
Strange how one's mind works...
If you make one of them more vulnerable, we're not disgussing the same topic anymore.
/sleepytime
But back to the Topic, what about animal testing for finding cures to ailments and diseases. I venture to guess that a fair amount of PETA supporters have made use of products that have gone through animal testings first.
Last edited by Ilocano (2007-12-26 16:57:36)
You're right, I'm not being very tolerant or flexible on this, which I should be, since your definition is literally correct. From a scientific viewpoint however, your definition is incomplete since self awareness, thought and many other qualities fall under the umbrella of higher animal sentience (the relevant field), which from a literal standpoint I suppose would be regarded as sapient behaviour.mikkel wrote:
I didn't really expect you to lower yourself to throwing around snide insults to feel more insightful and educated than others.Bertster7 wrote:
It has not been proven that animals are sentient, the default perspective is scepticism.mikkel wrote:
It's a universally accepted truth. Kick a dog in the head. When he cries out in pain, you've proven one part of sentience. When he resents you, you've proven the other part.
Sentience is the ability to feel physical and possibly emotional pain. Both are easily proven in animals.
What exactly are you really saying? First you come with the same quick decision that animals are not sentient, then you say that it's essentially unprovable. What are you getting at?
If you think the definition of sentience is that simple, probably because you've just read it out of a dictionary - thinking is probably the most central concept to the debate and is an essential part of sentience. It's not just sensory and emotional response and it is that difference that separates us from animals.
You say one thing, then you say another, and insult me for saying it with the same decisiveness as you did. If you feel that you were too quick on the trigger, just say so. There's no need to insult others.
The ability to feel physical pain, an ability that has been witnessed in animals since man first came into contact with them, and the ability to feel emotional pain, an ability that is present and observable in many animals, whether naturally instinctive or developed over time, both cognitive traits shared by humans and animals alike, both speak to the sentience of animals. The sentience of animals is in question on the same level as the theory of gravity is in question. They're both present, but there there is no definite proof. If you want to go to the extremes of questioning the sentience of animals, you would very likely end up with a scenario that would put into question the sentience of human beings as well.
I think we've really been arguing at crossed purposes, which is mostly my fault for being so ambiguous and then so confrontational, sorry about that.
Hopefully we can agree that animals are not SAPIENT and be done with it, which was my original point, to demonstrate that the value of a human is greater than that of an animal.