NSFSenstive: Dolphin Massacre

[Thorwyn]

I don't think the lion is trying to prove to the gazelle that they are superior and neither are we by extinguishing species.

No, the lion is hungry and wants something to eat. But his mind only offers him one solution for this, which is: "kill dem fast running things and eat ´em". He doesn´t have the ability to think emphatically. He probably doesn´t even recognize the gazelle as another living being. In this particular case, it is indeed a survival of the fittest situation. Now, mankind has access to alternatives. They can eat plants or they can even eat meat. But the difference is, that this happens with full concience and full responsibility.

There's always consequences of the actions we and any living creature preforms and in the end I belive that man will perish from our selfishness. It's such a tricky (woo my browser decided to work again) question to work with, life on earth.

Here, we seem to agree.

Why does it matter if lions live or die? are they a special creature with magical powers to bring harmony in the universe?

If you see someone lying in the street, obviously dying... would you help him? And if so, why? Does it matter if he lives or dies? You can turn all those questions around. Why would we - active or passive - deliberately let a species or a creature die? That´s the point where we´re crossing the line between the purey evolutional aspect (which you seem to prefer and which is perfectly valid of course) and enter the realm of ethics. There is no NEED to let the lions die. We could kill them, but we don´t HAVE to.

im too feeble minded to gasp the complexity of life on Earth (and alot of other things as well so no need to bring that up!) i just belive that everything that happen is evolution, but not to justify genocide or anything, for me its a fact of life (my head is imploding when im trying to explain my thoughts on this, sorry!). if evolution isnt the purpose of life, life itself to me is meaningless.

Now we´re drifting off into some very philosophical spheres. Purpose and meaning of life. There are so many aspects here. Why would evolution be the purpose of life, when all life is about to end in a couple billion years anways? It´s a very personal thing, but I don´t believe that evolution is the sole purpose of life. But that´s too far OT for now.

 

[- English -]

you dont need any food to survive. just get pepdite.

 

[crispy]

Just because pigs are smart doesnt make em less tasty

 

[~Latency~]

If you would rather shoot a baby than shoot a puppy, or even have to think about it for more than a few seconds then you are a bit wrong in the head and need to get your priorities right :|

Animals are animals, all they will do is live their pointless short lives. People can make a difference and influence so many lives!

 

[tris-]

i do see where they are coming from though.

i reckon a baby probably lacks forsight and empathy just like an animal.

 

[Huntingtons]

much disagreeing and some agreeing

heh i can take part of those views, much i agree even (no purpose in life when it all ends, but then evolution is atleast to me the closest we get to it!).

yes i would help the lion i hope (but not really into medical treatment of very aggressive animals, call a vet or smth). I agree that is unfair to kill lions or any endangered animal (or partly agree) and i hate evolution for getting rid of 30 feet sloths and sharks with jaws as big as men etc. but to me it happens and its irrevesible, we can save or we can kill but its pointless biologically, but probably not ethically (depending which ethic you live by, to some people money can be ethics)

 

[old.Tohtori]

If you would rather shoot a baby than shoot a puppy, or even have to think about it for more than a few seconds then you are a bit wrong in the head and need to get your priorities right :|

Animals are animals, all they will do is live their pointless short lives. People can make a difference and influence so many lives!

Or the human f*ck up the world in ways noone can understand. Animals are known to save lives too.

Save the puppy, it grows up to be some wondermut who saves the world from an evil mastermind by pissing on his Kill-Em-All Newspaper of Dyym!(tm). Spare the kid and you might have a future Evil Mastermind on your hands who creates a Kill-Em-All Newspaper of Dyym!(tm).

I simply care less for a human youngling then a dog youngling.

About eating humans thing? We've been eating animals so long that it's a norm. If we started raising and eating them now, in about 500 years or so it would be the deluxe treat of xmas future.

 

[Thorwyn]

People can make a difference and influence so many lives!

I once read an interesting short story. A doctor was called to a pregnant woman one night. She was about to give birth to her baby, but there were complications and things didn´t look good for them. So he went there and worked all night long, trying to save the lifes of mother and child. And in the morning, he finally made it... they both survived. He grabbed his cloak, heading to the door, but the mother was so thankful that she wouldn´t let him go. He said: "Well, no problem. That´s my job, Frau Hitler" and left.

 

[Succi]

if you are refering to 'chinky', thats a common word around here that we use to describe people of chinese origion. there is no harm intended with it.

Maybe no harm meant , offense taken for sure. Its a racist word. big soz

 

[crispy]

Maybe no harm meant , offense taken for sure. Its a racist word. big soz

So.. its the chinese that make it a racist word because they take offense to it?

 

[Everz]

Maybe no harm meant , offense taken for sure. Its a racist word. big soz

chinky aint racist, no way

 

[Chosen]

I don't know why, but I got nothing against killing animals like Cows/Pigs etc, but Dolphins is a very intelligent animal, and they are so peacefull. Its just wrong killing them off like that

 

[CorNokZ]

Givf war vs. Japan now pls USA!

They have been tormenting us enough with sushi and manga for long enough!

 

[mikke]

Less QQ.

Animals die cause we eat em. And thats how it looks ^_^

But i agree, there's no need to torment em like that :>

i havent eaten a dolphin before

 

[tris-]

Maybe no harm meant , offense taken for sure. Its a racist word. big soz

cant you go spout your shit in the part of the forum it was that you crawled from?

 

[Golena]

hahah , please continue posting so that the people with an iq above 80 can have a good laugh.

So maybe you can explain what makes you, you.
Yes a carrot doesn't have a "brain", but since no-one to my knowledge has been able to fully explain why having your brain makes you "you" then that's rather irelevent.

A large majority of people on the planet believe that when you die your soul continues in another form of existance, even after people have burned the actual physical brain bits of your body. So either your saying everyone who is religious has an IQ less than 80, or your saying people with IQ's over 80 can't actually explain what they are killing when they kill a pig. Or the difference between a pig and a carrot in terms of a "person".
People these days could probably create a robot that behaves in pretty much an identical manner to a pig. Now if I simply removed it's batteries would you say it suffered pain or was worse for having done so? Yet your basing the fact that your killing anything other than a series of reactions to an environment when you kill a pig on what? Your beliefs? Now if someone believed that when you killed a carrot you were doing the same harm as killing a pig would you take their beliefs as seriously or simply laugh and say get an IQ greater than 80?

I can't prove that your killing anything of meaning when you kill a carrot, yet you can't prove that you actually arn't. Much the same with a pig, other than the pig more closely scientifically resembles you, so you've placed greater worth on it. So where should the line be drawn.. things that arn't you. Things that arn't human. Things that don't have a brain? If you oh so smart maybe you'd like to come up with a reason instead of just posting some pointless drivel.

Your insult would actually of bothered me, if it wasn't comming from someone with a very small minded self centered view of the world that's obviously put no thought into the argument. I have 2 A-levels in science and have taken courses at university in the philosophy of religion. Your credentials in the argument would be what exactly?

 

[Succi]

It's warm blooded , it feels pain. A carrot doesnt have a central nervous system , it doesnt feel pain.

Im not gonna do into more detail as im quite drunk , however at the moment what your saying seems farfetched

 

[tris-]

It's warm blooded , it feels pain. A carrot doesnt have a central nervous system , it doesnt feel pain.

Im not gonna do into more detail as im quite drunk , however at the moment what your saying seems farfetched

everything youve said so far is a load of shite, but you still continue :\

 

[noblok]

It's warm blooded , it feels pain. A carrot doesnt have a central nervous system , it doesnt feel pain.

Surely if 'pain' is the deciding factor, then all you're obliged to do is to make sure the animal doesn't feel pain? This means there's no real difference between the animal and the carrot as in both cases we have to avoid them suffering, but since the carrot doesn't suffer whatever you do with it, it just doesn't really matter in that case.

 

[Golena]

It's warm blooded , it feels pain. A carrot doesnt have a central nervous system , it doesnt feel pain.

Pain is simply a chemical reaction designed to trigger a defensive response in reaction to a hostile environment. The stigmata that pain is somehow bad is entirely a human thing.
The carrot doesn't feel pain presumably because it doesn't have the required limbs to actually take that defensive reaction, so evolution hasn't given it the nervous system, nothing more.

Again it all comes down to religious beliefs, and as the many wars around the world have shown, that's something everyone is unlikely to agree on for a very long time.

 

[Ingafgrinn Macabre]

A question to the people who believe animals and humans are equal, but still eat meat: would you agree with humans being raised in farms for consumption?

I think humans are no less (and no more) animal than the other mammals out there, and I still love a good piece of meat, but no, I would not agree with humans being raised in farms for consumption.
There is also a biological reason for that. The resistance most people experience when they are faced with eating humans is quite natural. There are only very few indigenous tribes that do not feel this resistance, and most of them only eat humans out of religious believes. They usually believe they gain the strength or wisdom of the eaten person.

Even for animals it's very uncommon to practice cannibalism. There are very few species that actually eat their own species.
Female praying mantis sometimes eat their partner during mating. So do black widows.
Certain fish and squid species hunt on the smaller ones and tarantula's only eat eachother when the population in a certain area gets too big.
Most other species share our view only to eat their own species when it's either eat or be eaten to survive, like those humans in that planecrash a while ago. They ate their dead to stay alive themselves.

It's a general survival of the species instinct to be against it.

 

[noblok]

A general survival instinct isn't quite the same as a moral duty though.

 

[Succi]

Pain is simply a chemical reaction designed to trigger a defensive response in reaction to a hostile environment. The stigmata that pain is somehow bad is entirely a human thing.
The carrot doesn't feel pain presumably because it doesn't have the required limbs to actually take that defensive reaction, so evolution hasn't given it the nervous system, nothing more.

.

Yes, thats probably why it exists, however the fact remains that its still there and has to be respected.

Its also been mentioned that any deaths should be 'painless'. This is only part of the problem as massive amounts of stress are normally caused in transportation and pre-slaughter

 

[Golena]

A general survival instinct isn't quite the same as a moral duty though.

That's the thing. In most European countries we have reached a point where moral duty is important. If we don't kill the pig then we are still going to live. We may have to miss out on friday morning's bacon butties but it's not going to kill us.

In many parts of the world this simply isn't the case. Not killing the pig means your family starves to death, and this is where it does become a survival instinct. It's very easy to sit back in your centrally heated house and judge people in a video almost certainly designed to shock you who might not actually have enough food tommorow if they don't do what they are doing. How many people here have even come close to experiencing proper poverty, and I don't mean wandering past it on your last tourist holiday. I know I haven't but i'm fairly sure it would change much of my outlooks on the world.

If every farm in the world stopped farming food in the way it does now, would we actually have enough fo feed everyone? I don't actually know the answer, but it might mean it's not "just" a moral question for us either.

 

[noblok]

That's rather irrelevant to my question though. It may not be feasible to stop eating meat for the whole world, but my question was focused on the kind of meat we eat (human or animal). I personally think raising animals for consumption is acceptable, but raising humans for the same purpose is not. Ingafgrinn said this was because of a general survival instinct, while I think it's a moral rule.

That being said, I think morality applies in all circumstances, even in situations of extreme scarcity. Of course in those situations some options which aren't acceptable in normal situations, will be acceptable. The reason for this isn't because morality doesn't apply, but because the alternative is worse (cf. Ingafgrinn's plane crash example).

 

[Ingafgrinn Macabre]

That's rather irrelevant to my question though. It may not be feasible to stop eating meat for the whole world, but my question was focused on the kind of meat we eat (human or animal). I personally think raising animals for consumption is acceptable, but raising humans for the same purpose is not. Ingafgrinn said this was because of a general survival instinct, while I think it's a moral rule.

That being said, I think morality applies in all circumstances, even in situations of extreme scarcity. Of course in those situations some options which aren't acceptable in normal situations, will be acceptable. The reason for this isn't because morality doesn't apply, but because the alternative is worse (cf. Ingafgrinn's plane crash example).

If it were a moral rule, the opinions on this subject of people all over the world would differ immensly, however it does not. Even tribes that have lived their evolution seperated from what we call western society tend to think likewise, therefor it's safe to assume it's something build in our DNA, in our instincts.

 

[noblok]

If it were a moral rule, the opinions on this subject of people all over the world would differ immensly, however it does not. Even tribes that have lived their evolution seperated from what we call western society tend to think likewise, therefor it's safe to assume it's something build in our DNA, in our instincts.

So, if someone would decide to start a human farm, you would consider it morally admissible?

 

[Golena]

So, if someone would decide to start a human farm, you would consider it morally admissible?

These days what is moral or not is very much down to what the media companies want you to think.

It wasn't that long ago that humans were tortured and killed as a form of entertainment by the Romans. It was every bit as cruel as any farming method used today, yet many people back then didn't see a problem with it. I'm sure in another 200 years people will look at what we currently do as being equally as wrong.

What that proves is simply that there isn't a right or a wrong on the subject (unless there actually is a "god" who wants us to do A or B). There's simply your opinion of it. What you believe to be right, and how you would like the world to be. If that view is what happens comes down to how many people share your view and who has the power to actually enforce it. Neither of you is likely to be "right" it's just that one view will have more power and therefore win. Unless someone comes up with a way of travelling into the future it's very unlikely anyone will actually know what is "right" for us to do.

 

[Ingafgrinn Macabre]

So, if someone would decide to start a human farm, you would consider it morally admissible?

I never touched the part whether or not I find it morally admissible or not. Concluding out of my text that I would find it morally correct is a false conclusion based on no information on the subject (my opinion).
I merely stated that there appears to be no biological difference between mammals and humans to make humans worth considerably more than other creatures. We just happen to be (far) more intelligent than others, and learned to use this intelligence to our advantage.
I also said that all the evidence so far shows that there is a build-in instinct that stops most creatures from eating their own kind, and that these shared objections are not based on taught rules.

Nowhere have I said anything about my own opinions in this matter.

 

[Bugz]

I wouldn't be suprised if natural selection/evolution fucks us up sometime soon...

Oh and can we use less 'big' and flashy words please? Even though it's quite a intelligent subject, don't mean we need to put in a flashy word between every other word.