Humanity at it's finest

Also, remember animals must die so the woman can help save others.

Quote from: Wendy on April 08, 2009, 12:18:40 AM

Meh. I oppose cruelty to animals, but I have more important things to worry about than that. Or maybe more direct problems, rather. This is after all a rather important issue.

It should be noted that Wendy is an active proponent of practical cannibalism.

In what way am I active?

Hey, unfortunately I came across this video http://www.peta.org/feat/ChineseFurFarms/index.asp , this may be hard to watch.


It makes me sad that people can do this to another creature with no thought of the pain they are causing, and just because an animal cant say "holy fuck that hurts" doesn't mean it feels no pain. It's sadistic disgusting and disturbing.

If you have a weak stomach, I'm sorry.

If you go to peta to see the sick side of humanity then you are really warped by our culture. What about the people PETA has gotten killed?

Part of their agenda is exterminating bull dogs. They believe releasing pet dogs will make them happier. Meet a stray dog sometime in your life and you'll know what I mean.


And all of this is not even a 10th of the atrocities being committed every day by people to people. I may joking call blacks niggers, but we allow full scale genocides to happen to black people simply because it is in Africa. Too much shit happens in this world to worry about a couple minutes pain from an animal about to be eaten. Is it wrong? Yes. Do worse things happen all the time. yes.

My question is, what is so bad about testing shampoo on animals? They are only giving them a healthy scalp.

lol! 

Quote from: Proleg on April 08, 2009, 11:56:20 AM

Quote from: Wendy on April 08, 2009, 12:18:40 AM

Meh. I oppose cruelty to animals, but I have more important things to worry about than that. Or maybe more direct problems, rather. This is after all a rather important issue.

It should be noted that Wendy is an active proponent of practical cannibalism.

In what way am I active?

Insofar as not being inactive.

It makes me sad that people can do this to another creature with no thought of the pain they are causing, and just because an animal cant say "holy fuck that hurts" doesn't mean it feels no pain. It's sadistic disgusting and disturbing.

However, utilitarianism isn't the perfect argument to justify the morality of animal cruelty. We have the animal rights argument, which states that animal cruelty is immoral not because of animal suffering, but because of violation of animal rights; for example, using animals as resources for our own ends is unjust. Then we have Kant's argument, which states that we treat non-rational beings (animals) with compassion to strengthen the feelings of compassion with rational beings (humans), and that our duties to animals are only indirect duties to humans. For example, you mistreat your friend's dog, and your friend is unhappy about that; you've indirectly treated your friend. I agree with Kant that it's unreasonable to equate non-humans with humans.

Overall, I tend to go for the utilitarian argument on this one, because we should consider the interest of animals (that is, their unwilling to suffer). I also believe that we should never use natural animals as resources for research. However, non-humans and humans are different to each other, and I do not consider them as equal; it's because humans are rational and thus are part of the moral community, unlike animals. It may seem contradictory, as there seems to be no difference between animal suffering and human suffering, so their interests should be equal; however, animals are not rational. Personally, it's half utilitarian and half Kantian, as I believe neither side raises a better argument on animal cruelty. Both sides seem to be equal ground on this issue.

EDIT: Theoretically, in the near future where we will have artificial animals, I believe that we can use artificial animals for research, but not natural animals.

Quote from: Wendy on April 08, 2009, 02:57:45 PM

Quote from: Proleg on April 08, 2009, 11:56:20 AM

Quote from: Wendy on April 08, 2009, 12:18:40 AM

Meh. I oppose cruelty to animals, but I have more important things to worry about than that. Or maybe more direct problems, rather. This is after all a rather important issue.

It should be noted that Wendy is an active proponent of practical cannibalism.

In what way am I active?

Insofar as not being inactive.

Yes, I think that's about as far as I stretch.

I'm not a big fan of PETA.  Technically they are domestic terrorists.  However what the people in that video are doing to animals has got to be one of the sickest things I have ever seen.

I understand the need for animal products (fur is debatable), however there is absolutely no excuse for inflicting that kind of suffering.  Somebody should skin them alive.

I don't see any problem with fur so long as the animal isn't being killed solely for its fur. Killing an animal for its meat and then making use of its fur just makes good sense really, not being wasteful is always good.

I don't see any problem with fur so long as the animal isn't being killed solely for its fur. Killing an animal for its meat and then making use of its fur just makes good sense really, not being wasteful is always good.

I thought we'd killed all you injuns.

What is with this "we" you use? You canadians were a bunch of indian lovers.

Hey, unfortunately I came across this video http://www.peta.org/feat/ChineseFurFarms/index.asp , this may be hard to watch.


It makes me sad that people can do this to another creature with no thought of the pain they are causing, and just because an animal cant say "holy fuck that hurts" doesn't mean it feels no pain. It's sadistic disgusting and disturbing.

If you have a weak stomach, I'm sorry.

Man, that video would be even better with Benny Hill music playing in the background.

What is with this "we" you use? You canadians were a bunch of indian lovers.

We loved them so much we took their children from their homes and put them in schools where their beliefs were mocked and they were sexually and physically abused in order that they might abandon their pagan ways and embrace our lord and saviour jesus christ who died on the cross for the sins of the world.


Cantor- Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world...
People- have mercy on us.
Cantor- Joy of angels, you take away the sins of the world...
People- have mercy on us.
Cantor- King of patriarchs, you take away the sins of the world...
People- have mercy on us.
Cantor- Master of the apostles, you take away the sins of the world...
People- have mercy on us.
Cantor- Teacher of the evangelists, you take away the sins of the world...
People- have mercy on us.
Cantor- Strength of martyrs, you take away the sins of the world...
People- have mercy on us.
Cantor- Light of confessors, you take away the sins of the world...
People- have mercy on us.
Cantor- Purity of virgins, you take away the sins of the world...
People- have mercy on us.
Cantor- Crown of all saints, you take away the sins of the world...
People- have mercy on us.
Cantor- Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world...
People- grant us peace.

i nomi padre fili et spiritus sante

Amen

What is with this "we" you use? You canadians were a bunch of indian lovers.

Yeah...not so much...

Back to the animal thing; Humans are superior anyway.

Plus, why is anyone surprised about this? It's been going on for millennia.

They are surprised because ignorance is bliss, and bliss is a goal of all humans.

Once again, it seems evident that the world would be better off if humans were extinct.

The world as defined by?

The planet? It isn't "damaged" in any way.

Life? We are part of life, the pinnacle of it, and losing us would set it back far in terms of intelligence.

Or do you mean the hippy form of life as in "everything but us deserves to live" life?

The world as defined by?

The ecosystem and balance of nature.
...We pollute the atmosphere, ground and water. We irradiate the surface and oceans. We torture animals for obscure and minimalistic luxuries. We all know the list goes on.

Intelligence is not the direct cause of this behavior. Intelligence is a responsibility that mankind generally abuses.

In many ways, I feel sickened to know that I share roughly 99.997% of the same DNA with everyone who can pull the insides out of a living breathing raccoon over several minutes while it struggles, just to make a quick buck.

I'm not advocating the mass murder of the entire human population or anything. I really don't see any feasible short term solution.

pic related

pic related

You like that picture, don't you?

Quote from: Raist on April 13, 2009, 08:12:57 PM

The world as defined by?

The ecosystem and balance of nature.
...We pollute the atmosphere, ground and water. We irradiate the surface and oceans. We torture animals for obscure and minimalistic luxuries. We all know the list goes on.

Intelligence is not the direct cause of this behavior. Intelligence is a responsibility that mankind generally abuses.

In many ways, I feel sickened to know that I share roughly 99.997% of the same DNA with everyone who can pull the insides out of a living breathing raccoon over several minutes while it struggles, just to make a quick buck.

I'm not advocating the mass murder of the entire human population or anything. I really don't see any feasible short term solution.

Again, how would the ecosystem be "better" off?

And what exactly is the balance of nature? The current state we found it in within the last few centuries? It obviously doesn't have a balance because it is constantly changing. The dinosaurs being wiped out was a "change in the balance of nature" and it lead to the advent of much more intelligent animals such as the mammals.

You are using abstract terms here that are only used by people that think in the mindset of "people bad, trees equal fucking awesome." Society today attempts to brainwash you into that form of thinking, but that sort of thinking is not based in science, and it is not even based in philosophy, at most it is based in wiccan religions that believe the Earth is God and the state it currently in is somehow awesome and it must not change. I am not saying that we shouldn't try to stop pollution, and such, because the Earth is a resource that we could fuck up to the point where we can no longer use it. What I am saying is the Earth would be no better off without us. It would be a planet covered in plants and water, with relatively advanced life, but no civilization, no thought, no mathematics, just a small thermodynamic miracle. The kind of planet we might one day stop on, look for intelligent life, record on a map, and keep going.

In many ways, I feel sickened to know that I share roughly 99.997% of the same DNA with everyone who can pull the insides out of a living breathing raccoon over several minutes while it struggles, just to make a quick buck.

And that you are "better" by no virtue of your own?

Again, how would the ecosystem be "better" off?

Without air pollution/smog, water toxicity or waste dumping, and irradiated poisoned or pesticide covered lands?  I would say.. "dandy" by comparison. 

And what exactly is the balance of nature? The current state we found it in within the last few centuries? It obviously doesn't have a balance because it is constantly changing. The dinosaurs being wiped out was a "change in the balance of nature" and it lead to the advent of much more intelligent animals such as the mammals.

It's true that populations of every species change over time, but I am referring to the stability of the ecosystem. The sudden extinction of the dinosaurs is a rare example of purging a major part of it, but that was an imbalance from a lack of a predatory species that stabilized afterward. Humans are a predatory species that have an extreme amount of power over the rest of the animal kingdom, because they reached a point of intelligence. That intelligence is better suited to keep us alive and keep other animals suppressed, meaning a permanence in imbalance. Now imbalanced power by itself is not bad unless it is abused. Humans do abuse their power.

You are using abstract terms here that are only used by people that think in the mindset of "people bad, trees equal fucking awesome." Society today attempts to brainwash you into that form of thinking, but that sort of thinking is not based in science, and it is not even based in philosophy, at most it is based in wiccan religions that believe the Earth is God and the state it currently in is somehow awesome and it must not change.

What abstract terms would you like me to elaborate on. It is quite an assumption to say that my conclusions are not my own, and I assure you they are not religious based. I cannot think of a single species that hasn't been hurt by human actions. Whether it's deforestation, or pumping 30 billion metric tons of CO₂ into the atmosphere every year, we are killing everything around us like a plague. I doubt fish will be served in restaurants when I'm in my 60's, simply from all the toxins flowing out to sea, killing or poisoning our supply. As it is, I have to shop around to get the ones farthest out from the shore to reduce mercury levels.

Found a quote you might be interested in:

This planet will be our tomb if we can not look past it. All the talk of preventing global warming and reducing emissions would be better suited in finding ways to change our own atmosphere in preparation for changing other planets to suit our needs.

We are a parasite of our planet.

I am not saying that we shouldn't try to stop pollution, and such, because the Earth is a resource that we could fuck up to the point where we can no longer use it. What I am saying is the Earth would be no better off without us.

Pollution is man made.
First, you say that pollution should be ceased/minimized, and next you say the Earth would be no better off without us, and hence Earth wouldn't be better off without pollution... I really am not sure what you're trying to say unless you don't take other life on Earth into consideration.

It would be a planet covered in plants and water, with relatively advanced life, but no civilization, no thought, no mathematics, just a small thermodynamic miracle. The kind of planet we might one day stop on, look for intelligent life, record on a map, and keep going.

The "purpose/significance of life" issues are an entirely separate concept than my previous post, though I do believe intelligence would be a very high priority. All I am saying is that humans abuse their power, and thus nature suffers when it shouldn't have to.

Quote from: Raist on April 14, 2009, 11:50:07 AM

Again, how would the ecosystem be "better" off?

Without air pollution/smog, water toxicity or waste dumping, and irradiated poisoned or pesticide covered lands?  I would say.. "dandy" by comparison. 

lol. Of course. Everything we release is poison. When photosynthetic animals first arrived (aka the ancestors to trees) they released a new poison into the air. Oxygen. This new poison led to a mass extinction and also is the poison we use to extract large amounts of energy to survive.

Quote

And what exactly is the balance of nature? The current state we found it in within the last few centuries? It obviously doesn't have a balance because it is constantly changing. The dinosaurs being wiped out was a "change in the balance of nature" and it lead to the advent of much more intelligent animals such as the mammals.

It's true that populations of every species change over time, but I am referring to the stability of the ecosystem. The sudden extinction of the dinosaurs is a rare example of purging a major part of it, but that was an imbalance from a lack of a predatory species that stabilized afterward. Humans are a predatory species that have an extreme amount of power over the rest of the animal kingdom, because they reached a point of intelligence. That intelligence is better suited to keep us alive and keep other animals suppressed, meaning a permanence in imbalance. Now imbalanced power by itself is not bad unless it is abused. Humans do abuse their power.

Abuse of power implies an obligation. Extinctions are not rare at all. We see them all throughout the fossil record. How can one ecological change be good while the other is bad?

Quote

You are using abstract terms here that are only used by people that think in the mindset of "people bad, trees equal fucking awesome." Society today attempts to brainwash you into that form of thinking, but that sort of thinking is not based in science, and it is not even based in philosophy, at most it is based in wiccan religions that believe the Earth is God and the state it currently in is somehow awesome and it must not change.

What abstract terms would you like me to elaborate on. It is quite an assumption to say that my conclusions are not my own, and I assure you they are not religious based. I cannot think of a single species that hasn't been hurt by human actions. Whether it's deforestation, or pumping 30 billion metric tons of CO₂ into the atmosphere every year, we are killing everything around us like a plague. I doubt fish will be served in restaurants when I'm in my 60's, simply from all the toxins flowing out to sea, killing or poisoning our supply. As it is, I have to shop around to get the ones farthest out from the shore to reduce mercury levels.

Found a quote you might be interested in:

Quote from: Raist on April 14, 2009, 10:57:15 PM

This planet will be our tomb if we can not look past it. All the talk of preventing global warming and reducing emissions would be better suited in finding ways to change our own atmosphere in preparation for changing other planets to suit our needs.

We are a parasite of our planet.

By parasite I meant we depend on it. We need it to exist. It is currently our supply of energy/food/whatever. My point was we need to figure out how to change this planet to whichever way we desire. Control it. Not, "stop destroying it"

Quote

I am not saying that we shouldn't try to stop pollution, and such, because the Earth is a resource that we could fuck up to the point where we can no longer use it. What I am saying is the Earth would be no better off without us.

Pollution is man made.
First, you say that pollution should be ceased/minimized, and next you say the Earth would be no better off without us, and hence Earth wouldn't be better off without pollution... I really am not sure what you're trying to say unless you don't take other life on Earth into consideration.

The Earth, is a large rock in space. We have yet to release a single bit of "pollution" that isn't already from that giant rock. The Earth wouldn't be better off without us.

Quote

It would be a planet covered in plants and water, with relatively advanced life, but no civilization, no thought, no mathematics, just a small thermodynamic miracle. The kind of planet we might one day stop on, look for intelligent life, record on a map, and keep going.

The "purpose/significance of life" issues are an entirely separate concept than my previous post, though I do believe intelligence would be a very high priority. All I am saying is that humans abuse their power, and thus nature suffers when it shouldn't have to.

So what life is valuable? The defenseless life? Does its inability to change things around it make it more valuable than those that can destroy it and gain? If we base this off of evolution's standard for worth (aka what it ends up allowing to live) then no, the more valuable life is the life that survives and spreads.

_{[edited for readability]}

So what life is valuable? The defenseless life? Does its inability to change things around it make it more valuable than those that can destroy it and gain?

Not that it's relevant, but I consider all life to be valuable to an extent.

The kind of life that manipulates its environment to a large degree can be destructive to the rest of the world when they are reckless and egocentric. That damage is very unfortunate, and it irrefutably wouldn't happen in that species absence, until another species emerged. (Please don't read this thinking I wished that humans didn't emerge.)

If we base this off of evolution's standard for worth (aka what it ends up allowing to live) then no, the more valuable life is the life that survives and spreads.

First of all, it sounds like you are favoring humans over the entire compilation of all other life, simply because they are in "first place".
Second, don't think humans aren't self destructive too. An endless list of 'asthma, cancer, et cetera' are all amplified an unbelievable amount by our hand. We just ignore it because it's not a direct connection. As a race, money now is more important to us than the environment later. Our health will continue to decline until we face a crisis and/or possible extinction before we even try to make a change.

lol, I'm starting to sound like I'm quoting The Day he Earth Stood Still. 

I put my species first because it is in my benefit to do so. I find us valuable because without our species we would not exist. I have evolved with a survival instinct, I do not find it noble to die for life in general. Life is simply reproductive chemicals. This new phase of finding all life more important than ourselves is ridiculous and a passing phase. Global warming and such will end when we find a way to manipulate our own atmosphere. Something I believe is very necessary. Controlling pollution is a noble idea but will not lead us any farther. We need to find a way to completely control our planet. I also think we will find that global warming is less dangerous/ not happening at the rate we think it is. If you think that is bullshit, when is the last time you heard about the hole in the ozone layer?

Sorry, I missed the comments above in bold from the formatting. 

lol. Of couse. Everything we release is poison. When photosynthetic animals first arrived (aka the ancestors to trees) they released a new poison into the air. Oxygen. This new poison led to a mass extinction and also is the poison we use to extract large amounts of energy to survive.

A couple of things bother me here:
1. The release of oxygen was unavoidable. Organic pollution is involuntary, compared to smoke stacks which are a priority.
2. Oxygen gas was poisonous to anaerobic bacteria, which is a very very low form of life. Do you agree that more complex life holds more "value"? I would argue that Killing bacteria and killing something capable of relatively advance thought is very different.
3. Oxygen doesn't give us energy. It helps allow us to use energy from consumed materials.

Abuse of power implies an obligation. Extinctions are not rare at all. We see them all throughout the fossil record. How can one ecological change be good while the other is bad?

Evolution works as long as some species survive a gradual change. Survival of the fittest takes place over incredibly long periods. An abrupt introduction to many varying forms of poison, is "bad" for two reasons.
1. It's abrupt.
2. As an organism becomes more complex, the more hardened its elementary cells operations are. Bacteria may be able to become aerobic rather easily, but a polar bear isn't going to start breathing C02 anytime soon.

By parasite I meant we depend on it. We need it to exist. It is currently our supply of energy/food/whatever. My point was we need to figure out how to change this planet to whichever way we desire. Control it. Not, "stop destroying it"

I couldn't agree more with that goal, but I don't think our pollution is a form of control. 
And as long as it doesn't serve a constructive purpose, we should be more concerned with the destructive effects.

The Earth, is a large rock in space. We have yet to release a single bit of "pollution" that isn't already from that giant rock. The Earth wouldn't be better off without us.

Well yeah, conservation of matter states that pretty clearly. We can't add anything to the planet that wasn't already there unless we bring it back from space. But recombining atoms and molecules to form other ones with different chemical properties is the issue. The planet could be made of entirely water, yet with intervention we could use those resources to add hydrogen and oxygen to the environment. Atoms are stable in nature, but humans came along to split them, and a whole mess of crap came out.

I have to agree with singularity on this. Yes mass extinctions have happened but they are very rare, and there is never a choice. It is the difference between a tidal wave going and destroying the city and the city being bombed to ruble. Both have similar results however one had someone behind it. We have a mind that means we should not hold ourselves to the level of a big rock flying through space. We are not the meteor or whatever that destroyed the dinosaurs.

Sorry, I missed the comments above in bold from the formatting. 

Quote from: Raist on April 22, 2009, 03:04:48 PM

lol. Of couse. Everything we release is poison. When photosynthetic animals first arrived (aka the ancestors to trees) they released a new poison into the air. Oxygen. This new poison led to a mass extinction and also is the poison we use to extract large amounts of energy to survive.

A couple of things bother me here:
1. The release of oxygen was unavoidable. Organic pollution is involuntary, compared to smoke stacks which are a priority.
2. Oxygen gas was poisonous to anaerobic bacteria, which is a very very low form of life. Do you agree that more complex life holds more "value"? I would argue that Killing bacteria and killing something capable of relatively advance thought is very different.
3. Oxygen doesn't give us energy. It helps allow us to use energy from consumed materials.

So you agree more complex forms of life hold more value? Then the most complex holds the most value? Correct? I also didn't say that we get energy from oxygen. We require it to extract energy. Hence "it is the poison we use to extract large amounts of energy.

Quote

Abuse of power implies an obligation. Extinctions are not rare at all. We see them all throughout the fossil record. How can one ecological change be good while the other is bad?

Evolution works as long as some species survive a gradual change. Survival of the fittest takes place over incredibly long periods. An abrupt introduction to many varying forms of poison, is "bad" for two reasons.
1. It's abrupt.
2. As an organism becomes more complex, the more hardened its elementary cells operations are. Bacteria may be able to become aerobic rather easily, but a polar bear isn't going to start breathing C02 anytime soon.

Quote

By parasite I meant we depend on it. We need it to exist. It is currently our supply of energy/food/whatever. My point was we need to figure out how to change this planet to whichever way we desire. Control it. Not, "stop destroying it"

I couldn't agree more with that goal, but I don't think our pollution is a form of control. 
And as long as it doesn't serve a constructive purpose, we should be more concerned with the destructive effects.

The pollution staying in the atmosphere is us losing control. I agree pollution is bad. Insofar as anything can be bad.

Quote

The Earth, is a large rock in space. We have yet to release a single bit of "pollution" that isn't already from that giant rock. The Earth wouldn't be better off without us.

Well yeah, conservation of matter states that pretty clearly. We can't add anything to the planet that wasn't already there unless we bring it back from space. But recombining atoms and molecules to form other ones with different chemical properties is the issue. The planet could be made of entirely water, yet with intervention we could use those resources to add hydrogen and oxygen to the environment. Atoms are stable in nature, but humans came along to split them, and a whole mess of crap came out.

Yes, but would we be harming the planet?

_{[edited for readability]}

I put my species first because it is in my benefit to do so. I find us valuable because without our species we would not exist. I have evolved with a survival instinct, I do not find it noble to die for life in general.

Who's asking you to die? Going green is more of my point.

Also I lol'd at the bolded text.

Life is simply reproductive chemicals. This new phase of finding all life more important than ourselves is ridiculous and a passing phase.

I never implied that we shouldn't be put first. I was just pointing out that it was an assumption to say we should be.

Global warming and such will end when we find a way to manipulate our own atmosphere. Something I believe is very necessary. Controlling pollution is a noble idea but will not lead us any farther.

It will give us all time. We too suffer from pollution.

We need to find a way to completely control our planet.

Baby steps man. I envy you for your goals to tackle this whole thing head on, but I doubt that kind of power isn't developed all at once.

I also think we will find that global warming is less dangerous/ not happening at the rate we think it is. If you think that is bullshit, when is the last time you heard about the hole in the ozone layer?

I believe in global warming and now I wish that I kept notes at a seminar I attended. I'm trying to remember why but both plankton/microbial life in the oceans and fresh water from glaciers are both severely threatened by global warming. I'm pretty sure that glacier ice is the largest reservoir of fresh water on Earth, and ultimately our largest supply. We don't hear about it all too often though, because we live by the great lakes.
In any case, global warming is far from the depth of my concerns with pollution, especially when it is one of the least direct threats.