Pages: 1 2  Next -- Posted by da bears at 11:46 pm on April 24, 2008 And I'm absolutely not saying that I hold the life of a mentally retarded person to the same light I hold the life of an animal. But. Why is it that we place the value of human lives above animals? You know, even if you say you don't, you'd make a bigger deal out of a person being shot for a stupid reason than of a horse being shot because it's leg is broken, right? We say it's because we're more intelligent then animals. But if a person had a severe mental handicap that gave them the intelligence of a dog, why do we still hold their life above a dog's? Like, why would it be a major human rights violation to euthanize them against their will but it wouldn't be to do that to an animal? -- Posted by the raven at 11:50 pm on April 24, 2008 I guess because the person still has family. Now, take the family away, and I see your point. No family, no one to have any say. I certainly wouldn't want to be forced to live that way. -- Posted by Mieux at 11:51 pm on April 24, 2008 Because humans are specieists. It's like programmed in our brains. Personally, I feel more sympathetic to animals than humans. I hate people. -- Posted by da bears at 12:09 am on April 25, 2008 Quote: from The Raven at 11:50 pm on April 24, 2008 I guess because the person still has family. Now, take the family away, and I see your point. No family, no one to have any say. I certainly wouldn't want to be forced to live that way. But... a dog can have a human family. And even if the person is a drifter human rights activists will care. -- Posted by da bears at 12:09 am on April 25, 2008 Quote: from Black Sheep at 11:51 pm on April 24, 2008 Because humans are specieists. It's like programmed in our brains. Personally, I feel more sympathetic to animals than humans. I hate people. Probably... do you really mean that? I mean, you'd be more sad if your mom died than if your dog died, no? -- Posted by the raven at 12:20 am on April 25, 2008 Quote: from Da Bears at 3:09 am on April 25, 2008 Quote: from The Raven at 11:50 pm on April 24, 2008 I guess because the person still has family.    Now, take the family away, and I see your point. No family, no one to have any say. I certainly wouldn't want to be forced to live that way. But... a dog can have a human family.   And even if the person is a drifter human rights activists will care. But the dog's family cannot decide what they want done with that animal. That's not how they are wired. As a species, they don't even show much remorse for a loss of a pack member. Elephants are much more up there on the mourning ladder. -- Posted by Mieux at 12:26 am on April 25, 2008 Quote: from Da Bears at 3:09 am on April 25, 2008 Quote: from Black Sheep at 11:51 pm on April 24, 2008 Because humans are specieists. It's like programmed in our brains.    Personally, I feel more sympathetic to animals than humans. I hate people. Probably...   do you really mean that? I mean, you'd be more sad if your mom died than if your dog died, no? eh, probably not. Okay, I hate most people. About 99.9% -- Posted by da bears at 12:34 am on April 25, 2008 Quote: from The Raven at 12:20 am on April 25, 2008 Quote: from Da Bears at 3:09 am on April 25, 2008 Quote: from The Raven at 11:50 pm on April 24, 2008 I guess because the person still has family.     Now, take the family away, and I see your point. No family, no one to have any say. I certainly wouldn't want to be forced to live that way.    But... a dog can have a human family.    And even if the person is a drifter human rights activists will care. But the dog's family cannot decide what they want done with that animal. That's not how they are wired. As a species, they don't even show much remorse for a loss of a pack member. Elephants are much more up there on the mourning ladder. I said a dog can have a HUMAN family. -- Posted by da bears at 12:35 am on April 25, 2008 Quote: from Black Sheep at 12:26 am on April 25, 2008 Quote: from Da Bears at 3:09 am on April 25, 2008 Quote: from Black Sheep at 11:51 pm on April 24, 2008 Because humans are specieists. It's like programmed in our brains.     Personally, I feel more sympathetic to animals than humans. I hate people.    Probably...    do you really mean that? I mean, you'd be more sad if your mom died than if your dog died, no? eh, probably not. Okay, I hate most people. About 99.9% lol, then whydja say it? You're apathetic about most people. I think you have to love someone before you can hate them. -- Posted by Hero at 8:38 am on April 26, 2008 The difference between animals and humans is logic. And the funny thing is, logic is still corrupted by human instinct. In the end, logic does not make your life happier, but fulfilling your instincts does. Which makes us just as good as any other animal, only with an extra gift (or curse if you think about it). -- Posted by Tavis at 12:20 pm on April 26, 2008 It might be because we are a superior race, have our choices, which you said a scenario where we aren't, then I would think that it's because we are alike. We can communicate with eachother a lot easier than animals can. So we prefer the species we can relate to. Although I treat everyone the same. I wouldn't shoot a horse. Although, I am sort of being a hypocrite, because I wouldn't shoot a horse, yet I would shoot a deer for meat. But let's try to ignore that part. -- Posted by MattJ at 3:17 pm on April 26, 2008 We are the dominant species of the world. We hold our own superiority, compared to others. We have complex minds, and if a frog somehow kept up an actual conversation with me, I would definatley cry if that frog died. But humans can carry connections with animals the same as other humans. People who do not remorse over animal death (except for cows and pigs) are more caring about their superiority. -- Posted by Missyjane at 4:17 am on April 27, 2008 We are different. Animals do things because of instinct. Humans have the power to ignore their instinct and therefore make decisions of a higher order. -- Posted by Crazy snake at 8:08 am on April 27, 2008 Quote: from Black Sheep at 7:51 am on April 25, 2008 Because humans are specieists. It's like programmed in our brains. Personally, I feel more sympathetic to animals than humans. I hate people. took the words out of my mouth -- Posted by Mieux at 1:08 pm on April 27, 2008 Quote: from Missyjane at 7:17 am on April 27, 2008 We are different. Animals do things because of instinct. Humans have the power to ignore their instinct and therefore make decisions of a higher order. No, not really. Instinct still drives our actions, whether you like to think so or not. Biology has shaped us over millions of years; we are extremely complex. There are some things we simply cannot control. -- Posted by Mieux at 1:09 pm on April 27, 2008 Quote: from Da Bears at 3:35 am on April 25, 2008 Quote: from Black Sheep at 12:26 am on April 25, 2008 Quote: from Da Bears at 3:09 am on April 25, 2008 Quote: from Black Sheep at 11:51 pm on April 24, 2008 Because humans are specieists. It's like programmed in our brains.     Personally, I feel more sympathetic to animals than humans. I hate people.   Probably...     do you really mean that? I mean, you'd be more sad if your mom died than if your dog died, no?    eh, probably not.    Okay, I hate most people. About 99.9% lol, then whydja say it? You're apathetic about most people. I think you have to love someone before you can hate them. No, I do not believe so. There are plenty of people out there you can hate without having to "love" them first. -- Posted by Blackadder at 2:21 pm on April 27, 2008 when looking at the facts, I'm pretty sure blondie was treated better Frank... Okay guys that is a joke....lets see if  (a) anyone gets it, and (b) the relevance of it. HINT: think nodding dog TV advert, the one that sells car insurence. HINT 2: "....One ball, the other, in the...." first correct awnser gets a cookie, and a link to my favorite tranvestite porn site   -- Posted by Wakeupcall at 6:10 am on May 10, 2008 People just seem to view anything that they don't understand as 'inferior'. If something doesn't act the same, and they can't communicate with it easily, then it must be stupid and worthless - right? -- Posted by Bacon at 11:08 pm on May 10, 2008 We are sentient. And a human with the intelligence of a dog wouldn't be a human at all. -- Posted by sunnypepper at 5:05 pm on May 11, 2008 Tradition? We have been taking advantage of animals for a very long time now. Our brains have been manipulated to think that we are a more worthy species.   Some people like to say this is because we're more intelligent than animals, but that's just a reason which has come up long after our tradition of eating and dressing in animals evolved. -- Posted by mountain hare at 6:41 pm on May 11, 2008 It depends on the person, and the animal. I mean, if you're comparing a world champion race horse to some hobo in the street, naturally I'm going to favour the racehorse. One could only wonder what it could have achieved if it had the same opportunities as the hobo. -- Posted by Ldzpln at 6:49 am on May 12, 2008 I think the question should be this: Why are we more attached to humans rather than to animals? I think it's because animals do not have feelings that we can truly relate to, making them therefore more distant in our relationships with them. Whereas we know what another person feels, which may make us more attached to them. -- Posted by nikki at 6:58 am on May 12, 2008 We can relate and empathise with humans far more than we can with animals in most cases. People are shocked when they hear of human rights abuses because they can empathise and would never want to be in the same situation themselves. With animals, they find that harder to do, because we're not physically or mentally that similar (visually, that is). -- Posted by exceedinglyrare at 7:19 am on May 12, 2008 First off, just a point regarding a horse being shot because it broke its legs (I'm assuming you're talking about Eight Belles here): many times, with those kinds of injuries, they aren't something that a horse can recover from. Unlike people, horses simply can't live if they can't walk; in the case with Eight Belles, both of her ankles had broken, and there was no way they could have done anything to help her recover. That said, I think you're bringing up different points here. I'm pretty sure people would be extremely outraged at the idea of a horse being shot for no good reason; contrarywise, euthanizing animals and euthanizing people is often something that doesn't provoke much outrage, particularly in a situation where there is absolutely no hope for recovery. You're comparing apples and oranges. It's like saying that people would be more upset to find out that someone was using their garage as a place to wantonly slaughter dogs for no good reason than they would be to find out that a brain-dead accident victim was taken off of life support. With that out of the way, I think that when it comes to favoring humans over other animals, it boils down to biology. You don't often see, for example, an elephant getting all upset over the baby baboon it trampled, but you're sure as hell going to see an angry momma elephant if you kill her baby (as a side note, it's really interesting to see the range of emotions elephants have...you wouldn't expect it from them). Animals are more likely to be interested in protecting and aiding even the worst-off members of their own species than they are to be interested in rescuing the poor mice that they ought to have for dinner. Even with morality and abstract thinking, the biological impulse to make sure that our species is alive and able to procreate is stronger than our pity for other animals, and that is how things are throughout the animal kingdom. Give your dog a choice between saving your life and saving the lives of her puppies and she's going to choose her litter. Furthermore, you have to keep in mind that euthanasia and just killing creatures for no good reason are entirely different things. When animals are euthanized (and when people are euthanized), it's generally at the end of a long road and there's typically no hope that they'll recover, so the choice is made to ease their suffering and let them die peacefully in their sleep, rather than die a long and painful death. On the other hand, your idea of just killing mentally retarded people has no point...they still have potential, whereas, nine times out of ten, an animal or person who is euthanized has reached the end of his or hers. -- Posted by snowfish at 8:45 am on May 12, 2008 Has someone been reading Michael Pollan's the omnivore's dilemma? because it's basically just posing and dealing with this question. So if you haven't, pick up that shit.   -- Posted by da bears at 10:25 am on May 12, 2008 Quote: from exceedinglyrare at 7:19 am on May 12, 2008 First off, just a point regarding a horse being shot because it broke its legs (I'm assuming you're talking about Eight Belles here): many times, with those kinds of injuries, they aren't something that a horse can recover from. Unlike people, horses simply can't live if they can't walk; in the case with Eight Belles, both of her ankles had broken, and there was no way they could have done anything to help her recover. That said, I think you're bringing up different points here. I'm pretty sure people would be extremely outraged at the idea of a horse being shot for no good reason; contrarywise, euthanizing animals and euthanizing people is often something that doesn't provoke much outrage, particularly in a situation where there is absolutely no hope for recovery. You're comparing apples and oranges. It's like saying that people would be more upset to find out that someone was using their garage as a place to wantonly slaughter dogs for no good reason than they would be to find out that a brain-dead accident victim was taken off of life support. With that out of the way, I think that when it comes to favoring humans over other animals, it boils down to biology. You don't often see, for example, an elephant getting all upset over the baby baboon it trampled, but you're sure as hell going to see an angry momma elephant if you kill her baby (as a side note, it's really interesting to see the range of emotions elephants have...you wouldn't expect it from them). Animals are more likely to be interested in protecting and aiding even the worst-off members of their own species than they are to be interested in rescuing the poor mice that they ought to have for dinner. Even with morality and abstract thinking, the biological impulse to make sure that our species is alive and able to procreate is stronger than our pity for other animals, and that is how things are throughout the animal kingdom. Give your dog a choice between saving your life and saving the lives of her puppies and she's going to choose her litter. Furthermore, you have to keep in mind that euthanasia and just killing creatures for no good reason are entirely different things. When animals are euthanized (and when people are euthanized), it's generally at the end of a long road and there's typically no hope that they'll recover, so the choice is made to ease their suffering and let them die peacefully in their sleep, rather than die a long and painful death. On the other hand, your idea of just killing mentally retarded people has no point...they still have potential, whereas, nine times out of ten, an animal or person who is euthanized has reached the end of his or hers. Ok lets say someone is a paraplegic with no chance of recovering. Shoot 'em? -- Posted by exceedinglyrare at 10:45 am on May 12, 2008 Still a different situation, as their paraplegia isn't necessarily life-threatening. When animals (and people) are euthanized, it's in response to a situation that will most certainly end in a very painful death for the animal (or person) involved. Didn't you read what I said about potential?: [Mentally retarded people] still have potential, whereas, nine times out of ten, an animal or person who is euthanized has reached the end of his or hers. -- Posted by da bears at 10:49 am on May 12, 2008 Quote: from exceedinglyrare at 10:45 am on May 12, 2008 Still a different situation, as their paraplegia isn't necessarily life-threatening. When animals (and people) are euthanized, it's in response to a situation that will most certainly end in a very painful death for the animal (or person) involved. Didn't you read what I said about potential?: [Mentally retarded people] still have potential, whereas, nine times out of ten, an animal or person who is euthanized has reached the end of his or hers. Not true at all about the animals, dogs are euthanized in huge numbers every day only because there is an overpopulation problem and the shelter can't find them a home. -- Posted by exceedinglyrare at 10:59 am on May 12, 2008 And that's not at all what I'm talking about. You brought up the specific example of the euthanization of a horse with a broken leg; I was addressing the idea that such a thing is inhumane. I should also point out that, by your logic, you should also be against spaying and neutering animals. -- Posted by da bears at 11:01 am on May 12, 2008 I didn't bring that up, somebody else did and I was commenting on that. What you said where you quoted yourself isn't true. No? No, I don't think I should be against spaying and neutering. Pages: 1 2  Next