Animal Manslaughter?

[myrmaad]

Some people are so presumptuous.

 

I'm the third from the left.

http://photos-e.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-snc1/v2401/125/54/1160195928/n1160195928_345512_7262991.jpg

 

 

Look Kendo, you obviously have your opinions and I think you're doing a fine job of bullying and cramming them here on this thread. A discussion between adults allows for other viewpoints. It's really far over the top to make the accusation that pet lovers are automatically on par with the likes of that list of evil dictators.

 

I personally adhere to the old saw that whoever brings up hitler first has automatically lost the debate. It's a logical fallacy, as is arguing the same point endlessly.

Edited March 6, 2010 by myrmaad

[Trandoshan]

Man-Kind has gotten out of place, hasn't he...

 

@Maigeret

 

The hunt has always been a pastime in ancient culture, whether for food or sport, it has always existed. The problem with hunting today is that people hunt for some of the wrong reasons, and really have no respect for the kill. People in more ancient times hunted, and venerated the animals at the site of death. They then asked their god/gods for forgiveness, and thanked the animal for whatever parts that they used.

 

Lately though, Man-Kind has become less thankful for the food that they get to eat. (Probably because the food now resembles a circular disk, or a nugget, hehe.) I dislike bashing my own species for a reason, but it's safe to say that in this age of stressful lifestyle that we have found other ways to take our aggression out. Hunting just happens to be one of those ways. It isn't for the food, after all, even the poor can buy themselves a decent meal at a local Taco-Bell. This holds true for most developed countries. Animal abuse is another way we take the stress. I prefer to stroke my cat with my hands, while my neighbor may perfer stroking his with a bat. It's a result of the new-age lifestyle. I might be missing the point again, but I must put the blame, not 'on humanity', but on the situation of life humanity is in at the moment.

 

Edit:

 

Hey, I personally didn't think Balagor was trying to be leftist.

I think he was simply trying to tell us if that Hippies were in power,

There would be no discussion in today's era.

Let me be frank, there are a lot of people who love animals on this board.

Even though we are ranting on about torture, as of yet we haven't blow everyone else's opinions away. Right?

Really, It's true, we leftists don't want to obscure the posts of the other side of the debate.

 

lol. Moving on.....

[Balagor]

:wallbash:

 

I think I see a certain amount of attempted forcing of ideology in this thread actually, by all the animal lover/human haters who "know they are morally right"....

 

No one has stated that. We are debating.

[Kendo 2]

@Kendo 2

No, you are not pointing out the obvious, at all.

>off topic<

People like Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot and Idi Amin, perhaps animal lovers, forced their ideoligies, and would never allow open civilized debate in a forum like this.

 

 

Please allow me to explain the intent of my previous post. I am not comparing this forum or anyone here to dictators. I was using irony to show that because I do not agree with some of the other posters in this thread I have been called a hypocrite three times (even though the definition of that word doesn't apply to any statement I've made as I believe in what I say and my actions in real life prove that).

 

THAT was my point concerning that mess.

 

And animals are not cognitve beings, it's proven scientifically and no amount of emotional blubbering, pom-pom shaking or grandstanding about animal rights will ever change that fact. The science doesn't lie no matter who disagrees with it. The sun does not revolve around the earth. Scientific fact. Animals are not intelligent by human standards. Scientific fact. Animals will never be on par with Homo sapiens in the grand scheme of things. It is what is. It ain't good, it ain't bad it is just the way it is.

 

Killer animal = DEAD animal.

 

EDIT: Great. My opinons are 'BS'. I'm a 'hypocrite'. And now I'm a 'bully'. I'm all of these things because I have a stance and I'm as passionate it about as those who disagree with me. I've just been shouted down and shut out. So much for the free exchange of ideas and differing opinons.

[ginnyfizz]

:wallbash:

 

I think I see a certain amount of attempted forcing of ideology in this thread actually, by all the animal lover/human haters who "know they are morally right"....

 

No one has stated that. We are debating.

 

 

 

Oh really, Balagor? Did no-one say that?

 

I may be passionate in my views, but what people don't seem to realize is everything is a choice. I choose to be different and not engage in activities I know are morally wrong and will give me nightmares every night.

 

Don't worry, I've been told before that I'm not a sheep who follows the herd (or team player in modern speak) and that's how I like it, although for work purposes I do the team spirit thing because it's expected. To a point.

 

My life hasn't been adversely affected by caring and I daresay it won't in the future.

 

Someone seems to absolutely know that others (like me ) are morally wrong because we indulge in certain activities, and by dint of that, that she is morally right because she doesn't.

[myrmaad]

The science on whether animals are capable of cognition is far from "proven" only merely accepted, the debate does rage on.

 

http://lingformant.vertebratesilence.com/2...er-than-humans/

 

But this debate, I think, is not about what the animals knew when. But more what should humans do to protect the animals and the humans. On that I think we had some agreement.

 

And sociologically speaking, morals are not set in stone, but tend to vary by social group and custom.

 

On the other hand I totally agree about eating meat and wearing leather. You introduced the idea of guilt by association, the if-hitler-did-it/thought-it-you-must-be-as-bad-as-hitler fallacy, which I regard as a bullying tactic.

Edited March 6, 2010 by myrmaad

[ginnyfizz]

Look Kendo, you obviously have your opinions and I think you're doing a fine job of bullying and cramming them here on this thread. A discussion between adults allows for other viewpoints. It's really far over the top to make the accusation that pet lovers are automatically on par with the likes of that list of evil dictators.

 

I personally adhere to the old saw that whoever brings up hitler first has automatically lost the debate. It's a logical fallacy, as is arguing the same point endlessly.

 

I thought it was pretty over the top for Maigrets to mention my hunting in the same breath as illegal dogfighting. Let us be quite clear, I no longer hunt live quarry in the UK BECAUSE IT IS ILLEGAL NOW. I used to do it. I have NEVER been associated with illegal dogfighting.

 

If certain persons are allowed to say things that are close to the line like that, and to call others morally wrong, I fail to see how you can accuse others of bullying for stating their own point of view

 

A debate, surely, does argue the same points over and over?

[myrmaad]

A debate, surely, does argue the same points over and over?

 

No, I think that's dogmatism. :) Seriously, though, no.

 

 

And every one of the certain persons on this thread have been "allowed" to state their cases unfettered so far. I'm in this debate and I have agreed with certain points of certain persons such as Kendo, as well as other certain persons. There have been many good points. No need to beat us all over the head with it in a chorus.

 

Or maybe there is a need, as the minority opinion tries to level the field, but that's how it goes. Even when the minority is "right" they are almost always at the mercy of the majority.

 

And "right" is always subjective.

 

What is not subjective, is that I recognize your right to see things your way and not try to bully you into changing your viewpoint, that is simply disrespectful.

 

All of us are guilty of that, from time to time.

Edited March 6, 2010 by myrmaad

[Trandoshan]

A debate should have 2 or more sides in an argument. It appears to me that the topic chosen is barely debatable due to the massive amount of support one of the sides receives. When such a topic has such an incredible majority on one side, the side with the majority begins to think that it is superior. I'm starting to see this guys. We need to find a sub-topic to curve this topic so that it is more even with for and against. I also realize that I'm a hypocrite myself because I am on the against side, and don't need any reminding for such.

 

"The major goal of the study of debate as a method or art is to develop one's ability to play from either position with equal ease. To inexperienced debaters, some propositions appear easier to defend or to destroy"

-Wikipedia On Debates

[myrmaad]

Let's clarify:

The debate topic is:

Animal Manslaughter?, Should Owners Be Charged?

 

On that point it's nearly a unanimous consensus.

 

There are already a whole shebang of subtopics being debated; such as animal cruelty, the merits of modern food processing; whether wearing leather and eating meat is a hypocritical act if you are against animal cruelty; whether your opinion is valid if you've never owned livestock; whether hunting can be considered on par with dogfighting in terms of cruelty; whether animals are intelligent; and whether instinct is a measure of intelligence;

 

All of these have been part of this debate to some extent or another so far.

 

So I have no idea which "side' is which or which side you're claiming to be on.

 

And we aren't 'studying' debate, we are/were attempting to have one.

Edited March 7, 2010 by myrmaad