Are humans more important than animals?

[Princess Artemis]

Actually, the definition of cruel is just "causing pain or suffering". An animal can be cruel without having malicious intent. So can a person. You were right with torture, though.

What dictionary did you find that in? Which ever one it is, get a second opinion before you rely on it for definitions.

 

"Cruel" in forty dictionaries. I followed several and all but Wiktionary were pretty much the same. Most of them use words like deliberately, willfully, or intentionally in front of "causing pain or suffering", which is important. That and it's really cool to have a site that will link to forty dictionaries at once.

 

I am somehow not surprised to discover a subset of Wikipedia is less than adequate.

[JaziandCo]

I think you might be humanizing the word "torture" and "cruel".

 

I don't. Torture refers to an act that is mainly intended to gain information or as a punishment. It has other meanings derived from this, but in the case of an intelligent actor committing torture, especially enjoying it, it does mean something most animals just don't do. Cruelty is willful. It's in the same realm as malice. That's what those words mainly mean. Yes, I'm narrowing them down, I'm de-sensationalizing, I'm taking the 'dark' paint off and trying to say 'it's not evil either, it's just the way it is'. Using emotionally charged words to combat a picture of oppositely charged words doesn't strike me as right--it's a disservice to nature which is its own thing.

 

Yes, I completely agree with you that nature is largely without remorse and without pity. It isn't nice, it isn't without pain. There are much easier ways to die than via predator in the wild, and yes, many humans kill their food in those much nicer ways. But nature isn't cruel. Your dog was not being cruel by ripping the fur off that rabbit, your dog was being a dog. Dogs hurt rabbits, obviously, but they don't go out of their way to willfully hurt rabbits. You already said you get that she has instincts, so there you go. That's why she did it. Perhaps she had already bitten the rabbit and moved onto step two early because your dog is domesticated and her instincts are somewhat impaired.

Dictionary.com refers to cruelty as willfully causing pain, and torture as either extreme pain or the definition you're using. I'd say Shanti knew the lizard wad in pain. But because animals don't empathize the same way we do, he probably didn't care much. That is still being cruel.

 

I also said that I don't know why she skipped straight to step two. Which, as I've said a few times, even wild animals like wolves and lions do. I've watched documentaries where African Painted Dogs have begun eating the organs of the impalas they catch while it's still up and trying to get away. A dog might be excused for having impared instincts, but wild animals will and often do eat their prey alive.

[Sazandora]

Okay guys, am I the only one? Today a girl I hate (for tons of reasons, don't let me get in to that) but is kinda friends with my friends came over to us and was like "YES! we chose to donate to tigers for our project". I said "don't you think humans are in more need of help then...tigers. I mean there is tons of suffering within humans." She got mad and was like "There are 6 billion humans and not that many tigers, the world is overpopulated so let the humans die for all I care!"

I agree with the girl. This planet is horribly overpopulated, anyway. It's ridiculous how people don't give a damn about endangered species and continue on killing them, but then they go apes**t when it's about people dying.

[TPishek]

I agree with the girl. This planet is horribly overpopulated, anyway. It's ridiculous how people don't give a damn about endangered species and continue on killing them, but then they go apes**t when it's about people dying.

When people poach, it's because they have no better way to earn money to keep their families alive. Give people money, food, and a better job, and the need to poach disappears.

 

Helping people helps animals. You can't just say "you don't deserve to live" and refuse to aid people, because everyone- human or animal- has an instinctual will to survive, and will do whatever it takes to feed themselves and their families.

[JaziandCo]

I agree with the girl. This planet is horribly overpopulated, anyway. It's ridiculous how people don't give a damn about endangered species and continue on killing them, but then they go apes**t when it's about people dying.

Warning because the following links are a tad on the graphic side.

 

By your logic, because we've become overpopulated, this child doesn't matter? How about this one? You don't see why people "go ape****" about these kids?

 

At least the tigers can fend for themselves. These kids can't, because they're not old enough to be self sufficient. They're dying off just like those precious tigers. They don't deserve the least bit of compassion? That's startlingly callous.

[Lila]

When people poach, it's because they have no better way to earn money to keep their families alive. Give people money, food, and a better job, and the need to poach disappears.

 

Helping people helps animals. You can't just say "you don't deserve to live" and refuse to aid people, because everyone- human or animal- has an instinctual will to survive, and will do whatever it takes to feed themselves and their families.

People poach because they want money. Other (stupid) people pay a lot for illegally obtained furs, and that is why people poach. Because they want money. Doesn't freaking matter if they're poor or not. They're still committing a crime.

 

And for like the freaking 4y3784638th time helping people does not necessarily help animals. Some people have hate and greed in their hearts and if you help them they're only being rewarded for doing stupid things they may even continue to do.

[Luna1331]

A dog of mine once pinned down a rabbit and began pulling it's fur out. Didn't kill it first either, just started ripping out the fur. Why? I get that there's an instinct to get rid of the fur before tearing open the carcass, but while it's still alive, screaming, and fighting to get away? Wouldn't it be easier just to have bitten it on the head or neck or even around the middle first than to hold a struggling thing down? I don't know if she would have started eating it before killing it because we managed to get her away from it (and the rabbit lived), but to me that's similar to skinning and spicing an animal first, THEN killing it.

 

My point was that nature is a lot more cruel than people like to paint it, much like dolphins and swans. The media paints them as beautiful, gentle creatures... until you see their darker sides.

Nature is very cruel. Media definitely covers up some of the ugly stuff about nature. If you watch a show about how someone is hiking in the jungle/dessert/forest/you name it, you could see how cruel nature can be. Sometimes, these people are minding their own business and they might get attacked by wild animals, stung or bit by something poisonous, become dehydrated, sick, or in hypo or hyperthermia. If an animal attacks you, it is doing what it can to survive weather as food or protecting their territory. We have the luxury of just picking up food at the store rather than having the need to capture and kill it. We also don't have to endure climate or weather from day to day. Once you step outside your house/city/property, you are fair game for any predator.

 

My dog is a total predator. His breed was used specifically for hunting small rodents and is built for going into underground tunnels to find them. He loves to capture, play with, and eat bugs, birds, lizards, frogs, and his favorite are squirrels. He is domestic, but his natural instincts are not as bred out of him like some other breeds. He loves to play with his food because it is, well, fun for him. He is not actively trying to torture it, he is just playing, and practicing his hunting skills. Even his animal-like toys, he runs and grabs by the neck, shakes it around, then goes about completely obliterating any trace of the it (aka eating it). Some wild animals are be no different, he still has strong natural instincts, and his actions reflect that. It is not cruel. It is just life and the nature of a predator.

Edited August 8, 2011 by Luna1331

[Princess Artemis]

Luna1331, if nature is cruel for predators doing what they need to survive, then your dog is cruel for having those same instincts. If your dog is not cruel for having natural instincts, then nature is not cruel for being filled with predators with survival instincts.

 

This does not change the fact that hungry predators will eat hikers (or wasps might sting them) if you decide your dog isn't cruel. It just means you're not putting a sinister motive on them that they generally don't have.

Edited August 8, 2011 by Princess Artemis

[TPishek]

People poach because they want money. Other (stupid) people pay a lot for illegally obtained furs, and that is why people poach. Because they want money. Doesn't freaking matter if they're poor or not. They're still committing a crime.

 

And for like the freaking 4y3784638th time helping people does not necessarily help animals. Some people have hate and greed in their hearts and if you help them they're only being rewarded for doing stupid things they may even continue to do.

Face it, between the wardens and the animals themselves poaching is not a posh job. If there was any other option, most people would not poach. Just like if there is any other option, most people do not steal. Of course there are exceptions, but for the vast majority of people, poaching is just a way to survive.

 

And helping people may not always help animals, but NOT helping people virtually always HURTS animals. Education goes a long way towards promoting animal welfare.

[JaziandCo]

Luna1331, if nature is cruel for predators doing what they need to survive, then your dog is cruel for having those same instincts.  If your dog is not cruel for having natural instincts, then nature is not cruel for being filled with predators with survival instincts.

 

This does not change the fact that hungry predators will eat hikers (or wasps might sting them) if you decide your dog isn't cruel.  It just means you're not putting a sinister motive on them that they generally don't have.

cru·el·ty

noun /ˈkro͞oəltē/ 

cruelties, plural

 

Callous indifference to or pleasure in causing pain and suffering

- he has treated her with extreme cruelty

 

Behavior that causes pain or suffering to a person or animal

- we can't stand cruelty to animals

- the cruelties of forced assimilation and genocide

 

Behavior that causes physical or mental harm to another, esp. a spouse, whether intentionally or not

 

Cruelty can be described as indifference to suffering, and even positive pleasure in inflicting it. If this is supported by a legal or social framework, then receives the name of perversion. Sadism can also be related to this form of action or concept.

Cruel ways of inflicting suffering may involve violence, but affirmative violence is not necessary for an act to be cruel. For example, if a person is drowning and begging for help, and another person is able to help, but merely watches with disinterest or perhaps mischievous amusement, that person is being cruel — rather than violent.

 

*snip*

 

When cruelty to animals is discussed, it often refers to unnecessary suffering.

 

cru·el   [kroo-uhl]  Show IPA

adjective, -er, -est.

1.

willfully or knowingly causing pain or distress to others.

2.

enjoying the pain or distress of others: the cruel spectators of the gladiatorial contests.

3.

causing or marked by great pain or distress: a cruel remark; a cruel affliction.

4.

rigid; stern; strict; unrelentingly severe.

 

(krū'əl)

adj., -el·er, or -el·ler, -el·est, or -el·lest.

Disposed to inflict pain or suffering.

Causing suffering; painful.

 

Definition of CRUEL

 

1

: disposed to inflict pain or suffering : devoid of humane feelings <a cruel tyrant>

2

a : causing or conducive to injury, grief, or pain <a cruel joke>

b : unrelieved by leniency <cruel punishment>

 

 

I could go on, if you want. All of the sources I see say that while enjoying the action is included under the word "cruel", it's not necessary. So yes, nature can be cruel without being sinister.

[Alpha1]

Face it, between the wardens and the animals themselves poaching is not a posh job. If there was any other option, most people would not poach. Just like if there is any other option, most people do not steal. Of course there are exceptions, but for the vast majority of people, poaching is just a way to survive.

 

And helping people may not always help animals, but NOT helping people virtually always HURTS animals. Education goes a long way towards promoting animal welfare.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...t-poaching.html

 

"Conservationists estimate that, for every animal killed legally in a hunting season, one animal is lost to poaching."

 

http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/huntin...r-legal-hunters

 

"Oregon Poachers May Be Taking as Many Mule Deer as Legal Hunters"

 

 

 

[Princess Artemis]

I could go on, if you want. All of the sources I see say that while enjoying the action is included under the word "cruel", it's not necessary. So yes, nature can be cruel without being sinister.

Please, do go on. I enjoy reading dictionaries. While you're at it, read the part about willful, intentional, disposed to, and deliberate. It's not the joy : )

 

I was speaking to Luna1331 regarding inconsistency in description.

Edited August 8, 2011 by Princess Artemis

[JaziandCo]

Please, do go on. I enjoy reading dictionaries. While you're at it, read the part about willful, intentional, and deliberate. It's not the joy : )

 

I was speaking to Luna1331 regarding inconsistency in description.

Breaking a lizard's leg and watching it suffer isn't willful, intentional, or deliberate cause of pain? Remind me not to meet you in a dark ally.

[Snow Plow]

I just looked the definition up online. Sorry it was wrong.

As for people saying that helping people is helping animals - to some extent, that may well be true. But helping animals helps them more. It can even help people because we are all connected - if too many animal species die out, it won't be good for humans. Helping humans helps humans more than helping animals helps humans, but really, it's your choice. I think that animals are more important. That's my opinion. Really, why should we get angry at people who don't agree with us on where to donate? It's a donation, and anyone willing to donate can donate wherever they want. Sure, we can debate about which is better, but we shouldn't be getting angry at each other because we don't agree.

[Princess Artemis]

I just looked the definition up online. Sorry it was wrong.

As for people saying that helping people is helping animals - to some extent, that may well be true. But helping animals helps them more. It can even help people because we are all connected - if too many animal species die out, it won't be good for humans. Helping humans helps humans more than helping animals helps humans, but really, it's your choice. I think that animals are more important. That's my opinion. Really, why should we get angry at people who don't agree with us on where to donate? It's a donation, and anyone willing to donate can donate wherever they want. Sure, we can debate about which is better, but we shouldn't be getting angry at each other because we don't agree.

It's always good to have a second opinion anyhow.

 

I think people get more angry about the reasons than the donations themselves. I agree with you that getting mad at someone on where they donate is pointless, unless it's to the KKK or something.

[TPishek]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...t-poaching.html

 

"Conservationists estimate that, for every animal killed legally in a hunting season, one animal is lost to poaching."

 

http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/huntin...r-legal-hunters

 

"Oregon Poachers May Be Taking as Many Mule Deer as Legal Hunters"

From the article you posted:

"wildlife officers are stepping up efforts against the rising number of illegal immigrants hunting at night for meat to feed their families"

 

And a related article:

 

African Refugees Spurring Bush-Meat Trade

"The demand is driven partly by the absence of meat in rations.... When the refugees are kept in camps without meat protein they tend to fend for themselves by poaching local wildlife."

"Wild meat is cheaper than local beef or goat and represents a more traditional food for some refugees, according to the report. Selling bush meat also provides refugees with an opportunity to generate income."

"In this part of the world, meat is prohibitively expensive."

[_Z_]

Reminder:

Attack the topic not each other.

[JaziandCo]

From the article you posted:

"wildlife officers are stepping up efforts against the rising number of illegal immigrants hunting at night for meat to feed their families"

 

And a related article:

 

African Refugees Spurring Bush-Meat Trade

"The demand is driven partly by the absence of meat in rations.... When the refugees are kept in camps without meat protein they tend to fend for themselves by poaching local wildlife."

"Wild meat is cheaper than local beef or goat and represents a more traditional food for some refugees, according to the report. Selling bush meat also provides refugees with an opportunity to generate income."

"In this part of the world, meat is prohibitively expensive."

This is pretty much what I've been saying when I say starving children > animals.

 

This child, this child, and these kids live in areas where a parent or relative is likely poaching in order to help them survive.

 

They don't care if it's an overpopulated species or an endangered species, if it's in their fence attacking their farm animals they use as a food or money source, it's going to be shot at, trapped, and poisoned. Personally I can't blame them. Meat is already expensive in the States. In places where the majority of people are even more in the red than those living in poverty here, meat has got to cost a significant amount of money. If a lion was in my fence making a meal of my 20odd sheep, heck, I'd shoot it too. I might even sell the pelt or make a trophy to make a penny or two to replace the sheep I lost, or to help out the rest of the family.

 

Yes, there are people who poach for other reasons. Some in the US due to pride, or they just like venison, or because screw the police, or they just want a trophy or two. Others do only poach for greed. But those people aren't where the donations for things like starving children are going.

[Alpha1]

"wildlife officers are stepping up efforts against the rising number of illegal immigrants hunting at night for meat to feed their families"

 

A state-wide problem in Arizona due to increasing numbers of them. The article didn't go into depth about other reasons of poaching.

 

And a related article:

 

African Refugees Spurring Bush-Meat Trade

"The demand is driven partly by the absence of meat in rations.... When the refugees are kept in camps without meat protein they tend to fend for themselves by poaching local wildlife."

"Wild meat is cheaper than local beef or goat and represents a more traditional food for some refugees, according to the report. Selling bush meat also provides refugees with an opportunity to generate income."

"In this part of the world, meat is prohibitively expensive."

 

I'm not denying this. It was in response to this:

 

Face it, between the wardens and the animals themselves poaching is not a posh job. Just like if there is any other option, most people do not steal. Of course there are exceptions, but for the vast majority of people, poaching is just a way to survive.

 

A couple of points:

 

1. Like anything to do with law, the dumb ones get caught, but it's relatively easy to poach without a trace. If they're caught, the punishments are relatively minor most of the time with the exception of Samson's Laws i.e. they see it as a business expense.

2. Motives -- Everything in the world is for sale, and wildlife is a valuable commodity. Besides trophy heads of deer, rams, elk, etc. that can go on the market for tens of thousands of dollars, people will want to boost their egos and many want the meat even if they're not poor.

 

I realize poaching numbers are reflected in the projection of game tags in a number of ways. If someone baits illegally, spotlights at nights, etc. for an advantage, it doesn't mean that they don't have a tag to fill. A lot of people will use big game tags of other people who just bought them with no intention of hunting themselves. Many people do this.

 

http://www.sunjournal.com/city/story/982653

 

"A disturbing trend

 

In the fall of 2010, wardens checked licenses of 36,000 hunters in the field, an effort to patrol when poachers are most active.

 

The biggest poaching problem is people exceeding the bag limit on deer, Scott said. It's a “disturbing trend that’s been going on forever.”

 

For whatever reason, he said, “society thinks, in the fish and wildlife realm, it’s OK to violate a Class D crime.” Very often, these same people wouldn’t dream of lifting a candy bar at a convenience store, but they will assign a single hunter in a family of license-holders to get deer for them all, he said."

 

 

[Sorrowgrave]

I know of some poachers getting spooked by someone's dog or child coming up in the woods of a PARK that they were poaching in, the bow hunter who was poaching jumped and barely missed murdering the kid when the arrow went over the 6 year old's head and another not so lucky family dog was shot through the torso and died on the spot. a witness who saw the dog go down said "It could of been a child"

 

I've also heard stories of Poachers who are spooked ending up killing other people, read about a man who was out hiking and ended up getting killed this way.

 

I hate poachers in general. For every 1 you hear who's feeding their families there's six who did some variation of what I said above.

[Nine]

I posted a bit earlier about this but I guess it bears repeating; starving families in poverty are not necessarily a completely negative thing. Even with aid, it only takes a couple generations for that outside assistance to be consumed and poverty likely resumes. If the area is not habitable or prosperous enough to survive in alone (be it by political, environment, etc. reasons), helping those who are suffering is only allowing the trend to continue. I'm not talking about spontaneous famines.

 

Those starving people sometimes just need to die, and wanting to prevent it all to the extent of allowing chains of species to collapse is foolish. Eventually the population would be reduced to a sustainable number if they were allowed to die, theoretically preventing the suffering of generations to come. There is no way I can condone poaching in threatened environments for sole sustenance in bush meat.

 

While despising humans and lavishing superiority on animals is indeed the "cool" thing to do by those who feel wronged by humanity, there is an entirely different perspective that attempts to look at how things are without bias. That's how I try to perceive topics like this that don't have a true "answer", while it may seem callous to most =P

[WestWindReborn]

That's how I try to perceive topics like this that don't have a true "answer", while it may seem callous to most =P

i don't find it callous at all. compared to me it's down right heart warming.

[7Deadly$ins]

I posted a bit earlier about this but I guess it bears repeating; starving families in poverty are not necessarily a completely negative thing. Even with aid, it only takes a couple generations for that outside assistance to be consumed and poverty likely resumes. If the area is not habitable or prosperous enough to survive in alone (be it by political, environment, etc. reasons), helping those who are suffering is only allowing the trend to continue. I'm not talking about spontaneous famines.

 

Those starving people sometimes just need to die, and wanting to prevent it all to the extent of allowing chains of species to collapse is foolish. Eventually the population would be reduced to a sustainable number if they were allowed to die, theoretically preventing the suffering of generations to come. There is no way I can condone poaching in threatened environments for sole sustenance in bush meat.

 

While despising humans and lavishing superiority on animals is indeed the "cool" thing to do by those who feel wronged by humanity, there is an entirely different perspective that attempts to look at how things are without bias. That's how I try to perceive topics like this that don't have a true "answer", while it may seem callous to most =P

The charities aren't all about just throwing money at poverty. Quite a few are designed to increase the quality of live, handing out animals (cattle, sheep, etc.), vaccines, health care, education... all of these things contribute to ending horrible conditions in poverty.

[Xocowolf]

...It really depends on how it's killed. Many cattle are chopped up alive - their hooves and organs taken out while they are fully conscious. That's just as bad as a cat playing with its food, you can hardly say that we're better.

Where'd you hear that?

FYI, the USDA requires, by law, that cattle be knocked unconscious if not killed outright before they're cut up. They are not cut up while fully conscious [cringe, lip curl]. It's a law to ensure the sanitation of the meat — this is going to be peoples' food — as it is to ensure the safety of the workers. Easier and safer to knock a steer out than to restrain it so you can cut it apart, alive. [wince, Pt. II] (Father was a butcher, I got taken to slaughterhouses on a regular basis throughout my formative years. Never saw that happen).

And don't ever say anything like that to a kosher butcher. Their methods for killing and slaughtering cattle are probably the most humane in the world. The knife must be razor sharp and the killing wound cannot be ragged, as that would cause suffering to the animal. They train to cut all arteries and the windpipe in one, smoothe stroke. If a kosher butcher's killing blade gets a notch or a scratch in it, the whole knife is trashed. And since those things aren't cheap, going through twenty of them in a week isn't an option.

 

Some background on myself: Father was a butcher, I hunt, my horse's great-grandmother was a bullfighting mare in Portugal, and I eat meat. My totem is Wolf and yes, I know how brutal wolves are in killing prey. By that token, I don't recoil in disgust and horror when I see video of a bullfight, because the cumpania acts very much like a wolf pack taking down a large animal. Like watching wolves take down a moose in the dead of winter, it's not something I'd like to look at every day, but I don't shrink away in horror (mainly because a bullfighting team kills the bull faster and cleaner than a pack of wolves would do).

At the same time, if I ever get to Rome, I have vowed to assiduously avoid going into the Colisseo. That place was horrible, for animals and humans alike, and the ghosts of the past remain there.

 

Now, on to some more attitudes.

Yes, various reproachful obscenities run through my head when I see someone eating horse meat. Same as someone from Varanasi would think of me if they saw me tucking into a bacon-wrapped filet mignon. I don't take it as an affront. It's their culture. They think of cows the same way I think of horses, and tigers (and hawks, and dogs, and cats, and wolves). To an Indian, a cow is more valuable alive than dead. I think of horses in much the same way.

There is a place in Varanasi that's called "Dasawsamedh Ghat." According to legend, it's a location on the Ganges where a king sacrificed ten horses, while the Lord Brahma looked on and kept telling him, "I dare you…I double-dare you…I double-dog-dare you…" etc. According to the same legend, anyone who goes to that ghat and bathes in the river receives the "benefit of the ten-horse sacrifice." Me? I'd be as "excuse me, I'm gonna be sick" horrified as a citizen of Varanasi would be if I invited them to come tour a slaughterhouse that my dad took me to. I don't consider anywhere that ten horses died in pain, to be sacred. (Never mind that the east bank of the Ganges in Varanasi is, for all intents and purposes, the world's largest open sewer )

 

It should also go noted: yes, in India, cows are sacred. That's domestic cattle, because, indeed, female bovines are worth more alive than dead and they can't give their gifts of milk if they don't get pregnant, and that's why the males of the species are held sacred too. But, Indians — and Nepali — do not view water buffalo in the same light. They whack them and eat them quite happily, with positively no worries about their karma. But you and I would go — "Wait a minute — water buffalo are cattle!" The Hindu would say, "no they're not." They make a distinction between domesticated and bred dairy cattle, and semi-wild water buffalo. Confusing? Hypocritical? They don't think they are.

The temples in Kathmandu, Nepal, run red with animal sacrifices on feast days, which is pretty much year-round. Nepal is described as a Hindu culture. Are they bad Hindus because they kill and eat goats — and chickens, and water buffalo, and sometimes dogs? Aren't all Hindus vegetarian? And the Nepali practice a synchretization of Buddhism and Hinduism. Siddartha Gautama (the Buddha) was born there. Does that make them bad Buddhists, too?

 

Let's take a look at Native Americans. We generally like to think of them as "respectful of nature," and "thankful for their meals." Hunting a deer, shooting it with an arrow, then kneeling beside the carcass and thanking the animal's spirit for giving itself to the hunter so he and his family can eat — what a pretty, respectful, spiritual picture. But how is that any less an animal blood sacrifice than the Nepalis praying to Shiva while they're slitting goats' throats and decapitating water buffalo? Hey, according to urban legends, Satanists make beast sacrifices, too. So are the Native Americans, the Nepali, the Haitians, the Jewish kosher butcher evil, because Satanists kill animals at the same time as they pray, too? What about the *** Indian king that killed ten horses beside the Ganges in Varanasi because "God told him to"?

 

But is it really? The Nepali practice animal sacrifice. But they, like Voudoun practitioners, eat the animals they sacrifice in the temple. They kill with quick, clean strokes, like the kosher butcher. Satanist wannabees sacrifice animals and leave them to rot because, well, they're self-centred jerks that like to squick people out. They aren't rotten because they kill animals, they're rotten in the same way serial killers who start out torturing and killing pets, then "graduate" keep trophies and sometimes eat them — because it's an externalized symptom of a bigger, underlying, sociopathic problem. But, before the re-introduction of the horse to North America, Native Americans used to run whole herds of buffalo over a cliff and didn't take everything — they took as much as they could carry, with their own group, and the rest got left where they laid, to rot. Or hobble off crippled, to be taken down by wolves, cougars, jaguars and grizzly bears after awhile. See, no human ethnicity has a lock on righteousness, or nastiness. If there is one quality about humanity that is a hallmark of us all, it is that everyone, throughout the world and throughout history, is capable of atrocities and also capable of blessings.

 

All or nothing. Black and white. Nothing in between, no shades, no nuances. This is the way a lazy — or worse, dogmatic — philosopher thinks. People are different throughout the world. Southeast Asians eat dogs and they also have pet dogs that they wouldn't countenance eating for the world. Does that make them hypocrites?

No. Humans are complex. They're not drawn in black and white. "If you're against eating one kind of meat, you should be against eating of any kind of meat." GMAB. Manacheistic much?

 

I honestly hope I haven't earned myself a warning because I spoke frankly here. It's happening in the world, it's real, and I'm presenting it in sincerity, not out of mean-spiritedness

[Dotty890]

I think that animals are very important, to me anyway, I've adopted some wild animals (example an Amur leopard) becuase of extinction. I do believe that we humans have caused this and we need to respect animals lives. What they do is different to us (ie a cat catching live prey) but we can't call that disgusting. Most animals would probably think of us as weird, and a threat becuase we are killing them and their families. There are only 35 amur leopards left. We are killing them for their fur and destroying their homes. Would you like your family murdered and your home torn down? no. Probably not. So why should we harm them? I know I'm being one sided but this is what I think. We are over-populating their world. Please dont kill me