1/23: Kabul dog fight
 

http://cellar.org/2002/kabuldogfight.jpg

Forget about bus kashi (or however it's spelled), you know things are back to normal when the dog fights in Afghanistan return. Perhaps the only thing that the Taliban banned that should remain banned.

I realize this is yet another dog-related image on IotD, and it's not the last either...

The civil aspect of the dog fight: it's not to the death. The losing dog is the dog who runs away first.

Yah, but they banned it for the wrong reason: it was <b>entertainment</b> and might <b>distract them from Allah</b>.

Though I agree, it oughta be banned. Only because it's cruel to the animals, though.

Lets send them Mike Tyson.

We can't send them Mike Tyson. That would be just as cruel to the dogs. He'll most likely bite them more than the dogs bite each other.

his head looked like a pie, so i bit his ear.

heh.

Ooooh Evanda... Your ears are makin' me hONGRY.

Well hey, humans fight, so why not dogs? Seems like a double-standard if you ask me. Unless the dog doesn't want to fight, in which case i'd imagine that it would run away in the first place, right?

i can say, with plenty of confidence, that i am pretty sure the dogs are bred and grown to fight. or if not that, at least taught to specifically do so. which is pretty cruel in that it is not in their nature to be so aggressive towards one another. if it were, dogs would fight like that on the street all the time.

it's like you're taking other things away from their life just so you can get pleasure out of watching them fight. they won't be able to have a great relationship with someone, or another animal, and may end up feeling lonely, etc.

most humans aren't born and raised to fight barehand like that either, and we call it wrong when they are taught to be suicide bombers and hate others because of skin tones, etc. it's the same thing. brainwashing something that should be able to think free of that stuff, if given the chance.

most human beings fight physically over verbal arguments or disagreements, not because they are simply taught to do so. the only instances i can really think of where people train to fight are in boxing cases, wrestling, and such. in which case those people don't train from shortly after birth and can walk away from that at the end of the day.

seeing shows about this sort of thing and just picking up details from those, i gather that the dogs can't do that. they often become very hostile towards even those that train them, not to mention other human beings and animals.

even if the dogs don't kill one another, it's still, in my opinion, not right to train them to fight like that just so the public can watch.

Hope you're a vegetarian... and now let me explain that statement:

As I see it, raising cattle to be slaughtered for human consumption is no different than raising and training dogs to fight, even to the death.

The slaughter of animals is no less brutal than a dog fight. Generally, they are cut while alive so that they will bleed as much as possible - helps the quality of the meat. If they're lucky, they get a bonk on the noggin' first, to daze them.

The consumption of animals is no more necessary than a dog fight. Both are sheerly for human pleasure. Meat is a luxury. Assuming we were never lost in the wilderness in the winter, every single one of us could survive our entire natural lives without ever consuming meat.

Am I a vegetarian? No. But I won't say that the dog fights are wrong, even though I find them distasteful.

Cheers,
mulgorod

True, but its evil dogfight in a third world country how barbaric! Us developed nations are far better, don't you know? It makes me laugh, a society doesn't need to be primitive to be barbaric. Sorry if i sound pretentious, its a tad tipsy, tata all i'm off to bed.

Really? So we take cows, put them in cages that are hardly greater than their size, and poke them with sharp sticks and the like so they become as vicious as possible? Oh, thanks for clearing that up for me. I thought we just fattened them up and killed 'em. Thanks for that insightful clarification though.

That depends on how you look at it. A dog fight consists of two animals ripping themselves apart, usually to the death. An animal slaughter consists of an animal getting killed real quick. Whether or not that's brutal to you is all a matter of personal opinion and is not irrefutable fact.

WOW. Thanks. Here's what you basically said: Assuming none of us ever had to eat meat, we would never have to eat meat. What if we ARE lost in the wilderness in the winter? What then? I'll tell you: assuming one can kill an animal and find a way to cook it, those that are meat eaters will do alright while those that have never eaten meat will get <b>fucking sick</b>. Physically. I know because my better half is vegetarian, as are <b>most</b> of my friends. They will get ill if they eat meat. You're not very useful if you're sick in the middle of a winter in the wilderness.

Now, on to your "meat is a luxury" statement. Quit being a turd. They're not "sheerly for human pleasure". One is, and the other is <b>beneficial to humans</b>. Meat contains many proteins and vitamins that are essential to properly growing. Sure, you can get them in vitamins, but it's not like they're <b>not</b> in meat either. Blowjobs are just a luxury - meat can serve some real purpose.

Wow. So do me a favor. Go back and show me where she said that dog fights were <b>wrong</b>. Your statement about not saying they're wrong is irrelevant because you brought it up. It's nearly the same as ending your argument with "Am I a vegetarian? No. But I won't say that my dick smells, even though I haven't washed it in a month." That's great and all, but YOU brought it up. It's not relevant to the discussion. Jeni didn't say they were wrong either. What's your point?

dhamsaic -

Thanks for tearing apart that post. It was ridiculous. A couple of quick points:

- We don't put cows in cages that are slightly larger that them and poke them with sticks to make them vicious. Instead we put cows in cages that are slightly smaller than they are, let their hind hooves hang out into the shitstream that runs down the center of the barn so that their hooves get infected. Then we hook them up to milking machines that place a strain on their teats and their teats which get irritated and possibly infected. Finally, if their cages aren't cleaned often enough (which is common), they have to lay in their own shit and their udders get infected.
- Animals that are slaughtered aren't necessarily slaughtered that quickly. Cows, for instance, are hit in the heat with a pistol-bolt gun to stun them, then have their throats cut. If something goes wrong with the gun (or it is mis-aimed), they aren't unconscious when their throats are cut and it can take several minutes for brain function to cease. You can decide whether this is brutal or not; some say yes, some say no.
- If you are lost in the wilderness in the winter, your first priority will NOT be whether or not you can eat meat. You can survive without food for three weeks. You can survive without water for three days. In the wilderness in the winter, good luck surviving overnight if you can't build yourself a decent shelter. But if you insist on being well fed, what makes you think that vegetarian food will be harder to find than meat?

Firstly, the condition of farms is wholly upon the owner, and they are responsible for the livestock. Dairy cows are generally treated better than meat cows because <b>it is not cost effective to let them get sick and die</b>. I've been to a number of dairy farms, and I have no complaints - it all looked good to me. Yes, the shitstream rotating thingy is pretty fuckin' gross, but I never saw a cow actually have to touch it.

As far as finding a vegetarian meal - I think I remember reading one time that like, around winter or something, a lot of stuff kinda "died" and then bloomed again in the spring. But maybe that was a wives' tale?

no, i'm not a vegetarian, and let me explain why i'm not a hypocrite for feeling the way i do.

first of all, to eat meat is part of what is called the food chain. i eat meat because it is natural. it helps that i like the taste of meat.

second of all, we don't put the deaths of the cows and chickens and whatever other meat we eat out for the public to watch and get enjoyment from.

third of all, as dave mentioned, we don't train the cows to kill one another.

YES, in my opinion, it is not right to raise an animal to fight another animal. that is brainwashing, and that is bad, in my opinion. your opinion may differ, but i certainly hope you are a vegetarian if you think the KKK is bad.

-rolls her eyes-

Why so much vitriol dham? Getting tired of all the new posters on cellar? I've been lurking for about 3 months now, and in my experience that's sure not like you.

Hope we didn't get off on the wrong foot. I'm not trying to run in here and start preaching (you'll notice that the above was my frist p0st) - I just thought that we might get some interesting conversation out of examining what some might consider to be hypocrisy caused by cultural presumptions.

To respond to what you've said, point by point:

You agreed that it's a matter of opinion whether or not a cow slaughter is as brutal as a dog fight. You also mentioned you've been to a dairy farm. Well, some of my friends are ranchers. I've seen cow slaughters. Contrary to popular beleif, cows are not dumb. When the first blood is spilled, they smell it, and they freak. They are scared. When there's 300 plus cows to kill, the last one gets to spend all day in sheer terror of what's to come.

Next, you refuted that meat was necessary. Then you acknowledged that the same stuff in meat can be had from vitamins (pills, I presumed you meant) and vegetables. Which is it?

Finally you asked me to point out where jeni said it was wrong. Well, you got me there, she didn't say it's wrong, she said it's "not right". I quoted that in my first post. If there's a subtle difference between "wrong" and "not right", it escapes me right now, but I could just be tired.

Hmmm... I thought that what made people special, above animals, so to speak, was that we could engage in thoughtful discussion of issues, and behave in some way other than what is natural, if we deem it necessary.

Oh, so it's Ok, as long as you don't have to look at it? I've thought for a while that it might be a good idea to make people slaughter an animal, in order to be licenced to eat meat. It would combat the sort of happiness in ignorance that people enjoy today, and I know that I eat less meat ever since my first hunt.

Cow kills a cow, man kills a cow... what's the diff? Yeah, being gnawed to death by the large flat teeth of herbivore would be a slow and painful way to go, but the alternative isn't terribly pleasant either.

I think I've explained my position to the point that a reasonable person can see where I'm coming from, even if they don't agree. If you'd care to explain that last comment, I'd be willing to sit and listen.

I'm tired and I have to sleep, but I'll respond to one real quick, which I think you misunderstood.

What I said was, while meat is unnecessary, it certainly is not "for pleasure only". It <b>does</b> serve a purpose other than pleasure. My example was: blowjobs are for pleasure only. This is true. They are not beneficial (except in an emotional-health way) in any manner. They are for pleasure. One can not get any significant quantities of vitamins and minerals from receiving a blowjob. One can, however, get these from eating meat. So while it is indeed a luxury, it is not one that serves no purpose other than entertainment.

I hope that clarifies that point. I will respond to the rest tomorrow.

and i don't deem it necessary to stop the natural act of eating meat. simple. i said "it helps that i like the taste." if i didn't like the taste, i wouldn't eat meat. hence my not eating fish. but that isn't the only reason i eat meat. i choose to eat meat for other reasons, which, to list, would be redundant. i also don't gripe to my vegetarian friends about why they don't eat meat. it's a personal preference, and they have their reasons. such as i have mine for eating how i do.

no. i didn't say that. i said that we did not put those slaughters on display for the public to watch and get enjoyment from. if we did, it would make me feel much more sad about the way the country and its inhabitants decide to make money. i think that watching the death of anything for enjoyment is sickening. will i eat meat? yes. it is natural for me to eat meat. i get lots of iron from it. do i think that the way slaughterhouses go about killing the animals is particularly humane? no. do i want to pay money to watch it? absolutely not. i don't think it is OKAY. but it is not going to stop me from eating meat. i'm not on a fucking crusade, here. i just have an opinion about dog fights. if i were out to stop them, instead of just talking about them with you online, you could very well counter everything i said if you liked. but i'm not out to stop them. i just would not choose to participate in one, because i think it is wrong to brainwash something.

happiness in ignorance? i'm not ignorant of what goes on in slaughterhouses. i know plenty about that, just as i have sat and watched a deer die after my friend's dad put a bullet in its neck. and i watched him cut slits in its legs, shove a nice thick metal rod through, and hang it upside down for the blood to drain out. and i looked into its dead black eyes. you cannot assume that just because i eat meat, i know nothing about what goes on "behind the scenes".

the difference is that you are taking what i said and making something totally different out of it. i specifically said that i thought it was not right to breed, raise, and train a dog to fight. i have watched plently of programs about the practice, and i know enough to know that i think it's unfair.

look, it's the same as this. the KKK has specific women set aside for breeding. when those babies are born, they are raised and taught to believe what the KKK tells them. i also think this is not right. do you know why? because that child will never have a chance to think on its own without getting bitched at.

much the same as those dogs won't ever be able to live normal lives with little boys named timmy taking them for walks and hugging them before bed at nine o'clock. you get the idea?

Hi Jeni
 

I eat meat because I like the taste...

I don't eat fish because I don't...

Giver or reciever? *laughz
Your analergy is flawed in the sense that, unless i've been missing something, you don't have to kill anything to get a blowjob.

Ok, jeni. I don't have a problem with you eating meat. As I said, I do too. And I guess I owe you an apology for making assumptions about what your experiences with animal slaughter and hunting is, and kind of, sort of, indirectly calling you ignorant. So I'm sorry.

The point of my original statement was not that we should all become vegetarians, but that we shouldn't be so quick to judge the activities of other cultures. I think it's possible to draw a parallel to the activities of another culture that we consider barbaric, and an activity of our own culture, which we consider normal. Jaguar, judging from his response, managed to pick that up fairly quickly, and sums the conclusion up for me quite nicely, even if he was tipsy.

Dham, I now understand what you were saying about meat vs. blowjobs, but it's a small point that meat does have beneficial effects besides the sheer joy of consumption when those beneficial effects can be gotten elsewhere, arguably without significantly greater output of effort (yes I understand being a healthy vegetarian requires some education, but actually going to a grocery store and buying a cucumber is no more difficult than the same for a steak). The significant point, is that it is truly unnecessary. As are dog fights, though watching one won't get you any iron or protein.

Yeah, I get what you're saying. But I think it's a bit of a stretch. You've expanded the scope of the argument to include humans, and I never said I thought that humans were equivalent to animals. I hunt animals, I wouldn't hunt humans.

Well there ya go. In our society, we now have a weird mix of teaching of respect for other cultures and a fierce lack of respect for other cultures.

So where does one draw the line and say that a cultural practice is something to direct political pressure against? Apartheid? African genital mutilation? Chinese abortions to force famliy size limits?

Cows also freak when a 15 pound dog barks at them. I've seen it. Pretty funny watching a bunch of cows get scared off by a dog 1% of any of their weights.

I just got some porterhouse yesterday. Bet it'll be good broiled with a little salt and pepper.

Are you Australian or retarded? (hehehe, SNL reference for those who haven't seen it)

Okay. How are you missing this?

It is not about the killing. The dude (dudette?) said that, and I quote, the consumption of animals is "sheerly for human pleasure".

That would imply that the <b>only</b> purpose it serves is to provide pleasure.

I say that this is false. It also provides another purpose - getting minerals. To show an example of something that is "sheerly for human pleasure", I referenced a <b>blowjob</b>. It is not about whether or not something dies in the process - it is about whether or not said action is <b>"sheerly for human pleasure"</b>.

Does that clarify a little bit more?

mulgorod -

I never said being a vegetarian wouldn't be easy. It would be, so long as one can control their temptations. My only point was to refute your assertion that eating meat was "sheerly for human pleasure". Now I have done that, so I will shut up. :)

Undertoad -

Japscat. That needs some intervention :)

Well...
 

You've never met my ex, mate.

Brian

and i agree with you on that point. we shouldn't be so quick to call what another culture does wrong, because other cultures have their own rituals. that is what makes them who they are, so be it.

but dog fights happen in the US too. people pay money to bet on which dog will lose. i'm not saying that afghanis are horrible people for participating in such an event, i am saying that i think making dogs do things other than what comes naturally to them, from birth, is pretty cruel. no matter what country it takes place in. i pretty much ignored jag's post, because he had no idea what i was talking about, and i'm not going to get into petty baby talk trying to explain to someone who assumes something in the first place.

the KKK example was brought about to show that humans think it is cruel to brainwash children. look back in the threads for the picture of the little boy who was a suicide bomber. it was brought up time and time again how horrible it was to teach a child that it is right to kill other people, and in the process get injured or killed themselves...it's the same thing, just a different animal.

who are human beings to say what a dog can and cannot do? why should we teach it to attack another animal if that isn't the "norm" for its breed? what if it doesn't want to? we beat it. why? i am willing to bet that the trainers of those dogs don't give the dogs a chance to get away from the training, if they want.

if the animals are domestic, especially, i think we should not train them to rip apart other dogs. if that comes in the wilderness between wolves, fine, because they need to do that to survive. but domestic dogs that should be kept as pets are not meant to tear one another limb from limb.

so yes, human beings THINK, but maybe dogs think just like we do. maybe they think "this sucks. i don't want to be fighting with other dogs." but they can't do anything about it.

and that relates to the children in the KKK because they are brought up to think like KKK members. they don't have a choice to think otherwise, if they so desire, because where are they going to go? they're kids. they need the people around them.

I think what Jen is saying is that the "training" that leads to dogfighting is the dog equivalent of the brainwashing that goes into Palestinian child suicide bombers & KKK children, though since they're not surrounded by as much pure <b>hatred</b>, I think KKK kids are more likely to grow up and realize that their parents are retards.

Her point, then, is that if you think the KKK or suicide bombers are deplorable, you should think that dog fighting is deplorable as well, not necessarily because of the physical toll that is taken on the dogs, but the mental toll as well.

Just a different animal? That is as ridiculous as stating that because you eat beef, you should be perfectly Ok with eating babies.

That's my point, that's the parallel I'm trying to draw. Who are human beings to say whether a cow lives or dies? Why should we raise it from birth, just so we can feast on it's flesh? What if it won't like that? I'm willing to bet that the cows don't get to go live in the wilderness and take their chances with the wolves, even if they want to.

Not that they'd have much of a chance, now that we have so twisted their genes through selective breeding that they are a horrifying bloated mimic of their true natural selves.

that's the question. What values are universal enough to be defended universally? I think we need to focus on respecting and defending human rights. The Taliban's culturally justified abuses against women and girls in Afghanistan were for years condemned, yet tolerated, not drawing any real pressure. Had 9/11 not occurred, do you think the US or greater international community would have moved to help free Afghani women? I'm having trouble getting disgusted by fighting dogs when down the street a girl is getting beaten or killed for learning to read or refusing Osama's advances.

I personally don't groove on dog, cock or bull fights, nor WWF, nor boxing. But give me a fiery, equal rumble in the midst of a passionate NHL game...just to vent the tension, stand up for yer guys. I confess, I like!

Ok
 

I found this site a few months ago, and I check the IotD almost religiously, but never had a reason to post until now.

mulgorod, you are lumping any kind of death into the same category. That's really not how it works though. Dog fights are pretty damn awful for both the dogs and the people involved. I think it's obvious why they're bad for the dogs: the living conditions, the whole...dying thing.

As for the humans watching -- Jefferson said that slavery taints the owner's heart. His point was that cruelty hardens and corrupts a human being - and this cruelty, which is just shameless in its viciousness, is much the same thing as slavery. Of course, it's dogs that are enslaved, and not humans.

As for eating meat -- that's just the food chain at work. There is no direct corruption of the soul at play in a hamburger, even though some poor animal died for it. Instead of spiritual corruption, the body is enriched.

So both are bad, to an extent. Both involve the death of a living thing. The difference is that one is a part of nature (yes, I know, we were designed to be herbivores, but early man learned quickly to adapt to eating meat) while the other is nothing but simple brutality. I believe that's what jeni and dhamsaic were objecting to.

Just for reference, I'm one of those...I would be a vegetarian but beef and chicken taste too good... types.

Man. You're really fucking this up now. Look. An animal is an animal. Humans are animals. Dogs are animals. Horses are animals. Cows are animals. Okay?

What type of meat do you eat? You said you did. The likely choices are chicken, fish, cow or pig. Okay. So it's likely that you consume, at least occasionally, one or more of those animals.

Now. Of course eating baby children is taboo. At least in our culture. But so is dog. It is all about our perception of the animal. We regard humans higher than we do dogs, and we regard dogs higher than we do cows. Is this making sense?

I sure hope so, because if it does, then maybe you're starting to realize that saying it's "just a different animal" is decidedly <b>not</b> as ridiculous as saying meat eaters should be okay with eating babies. Animals are animals, and our regard for different species undoubtedly differs, but the fact of the matter is, they are still animals. I seriously do not understand how you can be so obtuse on this issue. I don't mean to be insulting, but I seriously am having trouble comprehending how you can possibly make that argument in a serious mood. Are you just fucking around or what?

Okay. Again, not to be insulting at all, but you're not really making sense here.

As we have established, eating meat is not an entertainment-only activity. However, there is no practical usage of a dog fight. Consider that a dog fight is for purely entertainment value, whereas when one slaughters a cow, they actually get some <b>food</b>. Okay. Are we making this connection? Good. Now. Replace the dog fight, pure entertainment, with the action of just walking up to a cow and stabbing it to death - you know, for "entertainment". All we're doing here is a little switcharoo. Cow for dog, human for dog. Got the two situations in mind? Good.

Now. In one situation (this would be the <b>slaughter</b>), we are doing this for food so that our bellies can be full. The meat is being used. The cow is dying, yes, but it is dying for the very real benefit of another. Whether this is right or wrong is beyond classification by the human race - we cannot decide. However, the irrefutable facts are that a) a cow is being killed, and b) another animal is benefitting, in a very real way, from its death.

The second situation, which we will call <b>the cow fight</b>, is quite a bit different, however. A human being is fighting a cow. The human being has a knife, which makes up for its lack of anything else (remember, the human being's asset is its brain, which it uses to discover and make tools) with which it can fight. The cow has a pretty powerful kick. Now, the human being goes up to the cow, stabs the holy fuck out of it, eventually kills it, and walks off with a smile on their face, having just had a great time. He feels as though he's been "entertained". The irrefutable facts of this situation are that a) a cow is being killed, and b) another animal is just getting some jollies from its death.

Now, can you see a difference here? Because if I'm understanding you properly, you can't (hence your usage of the word "parallel"). One is an example of the <b>food chain</b>, and the other is an example of <b>the murder of a cow</b>. They are not the same. Do you believe that it's wrong for a rabbit to eat some grass? Is it wrong for a wolf to eat a rabbit? Is it wrong for a human to eat a cow? Where do you draw the line? Moreover, <b>who are you to decide</b>?

This thread, I think, is some of the most convincing evidence I've seen that presenting an analogy does nothing to strengthen one's argument. When was the last time anyone convinced you of ANYTHING using an analogy? Think about it. Using an analogy to illustrate a point is like using your turn signal to tell the drivers around you that you're going to accelerate... OK, bad analogy.

One more point to make... <a href="http://www.cellar.org/showthread.php?threadid=978">IofD thread 978</a>

Hot Pastrami!

...follow up...
 

Oh, incidentally... if it weren't for the fact that I despise ASCII smiley emiticon whatever-they're-called things, that last message would be peppered with them. I was being facetious. Remarkably, unspeakably so.

Hot Pastrami!

If you look at the context of the post from which I drew my quote, you'll notice that it was jeni, not I, who drew a parallel between the way we treat humans, and the way we treat animals. I thought it was invalid , and I was just calling her on it. It seems that you think I brought it up in the first place.

Hermit22:
Why do you think the living conditions and the whole... dying thing isn't as obviously bad for cows? Or rather, to clarify my position, why is it worse for dogs? I'll admit, that by magnitude, the treatment of fighting dogs and the cruelty of their deaths is probably, on the average, worse than cows. But not a whole lot worse.

Dham:
As far as the fact that the slaughter of cows serves some utility, I think that it's totally invalid, given that the same utility can be gained by other means. Easily. In fact, from an economic standpoint, more easily. Which leads me to beleive that 90% of what your paying for when you buy a steak is not it's nutritional value, but rather it's yummy factor.

I'm not drawing a line. What I _am_ saying, is humans have the ability to reason, and thinking about the issue as we now are enables us to draw a line for ourselves if we so choose. The very fact that we can reason means that we don't truly have a right to use our place in the food chain as an excuse to kill animals.

I'm convinced that slaughtering cows is somewhat more justifiable than raising dogs to fight. Barely, more justifiable. The utility of it is a very small factor, when you consider that we can remain just as healthy without it. The most convincing point is that people are hardened by taking enjoyment from the dog fights.

Best. Point. Ever.

You are STILL missing my point. I am amazed.

Are you saying that humans are not animals?

You are amazing. I am speechless.

Population control. Excess cows are eaten. Just the same as wolves keep the rabbit population in check. It is <b>the natural order of the world</b> that those that possess the ability to do so <b>eat the "lesser" animals</b>. Some day something may evolve and try to make its living by eating us, and we will fight back with whatever we have, much the same way animals fight back when they are being killed. You are arguing against <b>the natural order of the world</b>.

Please stop wasting your time on me and go try to get all the carnivores to switch to vegetarianism - I'm sure there are some wolves and lions that would be really interested in hearing your ideas.

Biologically, humans are animals. But don't you think there's something that makes people somehow more... sacred, than other animals?

Jeni talked about the KKK and how they raised children, then claimed that it was the same thing (I presumed she meant as raising a dog to kill), just a different animal. SInce I can agree that the KKK is wrong to do what they do, she seems to be proposing that I must agree that dog fights are also wrong.

But I say that's bunk. I don't have the same special respect for dogs (or beef) that I do for humans, which is why I'm not getting terribly upset over seeing dog fights. That's also why I suggested that my special respect for human kind prevents me from killing and eating them, even though do I eat preciousss little cowses.

If that doesn't answer your question, I guess I don't get your point.

Maybe I should get out the hose and break you guys up..?

Uh uh. We control populations of cows to the extent that we raise as many as possible for the purpose of consuming them. And humans have been out of the natural order of things for a long time. We did it by choice - we have too much knowledge to argue that we still have a place in the natural order as simple as "we're on top, so we eat whatever we can".

When a lion or wolf kills, it does not know how it fits into the larger picture.

Are you saying that you have no more wits than a wild carnivore?

And by the way, I am aware of the irony that you now have me half arguing against my original point. I kind of slipped into it with all those analogies getting thrown around.

You know this exactly <b>how</b>? Have many conversations with wild animals, do you?

NO. Nono, nonononono.
Look at hte behaviour of animals, look at the behavious of humans, fuck we should be *below* them. Read Mark Twain - letters from earth.

I have a nasty feeling that comment is going ot keep the pot boiling for quite a while...ahwell.

It's "caption that thread" time... here are my entries:

1. An exercise in futility
2. Kicking a dead horse
3. Conversational masturbation

Pointless. Hopeless. When it comes to arguments regarding principles, there will never emerge a victor, so I would urge you to agree to disagree my friends. That is, of course, unless you enjoy the debate for its own sake, in which case, Bravo! Carry on.

Sometimes my grasp of the obvious is not so flimsy.

Hot Pastrami!

It's a Kabul dog fight ... and it's making as much sense.

When I look, on the larger scale, at the behaviour of humans, I am most often disgusted. I don't have pets, but I have a plant that I like better than many humans... Hmmm... after making that comment, I was kind of going to get into defending humankind... but that pretty much says it, doesn't it? :D

VHEMT man, do the right thing =)
http://www.vhemt.org/art/colorvisualize.jpg
Its the only way life on earth will survive.
*ducks for cover*

you evidently are not understanding the point.

to reply to what you said:

humans may be able to build houses with hammers and nails. and we may be able to use the alphabet. we can invent things like cars and microwaves, and computers. this doesn't make us more sacred.

basically you are saying we are better because you THINK we are more "advanced" than other animals?

how do you know that they don't communicate with one another in their own languages, or write to one another. it is completely silly to think that we are BETTER than other animals with our thinking processes. wanna know why? because we don't think LIKE other animals. we don't communicate like them. therefore, for you to say that you know how they think, or what they think, you make yourself out to look like a total jackass. if you can't communicate with them, how the hell do you know if you're so much better than them?

you should know that other animals have roles in families and such, just like human beings do. and you should also know that they make their own shelters and come up with ways to survive. it's been proven that certain birds can tell different colors apart and can even learn human words, so what the hell makes you think that all other animals are any different from us, besides where they live and how they go about surviving? what makes us better?

i said that either way, it was brainwashing. i said that if you feel that brainwashing a human is wrong, you should as well feel that brainwashing another animal is wrong, because we are not better than those animals. this is my opinion. -- wait, maybe i shouldn't use the word "you" here, which is something you seem to be getting hung up on. it is MY opinion, that if a person thinks it is wrong to raise a child to hate or fight, that person would be a hypocrite to say that it was okay to raise dogs to kill one another. you may feel differently, and i don't really care, because we are not currently arguing about if YOU agree with that. we're arguing because you're missing my point by about ten thousand miles. --

now, back to the parallel. if that's the parallel you think i drew, sure. but i wasn't saying that we were better than dogs, i was saying the exact opposite. which has been part of my original point the entire time. which is what dham is apparently trying to defend to some extent. which is what you are obviously totally missing.

Anybody who doesn't believe that animals talk to each other, and even write books, hasn't read Charlotte's Web or Animal Farm.

<i>If you can't communicate with them, how the hell do you know if you're so much better than them?</i>

Consciousness. It's a higher-level brain activity they just aren't capable of.

We tend to give animals human characteristics, because we are looking at them from our point of view. We want to think they can reason, chat with their buddies, etc. And certainly there are many things that they do routinely that we can't possibly comprehend.

But consciousness is really important. Pain and suffering is quite different for us, because we have the ability to ask "why?", the reflection on the memory of it, and the reason to rise above it.

That's not to say that we shouldn't reduce pain and suffering as much as possible. But to say that a steer "prefers" not to fulfill its destiny as a section of my hamburger is to miss the fact that the steer truly has no preference. (Similarly, your car doesn't care how hard you drive it. It has no opinion on the matter whatsoever.)

UNless i mised a whole lotta research, thats almost impossible to prove, and curratly impossible to scope accurately how inteligent animals can be.

I was going ot say something about animals farm and reality but i couldn't be stuff, so i wrote this instead.

nic name: don't forget watership down :) good book.

ut: if an animal can remember a human by its voice or face, what makes anyone think they can't remember pain?

take rats, for instance, which are very smart animals. all of my rats know their names from the others' names, and all of them know me from paul (with whom i live) by my voice, the way i call them, and how i smell. if they can store those memories, what makes you think they don't remember pain? i bathe my rats on a bi-weekly basis, as well, and they know now much better than before how to behave around running water, which used to literally scare the shit out of them. now they act much more calmly, because they evidently know something they didn't before - possibly that i won't let the water hurt them.

or how about cats who have been neglected or beaten in the past? dave had a cat named phantom when we were about 12 and 13 years old. phantom had very obviously been treated poorly before we got him, and whenever we would go near him, he would shy away. eventually he learned that we would not hurt him, and he let us pet him and play with him.

i don't know exactly how the thought process of any animal (beside my own species) works, but i'm pretty sure that they can store bad memories as well as good ones, or they wouldn't act certain ways in certain situations.

i'm not about ready to say that they can reason like we, and that they can ask "why?" when something goes wrong, but it's pretty silly to put it out of the question when the only way to know is to be them.

dogs
 

The most perfect example that animals have a conscience is in dogs. My last dog's face would be covered in dried up tears everytime I went away for a couple days...and that never happened when I was around.

There is much we don't understand about the brain, but in those grey areas of our understanding we have to go by what we understand so far.

And in what we understand so far we have to resist the urge to prove by asserting that we can't prove a negative. It's true; I can't prove that animals don't have consciousness. That's proving a negative, which is impossible.

But I can look at the animals I've known, avoid the urge to anthropomorphize (i.e., humanize) them, and see that very obviously they lack an enormous amount. Even the brightest ones I've known are not able to solve basic problems. And training! Take housebreaking for example; if you don't catch the dog in the act, you can't correct the behavior, because dogs are unable to connect your anger with a changed condition in the room... that they created.

And I've said it before, but if you die and there is no other food source, after a few days most pets will eat you.

Which doesn't make them much different from a lot of the people in that part of the world.

Amen, brother. I drew this conclusion a long time ago during a philosophy class in college. It seems like no matter what analogy you use, someone somewhere can come up with an equally ridiculous analogy to refute yours.

an analogy, for fun. :)
 

As far as the fact that the use of Microsoft Windows serves some utility, I think that that's totally invalid, given that the same utility can be gained by other means -- Linux. Easily. In fact, from an economic standpoint, more easily.

You guys should remember that right and wrong are <i>invented concepts</i>. Meaning, they don't physically exist. You can't 'have' a right. And if you think you can, might I ask where it is, and if I can see it?

A moral is pointless unless you can get the majority of a population to agree with you. And even then, it's not really a moral as much as it is a mutually understood agreement.

I also feel that this applies very much so to the flawed concept of 'brainwashing'. Think about the things that you do every day that other cultures all over the world would consider horrible, disgusting, and wrong. How would you feel if, say, the Chinese, accused your parents of brainwashing you? You'd likely think that they were misguided, and tell them that you are perfectly capable of forming opinions of your own.

Brainwashing really is just a strange word for "communicating ideas", designed to make it seem like the communication itself is immoral.