Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Global PokédeX Plus Forums _ Debates _ Animal activists

Posted by: kaitenmia May 23 2010, 03:31 AM

Well today I came across an animal activist on the Internet...I had taken a picture of a snake I found in my backyard. It had a bloody little scratch in its skin because my cat found it before I did. Of course I made sure that snake got away and I kept my cat inside the rest of the day. And yet this animal activist literally started to blame me of animal abuse.
How horrible person I am to let my cats outside and cats are monsters that should be killed.
My cats mainly only kill and eat mice and that's one of the reasons why I have cats in the first place. I don't want my house full of mice. When cat catches a bird for example it's probably old and sick already. As for snakes, I've never seen one near my house before. And frankly I haven't seen too many grass snakes in Finland at all.
Anyway I did save that poor snake. I absolutely love animals and I don't want to see them killed or hurt. How can one be an animal activist when they want pets dead...


I'd want to hear your opinion on this. If you have similar experiences or something else to say about this, please do.

Posted by: Reyo May 24 2010, 01:03 AM

My take on it is that the people who really do give a damn about animals spend their time volunteering at animal shelters and taking the necessary classes to help animals as a veterinarian or a forester, and not on the internet yelling at people who aren't keeping their pets they way they want them to.

Posted by: Damnatio Memoriae May 24 2010, 02:29 AM

I absolutely love animal activists. They're so obsessed with their train of thoughts that they always forget the real issues.

Take PETA for example. Their entire ad campaign is to the point of "People for the unEthical Treatment of humAns". They completely ignore real animal cruelty, and fight die-hard against a lot of stuff that benefits society. I think the only job that they've done a good job and not screwed up with their secondary goals is the attack on the fur coat industry.

Posted by: CM Punk May 25 2010, 02:40 PM

I absolutely hate it whenever people wish a certain animal should be killed off. Do they not even know the consequences of doing just that? It could completely destroy a whole food web, which can lead to an unbalance of the ecosystem.

I love animals and hate seeing them get injured/killed. I'm highly against testing on animals, since it can be cruel to them and it's not always accurate. I mean, you can always test something on an animal and have it work on them, but it can potentially have an adverse side effect on a human being. Not to mention, I'd hate to think what those animals go through during that whole testing process.

I guess you can say I, myself, am an animal activist. I can't stand people that treat their pets cruelly, train animals for fighting, or even just flat out kill an defenseless animal for no reason. Animals shouldn't be used to make fur coats, either. It just all seems so wrong in my eyes.

Posted by: Reyo May 25 2010, 03:41 PM

QUOTE(CM Punk @ May 25 2010, 03:40 PM) *
I absolutely hate it whenever people wish a certain animal should be killed off. Do they not even know the consequences of doing just that? It could completely destroy a whole food web, which can lead to an unbalance of the ecosystem.


How exactly does an ecosystem become "unbalanced"? Now I'm not asking this sound "mean" or "cruel" but the Earth has gone through many shifts where an ecosystem becomes "unbalanced" demanding a change in the order of things, where one dominant species dies off and makes room for another. The classic example would be the dinosaurs dieing off and making room for mammals where the thing to remember is that the reptiles didn't all die off with the dinosaurs, only a certain number of certain species.

The point is that while willing something like the extinction of an entire species is a bit...evil, it's not exactly as "dire" as you make it seem to be. If Gazelle were to suddenly go extinct, the Lions and Cheetahs who use them as nurishment would just eat something else. Would that make it where there'd be some changes done to the species? Well no doubt, there'd be change done to both the predator and the prey, but that's how evolution works.

Now if you have a beef with evolution, that's a conversation for a completely different thread.

Posted by: Dubstep May 25 2010, 08:25 PM

Such animal activists have such skewered perspective and reasoning that I really don't bother with them. They're nuttier than squirrel shit. no.gif

Posted by: Mr Blue Viperfish May 26 2010, 05:49 PM

It all depends on the individual activist. People trying to inform pet stores through care sheets and letters shouldn't be considered the same as people in Animal Liberation Front or PETA

Posted by: Eris Shade May 26 2010, 08:28 PM

As usual, I'm on the side of situations. Yours was bad, the damn activist forgot that cats are going to chase other creatures it thinks it can capture for prey, which is normal for the animal kingdoms. If anything your cat should get a medal for doing what it's supposed to do. (Since nothing else in this world can do that.)

But no, people who genuinely care about animals but haven't gone off the deep end (ie: Care sheets for pet shops and not lawyers for dogs to sue their owners...) should not be considered on the same line as PETA.

However, your little stalker is a PETA variety.

Posted by: kaitenmia May 28 2010, 11:19 AM

Yeah I think that worrying(or rather freaking out) about species that are not even endangered is a bit....pointless. Some animals get killed out there, it's nature's law.
And blaming pets for destroying the balance of nature. Well I'm pretty sure people do much more harm than any little cat could ever do.

My point is you don't have to be some activist to be able to care about animals. I know there are could people who do much good for the sake of endangered species and I have respect for them. But attacking people on Internet seems a bit immature

Posted by: Orochimaru May 30 2010, 01:36 PM

To be honest, I don’t really like cats being outdoors. My grandparents have an outdoor cat, and he kills rabbits, snakes, lizards, and birds. Half the time he does not eat these animals, and is just killing to be killing. The reason I do not agree with is simply because he is competing with other predators, there is a hawk who seems to stay around our yard and the field behind it, to grab rabbits. When tigger kills a rabbit, he is taking a rabbit that could be a meal for that hawk, which needs it more than a cat who is fed cat food on a daily bases.
I also do not like the idea because I do not like seeing someone’s pet becoming road kill. Now it may be different where you live, but in the states, it’s almost every day that you can see a dead animal on the side of the road. Rather it be dog cat or deer. People just don’t care, and some people even swerve to hit animals here.

Some animal activists are insane, I like animals, but I’m not going to tell people what to do with their pets. If my grandparents cat kills something, it’s on them, sure I’m not going to be happy about it but I’m not going to force the cat who is used to being outside to become an inside cat because of what I think. And I would never want my grandparents cat killed, or any outdoor cat killed for that matter, because they are doing what comes natural to it.

Posted by: Nardaviel Jun 2 2010, 06:14 PM

I volunteered at my city's zoo one summer. I'm not saying this to give myself legitimacy as an animal activist or whatever, but rather to give credibility to the story I'm about to tell.

We had an elderly elephant (who's passed away since then, sadly) named Mona. She'd lived at the zoo most of her adult life, along with another elephant, who at the time of these events had recently died. So Mona was old, recently bereft of her best friend, and used to life at the zoo. Which was ... a zoo, and looked like one, but she had space, and keepers who loved her, and so on and so forth.

But then PETA decided that it was cruel and horrible to keep her in an enclosure, and that she should be taken to an elephant sanctuary to live out the rest of her days in freedom. Which sounds noble enough on the surface, except ... she was old, and in mourning, and she might not have survived a trip like that. And even if she had, and if she could adjust to a different location and lifestyle, she was on her last set of teeth. At the zoo, we could make special food for her that wouldn't wear her teeth down, but in a sanctuary she would have to find her own food, and she'd wear down her teeth. It was just not practical at all.

If she'd been a lot younger, a little elephant child or something, I would have been a lot more open to the idea. Zoos are sad places and I couldn't stand being there every day for more than a few months. But ~*~releasing the animal into the wiiild~*~ is far from a universal solution.

... Anyway, that's mostly why I don't like PETA. They're silly. That said, I do believe in animal rights. I just think a lot of "activists" are either rabble-rousers or uninformed bleeding hearts.

Posted by: Annakyoyama358 Jun 3 2010, 07:00 PM

QUOTE(Dubstep @ May 25 2010, 09:25 PM) *
Such animal activists have such skewered perspective and reasoning that I really don't bother with them. They're nuttier than squirrel shit. no.gif

That about sums up my opinion

Posted by: shou75 Jun 4 2010, 06:38 PM

since this animal activists thing is pretty much the same as a tree hugger but instead with animals.

honestly theres really no need for em.

Animal activist= Person who has nothing better to do.

People know how to treat a pet they just choose what they want to do with it.

How many people actually listen to the overeactive animal humpers i mean animal activists.

Posted by: GanBare Jun 8 2010, 06:24 PM

I am neurtal!

Posted by: rileyup Jan 13 2011, 03:55 PM

i dont beleive in circuses or phyiscal abuse but peta takes it to a whole new level they are absolutley nuts they tell people do this do that thats why we have guards they tried replacing the groundhog with a robot and they do this http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/35394363/ns/sports-westminster_dog_show/ and and that but they always lose these people arnt looking at the biggest picture they should help prevent dog fights and animal abuse but instead they protest aginst the littlest things

Posted by: ChocolateVanilla Jan 14 2011, 08:12 PM

@kaitenmia: I think that specific 'animal activist' was being unfair to you. There are many cats that enjoy going outside, and to deny them that pleasure would be a type of abuse in itself.

My cats have brought back several dead birds, but I don't consider myself an advocate of murder. We can't go out and save all the zebras from the lions, s then the lions would starve. Though a house cat is not in the danger of starving, they still have to eat some kind of dead animal.

I think there are good animal activists. For the Americans, Theodore Roosevelt set aside the national parks (im pretty sure; I haven't validated this, and I get the Roosevelts confused) and that was undeniably helpful for people and animals.

Posted by: PikaDiety Jan 15 2011, 11:54 AM

Animal activists like that drive me crazy. I hate PETA and people like the one in the first post. I love animals and I would never harm an animal. All my life, I've wanted to do something to help animals and I've wanted to volunteer at an animal shelter. (Haven't been able to yet, but I plan to in the near future when I gain my driver's license.) But PETA has it all wrong, and is full of idiots. Yes, there are good animal activists. I consider myself an animal activist, just not an extremist. If that makes sense, I'm running on very little sleep.XD

Also, if I hear one more person tell me that you can't eat meat and love animals at the same time, I will punch them in the face. I think that is incredibly stupid.

Posted by: Rugal Jan 15 2011, 02:00 PM

I'm all for treating animals fairly and all, but all those ASPCA guilt trip commercials and the insane armchair activists need to GTFO.

Posted by: Nectaris Jan 26 2011, 01:34 PM

QUOTE(CM Punk @ May 25 2010, 01:40 PM) *
I absolutely hate it whenever people wish a certain animal should be killed off. Do they not even know the consequences of doing just that? It could completely destroy a whole food web, which can lead to an unbalance of the ecosystem.


It depends on the situation. Take wild pigs in the US for example. They are a completely non-native species and are devastating the ecosystems they are found in now, as well as generally destructive and dangerous. Wouldn't it be a good thing if they were killed off from where they do not belong? And no, simple relocation is not an answer, they breed too fast and would quickly overpopulate wherever you sent them to before you removed a fraction of those here already.

Note: Havelinas are the only native pig species the US, but they aren't a problem.

Posted by: Painted Fox Jan 28 2011, 02:20 AM

I count myself as a non-extremist animal rights activist. I don't support testing on animal for anything but diseases and injuries, I don't like that my cats kill small rodents and birds, but they aren't being cruel. "Cruel"or "sadistic" means that cats take pleasure in harming another creature. They do not. They have instincts and they follow those instincts. Would you blame a human if they shot a wild animal if the animal was about to harm the human? No, you wouldn't. The instinct that cats have to kill small animals is just that. An instinct, nothing we humans can do but put collars and bells on our cats. I don't like circuses and never will besides all human ones, and zoos are fine if they are harboring an endangered species for breeding, because they offspring are more likely to survive than in the wild.

Posted by: bijoukaiba Jan 28 2011, 01:00 PM

I love animals, but meat is still probably my favorite food group. I wish they could be treated more humanely or killed in a quick and painless way if they're going to be used for food. At least those animals died with a purpose - to feed people. When they're killed for no reason - like just for fun - then I'm pretty upset about it.

PETA, however, is just flat-out insane. Ever hear of their "Sea Kitten" campaign? It will make you facepalm.gif and lol.gif at the same time.
http://features.peta.org/PETASeaKittens/book.asp

Posted by: Blak99Psy Jan 28 2011, 01:19 PM

I was just thinking about the sea kitten thing. Ridiculous. (Certain)Fish and other animals are safe for eating and keeping as pets. Stop trying to "help" animals by killing the human race in the process.

Over the past few years, I've been trying to only support restaurants that raise and kill animals in a humane manner. (And doing a good job of it, if I do say so myself.) That's one way to stand up for animal rights and still eat meat at the same time. Also, this may sound weird, but you can definitely taste when an animal raised for food has been treated kindly or not. If they were raised with kindness and lots of space to move around, it tastes better. When they've lived a life of stress and sickness, you'll know. It tastes horrible. This is why I don't eat fast food.

Hunting has never sat well with me. Those animals did absolutely nothing to people and yet they're being killed. The only time I'd vote in favor of killing an animal is for food, as stated above, or if that animal poses a true threat to people, like an animal that has killed many people (wild bears, wolves or monkeys that have wandered into a town and killed citizens) or is carrying a rapidly spreading disease (mosquito situation in Africa).

There are animal activist groups that realize this, and those are the ones I respect.

Posted by: rileyup Jan 29 2011, 07:54 PM

look what PETA made
giblets anyone?
<object width="300" height="219">
<param name="movie" value="http://features.peta.org/CookingMama/swf/cooking-mama.swf">
<embed src="http://features.peta.org/CookingMama/swf/cooking-mama.swf" width="300" height="219">
</embed>
<br />Play the full size version on <a href="http://features.peta.org/CookingMama/index.asp?c=pmkegc08">PETA.org</a>.
</object>

Posted by: rileyup Jan 29 2011, 07:55 PM

giblets anyone

http://features.peta.org/CookingMama/index.asp?c=pmkegc08
oops forgot to edit the last one

Posted by: Breeder Drew Feb 9 2011, 11:41 AM

I'm against some, some ar okay. It all depends on what kind of person they are.

But this... This is just wrong. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Fnews%2Farticle-1294014%2FDeluded-animal-rights-protestor-lets-childrens-pet-rabbit-loose.html&ei=WcNSTdH-FMzTgQfd4tmCCA&usg=AFQjCNHsOY6VmAh18N8tudrptpktM24_UQ

Posted by: Chu Chu Feb 10 2011, 08:08 PM

QUOTE(Breeder Drew @ Feb 9 2011, 08:41 AM) *
I'm against some, some ar okay. It all depends on what kind of person they are.

But this... This is just wrong. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Fnews%2Farticle-1294014%2FDeluded-animal-rights-protestor-lets-childrens-pet-rabbit-loose.html&ei=WcNSTdH-FMzTgQfd4tmCCA&usg=AFQjCNHsOY6VmAh18N8tudrptpktM24_UQ

facepalm.gif That's just cruel. That rabbit's probably dead by now. Whoever did this must've had no brains, these kids loved their rabbit and played and cared for it every single day. Releasing a domestic rabbit that meant so much to the kids...The person that did this might as well have killed Barney right in front of their eyes.

And I think PETA's just plain stupid. I'm glad that they care about animals but the way they're handling it you'd think all people were torturing animals 24/7. I mean that Cooking Mama and Sea Kittens campaign...What is with these guys -_-.gif

Posted by: Cloud Nine Dec 5 2011, 11:51 AM

I'm completely against the abuse of animals. I am an active supporter or animal rights, however this woman who lost her mind at you? And stated cats should all be killed off?
Well she's definitely not against the killing of animals is she? I don't wish the death of any specific animal. Everything on this planet belongs here, but it has it's time and what happens, happens.
I thinnk some animal activists just lose themselves abit. I believe in conservation. So preserving life on this planet. But of course I do know that animals kill. It's instinct.
That lady is just stupid. Animals killing animals is part of nature. It happens. We should live with what they do.

Posted by: Dubbleyew Apr 11 2012, 08:10 PM

Personally, I really hate the likes of PETA for making all animal activists look bad. I love animals, I support saving wildlife, I support adopting rescue animals, I'm against cruelty, I support reforming factory farms and getting rid of mills and fur farms, and all that stuff. But thanks to people like PETA, a lot of people think anyone who cares about animals is some insane wacko who goes around burning down testing labs...

Posted by: zerohundred May 26 2012, 12:01 PM

QUOTE(kaitenmia @ May 23 2010, 01:31 AM) *
Well today I came across an animal activist on the Internet...I had taken a picture of a snake I found in my backyard. It had a bloody little scratch in its skin because my cat found it before I did. Of course I made sure that snake got away and I kept my cat inside the rest of the day. And yet this animal activist literally started to blame me of animal abuse.
How horrible person I am to let my cats outside and cats are monsters that should be killed.

My cats mainly only kill and eat mice and that's one of the reasons why I have cats in the first place. I don't want my house full of mice. When cat catches a bird for example it's probably old and sick already. As for snakes, I've never seen one near my house before. And frankly I haven't seen too many grass snakes in Finland at all.
Anyway I did save that poor snake. I absolutely love animals and I don't want to see them killed or hurt. How can one be an animal activist when they want pets dead...


I'd want to hear your opinion on this. If you have similar experiences or something else to say about this, please do.
(check bold print) horrified.gif
what sort of "anima activist" did you meet?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!??!!?!??!?!!?!?? pissed.gif
lets pull out some education srsfacts.gif

here is how a real animal activist thinks:
1)human kil other animal= horrable because humans cheat
2)animal kill human= ok, human probably deserved it
3)animal kill animal= that's the way nature intended it to be!

we shouldn't worry about living things following their nature. If humans would kill with their bare hands, i would be ok because they worked for the kill and that's the way nature intended.

what im saying is that people go way overboard and end up doing more harm than good and wasting rescources. there is nothing wrong with caring for other species, but people go way to far. i'm fine with good people who know what they're doing, but i hate when people get obsessive. I view myself as an animal activist, but according to your story, your cat did nothing wrong.
IE.
QUOTE(Breeder Drew @ Feb 9 2011, 09:41 AM) *
I'm against some, some ar okay. It all depends on what kind of person they are.

But this... This is just wrong. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Fnews%2Farticle-1294014%2FDeluded-animal-rights-protestor-lets-childrens-pet-rabbit-loose.html&ei=WcNSTdH-FMzTgQfd4tmCCA&usg=AFQjCNHsOY6VmAh18N8tudrptpktM24_UQ

this^

facepalm.gif

Read the one part that says "he will live for a few days with wild foxes and other hazzards"
horrified.gif
Really???? unimpressed.gif
whoever did this does realize that the poor bunny will be facing more pain in the wild than in a small cage.
Not only that, the rabbit has been bred into captivity and has been nurtured for so long all prey instincts would be filtered out of his mind.
what i mean: he won't be scared of predators as much and is more likely to get killed. also no experience forraging for food.

Posted by: Zexis Jul 8 2012, 05:33 PM

Animal activists are basically people who claim to love animals and think they know what's best for them, when they really don't. There's a difference between loving animals, caring for them, and doing what's best for them, and being a stupid git who really has no idea what they're doing. And about the original post...saying that a cat should die because it scratched a snake and claiming to love animals? Bullshit. There's nothing I hate more than hypocrites.

Another thing I hate about animal activists--they take everything to the extreme. And it really bugs me how they're all like "OMG look at the poor bunny in a cage OMG they should be set free." Anybody who says that really strikes me as dumb. Is the rabbit in pain or suffering? Actually, pet rabbits probably are better off living with humans who take care of them, feed them, let them out once in a while. It would suffer more in the wild by itself because it has no survival skills. People should think before spouting nonsense.

Posted by: Aves Dominari Sep 30 2012, 09:02 PM

QUOTE(Zexis @ Jul 8 2012, 06:33 PM) *
Animal activists are basically people who claim to love animals and think they know what's best for them, when they really don't. There's a difference between loving animals, caring for them, and doing what's best for them, and being a stupid git who really has no idea what they're doing. And about the original post...saying that a cat should die because it scratched a snake and claiming to love animals? Bullshit. There's nothing I hate more than hypocrites.

I have, at your first sentence, lost all respect for your point of view and ability to debate. Making generalizations and then basing your opinions on those generalizations is illogical. There are hypocritical animal activists. There are extreme activists. But not every activist is a hypocrite, or an extremist, and labeling all of them as such is wrong and isn't conductive to good debate.

QUOTE(Zexis @ Jul 8 2012, 06:33 PM) *
Another thing I hate about animal activists--they take everything to the extreme. And it really bugs me how they're all like "OMG look at the poor bunny in a cage OMG they should be set free." Anybody who says that really strikes me as dumb. Is the rabbit in pain or suffering? Actually, pet rabbits probably are better off living with humans who take care of them, feed them, let them out once in a while. It would suffer more in the wild by itself because it has no survival skills. People should think before spouting nonsense.

Again, generalizations. If you had said 'I hate the extreme activists' then I would even agree with you. But making blanket statements that insult the entire demographic you're talking about isn't going to start any kind of decent discussion.

Posted by: The Winnebago Sep 30 2012, 09:17 PM

Folks that are idiots and don't know what they're even saying (like the one in OP's post) aggravate me to no end.

Personally, I do not hold any species of life form higher than another and humans are just another animal, and killing other animals is okay in the situation that A: You're being attacked by it, or B: You're killing it for food.

Posted by: Aves Dominari Sep 30 2012, 10:54 PM

QUOTE(The Winnebago @ Sep 30 2012, 10:17 PM) *
Folks that are idiots and don't know what they're even saying (like the one in OP's post) aggravate me to no end.

Personally, I do not hold any species of life form higher than another and humans are just another animal, and killing other animals is okay in the situation that A: You're being attacked by it, or B: You're killing it for food.

Were it so easy.
Take, for example, drug testing. How do we make sure new drugs work? Human subjects aren't common enough to be used as test subjects, and there's a whole ethical can of worms besides. It's not pleasant, but animal testing is the only way we can get new drugs. None of the alternative methods we can think of are developed enough to be useful, so for now the only thing that we can use as a testing ground for potentially life-saving drugs is animals. Should we stop killing animals in drug tests and let humans die of diseases we could cure?
And what if you've got a choice between saving the life of a dog or a human? Do you flip a coin, because the two lives are equal? What about between a human and his goldfish? And gods forbid we keep using cars; the lives of all of those animals killed by cars aren't worth the convenience.

Posted by: The Winnebago Oct 1 2012, 12:05 AM

QUOTE(Aves Dominari @ Sep 30 2012, 11:54 PM) *
QUOTE(The Winnebago @ Sep 30 2012, 10:17 PM) *
Folks that are idiots and don't know what they're even saying (like the one in OP's post) aggravate me to no end.

Personally, I do not hold any species of life form higher than another and humans are just another animal, and killing other animals is okay in the situation that A: You're being attacked by it, or B: You're killing it for food.

Were it so easy.
Take, for example, drug testing. How do we make sure new drugs work? Human subjects aren't common enough to be used as test subjects, and there's a whole ethical can of worms besides. It's not pleasant, but animal testing is the only way we can get new drugs. None of the alternative methods we can think of are developed enough to be useful, so for now the only thing that we can use as a testing ground for potentially life-saving drugs is animals. Should we stop killing animals in drug tests and let humans die of diseases we could cure?
And what if you've got a choice between saving the life of a dog or a human? Do you flip a coin, because the two lives are equal? What about between a human and his goldfish? And gods forbid we keep using cars; the lives of all of those animals killed by cars aren't worth the convenience.


Developing new cures to diseases and other various drugs only stimulates the overbearing human population, and drains the Earth's resources more quickly, which puts the entire planet under greater stress than if our population was stabilised, which is highly selfish and destructive to the rest of the fauna and flora that are stuck on Earth.

Depends on how much the dog and human mean to me. If they were both just strangers, then I dunno which I'd pick, if any. That's a very situational question. I could just wanna let them both get put out of their misery if they're dying painfully and will be irreversibly damaged to the point of permanent incapacitation.

Accidental death occurs all the time, be it someone hitting a human with a car or hitting a deer with a car.

Posted by: Aves Dominari Oct 1 2012, 02:05 AM

QUOTE(The Winnebago @ Oct 1 2012, 01:05 AM) *
Developing new cures to diseases and other various drugs only stimulates the overbearing human population, and drains the Earth's resources more quickly, which puts the entire planet under greater stress than if our population was stabilised, which is highly selfish and destructive to the rest of the fauna and flora that are stuck on Earth.

So your solution is to let people die of curable diseases? Instead of managing our resources and population, you want to just let nature take who it wants to? We were at that point once; in the Middle Ages people rarely made it past their thirties and the child mortality rate was astoundingly high, and it's still like that in many places. Is that the ideal place our society should be at?

QUOTE(The Winnebago @ Oct 1 2012, 01:05 AM) *
Depends on how much the dog and human mean to me. If they were both just strangers, then I dunno which I'd pick, if any. That's a very situational question. I could just wanna let them both get put out of their misery if they're dying painfully and will be irreversibly damaged to the point of permanent incapacitation.

Well, it's a hypothetical situation to test the beliefs you put down. You meet a human and a dog on the street about to be crushed by a falling excuse, and you have time to save one of the two. Would you be equally likely to save the man or his pet? Are the dog and human equal in your eyes?

QUOTE(The Winnebago @ Oct 1 2012, 01:05 AM) *
Accidental death occurs all the time, be it someone hitting a human with a car or hitting a deer with a car.

Ah, so you have three situations in which killing an animal is acceptable: self-defense, nourishment and accidentally. What about chemical dumping? The guys who do it aren't cackling madly as they slaughter the fish living in that particular river; the deaths are just a side effect that they don't plan. Are their actions acceptable?

Posted by: The Winnebago Oct 2 2012, 01:54 AM

QUOTE(Aves Dominari @ Oct 1 2012, 03:05 AM) *
\
So your solution is to let people die of curable diseases? Instead of managing our resources and population, you want to just let nature take who it wants to? We were at that point once; in the Middle Ages people rarely made it past their thirties and the child mortality rate was astoundingly high, and it's still like that in many places. Is that the ideal place our society should be at?


Curing diseases is beneficial to a smaller group - just us. Meanwhile, if nature was allowed to take its course, the entire planet would benefit.

QUOTE
Well, it's a hypothetical situation to test the beliefs you put down. You meet a human and a dog on the street about to be crushed by a falling excuse, and you have time to save one of the two. Would you be equally likely to save the man or his pet? Are the dog and human equal in your eyes?


Ah, okay. Well, to be completely honest, I'd likely save the human instead. As a fellow human being, I would obviously be drawn to my own species first. I'm sure if you asked a dog (and they were somehow able to answer) to save one, it'd pick the dog.

QUOTE
Ah, so you have three situations in which killing an animal is acceptable: self-defense, nourishment and accidentally.


Okay.

QUOTE
What about chemical dumping? The guys who do it aren't cackling madly as they slaughter the fish living in that particular river; the deaths are just a side effect that they don't plan. Are their actions acceptable?


They know that their actions are detrimental to the environment in the first place. It's like if you stole food from a poor family, you didn't plan on them starving that night. Still bad, just worse than you planned.

Posted by: Celeste2002 Sep 20 2013, 02:28 AM

I'm also an animal activist, but I don't blame people for letting their pets out into their gardens and catching wild animals.I mean, its animal instinct right?Cats like to chase stuff that move.It's not their owners fault.That animal activist should be yelling at people who treat animals badly and report it to the police.

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)