PDA

View Full Version : Humans > Animals


Bluerang1
July 3rd, 2011, 06:04 PM
I thought about this debate and I'm finally creating the thread. It's quite a controversial topic.

So basically, why do we give pets luxuries when our fellow man are dieing?

You see all sorts of pet food being advertised and created. Do they really need these? For example, in Lagos, the pets are sometimes given leftover meals, granted they're mostly guard dogs, but it does the job. Should money invested in buying special food for pets go to aiding others who are starving and suffering? Is pet food the fault of manufacturers or is it something consumers demand?

Are humans truly greater than animals or are we equal so should be treated equally regardless of our situations?

Discuss :)

Myles
July 3rd, 2011, 06:20 PM
This reasoning falls into the Appeal to Worse Problems fallacy. If you're not going to feed animals because people are starving, why do anything above basic survival. I mean if animals aren't worth food because people are starving, why do people deserve fun if people are starving, etc

Also humans, being sapient have more rights than animals. Most people agree with this. It doesn't mean animals are completely without rights. Most people agree with that.

TRIFORCE89
July 3rd, 2011, 06:22 PM
This reasoning falls into the Appeal to Worse Problems fallacy. If you're not going to feed animals because people are starving, why do anything above basic survival. I mean if animals aren't worth food because people are starving, why do people deserve fun if people are starving, etc

Also humans, being sapient have more rights than animals. Most people agree with this. It doesn't mean animals are completely without rights. Most people agree with that.
Alternatively, feed animals and humans.

PETA seems very animals over humans to me, which isn't right

Gold warehouse
July 4th, 2011, 07:04 AM
Why do we spend money on any form of luxury items whilst other people are dying? Most people in the developed world have a house with furniture and many electrical appliances, whilst our fellow human beings in third world countries are living in extreme poverty. In the developed world you're considered to be below the poverty line if you can't afford a family holiday every year.

We'd sooner buy special things for our pets that we love and can watch enjoy our gifts, than spend money on strangers. It's just another natural part of being human; some may call it a form of selfishness, some may say it's logical. Who knows?

Esper
July 4th, 2011, 11:49 AM
We don't know how to help people on the other side of the world. Even if we could actually go there ourselves (which would cost a lot of money) most of the things that would provide stable, long-term improvement require more than any one person can do. And so on.

Just because we're nicer to our pets than we are to a total stranger starving somewhere else in the world doesn't make us value animal life over human. We just, sort of, distance ourselves from that suffering. Now, if the a starving stranger and a starving dog both appeared on my doorstep I'd help the person first. It's just that the people aren't as easy for me to help from where I am. And really, luxury is relative. Luxury for cat is a bowl of food, a scratching post and some catnip.

~*!*~Tatsujin Gosuto~*!*~
July 4th, 2011, 12:22 PM
Alternatively, feed animals and humans.

PETA seems very animals over humans to me, which isn't right


I dont see how.

PETA just tries to persuade the viewer into seeing animals just as equal as humans are


I only see pets being equal to humans. When I'm sick, I get taken to the doctor, when my cats are sick, I take them to the doctor. I get a yearly check-up, so do they. I get fed, clothes, water, shelter and entertainment; they get the same exact thing too (and yes I buy my cats clothing.


:t354:TG

Stormbringer
July 4th, 2011, 12:31 PM
I dont see how.

PETA just tries to persuade the viewer into seeing animals just as equal as humans are


I wish there was a group as fervent (And effective) about basic human rights as PETA is on animals rights. Sorry, but I could care less about pandas when there are millions of people starving all over world, even here in the US.

Myles
July 4th, 2011, 03:49 PM
PETA are a bit more extreme than that. There are plenty of (frankly, messed up, e.g. Newkirk's will) things that they do that would make you think that they prefer animals over humans. The 'idea' behind this is that animals can't stand up for themselves, but humans can.

Owl
July 4th, 2011, 07:16 PM
I'm all for animals. Honestly, as mean as it sounds, I don't really care for humans much. I hold an endangered animals life much higher than a person/peoples life. We're over abundant, and to be blunt (not mean), I wouldn't mind if the human population went down a bit.

Aorio
July 15th, 2011, 04:22 PM
I consider animals to be our equal. And that means ALL animals, not just ones we consider "friends" or "pets" or "cute," like cats and dogs and bunnies.

Take a chicken, for example. I do not consider a chicken a lesser being than a human. Just because it cannot talk, or do a math problem, or just because it's not particularly attractive, doesn't mean it doesn't have a soul. It doesn't mean it can't feel pain, or emotion, just like any human being can. Animals feel -- physically AND emotionally. They are rational beings, though some moreso than others.

I remember, in my math class Freshman year, where I had a genius of a teacher, one of those obnoxious popular football players spotted a spider crawling across the classroom floor. He kept telling the teacher, "Kill it! Kill it!"
The teacher looked up at him and the room went silent. "Would you like to be killed," he said, "just because you're considered insignificant?"
And he put the spider outside.

Gothitelle.
July 15th, 2011, 04:38 PM
I'm all for animals. Honestly, as mean as it sounds, I don't really care for humans much. I hold an endangered animals life much higher than a person/peoples life. We're over abundant, and to be blunt (not mean), I wouldn't mind if the human population went down a bit.
Judging by your logiv (and correct me if I am wrong), you'd hold a say... a manatee's life over say on of your own family's lives?

Forgive me if that sounds out there but that's what I'm getting here and to tell you the truth, I'd be pretty darn pissed if anyone told me a sea turtle's life is worth more than mine or anyone else's. I don't care if you guys don't know me, that's pretty much an insult to those who risk their lives for the greater good.

I love animals, don't get me wrong (cats! meoooow) but when it comes to me or the cat... I'd chose me. Or if it was my family and friends or some pandas, I'd chose my family and friends. Again, I apologize is this offends.

Xyrin
July 15th, 2011, 05:06 PM
No. Animals are no where close to humans. You should treat your animals right and take care of them but they aren't equal. Anyone who considers an animals life above a human's is pretty sick to me.


I consider animals to be our equal. And that means ALL animals, not just ones we consider "friends" or "pets" or "cute," like cats and dogs and bunnies.

Take a chicken, for example. I do not consider a chicken a lesser being than a human. Just because it cannot talk, or do a math problem, or just because it's not particularly attractive, doesn't mean it doesn't have a soul. It doesn't mean it can't feel pain, or emotion, just like any human being can. Animals feel -- physically AND emotionally. They are rational beings, though some moreso than others.

How do you even know a chicken has a soul? Or any animal. How do you know it feels emotional pain. It has survival instincts and that's pretty much all. Chickens have no way to tell you that. That's just guess work.


I'm all for animals. Honestly, as mean as it sounds, I don't really care for humans much. I hold an endangered animals life much higher than a person/peoples life. We're over abundant, and to be blunt (not mean), I wouldn't mind if the human population went down a bit.

Sorry in advance for this.

WHAT! You would rather save an animal that can't talk, can't do anything and is made to eat over my life? You would rather have a panda live over me? Would you give your own life to save an endangered frog? Would you give your family away or your closest friend's life for a monkey?

Something's wrong with that don't you agree.

Owl
July 15th, 2011, 06:12 PM
Judging by your logiv (and correct me if I am wrong), you'd hold a say... a manatee's life over say on of your own family's lives?

Forgive me if that sounds out there but that's what I'm getting here and to tell you the truth, I'd be pretty darn pissed if anyone told me a sea turtle's life is worth more than mine or anyone else's. I don't care if you guys don't know me, that's pretty much an insult to those who risk their lives for the greater good.

I love animals, don't get me wrong (cats! meoooow) but when it comes to me or the cat... I'd chose me. Or if it was my family and friends or some pandas, I'd chose my family and friends. Again, I apologize is this offends.It's fine. The human species killed over a unimaginable amount of animals that were more useful to the world than we are. If it was some random person who hasn't done anything good in their life, against an Amur Leopard (There's less than 32 of them left) I'll go with the leopard. Then again I grew up disliking most people due to some circumstances, but that's just me. It depends how close the family member is, then again I'm not that close with most of my family. Sorry if it sounds bit cruel, but it's better to save endangered animals who might not last another 10 years, when there's a few billion humans that don't play any role but destroyer to the ecosystems.



Sorry in advance for this.

WHAT! You would rather save an animal that can't talk, can't do anything and is made to eat over my life? You would rather have a panda live over me? Would you give your own life to save an endangered frog? Would you give your family away or your closest friend's life for a monkey?

Something's wrong with that don't you agree.

We're made to eat too. We're the same as animals, only difference is we can talk. Does that make us any better than them? No. I actually hate people who think like that. /No offense. Endangered animal. You forgot that part. If it plays a vital role in the ecosystem then yes. There's nothing wrong with that. There's something wrong with the people that think they're higher than every other life form. It's pathetic actually. /No offense again. Once again, it depends on how close the family member is.

And there's nothing wrong with that. If anything there's something wrong with you thinking that humans are above everything else.

Aorio
July 15th, 2011, 07:02 PM
No. Animals are no where close to humans. You should treat your animals right and take care of them but they aren't equal. Anyone who considers an animals life above a human's is pretty sick to me.



How do you even know a chicken has a soul? Or any animal. How do you know it feels emotional pain. It has survival instincts and that's pretty much all. Chickens have no way to tell you that. That's just guess work.


Because they are LIVING BEINGS. They think and rationalize. If you cut it, it will squawk, in PAIN. They get scared just like anyone would. A human baby can't talk, but it expresses its emotions through vocalizations and body movements. Animals can do the SAME THING.

And, by your logic, what you're saying is complete guesswork as well, so don't go off on me.

The Last One
July 15th, 2011, 07:08 PM
I would rather save the animals, personally, I don't care much for humans =/ Humans are so...pathetic and stupid, driven by power and a thirst for greater power, the fate of humanity is so simple, yet people try to overlook the fact, Humanity is the WORST thing to ever have been created/evolved/whatever you believe... Nothing good has happened because of humans.. so point blank... I believe Humans < Animals


No. Animals are no where close to humans. You should treat your animals right
and take care of them but they aren't equal. Anyone who considers an animals
life above a human's is pretty sick to me.



I guess I am pretty sick then =) but personally, I'd rather kill off every single human being to save the animals that are now ENDANGERED AND EXTINCT from the actions of HUMANS

Owl
July 15th, 2011, 07:09 PM
No. Animals are no where close to humans. You should treat your animals right and take care of them but they aren't equal. Anyone who considers an animals life above a human's is pretty sick to me.




How do you even know a chicken has a soul? Or any animal. How do you know it feels emotional pain. It has survival instincts and that's pretty much all. Chickens have no way to tell you that. That's just guess work.


Missed this part. I must be a pretty sick person then, huh?

How do you know a human has a soul? You don't. Humans have no way to converse with any other animals either. We're not better in any way. We live and die just like everything else. If other animals don;'t have souls, then I sure as heck don't want or need one. I'm becoming a wildlife biologist so I can help stop people killing animals, heck even some biologists have the licenses to kill poachers on site in some countries. And it seems to be working as a deterrent.

The Last One
July 15th, 2011, 07:18 PM
Missed this part. I must be a pretty sick person then, huh?

I'm becoming a wildlife biologist so I can help stop people killing animals, heck even some biologists have the licenses to kill poachers on site in some countries. And it seems to be working as a deterrent.

awsome, I'm gunna be a wildlife biologist or a marine biologist, and I supposrt everything you have said

Oryx
July 15th, 2011, 07:56 PM
It's fine. The human species killed over a unimaginable amount of animals that were more useful to the world than we are. If it was some random person who hasn't done anything good in their life, against an Amur Leopard (There's less than 32 of them left) I'll go with the leopard. Then again I grew up disliking most people due to some circumstances, but that's just me. It depends how close the family member is, then again I'm not that close with most of my family. Sorry if it sounds bit cruel, but it's better to save endangered animals who might not last another 10 years, when there's a few billion humans that don't play any role but destroyer to the ecosystems.

You're destroying the ecosystem too. Why are you still here? I know it sounds harsh, but you didn't even answer the question asked. If you were asked to kill someone you love to save an endangered manatee, would you? The point isn't "I dislike some of my family so I'll avoid the question", the point is that when it comes down to it, you talk big but I doubt in the end if you had that option, you would pick the manatee. It's easy to say you care that much when you don't have to be pushed to make a decision like that.

What is your role in the ecosystem? How do you give back? Even if you drive a hybrid and use as little electricity as possible and plant a tree on Arbor Day, you're still just minimizing your carbon footprint, not actively helping the environment. If you really believed this so strongly, you would be out there helping the animals, not on the internet saying other people's husbands, mothers, best friends are worth less than an endangered animal.

Animals are important. I won't deny that. But to say that a human's life is worth less than an animal's life is a bit ridiculous, and borders on trolling. If I had to make a choice that would save the life of a random stranger or the life of my cat, the cat my family hand-bred from multiple generations, the one that we cook individual meals for every day, the one that we spoil like no other, I wouldn't think twice about saving the person.

Alice
July 15th, 2011, 08:07 PM
To many people, myself included, our pets are just as much a member of our family as any human member. We want them to be happy, and healthy, and pet food is far healthier than whatever scraps we have left over.

Owl
July 15th, 2011, 08:09 PM
You're destroying the ecosystem too. Why are you still here? I know it sounds harsh, but you didn't even answer the question asked. If you were asked to kill someone you love to save an endangered manatee, would you? The point isn't "I dislike some of my family so I'll avoid the question", the point is that when it comes down to it, you talk big but I doubt in the end if you had that option, you would pick the manatee. It's easy to say you care that much when you don't have to be pushed to make a decision like that.



I never said I wasn't. I'm still here for the sake of being here. Sounds weird, but do I strive to live? No. Do I want to die? No. I'm just here. Kill someone I love for a manatee, I'll hesitate, but you're right, I probably wouldn't. But a complete random person, I'll still hesitate, but I'll pick the animal.

What is your role in the ecosystem? How do you give back? Even if you drive a hybrid and use as little electricity as possible and plant a tree on Arbor Day, you're still just minimizing your carbon footprint, not actively helping the environment. If you really believed this so strongly, you would be out there helping the animals, not on the internet saying other people's husbands, mothers, best friends are worth less than an endangered animal.My role in the ecosystem is a destroyer, once again, and a consumer. I give back by helping my local community and donating to wildlife funds. I'm still helping, no matter how small the amount, counts. I do help. That doesn't mean I can't spend time on the internet does it? No. I advocate animals at my local zoo, I teach people. Sure it was expensive, $80 (I'm broke mind you.), but still I do it. It's not like I get anything out of it. But even tho it's a small thing, it still counts.

Animals are important. I won't deny that. But to say that a human's life is worth less than an animal's life is a bit ridiculous, and borders on trolling. If I had to make a choice that would save the life of a random stranger or the life of my cat, the cat my family hand-bred from multiple generations, the one that we cook individual meals for every day, the one that we spoil like no other, I wouldn't think twice about saving the person.I never said a humans life is worth less, I said it's equal given the type of animal. If humans became endangered, sure I'd choose the human but no, in this case we're not. I never any random animal, I said endangered animal. And you're right, for sentimental purposes I wouldn't kill anyone I care about, but the bottom line is I would save an endangered animals life vs. some random person who I care nothing about. Believe me, don't believe me, you don't know me, so you can't say anything like 'Oh, no you wouldn't.'

And I don't mean this to be rude or offensive in any shape or form.

Shining Raichu
July 15th, 2011, 08:25 PM
They're two completely separate issues. How does not feeding your pets save people from dying? Are we taking all the money we'd spend on cat food and FedEx-ing it to Ethiopia? Or perhaps we're sending them the cat food directly...

donavannj
July 15th, 2011, 08:36 PM
They're two completely separate issues. How does not feeding your pets save people from dying? Are we taking all the money we'd spend on cat food and FedEx-ing it to Ethiopia? Or perhaps we're sending them the cat food directly...

I agree with this bolded part completely. It's not that we don't have enough food, it's just that the distribution of it is very poorly done and mass-produced food in America is usually made into a commodity and sold in America as opposed to being donated or sold for far cheaper elsewhere due to greed. America by itself produces enough food to feed its people, all the animals people have domesticated inside its borders, as well as feeding several other small and medium population countries. It's just that the companies that process that food choose not to send it to other nations who need it far more than Americans who aren't living in poverty.

twocows
July 16th, 2011, 04:19 PM
I wish there was a group as fervent (And effective) about basic human rights as PETA is on animals rights. Sorry, but I could care less about pandas when there are millions of people starving all over world, even here in the US.
There are plenty of them. I donate to a few (see my signature).

I agree, though. PETA, and even worse, the ALF, are extremist groups that favor animals over humans for various reasons (the most common ones fall into a naturalist fallacy, such as "animals were here first" or "animals don't mess up the earth" or "animals are innocent creatures who don't purposely do anything wrong"; there's also "anything with life deserves rights," which would lead one to believe that everything from bacteria to fungi to bugs to plants also deserves rights). I wouldn't mind so much, but at best they try to influence my way of life based on their messed up ethics, and at worst (ALF) they actively hurt real people (directly or indirectly).

Aorio
July 16th, 2011, 04:30 PM
Judging by your logiv (and correct me if I am wrong), you'd hold a say... a manatee's life over say on of your own family's lives?

Forgive me if that sounds out there but that's what I'm getting here and to tell you the truth, I'd be pretty darn pissed if anyone told me a sea turtle's life is worth more than mine or anyone else's. I don't care if you guys don't know me, that's pretty much an insult to those who risk their lives for the greater good.

I love animals, don't get me wrong (cats! meoooow) but when it comes to me or the cat... I'd chose me. Or if it was my family and friends or some pandas, I'd chose my family and friends. Again, I apologize is this offends.

You bring up a very good point here. But your logic is somewhat flawed, or skewed.
Think of it this way: Take a random human being, out of the 7 billion that there are, that you've never, ever seen before in your life. Would you rather, if you HAD to choose, have this person live, and a family member of yours die?
As selfish as it sounds, I would choose my father or brother or grandmother or any family member over a stranger any day. There's nothing I wouldn't do for a family or friend. So when you put up a choice between your family or a random animal, of course you'd choose your family, ANYONE would, even with humans.

Now, it's not that animals should be held in a higher respect to humans, or vice versa, but there are some human beings that I like more than some animals and some animals that I like more than some human beings. Do you see what I'm getting at?

The Last One
July 16th, 2011, 07:59 PM
You bring up a very good point here. But your logic is somewhat flawed, or skewed.
Think of it this way: Take a random human being, out of the 7 billion that there are, that you've never, ever seen before in your life. Would you rather, if you HAD to choose, have this person live, and a family member of yours die?
As selfish as it sounds, I would choose my father or brother or grandmother or any family member over a stranger any day. There's nothing I wouldn't do for a family or friend. So when you put up a choice between your family or a random animal, of course you'd choose your family, ANYONE would, even with humans.

Now, it's not that animals should be held in a higher respect to humans, or vice versa, but there are some human beings that I like more than some animals and some animals that I like more than some human beings. Do you see what I'm getting at?


Hate me for saying this, but I would still choose the animal, I personally hate my family and I would pick any endangered animal over them, I would pick an animal species that, let's say only has like 5 of it's kind left, over let's say..well, anyone in my family

Oryx
July 16th, 2011, 08:05 PM
Hate me for saying this, but I would still choose the animal, I personally hate my family and I would pick any endangered animal over them, I would pick an animal species that, let's say only has like 5 of it's kind left, over let's say..well, anyone in my family

You're missing the point of that statement to nitpick so you can be right. The point is that you'd pick someone close to you over a random animal. Don't try to be technical about it just to argue.