When talking about concepts of good and evil there is always one point that comes up that disturbs me.
It'll go something like,
>"Nah man, don't torture the animals, torture the humans."
I'll ask why.
>"Cause man humans are fucked up, and animals are cute and innocent."
There seems to be a flaw in logic here.
It's not like ALL humans are bad. Are you saying you're going to just purge them all because you don't want to take that chance, or take time to differentiate?
Or do you argue that all humans in fact are bad irredeemably so?
Because if that second option is true, guess what buddy, you're irredeemably bad too.
Bottom line, if you were going to save one group from torture and death, shouldn't it be the humans? Humans have sentience, and animals are, just animals. You could be pedantic and say humans are animals too, but that's besides the point.
some people value all life equally, and may go as far as to stop eating meat to stop support for the systematic slaughter of livestock, or imprisoning people for abusing animals,
these types of people are a scourge and should be shot.
if you do not value human life over all life, you should be killed plain and simple. humans have overpopulated this planet and can only sustain themselves by leveraging every resource they have. me being a human that is reliant on this leverage, I'm perfectly happy with the abuse, torture and slaughter of animals to sustain the safety and happiness of my fellow human.
I believe that humans are innately evil. We are egoistic and rather than live with nature, we want to subjugate it to our own will. See, your evilness, in my opinion, lies in the rock hard belief that
>Humans have sentience, and animals are, just animals.
You perceive yourself, or your kind more important because you have evolved to a highter level, But what of that? Don't animals feel pain just as much as we do? Don't they suffer as much? If anything, there are more innocent creatures because they don't possess human sentience; they simply live within wilderness. When animal hunts, it hunts to eat. When it kills, it kills to protect itself.
We with our sentience and bombings and killings in the name of religion or fun, or our of illness even, and rapes for pleasures and child abuse and drugs usage and wars which we start because we are better and deserve more and more
what's good in that, anon? Isn't a simple animal much more pure?
Well God did say "I will annihilate these human beings whom I've created from the earth, including people, animals, crawling things, and flying creatures, because I'm grieving that I made them."
but then he turned around and said "I will not destroy them for the sake of 1 good soul"
and then "I promise to never eradicate humanity in this way ever again" then the rainbow was created to show this is true.
It made me cry when I had a dream of Mewtwo wanting to destroy us, I said "Just one more for the road" and Mewtwo autographed something, like "Mewtwo <3" and it made me cry, was so beautiful.
There's asshole people and asshole animals.
I'd rather kill a dirty stinky fat fuck parasitic person than slap a puppy.
I'd rather tear the head off of a wild rabid lemur than punch a friendly elderly man.
It's all relative.
It's silly how you're arguing that animals are similar to us, and then ignore half of it. They don't kill or hunt only for the reasons you've listed. If you want to talk about purity, or rather, about morality regarding animals, then all you can say: there is none. Animals lack their philosophers and theologists.
because animals are just machines. they do not "be" animals, they just "do" animal. no animal thinks "I feel hungry so I have to kill this prey", and then decides to kill it. they just act involuntarily.
humans are beings, we decide and act voluntarily and are therefore fundamentally different than animals.
don't bring good and evil into it because animals can't be either. they're helpless machines.
it actually is necessary. have you ever witnessed the slaughtering of a bull on s farm for meat? there's no quick and humane way to do it. in order for the meat to blood correctly, it's throat must be slit as the heart pumps blood out of its body, then hung upside down-sometimes still living- for the rest of the blood to properly drain. theres nothing inhumane about this, do you know why?
look at the word - inHUMANe. animals are not humans. there is no crime against humanity here. all is well and a family is fed.
Have you considered maybe our intelligence has to do with it? Perhaps because we have sentience we are closer to "evil" (classical definition of evil) I personally think that beasts are more likely to retain innocence over men, due to their idiocy.
Animals are similiar to us in a one important aspect: they feel pain just as we do. They are better, they base their acts on instinct and that's all, while people ponder how to bomb a city and kill infidel dogs or something
animals just exist and follow the patch ingrained in their very being, people always try to go beyond that and play god or whatever
Animals don't really have power to destory fauna and flora and humankind with all that, but humans have this power. And that to me makes us guilty
LOL at everyone in here.
Humans ARE animals. We share traits with other animals, and they share some with us.
We are amazing at many things and suck at many things. Some animals do things better than us, some worse.
If a cow loves you and you love the cow, that's love. If you don't love the cow and you're hungry, the cow is food. If a cow feels like killing you somehow, that's fate. Not much else to it.
That's not "torturing" animals. It's a necessary evil to slaughter an animal for food. It would be a different story if the butcher purposely dragged it out, kicked and punched the animal, or played with the entrails.
no, actually, many do not.
no animal can comprehend what a fact is
orly? have you ever heard of an invasive species? how about disease carrying mosquitoes?
How are they better by virtue of incapability? Does being weak somehow give one moral superiority over another? Is a stone even "better", because it just lies there and does literally nothing?
Something that does something "ingrained in their very being" cannot, exactly because of that, be better or worse. The idea that someone can act in a moral way needs to suppose them as acting in the knowledge of good and evil. Basically what Christianity is all about.
I could even go on to say that exactly the capabilities you describe are "ingrained in *our* very being", meaning that the exercise of will to an end is the nature of a human, which by extension of your interpretation, would somehow make that person blameless.
It probably seems that way because you've absorbed a lie that you think is correct. You're forcing people to believe that we're machines because you were forced to believe it... You're kind of like the idiots who are "into" religion, except you're into internet-science.
no one was forced to believe anything. in fact, that idea is so clear and easy to arrive at that it's actually more like you were forced to believe we are more than just machines of nature.
I probably know exactly where you get that idea, the fact that it's "so clear and easy to arrive" is what I'm arguing. You think it wasn't "so clear and easy to arrive" at the ideas they had every century of human history only to be proven wrong next century? I'm not even going to try and prove it wrong, it makes no difference because you honestly think I'm in denial for calling out that you're the equivalent of a common peasant from the 19th century with your idea that was "so clear" to you in 2016.
a system that carries out a function, has no awareness of itself or consciousness at all and will carry out its functions in s predictable manner as it has been programmed (hint hint DNA).
humans are one step above machine. we are aware of ourselves and our machine thoughts and can disobey them. we are machines that can reprogram our functions and reinterpret them at our will.
we've always had science, it's natural philosophy and nobody has ever known it all. and because an expert astrophysicist tells you some philosophy you believe him... because "science!"
and for the record no scientist has influenced the fact that I arrived at this idea. 6th grade biology class, learning literal facts about how the human body works and how DNA is structured had let me to make the assertion myself under no other influence than pure facts.
as i said, you'll never know it all until we can download entire libraries into our minds and by then we'll be too busy making the world better to argue about something you just will never understand - because you're literally too closed minded and a common keyboard-scientist. some humility would do you good, accept you don't know everything despite knowing some facts. I'm not denying facts, i'm denying your blanket idiotic conclusion that we're machines.
A persons worldview is programmed by his surroundings, he eats the same food, does the same things, every day, at around the same time. Most people fall into a routine and will do nothing to get out of it.
Most people get a set worldview from childhood and will be violently against anything that contradicts that one. Not because they're bad people, it happens on instinct level. People might more or less clearly realize that , but it takes a real effort to CHANGE, in other world, do re-program. People's thinking is based in templates, that allows us to think fast. The number of things we can process at the same time is limited by our brain.
Our bodies are functioning, on their own, separately from out brains. DNA CODE is read by proteins, and from that cells and things are synthesized.
Free will is limited by your acquired information, and is nothing more than a multiple choice operation.
You can think all you want that you're not a machine, but exactly makes you not one?
I don't have to prove that to say it's dumb, we're influenced by our environment but there's differences than just being a machine who is predictably acting with whatever it's programmed to. that's about as machine as we get, this is natural - if you're an internet generation 4chan jerk with info at your fingertips, you become an common internet scientist just like the common religionfags year ago - it's what you're exposed to. doesn't mean you're not unique. you're special, anon, despite the strong influence life has on you that makes you assume stupid things (that will be proven wrong n about 50 years)
ok, you sound similar to what i said. so you're litereally on your set worldview shit, so am i. That's literally the only differences, between that there's a lot of truth since the post directly below yours has similar ideas, but I didn't see your post before now. Yet we still find volatility
>don't need proof
in 50 years when we're constructing humanoid/android machines based on the machine structure of our brains and bodies, you'll think back to this post and remember how stupid you were.
when that happens your argument will still be invalid because machines getting better doesn't mean it's true now - this is fucking stupid, in 50 years you'll be fucking that android and i'll be on my Jesus worship shit and we'll both be happy.
what the fuck do you mean by facts? Learn to read, I didn't say that animals have facts or whatever fuckery you are trying to put in my mouth
Also most animals feel pain, your 'no, actually many do not' is faillible because many do, be it a bug a cow or whatever else. And yeah, while there are invasive species, their invasion is usually gradual and takes time, and humans constructed bombs/guns which can kill thousands of people, plants and animals in a matter of seconds. No animal has such a power.
Same thing that bugged me back in highschool when people talked about this.
I personally wouldn't kill or hurt a dog or a cat, but shouldn't your own species be more important to you, even tho you had bad experiences with individuals, moreover that our species is one of the most intelligent on the planet, and the only one that uses complex tools and have written languages.
People who put animals in front of people seem just self centered to me.
But some things are very bad, and unnecessarily cruel. Example: For new year a dog was found with his lower jaw blown off by a firecracker, it passed away at the vet's.
To me, feeding pyrotechnics to a dog is pretty severe, and can only be done by a complete sadist.
If you can live and thrive without something then it's not necessary.
>It would be a different story if ...
Like millions do and you have no way of knowing. Besides see pic related do you really think people who stab knives in animals throats till they bleed out on a daily basis has any problem doing the things you described?
Why the fuck is it a different story, kicking and punching is "oh so bad" but living an excruciating life completely deprived of any freedom AND getting killed in the end is ok?
So you would choose to save humans over animals then, right? Like you said, meat and other animal by products are "needs", so we could definitely live without them, right? And again, a person who kills an animal for food is not 100% totally cool and capable of skinning a live dog and wearing it's bleeding coat on his head.
>So you would choose to save humans over animals then, right?
It depends. Is the human someone who'd keep more animals alive on the long run(an ALF member or a vegan spokesperson or activist or whatever)?If so I'd kill the animal, otherwise no.
>Like you said, meat and other animal by products are "needs", so we could definitely live without them, right?
What are you saying I didn't say they are needs of course we can live without them, as it should be.
>And again, a person who kills an animal for food is not 100% totally cool and capable of skinning a live dog and wearing it's bleeding coat on his head.
Yea I know some slaughterhouse workers are just illegal underpaid workers that would't kill a dog, your point is?
Saving 1 animal ≠ Saving 1 human.
You fucking cancerous shits eat about 7,000 animals in your lifetime! You really think your fucking worthless neet life is worth 7,000 animals???AHAH Get real