Do you think we are treating the animal kingdom ethically?

>>129143258
>applying complex human ideas to beings that can't comprehend them and attempting to anthropomorphize them

>>129143258
No. Is this even a serious question?

>>129143438
>Sophistry means my sociopathy is acceptable and I can do whatever I want WHEEE!!!

>>129143762
what I said doesn't mean you shouldn't empathize with them and treat them well, many of them are still sentient after all

but nature isn't "ethical", nor do animals care or are even capable of thinking in those terms

>>129144388
That's a whole lot of words for "It's okay for me to treat animals in any terrible fashion I want because I'm a human and they're not."

File: 1494438387938.jpg (29KB, 720x540px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 720x540px

>>129143258
Only to the animals that matter to us.

I don't particularly care. We are animals ourselves, and are in fact the apex predator. I don't think the saying "the wolf does not concern himself with the opinions of sheep" has ever been more applicable.

>>129144773
So, what's wrong with that. Science says emotions are just chemicals, why should I care if some chemicals are being released into a cows brain, I need to eat motherfucker! Religion also says that God created all animals and plants to be dominated by humans, killing animals, exeption of torture had always been considered ethic in the entire world for 50000 years, and autists like you for some reason want to make us weak grass eating prey.

>>129146244
>So, what's wrong with that.
Yeah, what's wrong with that? It's okay to dismember little girls while they're being raped because I mean it's just meat and electricity and shit.

>>129146788
No little girls are human and are aware what is happening. Cows are not capable of thinking, and who the fuck would want to rape a cow? If someone rapes a cow in the first place, its them that need to be killed. Also why would we eat our children when we have an uninteligent disposal of uninteligent cows to eat?

>>129143258
No, because ethics don't apply.

>>129143258
Absolutely not

>>129147142
>Animals don't know what's happening when you hurt them
Great argument! I'm sure it will even hold up in court!

>>129148553
>People raising and slaughtering cows go to jail.
?

>>129149050
Did I say they did? Nobody denies that animals in the criminal food industry don't know what's going on. That would be lying under oath. Unfortunately, some abuse is simply legal. But even in this lawless country, try to drag a cow downtown and just start hitting it with sticks until it bleeds and watch what happens to you.

>>129149420
>No, see, it's abuse!
Well, that's like, your opinion, man.

>>129148553
I just said I'm against animal torture, but the historical practice of killing animals to feed off them is right. Murdering animals=/=torturing them, especially towards beings that don't have a concept of either. Towards domestic animals, you are actually doing them a favor, instead of dying a slow painful death, theyll be killed in a swift blow, serving their purpose. You are actually doing a favor by keeping them alive, you are actually putting food in their mouth, 99% of domestic animals would die in the wild, so you have every right to kill and eat them once they've reached the end of their life cycle.
>>129149420
The animals in the food industry are getting fed and living their life, sure its a bit crowded, but why should they care? They are animals. They don't seem to be mad about it, they would have done something by now. Oh wait they are animals and they are incapable to think, too bad life goes on no one gives a shit we need to eat.

>>129144773
yeah, welcome to the cold hard reality of being on the top of the food chain

>>129143258
People treat everything like trash, especially each other

>>129150014
you're just skewing too far in the other direction, they are certainly capable of thinking, experiencing pleasure or pain, feeling emotions, or learning, just not on the level a human does and thus treating them as if you would treat humans is just being dishonest to yourself

brutal predation will exist whether humans industrialize the process or not

>>129143258
With all the affirmative action and racial equality quota's businesses have to meet I'd say we are.

Not.At.All.

Many Countries, USA Included, Are More Than Happy To Ethically Practice Conservation With Respect To Non Human Animals (TLDR: The Habitat Can Support A Certain Capacity) But They Refuse To Apply Such Sound Reasoning To Human Populations. Please Acknowledge That Humans Are Mammals, A Prominant Group In The Animal Kingdom.

EUGENICS WHEN
U
G
E
N
I
C
S

>>129143258
Ethics only apply to humans.

>>129146788
You'd like that wouldn't you?

>>129143258
Nigga do you know how animals treat eachother
turn on animal planet or someshit for once you faggot

We understand consciousness so poorly that it is unfathomable to me that we could be getting things just right with our current understanding.

>>129152989
This. Literally only sympathize with the alt right because I'm a conservation biologist. White people are going to need conserved. I can't simultaneously argue against it being important while caring about animal biodiversity.

>>129154072
White and EASIAN humans only

File: 1331343641690.jpg (21KB, 433x315px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 433x315px

>>129143258

No. We are totally divorced from nature, especially the ones we eat. Humans are mostly dumb, egotistical pigs.

>>129143258
They get treated too well as it is

>>129157420
Yeah, because you're so "different" and probably consider yourself an "intellectual" who uses Facebook pictures like a fag

>>129143258
If you consider that we eat them for the sole purpose of taste then no. To make a concious being suffer and kill it for such a low tribe is definitly not ethical.