Because they think and carry out processes. I believe it is cruel to kill an ant and that they should be given the same rights humans enjoy.

Because they think and carry out processes. I believe it is cruel to kill an ant and that they should be given the same rights humans enjoy.

Humans have the right to be killed.

They have rights, yes.

in most cases small animals that are not mammals do not have rights. unless they are nearly extinct. we protect cute animals that we can relate with, and dont mind if ugly little bug animals get killed. the only time we allow cute little furry animals to be killed, is if we eat them.

we usualy use the excuse that "the animals dont feel pain" and stuff like that, like with fish, for ages people said fish dont feel pain. but i think latest studies show they have pain receptors simular to ours.

people dont care much about things that dont resemble humans. we dont like seeing little baby monkeys or kittens get killed. we say "aww thats cruel" but when siomebody splats a spider we say "eww thats gross". because we dont like the way they look in general.

its all superficial human behaviour.

peace.

Because they think and carry out processes. I believe it is cruel to kill an ant and that they should be given the same rights humans enjoy.

I don't agree.

I don't know why. It's not like we should base our attitudes on either the endangerment of a creature or it's ganglionic complexity. And yet, I still don't give a damn if a person pours gasoline on an ant mound, let's it soak in, and then lights it on fire in order to kill the nasty buggers and their bitchy, egg-laden, queen (quite fun, really, when I was a lad... ahhhhh, growing up on a farm).

~String

Because they think and carry out processes. I believe it is cruel to kill an ant and that they should be given the same rights humans enjoy.

It is already true as to what you say. Ants, unto themselves, already have rights of their own. They live the way they want and do the things they do without harming each other of the same species. In other words they have rules as humans do. Humans kill for fun and sport, other animals don't.

It is already true as to what you say. Ants, unto themselves, already have rights of their own. They live the way they want and do the things they do without harming each other of the same species. In other words they have rules as humans do. Humans kill for fun and sport, other animals don't.

They do war though. ;)

Ants can have rights as soon as they apply to the UN and fill in all of the appropriate forms.

They are ants...just ants..they are not bound by the same constraints of society that we are. They dont have laws they dont have religion they dont have morals, they dont have linguistic ability or culture. A bug is just a bug, the second an ant bites me and then ask for a fair trial for assaulting me, thats when it has the same rights as me.

I don't agree.

I don't know why. It's not like we should base our attitudes on either the endangerment of a creature or it's ganglionic complexity. And yet, I still don't give a damn if a person pours gasoline on an ant mound, let's it soak in, and then lights it on fire in order to kill the nasty buggers and their bitchy, egg-laden, queen (quite fun, really, when I was a lad... ahhhhh, growing up on a farm).

~String

If you were setting anthills ablaze just for the pure fun of it you should check your ethics. :bugeye:

Cases in which cruelty to animals is due to a deliberate wish to be cruel (as opposed to neglect), are known as zoosadism, and have been repeatedly linked via research with abuse and cruelty to people (including the more sensationalist examples of torture and killing).

Psychological studies have shown that individuals who take pleasure in inflicting harm on animals are more likely to do so to humans. One of the known warning signs of certain psycho-pathologies, including anti-social personality disorder, also known as psychopathic personality disorder, is a history of torturing pets and small animals, a behavior known as zoosadism.

does squishing an ant or a spider in your house count? I hope not otherwise im guilty as hell.

I you have a deliberate wish to be cruel to animals and take pleasure in inflicting harm on them you should get a psychiatrist.
Everyone has at one time or another killed insects or other invertebrates, purposely or not.
I swat mosquitoes as well but i don't take any pleasure in it.
Its 'ok' to eradicate an anthill if, for instance, your whole house is covered with them and your kids are being bitten by them.

agreed, but as a young boy I have to admit I used to do mean things to bugs with my friends. Isnt that just a second grader acting like a second grader?

agreed, but as a young boy I have to admit I used to do mean things to bugs with my friends. Isnt that just a second grader acting like a second grader?

Yeah, kids just do that. Nothing wrong there unless it gets excessive (like burning down whole anthills just for the fun of it).

agreed, but as a young boy I have to admit I used to do mean things to bugs with my friends. Isnt that just a second grader acting like a second grader?

Also, didn't you feel shame afterwards ? Didn't it bother you ?

When I was a kid I once pulled out a flies wings just to see what it would do. I regretted it almost immediately after I did it, when I realized the cruelty of it.

I did, but I didnt lose any sleep over it. It was never anything big like mass ant...antocide, just things like squishing spiders, and one time my friend and I set some spiders on fire, but likeI said I was very young.

I always wondered why PETA didn't protest the eating alive of bugs on Fear Factor. What are the qualifications for them to care?

cuteness

cuteness

chickens aren't cute.

does squishing an ant or a spider in your house count? I hope not otherwise im guilty as hell.

lol same here!!

i know there are animals but they can spread diseases, and i always put down ant killing powder to make sure they leave my house alone in the summer, and also flys,

chickens aren't cute.

compared to ants? I'd love to see a Peta freak lying on top of that anthill, an attempt to stop their deaths...then rise up with a few dozen stuck to her back. Would make a great SNL skit.

compared to ants? I'd love to see a Peta freak lying on top of that anthill, an attempt to stop their deaths...then rise up with a few dozen stuck to her back. Would make a great SNL skit.

i beg to differ with a bit of stuffing and chicken sauce chickens are very sweet! lol

I did, but I didnt lose any sleep over it. It was never anything big like mass ant...antocide, just things like squishing spiders, and one time my friend and I set some spiders on fire, but likeI said I was very young.

Thats awful..
I guess I related to the fly. I imagined it was like some giant pulling out my arms. I never knowingly hurt another animal since, except the occasional mosquito.

lol same here!!

i know there are animals but they can spread diseases, and i always put down ant killing powder to make sure they leave my house alone in the summer, and also flys,

You could catch it and put it outside...

compared to ants? I'd love to see a Peta freak lying on top of that anthill, an attempt to stop their deaths...then rise up with a few dozen stuck to her back. Would make a great SNL skit.

Ants are cuter than chickens by a mile.. :D

You could catch it and put it outside...

erm.......nope!!! no thankyou!! not going to happen....fear of them yes i have!!!

Thats awful.. I guess I related to the fly. I imagined it was like some giant pulling out my arms. I never knowingly hurt another animal since, except the occasional mosquito.

So ....here you're making exception for the mosquitos, but you can't understand that others make different exceptions to your own?????

Baron Max

So ....here you're making exception for the mosquitos, but you can't understand that others make different exceptions to your own?????

Baron Max

The mosquitoes are parasites, I have a right to defend myself. It's the risk of the game for the mosquitoes.
Lets not talk about the dogfighting in this thread.

Misquitoes kill more humans on the planet than any other animal.
(yes, yes I know. technically humans are animals, but I'm not splitting that hair)

your saying what I did was awful? I would guess that as a child I did not fully understand what I was doing, and I dont go out now as an adult and burn animals, but if I see a spider in my house I squish it, same with a moth, same with a fly.

your saying what I did was awful? I would guess that as a child I did not fully understand what I was doing, and I dont go out now as an adult and burn animals, but if I see a spider in my house I squish it, same with a moth, same with a fly.

I'm saying it's awful for the spider. Being on fire seems pretty awful to me..

Kids do stupid things, it must be awful for the mosquito to be squished just for wanting a meal too, but I doubt anyone complains about that.

Ideally all animals should be given the same respect as a person. However in the case of ants, that might be impractical.

Because they think and carry out processes.That is an extraordinary assertion. The rules of this forum require respect for the scientific method at all times so you are required to provide extraordinary substantiation for that extraordinary assertion.

Thought implies consciousness. Consciousness requires a forebrain, or something analogous to it. Ants don't have that.I believe it is cruel to kill an ant and that they should be given the same rights humans enjoy.Okay, so you're telling us what you believe. But it's based on the false premise that ants have consciousness, so your belief is not persuasive.Ideally all animals should be given the same respect as a person.And how exactly would that work? They should be granted the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the basic set of rights upon which America was more or less founded? So raccoons can steal our food, zebras can eat all our crops, chipmunks can destroy our houses, and lions can kill us for food?

I have killed a lot of ants in my time here on earth. Never thought about it much really, but I suppose its something to be proud of.

Thought implies consciousness. Consciousness requires a forebrain, or something analogous to it. Ants don't have that.


But humans do and they kill ants that don't think as you stated. So why would a thinking human with greater forebrain and consciousness do this inhumane act upon a critter as lowly as the ant? Who then has the greater thought capacity and how it is used.

But humans do and they kill ants that don't think as you stated. So why would a thinking human with greater forebrain and consciousness do this inhumane act upon a critter as lowly as the ant? Who then has the greater thought capacity and how it is used.

I wouldn't kill an ant.
Every creature's life is precious to it.
But I would destroy a whole ants nest
if the ants were coming in my house.

I wouldn't kill an ant.
Every creature's life is precious to it.
But I would destroy a whole ants nest
if the ants were coming in my house.

Why not just prevent from from entering? That would stop them and you won't have to worry about them. I have a pest control service that puts a device under the ground every so many feet around my entire house. Those devices keep all critters out eccept lizards and flying cockroachs or other flying critters.

I would have to admit ants are cute and also very admirable.

I would have to admit ants are cute and also very admirable.

To know them is to love them, to love them is knowing them.:D

Why not just prevent from from entering? That would stop them and you won't have to worry about them. I have a pest control service that puts a device under the ground every so many feet around my entire house. Those devices keep all critters out eccept lizards and flying cockroachs or other flying critters.

They are more a nuisance in the UK than a major problem.
An anti-ant cordon would be a bit excessive here.

With global warming we may see invasions of some of your more
damaging species.

I wouldn't mind having the odd lizard around. Sounds like fun.

Thats awful..
I guess I related to the fly. I imagined it was like some giant pulling out my arms. I never knowingly hurt another animal since, except the occasional mosquito.
Why is it ok to kill misquitoes and not ants or spiders?

I wouldn't mind having the odd lizard around. Sounds like fun.

They are until they get into your bed at night when you're asleep and wake you up from a nice dream! Feeling something crawling on your body in bed at night does give one trepidations. We have many varieties here many have been illegally brought in from elsewhere round the world and have made a great headway into taking over the indigenous lizards that were once abundant.

Kids do stupid things, it must be awful for the mosquito to be squished just for wanting a meal too, but I doubt anyone complains about that.

I agree.

Ideally all animals should be given the same respect as a person. However in the case of ants, that might be impractical.

But you don't have to kill them for fun. People don't have much choice, they are going to kill bugs whether they want to or not. But to take pleasure in it is just sick.

I have killed a lot of ants in my time here on earth. Never thought about it much really, but I suppose its something to be proud of.

Why !? :mad:
Regardless if they feel anything or are conscious or whatever, it's life. You don't go around destroying life just for the heck of it. :bugeye:

There is a certain order of monks that actually sweep in front of them as they walk through their monestary moving away any living things that they can see in order not to kill them.

That is an extraordinary assertion. The rules of this forum require respect for the scientific method at all times so you are required to provide extraordinary substantiation for that extraordinary assertion.

Thought implies consciousness. Consciousness requires a forebrain, or something analogous to it. Ants don't have that.Okay, so you're telling us what you believe. But it's based on the false premise that ants have consciousness, so your belief is not persuasive.And how exactly would that work? They should be granted the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the basic set of rights upon which America was more or less founded? So raccoons can steal our food, zebras can eat all our crops, chipmunks can destroy our houses, and lions can kill us for food?

It works like this:
You don't kill animals for pleasure. If you have to get rid of, for example, a wasps nest over your porch so be it. But if you enjoy it, thats just wrong.
You pay respect to animals solely because they are life, that means you don't harm them for pleasure. Its sick.

I wouldn't kill an ant.
Every creature's life is precious to it.
But I would destroy a whole ants nest
if the ants were coming in my house.

Exactly. You don't kill animals, even ants, without necessity. And even if you have to, you shouldn't feel good about yourself for it.

Why not just prevent from from entering? That would stop them and you won't have to worry about them. I have a pest control service that puts a device under the ground every so many feet around my entire house. Those devices keep all critters out eccept lizards and flying cockroachs or other flying critters.

Even better, if it works without poison.

I would have to admit ants are cute and also very admirable.

They are, all the hymenoptera are :D
http://enmos.eu/images/insects/hymenoptera/images_600/andrena_flavipes_03.jpg

Why is it ok to kill misquitoes and not ants or spiders?

They attack me.. its self defence ;)

They attack me.. its self defence ;)

You've never been bit by a spider?

You've never been bit by a spider?

Nope, but when spiders start flying into my bedroom at night to bite me I'm going to kill them. Unless they are easy to catch.

Nope, but when spiders start flying into my bedroom at night to bite me I'm going to kill them. Unless they are easy to catch.

You've really never been bit by spiders?

You've really never been bit by spiders?

I have not ever been bitten by a spider. I have never been bitten or stung by anything other then mosquitoes. :shrug:

It works like this: You don't kill animals for pleasure.

Why not? Millions of hunters enjoy the sport of hunting and killing animals ...why shouldn't they? ...just because you don't happen to like it?

And you should read up on "culling the herds", because if we go your way, those same herds will multiply so fast as to outstrip their food supply ....and then they starve to death. Have you ever seen an animal starve to death? That's exactly what you're asking to happen.

Baron Max

I have not ever been bitten by a spider. I have never been bitten or stung by anything other then mosquitoes. :shrug:

I suppose I have no arguement then.

Why not? Millions of hunters enjoy the sport of hunting and killing animals ...why shouldn't they? ...just because you don't happen to like it?

Hunting is disgusting, unless it is to survive.
Do i have to keep repeating myself ?


And you should read up on "culling the herds", because if we go your way, those same herds will multiply so fast as to outstrip their food supply ....and then they starve to death. Have you ever seen an animal starve to death? That's exactly what you're asking to happen.

No, Baron. It is called NATURE, the population will stabilize itself. No hunters needed.

I suppose I have no arguement then.

What was your argument going to be ? Where do you live ?

Where do you live ?
Pennsylvania, most of the time.

Pennsylvania, most of the time.

So you have lots of spiders there ?

So you have lots of spiders there ?

Yes.

Oh btw. I forgot, I've been bitten by a couple of ticks in my life. Even got the Lyme's Disease infection from one.

If you were setting anthills ablaze just for the pure fun of it you should check your ethics. :bugeye:

Cases in which cruelty to animals is due to a deliberate wish to be cruel (as opposed to neglect), are known as zoosadism, and have been repeatedly linked via research with abuse and cruelty to people (including the more sensationalist examples of torture and killing).

Psychological studies have shown that individuals who take pleasure in inflicting harm on animals are more likely to do so to humans. One of the known warning signs of certain psycho-pathologies, including anti-social personality disorder, also known as psychopathic personality disorder, is a history of torturing pets and small animals, a behavior known as zoosadism.

Yes indeed. All those millions of kids across the world who have fried an ant under a magnafine glass, fed a helpless cricket to a spider, or stepped on pill bugs for fun are all horrible people!

~String

Yes indeed. All those millions of kids across the world who have fried an ant under a magnafine glass, fed a helpless cricket to a spider, or stepped on pill bugs for fun are all horrible people!

~String

Not if they did it when they were kids, unless they did it excessively. At one point they had to have had the realization that what they were doing was cruel. If they still continue torturing animals after that, I'm sorry, but then they are horrible people.

Even better, if it works without poison.

It is more of a repelant I'd think for I have as yet to see anything that died on the ground in over 3 years.

Yes indeed. All those millions of kids across the world who have fried an ant under a magnafine glass, fed a helpless cricket to a spider, or stepped on pill bugs for fun are all horrible people!

~String

Those were children, when you reach adult , 18 years of age, you're supposed to know better as to what is right and wrong. If you haven't learned by then you may never will.

Erm... well, that's when I did my bug torturing.

Tell me then, when I used to own a tarantula and would feed it baby mice and crickets and then watch them get slaughtered with fervent interest 'till the critter died when I was 18, does that make me some horrible person?

How about people who watch nature movies and take some sort of morbid enjoyment of watching nature being carried out in the predation of lesser animals.

Still, I'm not altogether convinced that it is morally reprehensible to destroy an ant mound or hornet nest for the sake of destroying it. I'm not fond hornets and never hesitate to squirt Raid into their nest and watch them writhe and wiggle till duly departed.

~String

Killing an ant is like killing a brain cell. Who cares?

Killing an ant is like killing a brain cell. Who cares?

Has someone already napalmed your mental anthill?

Tell me then, when I used to own a tarantula and would feed it baby mice and crickets and then watch them get slaughtered with fervent interest 'till the critter died when I was 18, does that make me some horrible person?

In at least one way, yes. Nothing here indicates that you are repentant.

In at least one way, yes. Nothing here indicates that you are repentant.

So... I should repent the horrible sin of allowing a creature of nature to eat another creature of nature and subsequently being fascinated by it? Huh? Where do you get that from. So, should I have blindfolded myself while feeding the tarantual... or should I have killed it for killing! Oh the paradox!

Human fascination with death is natural... and you're going to have a tough time proving that killing an ant, a moth, or a bee is socially and morally reprehensible.

~String

So...

That is no more sensical than hurling a tropical cyclone toward a densely-populated mainland with the justification of, 'well, it probably would have happened anyway, eventually. Therefore, I am still virtuous'. You and God would get along fabulously.

So, I shouldn't have watched while the tarantula ate... or I just shouldn't have owned one? I'm not being condescending, I'm just wondering how the moral code which you espouse covers such situations.

~String

Still, I'm not altogether convinced that it is morally reprehensible to destroy an ant mound or hornet nest for the sake of destroying it. I'm not fond hornets and never hesitate to squirt Raid into their nest and watch them writhe and wiggle till duly departed.

~String

I dunno about "morally reprehensible", but conducting several systematic "genocides" this Summer certainly was utilitarian, from my point of view.

The ant's nest I flooded (heh.... drown beetches, drown... ) and used insecticide/bait poison on was a carpenter ant colony at the base of a large tree adjacent to my house, the surface "footprint" of which was around 3 feet in diameter. I know they're not supposed to infest living wood, but why take chances ?
I had in infestation of the sumbitches in the house the first Summer I moved in here. Tough to get rid of, but they do luv that poison-laced sugary syrup...
heh...

The 101 (or so it seemed) new hornet's nests built all over the joint (they just love it under the carport for some reason) were a disaster waiting to happen.
Don't get me wrong - I think they're the coolest, but when I'm doing a bit of work on the place and they scramble like the Royal Air Force on Aldertag, I ain't happy...

Last but not least was the #$@%&*!!! moles...
I think the "treats" I've been ever-so-lovingly leaving for the wee blind darlings have finally sent this latest infestation to their eternal reward, and I certainly hope they departed this world wretching their little guts out in agony.
Another persistent foe... It has been a 2+ year war against the insidious subterranean sumbitches, which has seen everything from me trying to flood their tunnels, to having to roto-till big hunks of lawn and replant 'em for the number of burrows and mole-hills dotting the landscape, to the purchase of utterluy worthless electro-sonic "repellers", to an all-out chemical assault on their food supply as well as the snuffling, sightless sukkas themselves.... only to find that a "sleeper cell" had survived !
LoL
If the "mole-tox" hadn't worked this time around, I was hell bent on buying the gizmo that allowed one to hook a garden hose to an automobile exhaust pipe in order to stick the other end down the burrow and gas the bastids...

heeheehoohahaaa !!!!

BERGEN-BELSEN their asses, baby !!!

The fact that this activity amused the heck out of me I attribute to... well - something which requires that I get a gub'mint check for life and a 'scrip for some good drugs, at least.

Yes, Ants should have rights but how can we control it?
Call the cops everytime we see someone step on an ant?
Besides, sometimes we squash them unintentionally, like playing soccer (football)and you just happen to step one whilst you run...
I don't think Bullants should have rights...I hate them...little black ants :D

Those were children, when you reach adult , 18 years of age, you're supposed to know better as to what is right and wrong. If you haven't learned by then you may never will.

"The child is father of the man"

A child who is cruel to animals has emotional problems.

That is an extraordinary assertion. The rules of this forum require respect for the scientific method at all times so you are required to provide extraordinary substantiation for that extraordinary assertion.




I'm a religious agnostic and a scientific agnostic.
I take anything that experts from either side
say with a large pinch of salt.

In 1,000 years
most of what we believe scientifically now
will be seen as primitive, naive, and just plain wrong.
And the religious zealots will still be carrying billboards.

I'm a millenium ahead of my time!

1.) Tell me then, when I used to own a tarantula and would feed it baby mice and crickets and then watch them get slaughtered with fervent interest 'till the critter died when I was 18, does that make me some horrible person?

In a way, yes. It says something about you mentality.


2.) How about people who watch nature movies and take some sort of morbid enjoyment of watching nature being carried out in the predation of lesser animals.

See answer to 1.)
Lesser animals ?


3.) Still, I'm not altogether convinced that it is morally reprehensible to destroy an ant mound or hornet nest for the sake of destroying it. I'm not fond hornets and never hesitate to squirt Raid into their nest and watch them writhe and wiggle till duly departed.

So you still kill small animals just for the fun of it :bugeye:
That is morally contemptible.

Killing an ant is like killing a brain cell. Who cares?

You should know then.. :rolleyes:

So... I should repent the horrible sin of allowing a creature of nature to eat another creature of nature and subsequently being fascinated by it? Huh? Where do you get that from. So, should I have blindfolded myself while feeding the tarantual... or should I have killed it for killing! Oh the paradox!

Are you repentant of killing the, who knows how many, anthills for no reason at all but your enjoyment ?


Human fascination with death is natural... and you're going to have a tough time proving that killing an ant, a moth, or a bee is socially and morally reprehensible.

So you think you are more important than any animal just because you are human ? I wonder how you would defend killing bugs just because you feel like it, what is your justification ?
Whats the next step ? Killing your neighbors cat to see it squirm and wriggle in agony, can you imagine how much fun that would be ?

So, I shouldn't have watched while the tarantula ate... or I just shouldn't have owned one? I'm not being condescending, I'm just wondering how the moral code which you espouse covers such situations.

~String

It's not about the feeding, it's the fact that you get pleasure from watching it that's sick.

Yes, Ants should have rights but how can we control it?
Call the cops everytime we see someone step on an ant?
Besides, sometimes we squash them unintentionally, like playing soccer (football)and you just happen to step one whilst you run...
I don't think Bullants should have rights...I hate them...little black ants :D

We cant make laws against it, people unknowingly kill bugs all the time.
Its just that being cruel to bugs, or all animals for that matter, on purpose and getting enjoyment from it is despicable.
I personally would call the authorities when I see someone torching anthills for the fun of it.
As far as I'm concerned this kind of animal treatment is a sign of some sort of mental illness.

"The child is father of the man"

A child who is cruel to animals has emotional problems.

If they are knowingly being cruel.

If they are knowingly being cruel.

But roasting and eating them is not cruel?

And I just know you're going to say something about "getting pleasure from it", but don't people get pleasure eating a good steak or roast beef? We kill and slaughter many animals so that we can get that pleasure of eating the meat.

Enmos, I think you're allowing your idealism to run away with your good sense.

Baron Max

That is an extraordinary assertion. The rules of this forum require respect for the scientific method at all times so you are required to provide extraordinary substantiation for that extraordinary assertion.

Thought implies consciousness. Consciousness requires a forebrain, or something analogous to it. Ants don't have that.Okay, so you're telling us what you believe. But it's based on the false premise that ants have consciousness, so your belief is not persuasive.And how exactly would that work? They should be granted the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the basic set of rights upon which America was more or less founded? So raccoons can steal our food, zebras can eat all our crops, chipmunks can destroy our houses, and lions can kill us for food?

So you're telling me an ant is not conscious. You can't even attest to my consciousness let alone the consciousness of a little ant. I can go by what I see and what I see are little creatures moving in, reacting in, and involved in, their own society.

What causes an ant to traverse the terrain to find food, carry it all the way back to it's ant hill, complex, whatever you want to call it, and feed it to their queen? Quite the little automatons huh?

What causes an ant to run when you start thumb printing the land around him? I guess that fear is just a a phenomena resulting from quantum mechanics?

http://www.peti.org/rights/more.htm

The thing boils down to this, either you kill things for pleasure or watch things die for pleasure or you kill things that are pests and are somehow making your life miserable and there's no other way to get rid of them. If you kill for pleasure or excitement then you're a very disturbed person who should seek professional help quickly for that isn't a very normal way to live. When people buy non domesticated animals they are taking those animals away from their natural environments and putting them into a place where they should not be. Just because a spider eats another bug doesn't mean people have to own them to understand this process, it is called life. Whenever people remove animals from nature they are destroying that animals existence and supplementing it with our own way of dealing with its survival.

There are many nature videos and movies that anyone can rent , buy or download if they want to watch animals or insects in their own natural environments live , fight, work and die. Why is it that people need to have animals that belong out in the wilderness brought into their homes as "pets". That is a very strange thing to do when there are people we can be with or DOMESTICATED animals that we can acquire very easily. Buy a pet but buy a pet that belongs with people not animals that belong outside in nature living as they want to live not as you seem to think they should live. :)

But roasting and eating them is not cruel?

And I just know you're going to say something about "getting pleasure from it", but don't people get pleasure eating a good steak or roast beef? We kill and slaughter many animals so that we can get that pleasure of eating the meat.

Enmos, I think you're allowing your idealism to run away with your good sense.

Baron Max

You guessed it, the pleasure thing.
Do you honestly belief that eating a steak gives the same kind of pleasure as the kind these people get from torturing animals ?
It isn't idealism, it's good sense.. but it should be common sense.

I remember in grade 5, i did the worst thing once with a butterfly. I felt so guilty and I still do. It seriously hurts. Well anyway, this is what happened:
There was this butterfly, purple maybe, flying but it looked injured, my friend and I thought it would be funny to catch it and squash it, we held it in a tissue, squashed it a bit and flushed it down the toilet.
I feel SO guilty just seeing it spiral down the toilet somewhere in the sewage system...

fairly recently my son bought a good BB gun, and i loaded it and shot at a wood pigeon and it fly away screeching, i felt so bad for days after it,

Are you repentant of killing the, who knows how many, anthills for no reason at all but your enjoyment ?

Why would I? You haven't demonstrated, beyond stating your own subjective opinions, that it's somehow wrong.

So you think you are more important than any animal just because you are human ?

I do think that humans are far, FAR more important than any other animal on this planet. I'm not a vegan. I eat meat and love every minute of it. I would, without a moment's hesitation, allow a monkey to be slaughtered if it could provide a heart valve to save my (or any other person's) life. I doubt you'll find many people who would take issue with those concepts outside of left wing wackjob circles.

Bugs are bugs. What about something smaller than a bug? Where do you draw the line? You see, we ALL have arbitrary lines we draw. I fish for fun and then throw them back all the time-- that's fun. It probably, at worst, hurts the little walleye & bass that I catch and at best annoys the hell out of them. My dad hunts deer, which is something I find abhorrent-- I draw the line at animals larger than a rat.

It is, nevertheless, a purely arbitrary thing.

So I ask you, where do you draw the line? Would you find it morally reprehensible to kill fleas for our comfort/pleasure/satisfaction? How about paramecia? Amoebae? Bacteria? Microbes? Viruses? Is it wrong to kill microscopic things for fun-- or is all life sacred, no matter how small, and should we never take satisfaction out of killing any life, no matter how small?

I wonder how you would defend killing bugs just because you feel like it, what is your justification ?

I don't like bugs. I kill them. I don't "do it for fun" anymore, now I just do it because I don't like them crawling around my house or in my garden. Mice and other small critters come upon my property at their own peril.

Whats the next step ? Killing your neighbors cat to see it squirm and wriggle in agony, can you imagine how much fun that would be ?

Generally I like mammals and don't enjoy seeing them harmed. I have two cats and a dog. I'm a lover of fuzzy mammalian creatures. I just hate bugs. Besides, as I see it, cats and dogs have earned their rights. So when I see my neighbor's cat in my garden-- I know he's having fun killing those nasty moles and squirrels that are tearing up my garden. More power to them.

~String

Why would I? You haven't demonstrated, beyond stating your own subjective opinions, that it's somehow wrong.

The fact that you need me to prove it says enough.


I do think that humans are far, FAR more important than any other animal on this planet. I'm not a vegan. I eat meat and love every minute of it. I would, without a moment's hesitation, allow a monkey to be slaughtered if it could provide a heart valve to save my (or any other person's) life. I doubt you'll find many people who would take issue with those concepts outside of left wing wackjob circles.

This is totally besides the point.


Bugs are bugs. What about something smaller than a bug? Where do you draw the line? You see, we ALL have arbitrary lines we draw. I fish for fun and then throw them back all the time-- that's fun. It probably, at worst, hurts the little walleye & bass that I catch and at best annoys the hell out of them. My dad hunts deer, which is something I find abhorrent-- I draw the line at animals larger than a rat.

You dont draw the line, all you have to do is to not kill ANY creature just for the fun of it.
So you draw a line ? Rather hypocritical don't you think ?


It is, nevertheless, a purely arbitrary thing.

It is, that is exactly why you shouldn't do it.
What is "Bugs are bugs" supposed to mean ? We can just kill them for no reason whenever we feel like it because they are small ? Thats laughable.. no actually it's quite sad.


So I ask you, where do you draw the line? Would you find it morally reprehensible to kill fleas for our comfort/pleasure/satisfaction? How about paramecia? Amoebae? Bacteria? Microbes? Viruses? Is it wrong to kill microscopic things for fun-- or is all life sacred, no matter how small, and should we never take satisfaction out of killing any life, no matter how small?

I dont draw the line. It's simple really.. should i repeat myself again ?
"..or is all life sacred, no matter how small, and should we never take satisfaction out of killing any life, no matter how small?" YES !!!


I don't like bugs. I kill them. I don't "do it for fun" anymore, now I just do it because I don't like them crawling around my house or in my garden. Mice and other small critters come upon my property at their own peril.

Proving my point again, see a psychiatrist.


Generally I like mammals and don't enjoy seeing them harmed. I have two cats and a dog. I'm a lover of fuzzy mammalian creatures. I just hate bugs. Besides, as I see it, cats and dogs have earned their rights. So when I see my neighbor's cat in my garden-- I know he's having fun killing those nasty moles and squirrels that are tearing up my garden. More power to them.

:bugeye: I'll say it again, see a psychiatrist.


You have really shown yourself in this post Superstring, I can only hope you will learn to be wiser in the future.
Killing or hurting life just for the heck of it is WRONG.
Life includes creatures smaller than a rat !

No only Humans have rights

No only Humans have rights

I'm not even talking to you about this, I already know where you stand on this :bugeye:

You have really shown yourself in this post Superstring, I can only hope you will learn to be wiser in the future.
Killing or hurting life just for the heck of it is WRONG.
Life includes creatures smaller than a rat !

Sure. Okay. I'll take that into consideration when I'm in the river fishing tomorrow afternoon... and enjoying every last second of it.

~String

Sure. Okay. I'll take that into consideration when I'm in the river fishing tomorrow afternoon... and enjoying every last second of it.

~String

String, theres nothing wrong with enjoying fishing. All I've been talking about is that it's wrong to have pleasure in killing or torturing animals.

Please, don't draw the line.

I'm not even talking to you about this, I already know where you stand on this :bugeye:

And where is that?
Humans are the supreme species in the universe.

String, theres nothing wrong with enjoying fishing. All I've been talking about is that it's wrong to have pleasure in killing or torturing animals.

Please, don't draw the line.

Doesn't fishing cause me pleasure and isn't it hurting an animal?

~String

Doesn't fishing cause me pleasure and isn't it hurting an animal?

~String

Are you doing it for the reason of hurting the animal ?

Are you doing it for the reason of hurting the animal ?

No. I'm doing it because I love to fish and I like being in the river with my dog. The net result for the fish, is the same.

~String

Fishing is hunting, therefore, no it's not wrong

Survival of the fittest, that's the way nature works. If he likes to fish, then it's not his fault the fish can't defend themselves

Some animals can defend themselves, others can't, that's not our fault.

No. I'm doing it because I love to fish and I like being in the river with my dog. The net result for the fish, is the same.

~String

Then it's not the same as deliberatley hurting an animal just for the pleasure of hurting it.
However, if you feel you are torturing the fish or needlessly harming them it's up to you to judge your actions.
I don't consider fishing torture if you put the fish back after you caught them. It's not known how much the fish actually feel of it. I don't do it though, to be on the safe side. It's your own call.

Fishing is hunting, therefore, no it's not wrong

Survival of the fittest, that's the way nature works. If he likes to fish, then it's not his fault the fish can't defend themselves

Some animals can defend themselves, others can't, that's not our fault.

Bla bla bla :rolleyes:

I think even Superstring disagrees with that Norse.

Then it's not the same as deliberatley hurting an animal just for the pleasure of hurting it.
However, if you feel you are torturing the fish or needlessly harming them it's up to you to judge your actions.
I don't consider fishing torture if you put the fish back after you caught them. It's not known how much the fish actually feel of it. I don't do it though, to be on the safe side. It's your own call.

If you put the fish back, what's the point? People fish to eat, as far as I know.

If you put the fish back, what's the point? People fish to eat, as far as I know.

People fish for fun, you buy fish in the supermarket.

I don't hunt. I hate blood. I shot a deer as a young lad and had nightmares for weeks. Nope. Creatures with exoskeletons are free game... but large fuzzy guys who don't attack my garden are off limits.

~String

I don't hunt. I hate blood. I shot a deer as a young lad and had nightmares for weeks. Nope. Creatures with exoskeletons are free game... but large fuzzy guys who don't attack my garden are off limits.

~String

Why do you draw the line ?

Why do you draw the line ?

Unbending rules that encompass all situations are dangerous. There is no rule that fits all instances in life. We all have boundaries that we erect arbitrarily because of whatever emotional tolerances we posses. Society has defined some of those boundaries into laws-- which is something I won't debate. Underneath laws, we have morality which is quite subjective.

Look. I take fascination out of watching a spider kill a bug or a lion killing a zebra. Not pleasure... but some morbid curiosity at watching nature at its cruelest.

I don't cause pain for pain (the ant hill thing was a kid thing). I have no issue with wiping out a hornets nest or killing critters when they intrude upon things that I value: my home, my garden, my car, etcetera. I don't feel shame in any way when I see my cat slaughter a small animal. Why should I? It's what they are designed, by nature to do. We, too, are predators. We can chose not to act in predation, but we are still predators. I am not squeamish about that fact; however, I chose not to hunt or kill because (a) I hate the sight of blood and (b) I just don't enjoy it.

~String

Unbending rules that encompass all situations are dangerous. There is no rule that fits all instances in life. We all have boundaries that we erect arbitrarily because of whatever emotional tolerances we posses. Society has defined some of those boundaries into laws-- which is something I won't debate. Underneath laws, we have morality which is quite subjective.

Look. I take fascination out of watching a spider kill a bug or a lion killing a zebra. Not pleasure... but some morbid curiosity at watching nature at its cruelest.

I don't cause pain for pain (the ant hill thing was a kid thing). I have no issue with wiping out a hornets nest or killing critters when they intrude upon things that I value: my home, my garden, my car, etcetera. I don't feel shame in any way when I see my cat slaughter a small animal. Why should I? It's what they are designed, by nature to do. We, too, are predators. We can chose not to act in predation, but we are still predators. I am not squeamish about that fact; however, I chose not to hunt or kill because (a) I hate the sight of blood and (b) I just don't enjoy it.

~String

This post is a whole lot more sensible than all the others. I think we might actually agree for the most part.

Unbending rules that encompass all situations are dangerous. There is no rule that fits all instances in life. We all have boundaries that we erect arbitrarily because of whatever emotional tolerances we posses. Society has defined some of those boundaries into laws-- which is something I won't debate. Underneath laws, we have morality which is quite subjective.
I'm not suggesting there should be rules for it (as i said before), what is so dangerous about respecting all life (as supposed to only respecting life bigger than rats) ? Its this what baffles me, why do you draw a line.. ? I don't get it.

Look. I take fascination out of watching a spider kill a bug or a lion killing a zebra. Not pleasure... but some morbid curiosity at watching nature at its cruelest.
Nothing wrong with fascination, but why don't expand that fascination to other aspects of life ? Nature is awesome, predation is only a part of it.

I don't cause pain for pain (the ant hill thing was a kid thing).
No problem with that, as i said before.

I have no issue with wiping out a hornets nest or killing critters when they intrude upon things that I value: my home, my garden, my car, etcetera.
I have no problem with this either, as said before.

I don't feel shame in any way when I see my cat slaughter a small animal. Why should I? It's what they are designed, by nature to do.
No argument there.

We, too, are predators. We can chose not to act in predation, but we are still predators. I am not squeamish about that fact; however, I chose not to hunt or kill because (a) I hate the sight of blood and (b) I just don't enjoy it.
We are omnivores, but i get your point. You don't enjoy it.

I may have expressed myself a bit too strong in some instances, please don't take that personal (although it was intended to be personal at the time).
I don't take things like this very well i guess. :)

Nothing wrong with fascination, but why don't expand that fascination to other aspects of life ? Nature is awesome, predation is only a part of it.

I do have an interest in all things natural. Just a bit MORE interest in the messy demise of various prey.

Oh... I took no offense to anything you have said thus far. Actually, I've greatly enjoyed the repartee.

~String

Fish in the supermarket are disgusting, only fresh fish is good

Fish in the supermarket are disgusting, only fresh fish is good

What did they say to you, those fish in the supermarket, that was so disgusting??;)

because they leave them for days and they rot
but fresh fish are good

because they leave them for days and they rot
but fresh fish are good

What happens to the rotten fish?

What happens to the rotten fish?

they become nasty tasting, obviously

they become nasty tasting, obviously

You mean people still buy them even when they are rotten?

Unbending rules that encompass all situations are dangerous. There is no rule that fits all instances in life. We all have boundaries that we erect arbitrarily because of whatever emotional tolerances we posses. Society has defined some of those boundaries into laws-- which is something I won't debate. Underneath laws, we have morality which is quite subjective.

Look. I take fascination out of watching a spider kill a bug or a lion killing a zebra. Not pleasure... but some morbid curiosity at watching nature at its cruelest.

I don't cause pain for pain (the ant hill thing was a kid thing). I have no issue with wiping out a hornets nest or killing critters when they intrude upon things that I value: my home, my garden, my car, etcetera. I don't feel shame in any way when I see my cat slaughter a small animal. Why should I? It's what they are designed, by nature to do. We, too, are predators. We can chose not to act in predation, but we are still predators. I am not squeamish about that fact; however, I chose not to hunt or kill because (a) I hate the sight of blood and (b) I just don't enjoy it.

~String


So it is ok to kill people when you enjoy it.

You mean people still buy them even when they are rotten?

sometimes you can't tell, or have no choice:)

So it is ok to kill people when you enjoy it.

Er... where did you get that out of my statements? I eat meat, that involves some killing. The slaughter of people, was in no way, excused by my statements. I see human beings as the exception to all the rules. There are some human rights activists who champion animal rights on the notion that they have "as much right to live as human beings do." I disagree. Humans are superior-- that superiority obligates humans to act in the most humane way possible, but it also sets us apart as having the ultimate right to live above all other creatures. Such a right should not be construed as to grant humanity carte blanche permission to exterminate all animals, but if the choice had to be made between one human life and a million animals-- the choice should always be the human.

~String

If you were laying down in a park, do you think the Ants think about what rights as a Human you have for not being trampled over or bitten? They obviously don't consider such rights, so in turn should we consider theres?

Okay admittedly we have the capacity for empathy, we can put forwards views in our own minds because we have all that extra free space that a little ant doesn't have. An ant wanders around with a hive mentality, it doesn't think of itself it's just an extension of it's overall Hive.

It doesn't sit and debate philosophy metaphysically with other ants, it's an evolutionary state designed for a particular task (And this is proven further by how the Ant Hive actually decides the gender and type of it's 'Clones')

Humans are superior-- that superiority obligates humans to act in the most humane way possible, but it also sets us apart as having the ultimate right to live above all other creatures. Such a right should not be construed as to grant humanity carte blanche permission to exterminate all animals, but if the choice had to be made between one human life and a million animals-- the choice should always be the human.

~String


Why are humans , to you , so superior to animals? It seems we eat them, they give us materials to provide our shelter and clothing and they work for us to name but a few things. If we were superior then we would find ways to not kill these animals that are helping us but to work out ways to coexist with them. I don't see animals eating humans, starting wars, killing for sport or pleasure or destroying their environment for the greedy people to make more money.

Why are humans , to you , so superior to animals? It seems we eat them, they give us materials to provide our shelter and clothing and they work for us to name but a few things. If we were superior then we would find ways to not kill these animals that are helping us but to work out ways to coexist with them. I don't see animals eating humans, starting wars, killing for sport or pleasure or destroying their environment for the greedy people to make more money.

That we are flawed doesn't negate our superiority.

Look, if you can't see or admit to the obvious fact that humans are superior, then I'm not going to try to convince you with a few paltry words.

If "other" animals could make war and whatnot, they'd also make war. Evolution is a messy business and the whole nature of survival within that medium lends to the victor a certain viciousness which places upon that species the demands of evolving away from that destructiveness before it kills them.

I tend to think that all species in the universe have an expiration date stamped on them. It's in the nature of any species to destroy itself. I don't think we'll survive the next century unless we find a way to leave the planet. (but that's another debate)

Human superiority, as I said, is not a blank check to destroy and eradicate... it simply means we're superior. That superiority doesn't need much explanation because the very fact that we can sit here and debate an obvious maxim is proof of that superiority.

~String

That we are flawed doesn't negate our superiority.

Look, if you can't see or admit to the obvious fact that humans are superior, then I'm not going to try to convince you with a few paltry words.

If "other" animals could make war and whatnot, they'd also make war. Evolution is a messy business and the whole nature of survival within that medium lends to the victor a certain viciousness which places upon that species the demands of evolving away from that destructiveness before it kills them.

I tend to think that all species in the universe have an expiration date stamped on them. It's in the nature of any species to destroy itself. I don't think we'll survive the next century unless we find a way to leave the planet. (but that's another debate)

Human superiority, as I said, is not a blank check to destroy and eradicate... it simply means we're superior. That superiority doesn't need much explanation because the very fact that we can sit here and debate an obvious maxim is proof of that superiority.

~String

But in what way superior ? Lots of animals have abilities we don't have or have abilities far better than ours. The only thing that really sets us apart is our brains, they are for thinking.. and we should use them.
If humankind continues to treat nature this way we will be the cause of our own extinction. Although many humans like to think they are 'above' nature (superior to nature) we can't survive without it.

But in what way superior ? Lots of animals have abilities we don't have or have abilities far better than ours. The only thing that really sets us apart is our brains, they are for thinking.. and we should use them.
If humankind continues to treat nature this way we will be the cause of our own extinction. Although many humans like to think they are 'above' nature (superior to nature) we can't survive without it.

Enmos, did you read my entire post? I stated clearly that humanity has an obligation that comes with our abilities. That obligation is to act with integrety and compassion to those things less than us. As I said, we have to act as stewarts of this planet (thus, my argument in the New Orleans debate). I believe that humanity can and should act in harmony with a planet-- which is why I would hope, in the future, that we would populate this solar system and be able to depopulate the Earth to a degree where humanity can live in harmony with the planet and not in conflict with it. At our current population and uban development, that is totally impossible.

~String

I am a hypocrite. I killed two hundred ants, two flies, and a black widow spider today. I am ashamed of myself. I went over my grandmother's house and regressed. :bawl:

My grandmother said that ants have rights. But they need to take those rights underground.

Enmos, did you read my entire post? I stated clearly that humanity has an obligation that comes with our abilities. That obligation is to act with integrety and compassion to those things less than us. As I said, we have to act as stewarts of this planet (thus, my argument in the New Orleans debate). I believe that humanity can and should act in harmony with a planet-- which is why I would hope, in the future, that we would populate this solar system and be able to depopulate the Earth to a degree where humanity can live in harmony with the planet and not in conflict with it. At our current population and uban development, that is totally impossible.

~String

I agree, i was just wondering what you meant by superior :)

Er... where did you get that out of my statements?

We can chose not to act in predation, but we are still predators. I am not squeamish about that fact; however, I chose not to hunt or kill because (a) I hate the sight of blood and (b) I just don't enjoy it.


You don't hunt or kill because you don't enjoy it. It implies it is ok for other individuals to do so if they enjoy it.

It's applying a principle called logic. One statement can be derived from another.

You could have also said:
'We can chose not to act in predation, but we are still predators. I am not squeamish about that fact; however, we should not act on our predatory instincts because of personal enjoyment because they do not fit in the parameters of modern civilization.'

In such a line of logic I could never have distilled the message that it is ok to be a predator if you enjoy it. Or that it is ok to do whatever is in out nature if we enjoy it.

You gettin' it?

You don't hunt or kill because you don't enjoy it. It implies it is ok for other individuals to do so if they enjoy it.

Correct. It is okay to hunt certain animals if the individual enjoys it. Here in the Ohio the deer population regularly spikes because of two factors. (1) 100,000 years ago there were wolves and saber-tooths in this area to keep the deer population in balance. When man arrived, the saber-tooth died out and the wolf population declined. After that time, the native human population, hunted the deer for meat and kept the population in check. (2) Currently, few people (by comparison) hunt the deer at all and therefor the deer population is at the highest since the damned species evolved. This requires seasonal hunting because, you see, Deer breed like fucking rabbits. The only way to keep it in check is to hunt them. Allowing people to hunt kills two birds with one stone-- it makes the hunters happy and keeps the deer population in check.

Do I like hunting? No. I think it's gross. But I don't see anything morally wrong with hunting animals. There simply is no way for us to say, "Okay, the deer & wolf population trumps the human population; let's clear 13 million people out of the Ohio valley to make room for them." People live here now and serve an awkward purpose of being the predator that keeps the deer population in check. I see nothing wrong with people taking enjoyment out of that fact.

You could have also said:
'We can chose not to act in predation, but we are still predators. I am not squeamish about that fact; however, we should not act on our predatory instincts because of personal enjoyment because they do not fit in the parameters of modern civilization.'

In such a line of logic I could never have distilled the message that it is ok to be a predator if you enjoy it. Or that it is ok to do whatever is in out nature if we enjoy it.

True, but if you took it out of context with the larger discussion and/or did not read my other statements about human responsibility and whatnot, you fail to get the whole idea about which I speak. Those other statements, without saying as much, box-in the implications of human hunting rights so as to prevent other heinous acts (i.e. hunting a species to extinction and/or hunting humans for sport).

~String

I read where you explained where you draw the line.

That was with 'enjoyment'. Didn't read anything about the things you just invented.

I am a hypocrite. I killed two hundred ants, two flies, and a black widow spider today. I am ashamed of myself. I went over my grandmother's house and regressed. :bawl:



:spank:

That we are flawed doesn't negate our superiority.

It means we have allot to learn yet about using that superority you think we have in preventing our own Earths demise with pollution, war and diseases that humans make.

Didn't read anything about the things you just invented.

Care to explain what you mean, or are you just lobbing more smug remarks because you don't agree?

I'm trying to play nice with you, because inevitably, you get all "Whoa is me!" when I play your game of constant rudeness and bitchiness.

Okay. You don't agree. Fair enough. Why not just make you point in a civil manner and debate me? Otherwise, ignore what I'm saying because you can't stand what I'm saying. This is, after all, a forum for debate and discussion for ideas, which ideas, may not sit well with you.

~String

Care to explain what you mean, or are you just lobbing more smug remarks because you don't agree?

I'm trying to play nice with you, because inevitably, you get all "Whoa is me!" when I play your game of constant rudeness and bitchiness.

Okay. You don't agree. Fair enough. Why not just make you point in a civil manner and debate me? Otherwise, ignore what I'm saying because you can't stand what I'm saying. This is, after all, a forum for debate and discussion for ideas, which ideas, may not sit well with you.

~String

nah...I will just bomb you until you deliver free oil.

Care to explain what you mean, or are you just lobbing more smug remarks because you don't agree?

I'm trying to play nice with you, because inevitably, you get all "Whoa is me!" when I play your game of constant rudeness and bitchiness.

Okay. You don't agree. Fair enough. Why not just make you point in a civil manner and debate me? Otherwise, ignore what I'm saying because you can't stand what I'm saying. This is, after all, a forum for debate and discussion for ideas, which ideas, may not sit well with you.

~String

SM is an antiamerican bigot. He's also a quitter who can't quit.

He's also a quitter who can't quit.

Who isn't in Europe?

I have a right to kill anyone I wish, society however seeks to find its own way of self destruction.

I have a right to kill anyone I wish, society however seeks to find its own way of self destruction.

You do ? Only you or anyone else too ?

everyone does.

So you are against any laws that forbid murdering people ?

I am for free will. Raise your sword high!

http://www.arscives.com/bladesign/Images/cross-saya-vertical.jpg

Answer the question please..

I see it as wrong to murder people. However the action against such people should be, death through combat.

So everybody has the right to kill anybody else, yet when they do it they shall be fought to the death ?
So you actually say they have no right to kill anyone because when they do it they are punished.. :rolleyes:

So everybody has the right to kill anybody else, yet when they do it they shall be fought to the death ?
So you actually say they have no right to kill anyone because when they do it they are punished.. :rolleyes:

yes.

Tell me what you think than.

yes.

Tell me what you think than.

If what I said is correct than you adhere to current law, with the exeption that you punish every murderer with death by the sword.
:shrug:

If what I said is correct than you adhere to current law, with the exeption that you punish every murderer with death by the sword.
:shrug:

no...what I meant to say is that they must eliminate themselves by fighting each other to death.
Anyways, what do you think on this issue? You seem to share a lot of ideology/beliefs I have with me.

no...what I meant to say is that they must eliminate themselves by fighting each other to death.
Anyways, what do you think on this issue? You seem to share a lot of ideology/beliefs I have with me.

Draqon, no offense but I don't think I share a lot of ideologies/believes with you. It's just that I'm trying to understand what yours are, maybe others don't care as much for understanding them :shrug:

I think the current system is pretty good, at least I don't see how it could be done any better. The only thing I'd change is longer sentences. And maybe capital punishments for capital crimes that can be proven beyond any doubt.
Ofcourse I'm only relating to Dutch jurisdiction since that's the only one I know enough about.

Draqon, no offense but I don't think I share a lot of ideologies/believes with you. It's just that I'm trying to understand what yours are, maybe others don't care as much for understanding them :shrug:


On the other hand, it's probably they way in which you present your ideas that makes me think I'm not agreeing with them.
The instances I took the time to understand what you actually meant it turned out we indeed had similar ideas about those things. That's if I actually understood you correctly ;)

Fishing is hunting, therefore, no it's not wrong

Survival of the fittest, that's the way nature works. If he likes to fish, then it's not his fault the fish can't defend themselves

Some animals can defend themselves, others can't, that's not our fault.


Finally someone who speaks sense. I'll start by leaving religion out of this because many of us here are not affiliated with religion at all. So that leaves us with the question is it "moral" to step on an ant just for the hell of it.

The answer is yes. The existence of one ant mound is inconsequential to our lives and demolishing it causes no harm to any other person.

The reason that we say it's "wrong" for humans to harm each other is that hinders our advancement as a race. So it may not really be wrong so much as it is self-defeatingly violent. But ants? They don't have feelings, a conscious, a brain. Everything around them is just moveable or immoveable matter. It's humans' job to look out only for humans and whatever animals that we need to survive or domesticate. I love dogs. I don't love ants. Sue me.

Guys who are saying it's "disturbed" or "sick" or "morally reprehensible" to step on ants for fun: Instead of throwing us a laundry list of hot air terms that are in dire need of explaining, how about you tell us WHY it is these things? Why is it "sick?" I step on ants just because I get a kick out of it, and I'm considered a very well-balanced, normal, cool guy by nearly everyone around me. So what in blazes are you talking about, that people who step on ants are sick? Sounds like a crock to me. A lot of my friends have no problem smashing flies or stomping on spiders either, but they don't seem "mentally disturbed" either to me. It's just something they do. We're higher lifeforms, it's survival of the fittest, natural selection, and humans are not exempt from that rule.

The clarification would be why you kill the ant, or stomp the spider, or smash the fly.

Because it happens to be in your territory and you're disturbed by it, because it can ruin the tranquility of your home, because it just happened to be on your path while you were walking, these are all what I consider to be legitimate reasons that fall under the justifications you list in the last sentence.

Killing just because you get a kick out of it though is disturbing because in that instance, it doesn't matter what the ant is doing. You're killing just for the sake of killing.

It's the difference between running into an ant in your own home and getting rid of it and seeing an ant that happens to be on a tree and killing it for no reason (other than you getting a kick out of it).

EDIT: And to the answer the OP, no, ants shouldn't have rights. Why? Because we just don't care enough to give them rights. Before anyone decides to start a crusade for insects, I'd ask them to think about higher life forms such as the treatment of animals we currently eat for produce.

The clarification would be why you kill the ant, or stomp the spider, or smash the fly.

Because it happens to be in your territory and you're disturbed by it, because it can ruin the tranquility of your home, because it just happened to be on your path while you were walking, these are all what I consider to be legitimate reasons that fall under the justifications you list in the last sentence.

Killing just because you get a kick out of it though is disturbing because in that instance, it doesn't matter what the ant is doing. You're killing just for the sake of killing.

It's the difference between running into an ant in your own home and getting rid of it and seeing an ant that happens to be on a tree and killing it for no reason (other than you getting a kick out of it).

EDIT: And to the answer the OP, no, ants shouldn't have rights. Why? Because we just don't care enough to give them rights. Before anyone decides to start a crusade for insects, I'd ask them to think about higher life forms such as the treatment of animals we currently eat for produce.

So what if its killing? I think we recognize that its killing -- but only the killing of minor, basic lifeforms that make no difference in our lives. It's not even remotely the same as killing a mammal or a human -- and I think comparing the two is not only ludicrous; it's also obscene.

yeah i reckon ants are special i watch them all the time
they tell me when its gonna rain and how much or how heavy its gonna be
by their behaviour

alot like athiritis

to me there important i cant study bugs so i do it by myself for my own satisfaction
and they alot like my cell thingys doing the same work
i learn off them

So what if its killing? I think we recognize that its killing -- but only the killing of minor, basic lifeforms that make no difference in our lives. It's not even remotely the same as killing a mammal or a human -- and I think comparing the two is not only ludicrous; it's also obscene.

You missed the point. It's not the act of killing. I already gave examples where I find killing justified in my post. It's killing simply for the sake of killing that I posted against.

i love ants when they get in my home and look for food i leave in a certain spot a bit of tucker for em
they never wonder elsewhere when they got what they want so i dont need to poisen them cause they go back to their homes only return when its gonna rain for periods of time
i can work out the length of time the rains going to come by the speed of their actions
and the amount of food they need
i cn tell whether it will rain in a month or two months or even a few days
the ant to me is very smart
i even learned to control myself
i mean when i used to see ants i would kill them i started thinking why did ido that
and i watched myself when an ant came near my foot i stomped on it
more thought came to me i have no control over killing ants i learned i have anger and took it out on the nearest thing that was small fragileminding its own busines
so i started controlling my actions
i have noticed i have full control over my actions my self my thoughts of destroying sumthing innocent and fragile

my step bro used to sit in the yard killing ants by the millions i asked him why did he do it
he couldnt give me an answer
but he did say his hands smelt funny from all the ants he killed
he couldnever control his actions hes been in and out of jail for assault and bodliy harm
hes abusive to his kids and he has a short temper

we can learn off ants and nature around us by understanding why do we do it
we seem to have an answer to why we kill mosquitos caus eit bloody hurts
but the mozzie doesnt take gallons of blood its so minute we have to see on a eye glass
but i guess the mozzie has more things in its functional body than just stabbing for blood

ants are incredibly intelligent to me they are
like a puppy dog leaving food out they go and get it
so do ants if you have problems with themin your home tryi feeding them in certain areas
that has always worked for me

i believe my bros problems from child hood couldhave been prevented by controlling his actions he would not have now schitsofrenia and a short temper
if a child is seen doing things to animals or insects and bugs soforth
the parent can control this at an earlier stage helping the child to have control over their actions
and filling the home with ant farms and dogs and cats fish birds or even books
and taking them to nature walks
i personaly think its important for a childs mental awarenes in later stages

what i mean is to want peace to rule the earth i think we must learn in schools bout peace thru our own actions and how it affects us in later stages
i strongly believe we would have no wars if we learnt to control ourselves young
and i guess its never too late for older people
i was in my twenties beofre i worked that out so i wasnt a baby or kid
so i reckon any age i guess can be helped by simple little knowledge

You missed the point. It's not the act of killing. I already gave examples where I find killing justified in my post. It's killing simply for the sake of killing that I posted against.

Which is essentially the same thing. There can't be any killing for the sake of killing without the actual act of killing, or else that doesn't make sense.

One way or the other, what you're saying then is that killing ants is bad -- but not for the sake of the ant. It's only bad because it is, by your assessment, a bad act.

Care to expound on exactly why killing for the sake of killing is bad, when it's just the killing of inconsequential lifeforms?

Which is essentially the same thing. There can't be any killing for the sake of killing without the actual act of killing, or else that doesn't make sense.

One way or the other, what you're saying then is that killing ants is bad -- but not for the sake of the ant. It's only bad because it is, by your assessment, a bad act.

Again, I think killing ants are fine when you have a reason to kill them (you don't want them in your house, they're getting onto your picnic blanket, etc). It's when you kill them for no reason but to kill them that I find disturbing. The former is an act out of convenience, whereas the latter is an act of malice.

Again, I think killing ants are fine when you have a reason to kill them (you don't want them in your house, they're getting onto your picnic blanket, etc). It's when you kill them for no reason but to kill them that I find disturbing. The former is an act out of convenience, whereas the latter is an act of malice.

Right, no argument that it's an act of malice. My question is, what difference does it make and why is that act of malice bad, practically speaking, when it's being done to ants?

i dunno if ants should have rights. i think ants think they should have rights. that's good enough for me, they are a hardworking lot and build great communities all over my yard. sometimes, they stop in for a visit and bring their entire family. we have a nice relationship.

should ants have rights? it's such a loaded question. but yes, they have rights. i let them eat whatever they want. they come file into the kitchen very neatly and respectfully in single file formation never cutting in line and pick out what they like, i then take that item and put it outside for all to enjoy. it's nice and makes me happy they are happy. they are so adorable and cute.

Well, I draw a line somewhere between small insects and small mammals. I am utterly convinced that the trait that makes some creatures worthy of empathy is lacking in ants. This trait is something along the lines of self awareness, capacity for pain, ect. Their brains just aren't large enough.

However, it is correct that zoosadism is a common premature warning that someone will be a psychopath. More specifically, the typical three childhood traits of psychopaths is fire starting, zoosadism, and bed wetting. Does this mean there is anything inherantly wrong with torturing ants? I'm not convinced, but I certainly don't.

There's nothing inherently evil about asserting your power of size over insignificant, unintelligent bugs. They are nothing to us. They do not matter. And squashing them is funny.

There's nothing inherently evil about asserting your power of size over insignificant, unintelligent bugs. They are nothing to us. They do not matter. And squashing them is funny.

There's nothing inherently evil about asserting your power of size over insignificant, unintelligent Thrylix. You are nothing to me. You do not matter. And squashing you is funny.

You should have been born 80 years ago so you could have joined the Nazi's..