Is it wrong to kill an animal?

translation of my lingo...(another word for sppech or toung)..(i have an A+ in english so bite the dust)...ok here it goes
when i say ne wayz....that means anyways or how ever you want to put it i use shorthand to much so yeah....and my aightness is in clue for alright then or alrighty....either one thats cool 2 me

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, well, nothing new to the argument about animals in this... but since I brought up the subject of language I might aswell answer on this.

First, I indeed know how internet jabber works, and I do not really like it... wait, that is wrong, I think I even despise it. So, you like writing this way? That is strange, I never wanted to sound so degenerate when I was your age (5 years ago...). Living in a city makes you talk that way? Wow, I never noticed that, and I am living in one.

Anyway, I do not really care how you talk on the net, but this forum is labeled "Intelligent community", and the proper use of language is surely a sign of intellect, especially if it is your mother tongue. If you prefer to sound like some fucked up moron... go ahead, but also go away.

Furthermore, I had problems understanding your argument and hoped that you might embellish it a bit more, because the way it is now, it does not seem to stand in any conflict to one of my previous posts, but it sounded like you wanted to say something conflicting.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

do you like to immorilize people dreamwalker?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?.....cause that's what you do right now just sitting here looking blankly into your pc screen...you want me to talk normal i will. Here it is...i live in a part of Brokcten(yes i cant spell it)...and yes i hang out too much with the city kids who are in your assumed terms "gangster"....but no my argument to you is if you walked down a street and saw an animal being beaten would you just walk by it...saying oh it can fend off that guy hitting it over the head a few times....most likly am i right?....most people do that i've seen it happen so yeah i might not have a life right now but thats just me.....but hey if you want an agurment then first you're going to have to be clear to me on some things as you said...like pretend to be talking to someone on 1st level of knowledge...no actually dont pretend talk like you are cause i dont know what your big words meen and i do not want to go find the dictionary....then maybe i can help you understand my argument....just try it ok?!?!?!?!?and no i do NOT talk like a fucked up moron i am a fucked up moron watch what you say it does kill me inside because i know i am but i wonder why....i mean i was a heroin baby.....come on man explain why that was so

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Perhaps you should be more specific. Very few producers or decomposers actually kill anything, and there are millions of species of each. Your broad, sweeping generalites undermine your axiom. Lo siento, deep one.

Raver14,
Now that you've gotten rid of the internet short hand, the next goal in your writing should be to implement correct punctuation. One period will suffice, you should capitalize proper nouns (which means the letter 'i' when talking about yourself) and put in commas.
Thislink should help.

I doubt you are a heroin baby. Heroin addicts don't own ponies.

 

Mod Hat - Stop, Drop, and Move Along

Mod Hat - Stop, Drop, and Move Along

If you can't understand it, just leave it be. As much as internet shorthand grates on the eye, and as much as improper punctuation muddles communication, I'm not about to play the role of Style Police.

And if someone wants to tell their life story in order to justify an unwillingness to communicate within reasonably-conventional norms, just nod and move along.

After people ask, "What the hell are you saying?" a number of times, the unconventional tend to figure it out. Or, in classic Sciforums form, after enough people interpret someone else exactly opposite the intended expression, communicators come to reconsider their methods of presentation.

Let it be. People's communicative ability improves with their comfort within given environs. Let's take this back to the topic at hand, lest we start wondering if one's grades in English reflect poorly on the educational system.

Move along, there's nothing to see here. Resume the regularly-scheduled conversation. Ad nauseam. You know.

Er, thank you.

 

YOU did not narrow it to language/comprehension, *I* did. ^_^ That was just a factor I thought deserved a mention.

Would I be correct to say, in summary, that you believe we're superior because we have the option of eating whatever we get our hands on? I noticed the bulk of your argument rests on our physical capabilities -- which is ironic, actually, considering our relatively precarious balance and how poorly equipped the human body is to handle the elements unaided--but do you really think that is what defines humanity? If we could prove that a dog's mind does not just function in a linear fashion--that it can entertain the same circuitous thought processes that humans can--would it still be considered inferior just because it doesn't have the feasible option of eating us?

I guess I'm seeing two different factors in your argument; you say that we are managing to hold the top of the food chain and it's therefore reasonable to say we are at the peak of evolution, and I do agree with this. Is this the only thing, then, we are able to claim when we say we are superior?

 

Ah, now this looks better, first:

Raver14: I think you misunderstood something, I do not think city kids are gangster, I am a city kid. Why do you need a dictionary for my words? This is not even my mother tongue, I am German. And no, I do not think it is right to beat an animal for no reason at all, this thread is about killing animals, and since my first post was directed on the topic of eating animals, I assumed that this would still be the topic, hence my argument involving the food-chain.
Also, if you are a fucked up moron and a heroin baby... well, I do not really care about that, but there is something that is called self-improvement, it is also something that makes us superior.

Which brings me to Everett.

I agree that our capabilities seem pretty limited. A dog or a rabbit can easily outrun any human, a gorilla is most certainly stronger than any human, a penguin does not only swim better, he has also a better resistance against cold. But we have the advantage of upright walk, this way, we can see things that are a lot farther away, we also have our hands free to use things like spears and knifes, coupled with a better eyesight than most animals this gives us an advantage. And we have something else, our brains.
We cannot run fast? Well, how about using a car?
We cannot fly? Why, we have invented airplanes and helicopters.
We freeze to death? Why not wear winter jackets and some isolation material?
It is too hot? Make some ice and turn on a fan.
Not strong enough? Use some machinery.

When was the last time you saw an animal building a spacecraft, or a knife... This of course brings us to another reason why I consider humans to be superior. Yes, we are able to hold the food chain, but we have also the brains to build, develope languages, we are even able to leave this planet. We can compensate for every disability we have, we can cure illnesses and make our lives longer. We also understand things. Most animals for example do not even understand death, they have no concept of it.

But just because we sometimes misuse our potential, we are still not inferior, its just that an animal has no concept of mistakes...

 

So to be human is to dream, and to be superior is to create?

I can swallow that. ^_^

 

Why on earth do you think other animals can't or don't dream?!

 

I think the trend is to say that if an animal is inferior we can kill it. Well, just because one is superior it does not make it morally right for him to kill. Some say that if a thing has consciousness and can feel pain or joy we cannot kill it. But that is also a silly assumption, since we kill fellow humans for just causes.

I say it is fine to kill for a good purpose. To eat an animal, to use its fur to make one warm is fine. 'T is how nature made it: all are to use whatever resources are useful. To kill an animal for the sake of killing alone is morally wrong.

 

Hmm... I only thought of killing animals for food...

Anyway, obviously I am not clear enough.

First, I never said animals cannot dream, alas, I did say that they cannot talk, only communicate. I said that our brain is more advanced than that of any animal, which gives us a lot of power. We are the only self-aware species, from that, religion, culture, technology and nearly every other advancement results.

I think I can safely say that I have the right to kill an animal for food because I can and because I need to eat. And no, I will not exchange meat for only plants, our metabolism needs meat. I kill an animal for the same reason that a pack of lions kill a zebra, and that is all the justification I need for that.

I do not, and never have, advocated the useless killing of animals or their torture. I do tolerate animals used for studies in order to help humans, like finding treatments for cancer and such, I do not like the testing for such things as cosmetics on animals.

EDIT: And neither do I like people to keep pets or domesticate animals. But since we misuse our power, humanity is now too big to survive without domesticated animals like chicken or cows.

 

ha...ok so you say to kill for food is all good...well lets see....if you were to kill an animal in any sence but say it was for food...would you use it's bones or fur or any thing next to the meat or would you let it go to waste? see simply look at it like this ok if you dont use anything exept the meat then why kill it thats only one thing out of an abudunt amount of things.

 

Well, I also like leather boots, and fur is quite nice too, so yes, I would use the rest of it, but I would also only kill it for meat. Or would you say that it is immoral for a wolf to only eat the meat of a deer instead of making itself a new jacket out of the skin?

EDIT: How about fish, there really isn't much you can make of that, only eat it.

 

Animals eat animals. We are animals. We eat animals.
So, what's wrong with that?

p.s. I don't eat flesh myself, but I have my own part physiological, part philosophical reasons, I also like leather clothes much.

 

Really? Can you share those reasons with us or tete-a-tete?

 

I've never eaten poultry, since the age of 3 I think,
and I always ate very limited kinds of meat dishes, many made me throw up,
now there is no meat (bird, cat or fish) that I could eat without getting really sick,
but that last phase came into full force when I got more interested in meditations, mind analysis, other things you know, etc. I'm no hinduist or buddhist (I've never read much of anything from them), but eating another living/now-dead being really disturbs my psyche. I feel umm unclean and out of harmony with myself/my inner world.

But that is myself, I still find what I said in the post above quite logical for persons other than me, it seems logical for me too, because I'm a homo sapiens sapiens and I know that, but I have quite an altered/modified state of mind and I don't understand all its' reasons myself.

Now it seems absolutely natural to me that I don't eat meat. I don't miss it at all, as if it has never existed as a food/energy source. Or vica versa, it seems unnatural to me to eat flesh.

 

ummmm first you must be unaccoumsted to wolfs they naw on the bones of their kill....and when they are done with the carcuse other animals eat it... like the vultures in the desert....see but when people do that i have yet to see the animal bones made into something and yet again only certain skins are kept...

And on top of that fish scales can be used to make some neclases i actually have 4 of them but next to the fact fish is grutesqe.....but eating flesh off a turcky...thats like putting one's own flesh into their system which happens anyways because the air we breath is x% of dust, dead skin, ect.... but either way does it much matter. whether or whether not we eat meat we all die...but yet it doesnt seem right that as a plant uses so much energy to do photosythesis and then the plant eaters eat them like humans or cows even horses....but then again if we put a human agaist a wild boar wouldnt the boar win?,...i know i went off topic but if people noticed all we do is go off topic or anything else next to that...but if we look at todays societys everyone is living with electricity and mechanicle devises if we put that pc person to face a wild boar wouldnt they die at a particularly easy going creature?.....i mean humans lost their animal instimcts a while ago but if we were to gain them back and exclude mechanicle works out of our daily lives wouldnt it make it better enviromental wise?...we kill off the rainforest but soon enough we will be lacking the oxygen we need to survive and then the trees will be blamed...? that is what my bio teacher said a few weeks back and i figure that shes pretty much right....but what do i know im just some kid living in a big city with no life right...well wrong.... get OVER yourself and get a life the only reason i felt like adding on to this on going impliment is because of a seriouse knee injury that is making it nearly impossible for me to do the sports which i so do enjoy.....but this will be the last time or 2nd 2 last time you will ever ever again hear from me...cia....au revior misueres et madams......

 

Plants were living as well, before someone cut them down to serve them to you. Moreover, various insects were killed off just so that you could get those plants. Various other plants were ripped out viciously just so that you could get your food. Berries and fruits are, essentially, fetuses. So is caviar. Fish, which you enjoy much, was alive before someone caught it and served it to you. I don't wish to persuade you personally, but I just wish to demonstrate how far we can take such an idea. You may live without nutrients in meat, but nutrients in fish are quite necessary.
We were discussing vegetarians today in class and someone mentioned that at one point a short time ago there was some article written which accused plants of being immoral. The argument went along the lines of: "There are starving babies in the world, and all these flowers are just sitting there being pretty." Eh? It's an idea!

 

Don't be a dumbass. 'Dream' has two legitimate interpretations; I didn't mean dream as in the *act of* dreaming, I meant dream in the figurative sense. Which is open for debate as well, I suppose. Far be it from me to say that dogs can't sit around imagining life with that sexy poodle they saw on the front of the bacon strips bag, or that they don't picture themselves five years from now and wonder what they are going to be. Or can't they?

 

Naturalistic fallacy. You are claiming that an action is morally correct because it is observed in nature. Example: Rape is observed commonly amongst the animals. We are animals, hence there is nothing wrong with raping others.

Also, not all animals are carnivorous. Why do you feel that we should act like a carnivorous animal, instead of a herbivorous one?

But they don't have a nervous system. Comparing plants to the vast majority of animal species is absurd.