Mexicans generally don't either. I fail to see how that makes it ok. THAT right there is the problem.
What, your failure to see? Perhaps you are right. Most intelligent people do not have as high an opinion of animals as you seem to have... usually, spending any time around animals and learning 1) the limits of their intelligence and 2) the general perverseness and nastiness of their behaviour, will give you a less rosy picture of their intellectual/emotional status. Try this: Watch a herd of cattle. Watch them shit helplessly on each other. Watch as they destroy the land around them with the vast amount of concrete-like fecal matter that they constantly produce. Though there are bigger inorganic environmental disasters, cattle rank in the top three for the living ones. Also, the only time cattle show any glimmer of intelligence, it is generally when they are trying to seek out and crush you. Get some hamsters. See Nature's counter-argument to evolution in action as the hamsters devote all of their energy to killing and eating each other. See how the hamster naturally attacks the testicles and anus of its opponent in any struggle. Watch the hamsters devour their own children, other hamsters' children, and anything that looks even remotely like a baby hamster. Some people have the gall to call these animals social. Get a chicken. See how fluffy baby chicks die in droves from a loud noise or a stiff breeze. See how, if they make it past their sickly child stage, they grow into some of the stupidest animals alive. Find out how, even if you hand-feed a chicken every day for a year, it will probably scratch the shit out of you any chance it gets because chickens do not have "friends". Then, try to pretend that you care if it gets put into a teeny cage. Get a dog. Watch as the dog does marvelous things that demonstrate their inability to understand reality the way you do. My personal favourite was watching a dog bury an object in the middle of someone's living room floor. Scratch scratch scratch, it would go, ostensibly making a "hole" in the floor (although actually just making small scratches). Then it would place the object in the "hole" (that is, on the floor). Then, and this was the weird part, it would try to "bury" the object by scratching at another part of the floor so that pieces of floor would fly up and cover it. (This did not happen.) Thus satisfied, the dog walked away, leaving the toy uncovered in the middle of the floor. Moving the object after this would cause the dog to freak out, presumably because it was supposed to be buried... but how can a dog consider a toy to be buried when it can STILL SEE IT? Most animals are approaching the genius level if you show them an object, hide it, and then show it to them again and they can recognize that it's the same object both times they see it... Some animals are smart enough to empathize and some are very pleasant to be around, but for the most part animals do not deserve the amount of credit you are giving them in these posts. You have a strange sort of utopian socialist view of animals as an underclass of human beings, which - as yet - they are not. ALSO, do not give animals more credit for being cute, if you're not going to keep them as pets... I have never yet heard an animal rights activist who bemoaned the extinction of the <a href="http://enmatt.com/st%20helena/images/earw.jpg">Giant African Earwig</a>. Not once.
BigBlue, I notice you used domesticated animals in your observations. First off, the one about cattle sounds like a rough description of humans with the exception that we shit helpfully(?) upon each other and rank as the top environmental disaster (IMO). Second, confinement in artificial environments has been shown to result in unusual behavior even in people. You're also using animals who's genetics we've manipulated for some time now. And that dog does not sound like it is socialized or walked off-leash and/or in the forest often. It definitely is not representative of any of the dogs I've raised. Try this experiment: Take a child and confine them to an apartment, house or even an enclosed yard for hours on end while you go about your day. Come home and speak few intelligible words, show them attention only when convenient to you and walk them occasionally then only on a leash. Please report your unbiased findings after a suitable period. As a side note, I think it interesting that humans define animals as unintelligent for their lack of ability to cominicate with us on our terms but we, as simple as we like to define animals, cannot communicate on theirs. A double standard? They can't talk to us, they're stupid. We can't talk to them, they're stupid. "1) the limits of their intelligence..." Some people appear not reach that of monkeys. Do you hold such contempt for them? If intelligence is your measure of worth, perhaps we should measure and display our IQ's. Is that a yard stick you feel holds merit? And would your's be the lowest denominator allowed? "2) the general perverseness and nastiness of their behaviour, will give you a less rosy picture of their intellectual/emotional status." Again, this applies to humans as well. I think Lou's views (hey that rhymes. title of your first book, lou?) are pretty extreme but your's seem similar. Simply on the opposite end of the spectrum. I am inclined to spend more time with lou as you seem to be expressing haughty contempt.
Some people appear not reach that of monkeys. Do you hold such contempt for them? If intelligence is your measure of worth, perhaps we should measure and display our IQ's. Is that a yard stick you feel holds merit? And would your's be the lowest denominator allowed? Well I think he means cognitivity, and having a conscience Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
So you imply he meant animals don't learn and aren't aware of their surroundings? Or do/are but to a lesser extent? Then define that extent.
Sort of off topic but I have a Native Alaskan friend that killed defensless cute baby Animals with big eyes cause he liked eating them, he fed them to his family too, he also stole berries and plant products that defenseless cute baby animals with big eyes liked eating to feed to his family. Oh the horror. (I need to cut back on my Sarcasm)
So you imply he meant animals don't learn and aren't aware of their surroundings? What I think he is trying to say is that animals are not conscience beings, they are instinctive by nature, they don't think before they do things. They eat whatever they can because its food, but they don't necessarily learn to eat because food tastes good. We as humans learn through trial and error and animals don't teach they instinctually know things. It's in their genes, we are taught. Nature vs. Nurture.
I would disagree with what you interpret to be his assertion. Are all primates exempt from that statement? I've had some picky eaters for dogs. On the other hand, I could leave a steak dinner on my coffee table within easy reach of my dogs and watch them as they seem to contemplate the consequences of eating it. That's right, steak dinner. As I said, I've been butchering for the past 2 1/2 years and eating more meat than ever. Had a delicious tri-tip on the grill last night. I'm not saying we should not eat animals even if they are cute but, to devalue a life and justify it's taking because of some arbitrary measurement of intelligence... Not all humans are capable of learning. Some are beyond "challenged". But if someone clubbed them to death for monetary gain, I would have to protest. Wouldn't you?
Uh huh. Sure, go hang with the guy who hates humans. I bet he'll love ya... unless you're human. But, since you also have a low opinion of your fellow primate, maybe the two of you will get along. After all, you have something in common! You hate each other. Since you have decided to take my remarks personally in a peculiar way, it's only fair that I explain what I'm trying to say here. 1. Animals are dumb. Humans are dumb too, but you have a strategic alliance with humans that gives you shoes, cars, and cable television. (NOTE: if you're going to tell me that you want to give up modern conveniences, then I suggest you start with the Internet.) Other humans will get better treatment from you than animals because, if you don't give it to them, they'll arrest you and throw you in prison. Not fair? Maybe. Still better than being a clubbed seal, no? Even our punishments for humans are gentle compared to our regular treatment of other animals, and you are afforded this status at the top of the great chain of being by accident of birth. If it were possible for you to escape this exalted position (which is difficult, because people will keep trying to rescue you) you would probably not survive in the "natural" world. 2. Other humans afford you a social status. Animals, in the mean, do not. Some nice cats will try to feed you, but (being a big human) you would probably starve on the provender provided by a single cat, and the idea of a slave cat society whose purpose is to feed you is no better than shooting and eating cows. For the most part, other animals view you as food, dangerous, or a nuisance, and do not share your social mores, particularly not the ones regarding how you feel you deserve to be treated. A chance encounter with another person usually ends without you being harmed; a chance encounter with a wild buffalo usually ends with the buffalo scraping you off the bottom of its foot. 3. Some people try to claim that animals are better than humans because they don't create industrial effluent, drive cars, or throw away styrofoam containers. The fact that most animals can't operate anything more complicated than a chew toy doesn't enter into their thought process; for these people INABILITY = CHOOSING NOT TO, which is to say that slugs have moral superiority over human beings because slugs do not build nuclear bombs. True, no slug will ever be responsible for a nuclear holocaust, but... slugs don't do anything, except eat and make more slugs. To attach moral status to their actions is to misunderstand what morality is. 4. People kill all kinds of animals in appalling ways all the time and no one cares. Cougars from the Rockies were introduced into a wild region in Florida to interbreed with Florida Panthers in an attempt to save the species; the local panthers killed all of the imported ones. Animals like the timber wolf (as I previously stated) are periodically reintroduced to the US wilderness, whereupon they are immediately wiped out by the same gun-toters who wiped them out last time. The wolf-replenishers claim that they are "repatriating the species". The wolf-eliminators claim that wolves "do environmental damage". So the wolves die confused and alone in a hail of gunfire so that two groups of morons can feel good about themselves, each thinking that they did the right thing. So, to sum up briefly: 1) People are stupid but you have to be nice to them 2) Animals are stupid and you don't have to be nice to them; most people don't understand how to be nice to them in any case 3) Most people's view of animals and their status as thinking and feeling things is predicated on an idiotic assumption that animals are morally superior because they're incapable of doing anything 4) Hundreds of similar crimes to the seal cull go on all the time, and people have chosen to decry this single crime because it happened somewhere else and they think seals are cute. In short, many people live in a fantasy world where they understand very little about animals and their nature and treatment, and thus do not realize their own hypocrisy when they whine about one incident and disregard others. Somewhat ironically, I would assume that Dr. Lou knows more about animals than most people, as he shoots them for fun. I never respected sport hunting, but he has actually seen them in their natural environment (or so I assume) which is more than most people have seen.
I don't deny that some animals have social sense, only that many people give them more credit than humans because they can do a few simple things. Most people consider dogs to be intelligent because dogs will learn to do what they are told, not because the dogs exhibit particularly outstanding analytical behaviour. People admire the dog's obedience, not its intelligence.
You have many valid points. Thank you for clarifying your position, particularly the parts where you implied an empathy toward other living things. Your first post seemed rather a reactionary post to Lou's extreme views. I have to admit, I took exception to your reference to dogs. Otherwise, I don't feel you are describing me and I don't take your post personally. Maybe the first line in your second post but I understand... Touche! Guess I should go back to using smileys. I would ask you though, as a native Floridian where you got your info on the "panther reintroduction". It was a big deal and closely followed in local news and I never heard about panther on cougar killings. Here's a related link: http://www.panther.state.fl.us/pdfs/reintroduction.pdf
BTW, that's because people focus on conditioning dogs rather than interacting with them. Many people take the same approach to their children.
Are all primates exempt from that statement? But we don't eat primates, (unless you are into that thing) we recognize that those animals are close to us humans, and as a result it is not generally accepted to kill these animals. I do think that they are what we would call "intelligent" animals. I've had some picky eaters for dogs. On the other hand, I could leave a steak dinner on my coffee table within easy reach of my dogs and watch them as they seem to contemplate the consequences of eating it. All of which is a result classical conditioning, they don't contemplate. They simply know what will happen to them because they grow accustomed to it, it’s merely adapting to their environment in which they live in. It's still instinctual. I'm not saying we should not eat animals even if they are cute but, to devalue a life and justify it's taking because of some arbitrary measurement of intelligence... You are right that we are imposing arbitrary judgments on these animals. But we are not them, and they are not us in terms of mere intelligence. Not all humans are capable of learning. Some are beyond "challenged". But if someone clubbed them to death for monetary gain, I would have to protest. Wouldn't you? But the difference is that they are human beings, we can associate with these individuals on some levels. It’s hard to explain, it's almost as if it is an essence. That might sound like a cop out, but it's really not. If I were to subscribe to your logic then I cannot kill anything, not even a bug, or bacteria because we essentially are the same. Genetically speaking we are very close to everything like algae, but we are difference through our intelligence and essence. Agree?
All of which is a result classical conditioning, they don't contemplate. They simply know what will happen to them because they grow accustomed to it, it’s merely adapting to their environment in which they live in. It's still instinctual. I never had to "condition" my last three dogs in order to prevent them from eating my food. They never did it. If I were to subscribe to your logic then I cannot kill anything When did I imply that? I haven't killed, but haven't had to. I process and eat meat.
I never had to "condition" my last three dogs in order to prevent them from eating my food. They never did it. Then it must be instinctual, maybe they don't like the smell of stake, or they are scared of you. It’s not because they know and analyze the taste and texture of the food. When did I imply that? I haven't killed, but haven't had to. I process and eat meat. But that is your logic, you have killed we have all killed organisms. Viruses, Bacteria, bugs, etc. These things are meant to be killed or to thrive, we regulate these organisms if they within our sphere of influence. The disabled person we don’t kill because they are of special human value. At least in IMHO.
My dogs love steak. One will chew on raw bones, the other only cooked. They seem to analyze the smell. As far as fearing me... well, I'm pretty frightful but I'm suggesting they understand the concept of consequences. I'm not trying to say they're brilliant sociologists but they seem to know they're going to get yelled at. (and that's scary?) Even though they've never been yelled at for that. And yes, you're right. I've killed. I meant for food but I'm not trying to proclaim innocence here. I would if I had to. Just like I'd club the disabled person if they were the last source of food on earth. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Nice post BigBlueHead. Don't kid yourself, us humans are in a pickle and no one and all are to blame. Start looking for an answer or the biosphere you lose could be your own. Good word, Undecided, "balance." It's all a question of balance. I'm afraid we are tipping the scales against ourselves when we seek to claim the problems of this world are not our own.
This venue does not work. In the time I made my last post other responses were posted and the coherence was lost. I really should go get a life.
The original point was that there are more humane and even efficient (ie: cost effective) ways to kill than a prolonged clubbing.
Whoa whoa whoa! I can't believe this thread exists. This is propoganda at its best. Oh, poor fuqn seals huh? - Anthropocentric fuq's. The seal hunt in simple terms: It is resource management; not unlike the cutting of trees for economic gain; the trapping of various fur-bearing animals for, among other reasons, economic gain; hunting of big/small game for, among other reasons, economic gain; polution of some waters and the protection of others for, among other reasons, socio-health gain; and the list goes on... People, don't allow your paternalism to extend beyond the human race - it's done enough damage there. As for the parent whos' child has a negative view of Canadians because of the 'images' - it's your responsibility, as a parent, to teach your children that life is cruel, otherwise they won't be prepared to deal with reality later on in life.
