|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Mar 8th, 2006 11:52 PM | ||
| kahljorn |
I wasn't trying to insult you maggiecarp i had just thought considering wild animals and domesticated animals the same thing in this context might be off kilter a bit. Especially with animals that exist in our social atmosphere. Not because I believe there might be anything significant there, but just because I'm not sure enough to say anything. Anyway, most domesticated animals are bred for looks more than brains, although it is interesting that border collies are considered the "Smartest". |
|
| Mar 8th, 2006 10:30 PM | ||
| maggiekarp |
I was thinking more of a mental thing, like how mentally handicapped people might need help. I'm probably wrong, though :/ |
|
| Mar 8th, 2006 10:19 PM | ||
| ziggytrix |
There is some debate over whether canus familiaris is an actual species or whether it is more properly a subspecies c. lupus familiaris. This is because a dog and a wolf can produce fertile offspring. Here's a little snip from a site with more than you possibly want to know about the subject Quote:
|
|
| Mar 8th, 2006 09:04 PM | ||
| maggiekarp |
I'm just saying, if Chihuahuas are the same species as Labradors, and Labradors are the same species as Huskies, and Huskies can produce fertile pups with wolves, then Chihuahuas and Wolves are one and the same, but one is a freaky mutant. I'm not saying that dogs suck or are stupid, I love dogs and think Chihuahuas are cute as hell, I'm just saying they were made for humans. |
|
| Mar 8th, 2006 08:45 PM | ||
| kahljorn |
"If you call in-breeding a method of cultivation that would make those genes "superior"." Most hybrid plants are a cross between two inbred plants that boast superior vigor and disease resistance. Dogs in the wild inbreed, hence packs. Not all domesticated dogs are inbred, and generally they have two animals fuck that are of good genes(this usually means different litters). That's why the dogs that are more valued are the ones with supposed perfect genes(i can't remember the name for it, it might be phenotype?). Inbred dogs don't have perfect genes, hence, in the dog breeding world they are practically worthless. As far as breeding anything goes, varied superior genetics are the way to go if you want to create something "new and amazing". If you say they are inbreeding because they breed similar types of dogs with similar types of dogs to get the best of that type of dog, you are sort of saying every time a human fucks another human they are inbreeding because they have some shared genes. If all the different breeds of dogs were genetically identical to themselves they would be clones. The idea with breeding anything is that you mix two animals together that have traits you want(usually completely different traits, for example with plants you might breed a high yield plant with a fast maturing plant), I understand you're assuming that once they make the type of animal/plant they want they clone it repetitively and inbreed them, and somehow there's no varied genetics in there and that's why every dog born is a horrible mutant. This is hilarious. P.S. next time you go to buy a new dog or cat from a cattery or doggery please pay mind to notice that often times they will have what they call, "Breeder quality". These are those "Superior genes" that they mix with other "Superior genes" to make "Superior gened offspring". Technically this would mean that an inbred male animal would be unlikely to be used as a "Stud". If you breed shitty genes with shitty genes you get shitty animals that die easily from diseases and other problems, if they come out alive at all. I'm trying to be as objective as possible with the way i phrased some things and used quotations at other parts, so please don't ride my ass on semantics unless you look for those... |
|
| Mar 8th, 2006 08:24 PM | ||
| Immortal Goat |
Quote:
|
|
| Mar 8th, 2006 08:16 PM | ||
| MLE | If you call in-breeding a method of cultivation that would make those genes "superior". | |
| Mar 8th, 2006 06:50 PM | ||
| kahljorn |
I was going to mention in my previous post that domesticated animals and wild animals shouldn't really be compared due to relativity... Anyway, I don't really know if I would call domesticated dogs "Retarded wolves". If anything many of them would likely be genetically superior due to the years of cultivation. |
|
| Mar 8th, 2006 06:41 PM | ||
| maggiekarp |
Quote:
I don't agree with using animals for make-up testing, but it's allright for stuff that furthers medical science. No torture, though. And certainly no rapings  And I'm pretty sure they don't allow the disection of animals that are still alive. Our frogs were very, very dead.And, y'know... there are alot of animals that have been bred for many years to be dependant on humans. Dogs are basically severely retarded wolves. |
|
| Mar 8th, 2006 06:19 PM | ||
| kahljorn |
Animals are territorial and shitting is one way to express that. As far as every study of the brain I've ever heard of says, reptiles share the most fundamental part of our brain; the brain stem. Most mammals and animals have the Limbic system, which is responsible for PRIMAL EMOTION(but not logic, memory, analysis, logic, differentiation or any other high cognitive functions). Humans have the neocortex which composes roughly 90 percent of the human brain. This is where all higher functions take place(including logic and other high brain functions). Assuming morality is the result of logic, animals don't really have a set of morals. That's why when your cat attacks a bird and plays with it before ripping it apart and devouring it, it doesn't really have any kind of a moral crisis. In this sense, they couldn't even imagine being treated "morally". However, they still have primal emotions which could allow them to get "Pissed off" at you and shit in your toolbox. However, i don't really think their inability to understand morality excludes them from being treated morally. |
|
| Mar 7th, 2006 09:37 PM | ||
| sadie | it wasn't instinct that caused my cat to shit in my ex's toolbox after he spanked her for tearing up his socks. | |
| Mar 7th, 2006 04:39 PM | ||
| homoperfect | Well, I think that this topoic is rather silly myself. Animals Base there actions on instinct not reason. An animals actions do not reflect rational thought. As humans we are capable of abstract though. We are able to concieve non-materialistic things. Time and space as well as other immaterial things dominate our culture and way of life. Animals have yet to show signs of this. Animals practice repetitive behaviors. At the same time I do think there is a level of cruelity towards animals that must be stopped. Neglect, abuse, sexual activities, and unnessisary cruelity upon slaughter should be outlawed. the Majority of these things have been already. | |
| Mar 7th, 2006 01:22 PM | ||
| ziggytrix |
See, I think we should propose a scale based on how tasty they are. 
|
|
| Mar 7th, 2006 01:21 PM | ||
| Abcdxxxx |
How about a seminar to teach the medical community to keep their personal moral values out of the clinic ? Once you get back on track with homosapians, then maybe you can phillosophize about the other animals. |
|
| Mar 7th, 2006 01:15 PM | ||
| kahljorn | Animals have no logical or social faculties(as contrasted with humans) inside of their brains. Therefore, assuming morality is an aspect of sociology and a certain amount of logic, they can't really have a desire for moral treatment because they are't even capable of pondering it. | |
| Mar 7th, 2006 12:20 PM | ||
| ziggytrix |
animals have more rights than any other kingdom of living organisms. chordates more rights than any other phylum of animal. mammals have more rights than any other class of chordates. primates have more rights than any other order of mammals. hominidae have more rights than any other family of primates. homo sapiens have more rights than any other species of hominidae. that's where science draws the lines between organisms, and where rights would fall if solely based on how humanlike an organism is. bees are animals, but they are invertabrates. amoebae are not animals, they are members of the protist kingdom. the further you get from my species, the less value I assign to your existence. but in my opinion, that's a fairly sociopathic and amoral system for establishing the worth of a lifeform. |
|
| Mar 7th, 2006 10:20 AM | ||
| AChimp |
My immune system is a mass-murderer
|
|
| Mar 7th, 2006 07:24 AM | ||
| the_dudefather | fair enough for apes and dogs and such, but where do you draw the line, is killing a bee or ameboa (assuming thats an animal) moraly wrong? then could it extend to bacteria or plants | |
| Mar 7th, 2006 05:01 AM | ||
| davinxtk |
this really is kindof a silly topic why would we grant them equal moral standing? one might argue that animals have been subservient since the first horse was bridled or the first dog played fetch, but where's the problem here? in america, we already have quite the moral standing for our animals. our dogs are most often either loyally kept pets or professional aid workers (seeing eyes, medical alarms, search & rescue, etc). our horses are in most cases no longer workers but well-cared-for prize, game, and entertainment animals. are you going to tell people in third world countries that they're violating moral principles because their asses carry huge loads? (yes i said that just so i could string those words together) the point here really is: are any animals standing up and asking for equal rights? is there any argument that they even have the faculties to ponder such a question, their inability to actually speak our languages aside? would you give your dog the right to vote or marry or emancipate himself, get a job, pay for his own food and shots? would you feel comfortable if a domesticated animal had civil rights? if you could be tried for manslaughter for hitting someone's pooch inadvertantly? the topic just becomes ridiculous when you examine it. if you're looking for an answer as far as animal testing for products and procedures, i'd hesitate to draw a line. from the standpoint of my own morality, i'd like to say that if it's in the name of profit, it is wrong; in the name of science, it is acceptable. someone stand up and call me a hypocrite, please. |
|
| Mar 7th, 2006 03:37 AM | ||
| executioneer |
Quote:
|
|
| Mar 7th, 2006 03:21 AM | ||
| theapportioner | My point is that the chimpanzee or dog displays more "human" qualities than either the baby or the comatose person. But both babies and comatose people have apparently inviolable rights that aren't extended to these animals. | |
| Mar 7th, 2006 02:57 AM | ||
| Big Papa Goat |
Sure we'd lock an infant in a cage, I mean, we put them in cribs they pretty much can't get out of. Pretty much equivalent to a lock from the babies perspective. Also, what moral consideration do we really give to babies? We don't kill them, unless they're inconvinient, (oh that's just a bit of a sick joke, lets not actually make this an abortion thread) and if we see them being all helpless and hungry we feel like taking care of them and feeding them, but that seems to me to be about what we do with a dog or cat, and as for a chimp, well, chimps are different cus they can take care of their own damn selves. As to putting a chimp or tiger or elephant in a zoo and restricting its freedom, tough cheese, as long as conditions in the zoo aren't wretched such that the animals would be in pain, I don't see how much freedom animals really have in any case. All most animals really do is try to eat and find other animals to fuck, and we can provide both these things to them in captivity quite easily. Cougars may be all pacing about in their cages, but they get what they want, and they'd pretty much be just pacing about in the wild anyway, only difference would be they'd probably be hungrier. In any case, I suppose that'd be the kind of thing where one would have to show that the animals possess certain qualities before we'd think about caring about them in those particular ways. It isn't readily apparent to me that an animal has free will in like manner of a human. At best, free will is different between different species, so it'd be better to talk about the moral status of chimps than of say earthworms or ants or crabs or rabbits. And ya, we kind of restrict the freedom of stupid little kids too, even when they're old enough to be mostly smarter than most chimps and dogs. Hunting would be a thing that would be pretty tough to justify, and I suppose general meat eating would be too. What does that rape comment have to do with anything anyway? I'm pretty sure most reasonable people consider raping an animal to be immoral and repugnant, whether they think animals have equal moral status or not. Basically I'm not saying whether or not we should give animals 'equal' 'moral' status, I'm just saying it would probably pretty much just mean not being cruel to them. I suppose it might be that the only moral consideration we need for humans is to not be cruel, but I'd kinda like to that there's more to it than that for us. |
|
| Mar 7th, 2006 02:21 AM | ||
| theapportioner |
What about a human infant who behaves without moral consideration? We would be morally offended if an adult threw food at you. Not so with an infant. We wouldn't lock an infant in a cage either. Or conduct fatal experiments on them. What about someone in a persistent coma, who doesn't possess the ability to perceive pain? We would still consider it morally repugnant to carve things in his or her flesh, or rape them. Or conduct experiments on them. An adult dog, or an adult chimpanzee, is more intelligent than an infant, and feels pain whereas the person in a coma doesn't. |
|
| Mar 7th, 2006 02:15 AM | ||
| Big Papa Goat |
Kinda makes you think about why we should grant equal moral status to all humans. I'd say that there's no way to give them equal moral status, since it would never make sense to morally judge an animal the way one morally judges a human being. If a bear eats a guy, then it's bad, but no one would seriously call the bear evil, as you would if a guy ate another guy. I know that probably isn't the actual question at hand, but if animals don't have any morality to themselves, then it actually wouldn't make any sense to give them moral status equal to humans. I mean, what is the moral status we give to humans? Would we think it's morally wrong to lie to another human in most cases? You can't exactly lie or tell the truth to a cat. There aren't a lot of ways you can interact with animals that would involve anything that could be called a human virtue, like honesty, genorosity, what have you. I dunno, maybe virtue and morality aren't really the same thing I guess. But my point is that since animals aren't moral entities, the best consideration we could really give them is not being cruel to them. Animals seem to feel pain in the same way humans do, so if you were going to grant them moral equality, the only practical consequence would be to not inflict wanton pain on them. Killing them painlessly to eat them may or may not matter, depends on whether or not cows are aware of their existence. That's not really as obvious as the pain thing though, even with such as a cow or fish a person can approximately tell when they're in pain. Although I suppose the real issue is whether animals actually can experience pain, not whether or not the sight of the animal in pain can excite sympathy in a human. |
|
| Mar 7th, 2006 02:00 AM | ||
| Pub Lover | If we grant animals equal moral status as humans we would no longer be able to eat their tasty flesh, or we would have to let them farm people as food... I do not know as I am vegan. Animals suck. Yay Humanity! | |
| This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. | ||
