If you are so grossly offended by being labeled a savage, don't compare your moral obligations to those of animals.
Animals do not possess the advanced thought processes necessary to do "right" or "wrong". They don't make choices.
Your argument -- that animals require human beings to maintain the ecological balance which allows nature to remain in tune -- is dependant on the idea that human beings have always actively manhandled nature. This is not the case.
There are large tracts of North America that operated independantly for a very long time (and I won't cite the pre-human era since inevitably the conservatives on this board will assault me with claims of the earth being 6000 years old) without human intervention. The natural state of the world, I would say, can be described as an autonomous cycle. Human thought, ingenuity, and sentience breaks that pattern.
Nature, in my opinion, will typically balance itself out when left to its own devices.
Human society has always relied on people judging others. Our criminal justice system relies on people judging others. As a matter of fact, the death penalty -- something I am sure the conservatives on this board will positively leap to defend -- is reliant on the supposed infallability of people judging people.
Kas, as much as I find him to be a far-right religious fanatic, is right.
However, that's called condescension, and that's not very nice, either.
God loves all of his creatures, I'm sure. Some, though, he loves -- to KILL! Ha ha. Anyway.
Weren't we talking about music? What the @#%$ does hunting have to do with Kazaa? Jesus Christ Drayson, you sure do like to digress.
I said that Kas can't condone stealing, but does condone killing.
Look what came of it.
Kilam, I never attacked Kas' opinion on stealing. He's allowed to have an opinion, as are the rest of us.
What you are missing is the fact that he is still a hypocrit, which is what I said. And the point you've ignored throughout this "debate".
It is not attacking Kas' character, or his opinion, and is certainly not "slur" because I never told him he was wrong for stealing. The issue is not unrelated, because if has always been the issue at hand.
Kas doesn't believe in stealing. But he's an avid supporter of the killing of innocent animals.
And yes, Kas, I would call all life equally important. Certainly, we slaughter animals for food... which is exactly why hunting is unncessary. Animals have already died to feed you, you're just killing more of them.
And face it, it's because you enjoy it.
Kas, answer me this: Who gives you the right to decide who lives and who dies? Who gives you the right to decide that all life in inferior to your own, and you may kill as you please? Who gives you the right to "mantain control" over a population that, in nature, should be able to fend for itself (and only can't because of you)?
Well that's sort of stupid, Drayson. You realize that merely by existing, by sitting on the internet and typing such malformed arguments, you are killing animals? That every second you exist in your air conditioned home, you destroy more of the environment, consequently killing more animals? Strange how you persist in it. Evidently you are not above possessing these luxuries at nature's expense.
If you consider all life equally important, stop using medication. After all, most of it was all developed at the cost of countless animal lives. For that matter, abandon all medical science. No surgery, no nothing. Stop driving your car or taking the bus or riding a bicycle (since the metal used to make it was mined, and mines killed animals).
Sit on top of hill and don't move a muscle. Try not to breathe too much.
While I may not agree with sport hunting, as I consider it barbaric and ultimately pointless, sentience alone gives human beings the right to consider themselves superior life forms. Animals can suffer, and this means that purposely causing them suffering is immoral -- particularly when it's for our amusement.
However, it's difficult to make the argument that a human life is worth no more than a dog's life. A dog, who cannot fall in love or write a poem, or experience true emotion or consciousness? In the end, all animals are inferior to humans, simply because the possess less capability for thought.
For that matter, Drayson, where do you draw the line between life that matters and life that doesn't? If a deer matters as much as you or I, then does a cat? A mouse? An ant? A microbe? How about plants? Where do we become a tad more important? You are the sort of ignorant ass who screams at the top of his lungs that vital cancer research must stop because mice and rats are being killed.
I'm talking like a conservative and it turns my stomach, but really Drayson, there is a line between being liberal and being a hippy nutcase. Don't make stupid absolute statements unless you have the means and conviction to back them up. What you might have said was: All life is not equal, which makes it our moral obligation not to abuse our status as the only truly sentient beings on this planet.
But instead, you decided to be a hippy. And now I'm helping Kas. Way to @#%$ go...
Good grief. I'll quote the post I made before, addressing this issue.
According to Theren, nature can balance itself out. I agree with this. However, as humanity expands, it does so at an explosive rate. We change our surroundings at will, removing habitats and entire species (predators, for instance, because they might kill ourselves). While you may think this is an abomination from the pit of hell, I frankly see nothing wrong with it, we are the superior species on this planet.
However, once we have moved into an area, and killed the predators, it is up to us as good stewards of the land given us to take the role of the predator and keep the ecosystem balanced. This is what the DNR does every year for a month long period. Bow and Rifle licensees are given out to private citizens, and they go out and kill a deer or two.
The ecosystem is balanced, the deer population will survive, and the potential repercussions from an unchecked deer population is nullified.
Surprise, we do.
I agree. Sport hunting is pointless. Going out with the sole purpose of obtaining the biggest rack you can is utterly pointless - it's an ego thing for people who think killing a deer makes them a man.
I, however, do not sport hunt. I eat everything I kill, I go out with the intent to eat everything I kill. Drayson's argument that enough animals have died already is pointless - I save money by getting it in the wild. Wild meat is also better tasting, and better for you.
I won't make too large a response, Kas pretty much summed it all up beautifully.
No you just tried to degrade and nullify his opinion to the point that it didn't matter any more.
No he isn't. If he were killing and said don't kill, then he'd be a hypocrit. However he doesn't kill and say don't kill, he kills wild animals for food that he eats.
Where does the theft of music come in to that?
Never once have you said "Kas is a hypocrit". You said that his opinion [essentially] didn't matter because he kills animals. That's not calling someone a hypocrit that's judging them for a past action that you disagree with on a completely unrelated topic.
That made so little sense and did so many backflips and turns I'm going to completely disregard that jumble of letters.
Kas. Did you know that thousands of chickens are killed each year in slaughterhouses? How would you feel if there was an animal higher than you in the food chain, and they lost all respect for you and began to slaughter you wholesale?
Remember the saying, how did it go? Something like do unto others as you wish to be done upon you? Something like that.
My family used to raise meat chickens, I've slaughtered a couple hundred. Home-raised chickens: a) are cheaper than store bought, b) are better for you, you know what they eat, c)Taste better too.
We raised turkeys once too, but they were too much trouble to go through for something we only eat twice a year, at most.
Well, I would probably go blissfully along my way, eating the corn they put in my feeder. Ignorance is bliss, and chickens are pretty ignorant.
Unless you're talking about what the human race would do, in that case I'm guessing fight back?
I don't see chickens suddenly getting the idea to begin raising 'meat humans'. They're not the brightest animals on the planet...
