quote:

quote:
posted by horseartistgrl: "so that means that we would need 9 earths if everyone on earth lived like an average American family did... is that natural?"
But they don't. And you don't know how I live. I am actually a little confused as to what you mean by "if everyone lived like the average American family." Please clarify. Societies change and as they change the definition of natural changes. Would you expect people to live with homemade candles instead of using electricity. The incandescent light is not "natural" in the sctrict sense of the word, but it is natural now as our society changed.

What I meant is a typical, wealthy-ish, not growing-thier-own-food suburban family. You're right, I don't know how you live, that's why i said an average family, not Bushsupporter and his family. And I know that the rest of the world doesn't live like people in the U.S., that's why I said it. Many people in different regions can live and support all thier needs on one acre of land. We can too, but we don't. Americans live like kings, and we don't even know it. We tend to be greedy. Even our pour are rich.

quote:

Originally posted by Shade:

quote:

That is the difference, we respect life and animals don't.

Talk to me about the hunting techniques of wolves? There's a certain point I'm wondering if you know.

I am assuming that they get in a pack and hunt the weakest of their prey. I, however, do not claim to be a wolf expert and really have no idea what you are looking for. If you have a point to make, why not just make it instead of going through these shenanigans.

quote:

That is the difference, we respect life and animals don't.

Talk to me about the hunting techniques of wolves? There's a certain point I'm wondering if you know.

quote:

posted by silent scream: awright, u might say that we have the ability to make tools and weapons etc, but based on our physical attributes, we wouldnt survive that well if placed in a natural environment consisting of survival

First, you should try typing better. It would help people comprehend your posts. Second, do you not think cavemen were good at surviving all alone without technology. I think they did pretty good.

quote:

posted by silent scream: and its naive to think that the whole modern, intensive farming practices are "natural". they're not -plain and simple.

I already said that crops wouldn't grow that way naturally. How else are we to feed 6.5 billion people? It is the only way. If farming like that is the only way to do it, it has to be natural.

quote:

posted by horseartistgrl: so that means that we would need 9 earths if everyone on earth lived like an average American family did... is that natural?

But they don't. And you don't know how I live. I am actually a little confused as to what you mean by "if everyone lived like the average American family." Please clarify. Societies change and as they change the definition of natural changes. Would you expect people to live with homemade candles instead of using electricity. The incandescent light is not "natural" in the sctrict sense of the word, but it is natural now as our society changed.

quote:

posted by silent scream: all, if not most, members of a species in the wild have natural ability to survive the best they can, (apart from factory farmed animals cos theyre been selective bred and in my opinion, arent natural as they wouldnt have ended up as they are if in the wild..thats another issue), whereas humans do not as there are lots of individual differences between members. if ur going to base the superiority of a certain species as being above all others, then i think ALL members should be able to show that superiority, not just a minority (what i mean by the minority is a number thing, there are more ineffectual human individuals than effectual in making this species advance)

False. There are weak members of every species. In the wild, the weak die. In society, we feel that the weak should not be allowed to perish simply because they are weak. Humans can show the capacity for love and empathy. That is the difference, we respect life and animals don't. It doesn't make them bad, it simply makes them inferior. If you drop a bunch of people on a deserted island, of course they would be able to survive. They would have to and they would do it well. And it has happened.

quote:

posted by horseartistgrl: We could just not make or test medicines, but isn't that even more irrational?

Very good.

No I know, what I meant is that they had more meaningful of a life, an actaul reason to live, (I reason which I prefer not to exist) unlike those animals that live souly for a purpose that isn't even a purpose, to have shampoo sprayed in it's eyes. The medical lab animals will be tested on/killed for something meaningful. (not that they know ) I don't think it's good, but it's where we're at. We could just not make or test medicines, but isn't that even more irrational?

quote:

Originally posted by horseartistgrl27:

And I feel teriabble for those animals used for research, but at least they have purpose, unlike those who are tested on for cosmetics.

isnt that the whole problem of y its ok to treat animals any way we like cos they have a "purpose" for our needs. its that type of thinking thats the prob, u know?

OH!!!
Yes, I know that they both use animals, and I don't like reaserch on animals, it just doesn't annoy me as much as testing. I won't protest and boycott animal tested medicines if I ever end up needing a surgery or something. But I will boycott animal tested products, and maybe even over-used pain relievers. Those things annoy me more.
Yes, and I roll my eyes at people who smoke, drink, etc., they bring it upon themselves. And I feel teriabble for those animals used for research, but at least they have purpose, unlike those who are tested on for cosmetics.

"but some end up as half-truths. Like, how you say that some people can't make tools or weapons. Some of us may not be smart enough to do so,"

i think any subject involving many opinions are going to have many half truths cos theyre loaded topics, u know?

another thing too if ur going to base rights on ability, such as intellectual ability, ability to use and make tools, dexterity, strength etc than you cant stake claim that humans are the most superior. how can i put it... all, if not most, members of a species in the wild have natural ability to survive the best they can, (apart from factory farmed animals cos theyre been selective bred and in my opinion, arent natural as they wouldnt have ended up as they are if in the wild..thats another issue), whereas humans do not as there are lots of individual differences between members. if ur going to base the superiority of a certain species as being above all others, then i think ALL members should be able to show that superiority, not just a minority (what i mean by the minority is a number thing, there are more ineffectual human individuals than effectual in making this species advance)

if u believe in ability, then ppl should be treated based on their ability.but that wont happen cos we have rights. but that same thinking is ok for other species? blah!

for horseartgrl27 sorry it was unclear, but i think its just a double standard..both research and testing involves using animals, they are equatable. another thing, not all findings from animal experiments are 100% accurate (of course there are a few), but the small success i think does not validate because in my opinion if ppl looked after themselves better we wouldnt need the experiments on such a large scale.

which just proves my point even more, the use of vaccines, medications etc for humans is so unnatural cos its not the human body warding off diseases or whatever naturally, its man made chemicals or whatever. that just distances us even more from the natural world.

i think its sad that the lab animals have to suffer just cos humans are not willing to look after themselves, eg smoking and lung cancer, alcoholism and brain deterioration or if you are for the diet reason, the eating of too much meat and the diseases related to that.

humans need to look after themselves and take responsibility

quote:

and to horseartistgirl27, to just say its ok to use animals for medical purposes, and not for product testing is somewhat hypocritical, as both are a means of testing products to make our life better, either standard of living or health wise.

(If this is not the answer you are looking for, could you please re-phrase, I had to read it ten times before I understood.) They are two different things. I don't use animal tested products (shampoo, conditioner, etc.) because for those things to be tested on animals, I think is stupid. That is standard living, I think, and I have made a decision to not use those products.
Now what I meant is that testing on animals to cure diseases and cancer and such, I am fine with because that stuff is nessacary. I don't believe it's right to stick a flu shot in a kid when there is no certinty that it won't kill him. Those things need to be tested.
But when you have the choice to not use animal tested products that smell just as good as those that were, it should be a no brainer, why isn't it? Don't buy them!
Also, I don't take pain killers unless it is absolutely nessacary. I believe that your body should heal itself, so I don't take them.
As for everything else you said silent_scream, I agree with you. Well done.

SiSc, you do make some good points, but some end up as half-truths. Like, how you say that some people can't make tools or weapons. Some of us may not be smart enough to do so, but it is the fact that we can be. but it's also the fact that we can take a certain environment and use it to our advantage, no matter where we live. As long as there are more than one of us (and as long as were not all the same sex) a whole society can thrive in the right spot.
one good point you do make though, is that some of us are really stupid. Although it's not some of us, it's most of us. It's sad really, some of us are just too stupid to live.

But the thing about us is that we can change whatever mental characteristic about us. and become the one person we want to be, as long as we have the belief.

Note this might not be finished, have no time right now.

it makes me laugh when ppl use the whole "it's natural" reason when humans (in sofar as privileged western societies), are so far removed from the natural world.

also top of the foodchain? you cant claim that we are on top of the foodchain, when there are many different foodchains, eg, in the middle of the ocean drifting in the ocean, there aint no way a human is on top of that foodchain.

awright, u might say that we have the ability to make tools and weapons etc, but based on our physical attributes, we wouldnt survive that well if placed in a natural environment consisting of survival

btw, humans have the capability to make weapons and tools as a species, not dismissing that point, but individuals? at the moment im doing a survival course for the military involving civvies as well,, and based on what i've seen of the average person? no way

its a bit like saying humans are the most intelligent..as a species we are the most intelligent, but there are alot of stupid people out there.

and its naive to think that the whole modern, intensive farming practices are "natural". they're not -plain and simple.

and to horseartistgirl27, to just say its ok to use animals for medical purposes, and not for product testing is somewhat hypocritical, as both are a means of testing products to make our life better, either standard of living or health wise.

OK, I sort of see your point in what I said earlier. So now I'm making this correction/clearification... do AMERICANS live naturally...
my class did an ecological footprint test... it's tells you how many earths there would have to be if everyone on earth lived like you did... the class average was 9 something...(mine was only 2.58!) so that means that we would need 9 earths if everyone on earth lived like an average American family did... is that natural? And we Americans really don't need to consume as much turkey as we do... we really shouldn't, actually.
And the Draize test (sp.?), the one were people spray chemicals in the faces of rabbits, is ussually for cosmetics. I am all for medical testing on animals... what I can't stand is when it's for shampoo...

quote:

is spraying chemicals in a rabbit's face natural? Is hanging an animal by it's hind legs so someone can stab it to death natural?!!!! Is stack up hundreds of turkeys in a pen natural?!!?!!??

Is that stuff natural? I suppose natural is what we say it is. We have 6.5 billion people on this planet and we cannot reasonably expect people to hunt for all of their food. Is having 1000 acre farms natural? Corn would not grow naturally in that large of an area or that organized. We can't have all of the turkeys that we raise running free around the country and then have to catch them when it was time por slaughter. They have to be raised and farmed. Just like our agriculture. Things are different now than in caveman days. That doesn't make it unnatural.

And if spraying chemicals in a rabbit's face leads to drugs that save people's lives I have no problem.

I KNOW HUMANS ARE SUPERIOR ALREADY!!!

quote:

Animals do not need rights in addition to what they already have as a part of nature. Nature never guaranteed the right to live without fear of being consumed by a creature higher up on the food chain.

Yes, but many humans have gone beyond natural... (saying that they don't act according to what nature planned anymore, not saying that humans aren't natural), how do I best explain this... I KNOW!!! I'll repeat what I said before... is spraying chemicals in a rabbit's face natural? Is hanging an animal by it's hind legs so someone can stab it to death natural?!!!! Is stack up hundreds of turkeys in a pen natural?!!?!!??

quote:

Originally posted by Wolfie:
alrighty, animals have rights, every living creature has rights by being alive, the right to live, to grow and prosper, etc.

animals do not have exactly the rights we do because they cannot reason like we do, however don't they at least deserve the right to follow their instincts and be free and all that hippie crap? is it really fair to make them suffer because we are more intelligent?

is that what we have come to? making things that are weaker than us feel pain? torture them?

mannnnn we're f***ed as a race, lol...

I am not an advocate of burning puppies alive or animal cruelty. I think there should be harsher punishments for that stuff. That doesn't change the fact that humans are superior.

alrighty, animals have rights, every living creature has rights by being alive, the right to live, to grow and prosper, etc.

animals do not have exactly the rights we do because they cannot reason like we do, however don't they at least deserve the right to follow their instincts and be free and all that hippie crap? is it really fair to make them suffer because we are more intelligent?

is that what we have come to? making things that are weaker than us feel pain? torture them?

mannnnn we're f***ed as a race, lol...

Animals do not need rights in addition to what they already have as a part of nature. Nature never guaranteed the right to live without fear of being consumed by a creature higher up on the food chain.

quote:

I am not an advocate of burning puppies alive or animal cruelty. I think there should be harsher punishments for that stuff. That doesn't change the fact that humans are superior.

I have stated the above on many occasions. Animals have rights only because we extend them rights.

Humans have God given rights, ones that cannot and should not be taken away by anyone or any government. This is different from animals, who have rights, only so far as we extend them.

HA HA HA, very funny kibukun.

It's the United States Government's job to ensure animal welfare, notsojoey and Bushsupporter!

quote:

...and which government officail will listen to an animal?

I'm sorry but I have to say something, it's driving me nuts noones making a joke on this...
technically, they already did. Most democratic parts listened to Clinton when he was the president.