Girl throw puppies in a river and film herself

[Dene]

So, what's your point?

Basically, my point is that until you can find some fundamental aspect of animals that morally separates them from plants such that it is ok to slaughter as many plants as we want, but not to mistreat (at least some) animals (I suspect you might exclude animals such as ants or something), your views are inconsistent and hypocritical.

You can give the answer to yourself by trying to find out, what "morally separates" human animals from non-human animals.

Most likely this will end up with you being ok with mentally retarded people, small children up to a certain age and, of course, babies being killed.

Oh no it's easy to separate humans from non-human animals without going down that path. I can just say "humans are special because we have moral capacity, and using that capacity, we can generalise to all other humans, although they may lack the capacity itself (species preference, if you like), while excluding all non-human organisms". Of course, "moral capacity" is not the only path I could go down. The point here is that I can just include all humans, even if they don't meet specific criteria.

And that for fruits, being consumed is a way of reproduction, right?

Perhaps it is, but by picking fruit off trees we are murdering them. After they have fallen off trees and they are already dead then I can see no inconsistency with eating them in this case.

Nope, I cannot agree with this even in theory. First off, fruits are not organisms by themselves, which means nothing is killed if you take a fruit. Second, fruit is an extremely energetically costly thing for a plant to make, and the *only* benefit it provides to the plant's entire species is to help spread seeds. It does not help photosynthesis, aid reproduction, fend off predators/insects, or anything else like that. Similarly there is no reason for fruit to be full of water and sugars (again, costly things for a plant to manufacture!) - except that the point of fruits is that they will be eaten and that by that mechanism animals will spread the seeds. The only and obvious conclusion is that the fruits are as tasty (i.e. containing many sugars and no toxins) as they are because they are supposed to get eaten. Your statement is as silly as saying that when a barber cuts someone's hair he is murdering it.

Ok you're right I agree but I can modify my claims to make it work. I can just say that pulling an apple off a tree (i.e. not waiting for it to fall) could possibly cause the tree great pain, just as ripping the testicles off a human male would hurt. This doesn't really solve the second part of what you bring up, but even so you cannot deny that we could potentially be putting apple trees through torture.

 

[hawkmp4]

In other news, people die everyday.

Yes, people die. Your point? Are you saying because people die every day, it's morally permissible to kill people? Not trying to set up a straw man- I just don't know what you're trying to say.

That is a really dumb conclusion to draw.

Of course it is. Which is why I asked you instead of assuming. I don't think that's what you were trying to say, but I couldn't figure out what else it could be.

 

[ThatGuy]

I sort of want to see PETA flip out to this if they haven't already. And although I don't really like dogs, puppies are cute. D:

 

[endless_akatsuki]

I sort of want to see PETA flip out to this if they haven't already. And although I don't really like dogs, puppies are cute. D:

PETA....? I mean, I guess they'd protest that the girl should have eaten the puppies instead of throwing them into a river....but then again, puppies aren't really tasty, are they?

 

[Green]

This sickens me, I was just hanging out with some dogs a couple hours ago too.

 

[Joker]

I'd like this better if it was "Girl throws herself in a river and puppies film"
Simply scramble the words, and there you go.

 

[Joker]

There is also no moral difference eating a potato. You killed something that once lived. Plain and simple.

So then, you would have to either say that eating a potato is morally impermissible, or that murder is morally permissible.

Which is it?

Eating a potatoe is morally impermissible. No really, I was talking about murder.

 

[jms_gears1]

ok so ya, the puppies didnt die. Now they are up for adoption.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/djpopeurban/puppies-thrown-into-bosnian-river-saved-and-up-for-zu0

 

[Edward]

ok so ya, the puppies didnt die. Now they are up for adoption.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/djpopeurban/puppies-thrown-into-bosnian-river-saved-and-up-for-zu0

I wanna know how she found them, and if those'r the real puppies.

 

[F.P.]

@Dene: That's ok...good luck with your hangover (I guess).

Hangover? You know his hometown was recently hit by a 7.4 earthquake?

Why should I know where this guy lives/comes from?


@Dene: If you can say that you can just include all humans even though they may lack that certain ability then I could also say that you need to include every other being who lacks that ability.
Where is the difference between a human infant and a pig for that matter?

And I also don't see why the moral capacity of a certain being would be a reason not to kill it, especially if you have no problem with billions of pigs, cows and other animals being slaughtered. One could also critisize the moral capacity of someone who is ok with that at all.


Besides that, it's pretty bold to claim that only humans have a moral capacity.


As far as I know there is nothing that suggests that pulling an apple off a tree causes pain to the tree. I could also claim that whenever I walk on cement, it causes pain to it. But I'm quite certain that there is nothing to backup that claim just as there is nothing to backup yours.

I'm quite interested in that topic though, so if there are any new research results please inform me.

 

[F.P.]

ok so ya, the puppies didnt die. Now they are up for adoption.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/djpopeurban/puppies-thrown-into-bosnian-river-saved-and-up-for-zu0

I wanna know how she found them, and if those'r the real puppies.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/7957415/elderly-woman-didnt-save-puppies-from-river-villagers

 

[Dene]

If you can say that you can just include all humans even though they may lack that certain ability then I could also say that you need to include every other being who lacks that ability.

No but I want to say that our species is exclusive, even if not all members meet the exact criteria, they are in simply because they are of the same species.

And I also don't see why the moral capacity of a certain being would be a reason not to kill it, especially if you have no problem with billions of pigs, cows and other animals being slaughtered. One could also critisize the moral capacity of someone who is ok with that at all.

Just like I can criticize the moral capacity of someone who thinks it is ok to slaughter billions of plants and vegetation without any evidence that they have no knowledge of it. We could argue for ages about what separates humans from other species, but in the end we have to eat something.

As far as I know there is nothing that suggests that pulling an apple off a tree causes pain to the tree. I could also claim that whenever I walk on cement, it causes pain to it. But I'm quite certain that there is nothing to backup that claim just as there is nothing to backup yours.

Well that's just a strawman, cement is an inanimate object. And you're right, I have nothing to back up my claim that plants feel pain, just as you have no real evidence to back up your claim that animals feel pain (which I guess is the main reason you are against killing animals, but any other reason applies exactly the same so that is irrelevant). Sure we see signs that animals display behaviour that resembles the behaviour humans exhibit when in pain, but this does not guarantee that animals actually feel anything, nor does it guarantee that plants don't, just because they do not show the same behaviours.

Do you see what I'm trying to say? There is simply no proof either way, and it makes you arrogant to pretty much say "well my way is right and you're going to hell because you don't follow it" (religious reference can be ignored w/e).

 

[Plaincow]

that girl makes me sick i normally arent disgusted by anything but this is too much someone needs to get her.

 

[ChrisBird]

that girl makes me sick i normally arent disgusted by anything but this is too much someone needs to get her.

Stop being such a plain cow.

Everyone knows complex cows are much better.

 

[F.P.]

Sorry for the late response.

No but I want to say that our species is exclusive, even if not all members meet the exact criteria, they are in simply because they are of the same species.

To me that seems like you are trying to justify your speciesism with speciesism.

You think it's wrong to kill humans because they are humans even if they don't have the certain abilities which you use to make a distinction between human animals and non-human animals; and on the other hand it's not wrong to kill other animals, because they aren't humans.

Just like I can criticize the moral capacity of someone who thinks it is ok to slaughter billions of plants and vegetation without any evidence that they have no knowledge of it.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that plants feel pain. That human animals and other animals feel pain fulfills a certain purpose. It's a selective advantage. A plant feeling pain would have absolutely no purpose.

We could argue for ages about what separates humans from other species, but in the end we have to eat something.

Not necessarily other animals though...probably better not other animals. Top five causes of death/diseases of civilization are on my side.

Well that's just a strawman, cement is an inanimate object. And you're right, I have nothing to back up my claim that plants feel pain, just as you have no real evidence to back up your claim that animals feel pain (which I guess is the main reason you are against killing animals, but any other reason applies exactly the same so that is irrelevant). Sure we see signs that animals display behaviour that resembles the behaviour humans exhibit when in pain, but this does not guarantee that animals actually feel anything, nor does it guarantee that plants don't, just because they do not show the same behaviours.

The only difference in the measurement of pain is that I can ask a human wether he/she feels pain or not; but his/her answer is not really something that one would consider "scientific".
And then we are only left with studies of the brain; non-human animals have nociceptive nerves, they have a cortex. They have heightened blood pressure and show the same behaviour as humans when they are inflicted with pain.

If you ignore all that and still insist on other animals not being able to feel pain then I can simply deny that all humans feel pain. If someone says that "it hurts", I don't have to believe that.
Since that he/she has a fully functional brain, the nerves, pain conducting chemicals and brain areas needed to/which are most important to feel pain and shows the typical behaviour of a sentient being inflicted with pain doesn't matter to me.


By the way...in the past two years I went to a few different slaughter houses and animal farms (mainly "eggs" and "milk", but also minks) in germany. And I know that the experience I made there has nothing to do with scientific research and I know that I can't use it as an argument but I bet that you would think quite different about everything regarding pain and non-human animals after a visit at the ultimative "organic/eco/species-appropriate husbandry" slaughter house in germany.

 

[Dene]

Well I think we are basically done with this, although I should point out that I don't believe for a second that most animals do not feel pain; I think it is pretty clear that they do. All I'm saying is that there is no proof that plants do not feel something when they are chopped to bits.

 

[qqwref]

No but I want to say that our species is exclusive, even if not all members meet the exact criteria, they are in simply because they are of the same species.

To me that seems like you are trying to justify your speciesism with speciesism.

I'm wondering why speciesism needs to be justified at all. I don't think it's never immoral to kill animals, or that animals can't feel pain or shouldn't be considered, but it would be silly to claim that humans as a species are not superior or shouldn't be treated as superior.

I've heard this word before and it annoys me. The word itself suggests this is a Bad Thing. But why? Aren't racism, sexism, and so on bad because it's humans we're discriminating against - humans who are in a situation that we could ourselves be in if we didn't have the luck of being born a certain way or in a certain place/time? But discrimination (in the very general sense of treating one group of objects or creatures differently than another) is not necessarily a problem. No reasonable person complains that housecats only get to eat cat food while humans may eat almost anything. No reasonable person complains that people are allowed to become kindergarten teachers while chimpanzees or parrots are not. I don't think this is a belief which deserves a negative connotation.

 

[F.P.]

I've heard this word before and it annoys me. The word itself suggests this is a Bad Thing. But why? Aren't racism, sexism, and so on bad because it's humans we're discriminating against - humans who are in a situation that we could ourselves be in if we didn't have the luck of being born a certain way or in a certain place/time? But discrimination (in the very general sense of treating one group of objects or creatures differently than another) is not necessarily a problem. No reasonable person complains that housecats only get to eat cat food while humans may eat almost anything. No reasonable person complains that people are allowed to become kindergarten teachers while chimpanzees or parrots are not. I don't think this is a belief which deserves a negative connotation.

I think that might be some kind of misinterpretation of what animal rights activists actually want.
It's certainly not about chimpanzees being allowed to become kindergarten teachers or cows being allowed to vote. All that's asked for is a life without imprisonment, exploitation, suffering and murder for all animals (including humans obviously, since animal rights include human rights by definition).

I guess no one claims that humans aren't superior to some other animals in certain ways; but does that give humans the right to imprison, exploit and murder?

However, discrimination certainly is a problem if it causes the suffering of billions of sentient beings every year.

 

[F.P.]

Well I think we are basically done with this, although I should point out that I don't believe for a second that most animals do not feel pain; I think it is pretty clear that they do. All I'm saying is that there is no proof that plants do not feel something when they are chopped to bits.

Yeah, just as you (or anyone else) can't prove that it really hurts if you get beaten with a baseball bat.