"You'd sacrifice this beautiful woman for a moderately attractive ape?"

Wibbs

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

But even if it only had a slight effect on those at the top of the heap then maybe...

It's surprising how many at the top survive. The Nazi's and Mussolini's lot getting their comeuppance(mostly) are rare enough. Pol Pot, Stalin, the various Japanese generals and emperor tended to die in their beds of old age(ditto with Mao). Hell you don't need to go that far, just look to Spain. The main fascist triumvirate in Europe was Hitler, Mussolini and Franco and Franco was another one who died in his bed of old age in the mid 1970's. The Spanish civil war made ours look like an effin pub brawl as far as utter savagery, human rights abuses and the sheer number tortured, imprisoned or slaughtered. Franco and his generals were well bloodstained by it. This was a guy who invited the German's in for a bit of target practice on his own people.

steddyeddy wrote:

So yea wheter people call me a nazi or whatever I don see problem one with wiping out the people who are doing this to one of our closest cousins.

Whatever about wiping them out, I'd have no problem shooting a couple in hot blood so to speak, or imprisoning them for loooong periods of time. I've also no problem decrying such people and the localised culture that spawns them as utter dreck. Closer to home I'd think the same of badger baiters and a few other examples of human wastes of oxygen.

Ill put it this way, Im an animal lover not a peta lover. I understand the current necessities of using animals for food. Were dealing with an endagered species here though and one which is very close to use biologically speaking. The people who are setting our relatives on fire (which isnt a terribly humane way to go) are not in anyway examples of the basic humanities that make us human. So in my eyes to see force used against these "people" would be ok by me. Many poachers were killed attacking mountain gorillas and this in effect saved the species.

I'd be of a similar mind. On the animal welfare front, I personally avoid bacon for the reasons Jimmyhologram gives.

steddyeddy

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Oh that's completely different. We are civilised, they are not "people". I wonder does he think where all the palm oil is grown for, or that might be a little less simplistic.

Are you adressing me or the poster you quoted?

Wibbs

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Oh that's completely different. We are civilised, they are not "people".

Huh? Since when? I smell another cultural relativist reading what they want to read and getting terribly upset about it.

Question. Who were the people who went in and rescued the Orang in the original post? Europeans? No, local people who asked the obvious question of what the jumpin f... and did and are doing something about it. Who are the people defending various African species like gorillas, elephants and rhinos? Yep African folks and they often get killed doing so.

And you speak of simplistic?

jam_mac_jam

Wibbs wrote: »

Huh? Since when? I smell another cultural relativist reading what they want to read and getting terribly upset about it.

Question. Who were the people who went in and rescued the Orang in the original post? Europeans? No, local people who asked the obvious question of what the jumpin f... and did and are doing something about it. Who are the people defending various African species like gorillas, elephants and rhinos? Yep African folks and they often get killed doing so.

And you speak of simplistic?

I am not getting upset about anything. I just think talk of wiping people out a little over the top . And somebody else put people in inverted commas, that's what I was refering to.

Jimmyhologram

steddyeddy wrote: »

Ill put it this way, Im an animal lover not a peta lover. I understand the current necessities of using animals for food. Were dealing with an endagered species here though and one which is very close to use biologically speaking. The people who are setting our relatives on fire (which isnt a terribly humane way to go) are not in anyway examples of the basic humanities that make us human. So in my eyes to see force used against these "people" would be ok by me. Many poachers were killed attacking mountain gorillas and this in effect saved the species.

I'm not so sure if factory farms are an absolute necessity for food in our country, though I confess to not knowing the logistics of the matter, so won't dispute it here. A lot of what we think of as common sense turns out to be counter-intuitive. I read recently for instance that if all of Europe were to turn vegetarian, the amount of new land that would be required to grow vegetables and grains etc would result in mass-destruction of natural habitats, forests etc so that wouldn't be so great for animals either.

Peta are a big image problem for anybody who cares about animals, in my opinion. Nobody wants to be told what to do by a bunch of militants, even if they fundamentally agree on some issues.

stoneill

Cruelty to animals in any way shape or form, independent of the intelligence of the animal it is just wrong.

I like to think that I am a humanitarian, but there are some elements of human society that I would not shed a tear for if they were eliminated from the planet.

af_thefragile

Jimmyhologram wrote: »

I'm not so sure if factory farms are an absolute necessity for food in our country, though I confess to not knowing the logistics of the matter, so won't dispute it here. A lot of what we think of as common sense turns out to be counter-intuitive. I read recently for instance that if all of Europe were to turn vegetarian, the amount of new land that would be required to grow vegetables and grains etc would result in mass-destruction of natural habitats, forests etc so that wouldn't be so great for animals either.

Peta are a big image problem for anybody who cares about animals, in my opinion. Nobody wants to be told what to do by a bunch of militants, even if they fundamentally agree on some issues.

In the west we consume too much meat products. If everyone went to a more balanced vegetarian diet with the occasional meat thrown in for some extra protein, it'll massively reduce the food shortage of the world. Its also a more healthier option.

Also it requires more land for grazing animals than it does for producing food crops.
The main reason why the Amazon rainforest is being slashed down is to create land for grazing cattle to support the ever growing American and other western and middle-eastern countries appetite for meat.

Jimmyhologram

af_thefragile wrote: »

In the west we consume too much meat products. If everyone went to a more balanced vegetarian diet with the occasional meat thrown in for some extra protein, it'll massively reduce the food shortage of the world. Its also a more healthier option.

Also it requires more land for grazing animals than it does for producing food crops.
The main reason why the Amazon rainforest is being slashed down is to create land for grazing cattle to support the ever growing American and other western and middle-eastern countries appetite for meat.

Agreed that we eat too much meat.

But the grazing/land issue becomes slightly moot, surely, if you factor in the growing reliance on factory animals, which require comparatively little space. Throw in rapidly rising populations, and you've got a vicious circle, no?

af_thefragile

Jimmyhologram wrote: »

Agreed that we eat too much meat.

But the grazing/land issue becomes slightly moot, surely, if you factor in the growing reliance on factory animals, which require comparatively little space. Throw in rapidly rising populations, and you've got a vicious circle, no?

You still need to feed the animals. Most of what they eat comes out of their back sides. It takes more to feed a cow than it does to feed a human family.

Also those factory animals are being pumped with steroids to make them more meaty and less fatty which they would naturally tend to becoming living in confined spaces and all the effects that has on the people who eat the meat.
And not to forget when people resort to feeding the cattle dead remains of other animals for economic reasons and then the cattle ending up getting mad cow disease and the humans eating the meat getting Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease...

All sorts of problem with factory farming. Ultimately it does more harm than good.

Scanlas The 2nd

Jimmyhologram wrote: »

steddyeddy wrote: »

Its a lot worse than that at the moment. Orangs are killed on sight as their considered pests on the palm oil reserves. One orangtang featured in this report had fuel set on him and was set alight. So yea wheter people call me a nazi or whatever I don see problem one with wiping out the people who are doing this to one of our closest cousins.

Just to be provocative ; what about factory farming societies such as our own that commit the equivalent of an annual holocaust on pigs, creatures which some believe to have the same intelligence as a three year old human child?

You make a good point, though I find it interesting how it's often regarded as worse killing an intelligent species, is it worse to kill an intelligent human over a dumb human.

Scanlas The 2nd

steddyeddy wrote: »

Jimmyhologram wrote: »

Just to be provocative ; what about factory farming societies such as our own that commit the equivalent of an annual holocaust on pigs, creatures which some believe to have the same intelligence as a three year old human child?

Ill put it this way, Im an animal lover not a peta lover. I understand the current necessities of using animals for food. Were dealing with an endagered species here though and one which is very close to use biologically speaking. The people who are setting our relatives on fire (which isnt a terribly humane way to go) are not in anyway examples of the basic humanities that make us human. So in my eyes to see force used against these "people" would be ok by me. Many poachers were killed attacking mountain gorillas and this in effect saved the species.

Using the logic above its easy to see how racism and slavery of blacks was tolerated for so long. The more similar an animal is the more immoral it is the kill them.

af_thefragile

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Using the logic above its easy to see how racism and slavery of blacks was tolerated for so long. The more similar an animal is the more immoral it is the kill them.

Well it was in the Vietnam war where American soldiers were taught to dehumanise the vietnamese people so that they wouldn't hold back from killing the "savage gooks".

And one of the first steps towards any genocide is dehumanising the population so one wouldn't have the guilt that they just killed, raped and tortured another human.


It is wrong both to kill an animal or a human. It is also wrong to destroy a plant because trees are to be protected and have rights too. The only time it is just is when its out of necessity for food. (Doesn't apply for humans as we don't eat humans... well most of us at least).

shanered

this is absolutely absurd!

later12

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

You make a good point, though I find it interesting how it's often regarded as worse killing an intelligent species, is it worse to kill an intelligent human over a dumb human.

You have a similar argument with pretty animals. It's unacceptable to injure dolphins and swans, but tuna and turkeys are fair game.

I wonder if the same exists in humans. Do we find the deaths of beautiful people more tragic than the deaths of the morbidly obese, for example?

cherryghost

This thread has nothing to do with Futurama

Capt'n Midnight

SeanW wrote: »

Godwinned in record time.

Nah, this one has that record http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=78645900

Pantsface

can't believe this thread is still going

so disturbing