Poll: Animal abuse vs Human abuse
- Thread starter knight steel
- Start date
Recommended Videos
If you look at what Humans have proved they are capable of then maybe not, Animals work on instinct and everything they do has a logical reason. Humans are the first species on this planet who gained sentient status, we are fully aware of what we do and yet we seem only to excel in insanity. We murder and commit genocide on our species and others, we even fight for the rights to give people the means to do so. There are vastly more human beings in forced servitude today than there ever was during the period we see as the dark days of the slave trade and yet it's ignored. We destroy our environment and hold no interest in the future of our species.Mr F. said:
We murder, enslave, impoverish and starve our own people purely for the sake of pointless pieces of metal and paper, so maybe asking the above question is sick rather than answering it because you can't get much worse than being human.
Very true, but killing is not the same as abuse or cruelty. I'll squash a mosquito if it tries to suck my blood, but I won't pull its wings off and laugh at it. For instance, hunters are, for the most part, great lovers of animals and nature, and abhor suffering caused to and cruelty directed at animals, as we say on the internet: "with the fury of a thousand suns". However, they recognize that A: game meat is a great natural resource, and B: Hunting is more often than not beneficial to the population of the animal being hunted, especially where predatorial pressure is too low to keep the population healthy.Vegosiux said:
As for the topic at hand, I'm a bit divided: most animal abusers are abusing their pets or their cattle, both of which means they're striking from a position of power and dependency, not unlike an abusive parent. A cow kept for milk or meat can't just stroll outside and graze if the farmer fails to feed her, and a beaten dog will think it's being punished for doing something wrong, endlessly trying to correct it until it snaps, one way or another.
Abuse from one human to another is abhorrent as well, that's not even a question. But cruelty is a human thing, and a human can recognize cruelty for what it is. An abused child can grow up to recognize it, an abused spouse can get fed up with it and take action (I'm talking get help and/or leave them, not stab them in their sleep). This whole argument has a similar feel to the argument about whether rape or murder is the worse crime.
Overall, I'd say the abuses are roughly equal: a human has, I believe, greater capacity for suffering, but also has more options available to them. An animal has the options of lashing out and be put down, or to bear it and hope another human will discover the abuse and rectify the situation. Personally, I wish animal abusers would be more dedicated to what they do; not just abuse animals close at hand, but go out in the woods and punch a bear! Preferrably a cub. In full view of its mother.
I guess it depends on the situation. I can see why people would say that human abuse can be worse. I mean if one had to choose between a child getting beat on or a pet being beat on, I wouldn't blame them if they chose to help the kid.
Me personally though, I feel much more uncomfortable seeing an animal being abused than a human. Maybe it's because I have two dogs that lovingly greet me whenever I come home. Maybe it's because I feel like I can connect better to an animal than I can with a human. Maybe I'm just weird.
I don't know. But the point is, I just find animal abuse more uncomfortable to me than human abuse.
Me personally though, I feel much more uncomfortable seeing an animal being abused than a human. Maybe it's because I have two dogs that lovingly greet me whenever I come home. Maybe it's because I feel like I can connect better to an animal than I can with a human. Maybe I'm just weird.
I don't know. But the point is, I just find animal abuse more uncomfortable to me than human abuse.
Animals and small children.
When they get abused, I get angry.
They represent innocence.
Adults, on the other hand, represent innocence lost.
They are aware of what they are doing, they recognize the ramifications of their actions.
I could figure out where somebody lives, then proceed to vandalize their house regularly and beat the shit out of them just because they've done me wrong in the past or I simply don't like them. All while knowing that what I'm doing is horrible.
Are animals capable of this calculated and wicked behavior?
No, they aren't. They operate on an instinctual basis that you can't attach morality to.
They don't question whether what they're doing is right or wrong on an ethical level.
They exist in a natural state on a planet where...
Humans are privileged dictators.
We are capable of changing the world for better or worse thanks to what differentiates us from all other life on the planet. There are good people worthy of praise (beneficial to the world), horrible people that bring us down and a large amount of people unimportant in the long run (lest they lead to the production of the good ones).
In the end, I suppose, it's only natural to empathize with the underdog/victim.
Be it a child, adult or animal, one would always feel inclined to side with those that appear to be at a disadvantage.
Abuse in it's entirety is wrong, but I think it's strictly a human practice to begin with due to us being sentient and aware of morality.
That would be my extended, set in stone, view on the matter.
I don't place humans over animals, nor do I the inverse, but I do recognize humanity as more of a threat by looking at our raw potential and the despicable actions that we can commit against the flora and fauna (which includes other humans) of this fine planet. That, and I've had the misfortune to know some particularly horrid people. I cannot say that I've known (or ever will) a horrid animal.
When they get abused, I get angry.
They represent innocence.
Adults, on the other hand, represent innocence lost.
They are aware of what they are doing, they recognize the ramifications of their actions.
I could figure out where somebody lives, then proceed to vandalize their house regularly and beat the shit out of them just because they've done me wrong in the past or I simply don't like them. All while knowing that what I'm doing is horrible.
Are animals capable of this calculated and wicked behavior?
No, they aren't. They operate on an instinctual basis that you can't attach morality to.
They don't question whether what they're doing is right or wrong on an ethical level.
They exist in a natural state on a planet where...
Humans are privileged dictators.
We are capable of changing the world for better or worse thanks to what differentiates us from all other life on the planet. There are good people worthy of praise (beneficial to the world), horrible people that bring us down and a large amount of people unimportant in the long run (lest they lead to the production of the good ones).
In the end, I suppose, it's only natural to empathize with the underdog/victim.
Be it a child, adult or animal, one would always feel inclined to side with those that appear to be at a disadvantage.
Abuse in it's entirety is wrong, but I think it's strictly a human practice to begin with due to us being sentient and aware of morality.
That would be my extended, set in stone, view on the matter.
I don't place humans over animals, nor do I the inverse, but I do recognize humanity as more of a threat by looking at our raw potential and the despicable actions that we can commit against the flora and fauna (which includes other humans) of this fine planet. That, and I've had the misfortune to know some particularly horrid people. I cannot say that I've known (or ever will) a horrid animal.
One could argue that,their lack of intelligence/the fact that they run on instinct makes their abuse less horrifying as they that makes them less to us and as such there abuse less important also as they can't comprehend whats happening this lessen's the abuse compared to some one who knows what's happening and can understand it as they know the full scope of whats occurring!NightmareExpress said:
One could also argue that humans also operate on an instinctual basis that you can't attach morality to, after all we have urges and emotions that come about and we can't choose to have combine that with someone who doesn't have the mental facilities to understand/care about right from wrong and you get crime does that make them more innocent and there abuse more horrible?
Well if its the same level of abuse then its the same. Obviously killing a human is worse than simply punching a seal but i don't see how anyone can think killing an animal isn't as bad as killing a human. You may not understand the animal but what gives the human any more right to life than it?
Does it work for you? I've always found that trying is itself inimical to nature. Nature doesn't try, nature just is. You could even say human distinctiveness lies in trying itself, or the will. Sounds rather buddhistic but possibly true.CrazyCapnMorgan said:
Since we are animals, as well, I can't quite fit my answer into the options handed to me.
Plain abuse is wrong. Pretty much always. That's what the meaning of the word 'abuse' sort of brings with it as active payload, proper meaning.
That said, I think the abuse of animals 'lower' than us is wrongerererer.
Animals can be assholes, too. It's just that they have less brainpower to put into being assholes. If a cat scratches me, it was probably my fault. It's very rare, but it happens. I must have forced my will onto a cat, grabbed it in a way it didn't know and/or didn't like. If an asshole dog were to attack my - proper trained - dog, I would intervene. Always. Because I love my dog and I can handle physical pain with less emotional and psychological trauma than the rather emotional and easily impressionable 1-120 pounds of comparably stupid dog meat.
If a dog I don't know decides to bite me, it has trespassed, but since I choose to interfere, I have trespassed, as well. I punch, I slap, I bite the throat. Not so much to damage, but to get my point across, with no discussion or leeway. If a dog I don't know gets to my dog, I might have misjudged the situation, but the owner of that other dog made a mistake or two, as well. We humans can talk over biscuits and a nice cup of tea. That's not how animals handle things.
If a jealous parrot peels the meat off my finger bones, my bad. I knew I should have taken her more seriously. I didn't, so she went berserk. It's an asshole parrot with issues, but it was my decision to handle her. I'll slap her and I'll share my thoughts with her, but five minutes later I will go back to that very same parrot and try again. To get a more positive experience out of it for the both of us, and anyone else witnessing the carnage.
If a snake bites me or a scorpion stings me, it's highly probable that it was my fault. I am able to assess situations, make sense of the signals the animal in question sends out in its limited ways and I can decide to come back another day. The average animal does not have this choice, or even the raw processing power to ponder much over notions like this.
I am pro vivisection and pro animal testing, as long as we don't have alternatives. I love animals, so I'm also bound to love humans. Anything else would be very half-assed. However, animals have less choice, and what we perceive as cruelty coming from animals is not something they spend much thought on. They don't plan to be assholes. If we're out in the wild, we meet proud, strong and impressive beasts that would and could kill us without flinching, if we so much as gave them the opportunity. It's why we came up with weapons. Most animals come with all the weapons they need to defend themselves within the realm of nature. We don't have that. Maybe we used to have some of it. We don't anymore. So, we more than make up with brain power. However, not all of us make good use of that brain power. So - I find it far easier to consider a human I don't know to be an utter asshole I don't feel like going out of my way for. Animals, however, are not proper part of our unnatural ways. Some of them have 'chosen' to hang around with us. Most of those co-habit and co-exist in the cracks, inside our walls, on the other side of the painted structures we consider to make up proper habitat, not ever spending much though on the hollow portions of that thing we call 'home'.
From my very own ethic and moral vantage point, cruelty towards animals is the bigger sin, the lower deed, the less justifiable violence.
I could hand you several pages worth of reasons why misanthropy and the total and utter annihiliation of mankind would make proper sense. I could come up with, what, three lines at the very most of why we should wipe out any animal, and be it just friggin' ticks or midges.
We must preserve, for only we wield the power to annihilate everything.
Oh, and I absolutely despise PETA and I don't like WWF or Greenpeace much. I believe certain individuals amongst their ranks actually believe in what they do, and they do it properly. The rest - is the usual misguided asshole army bunch. But that's how we roll, isn't it.
No matter what any one of us manages to create, there's at least a thousand willing to piss all over it and tear it down.
It's what and how we really are.
Homo homini lupus.
I think we're a most fascinating bunch. I just wish we could breed out the asshole genes.
Captcha: until tomorrow
Plain abuse is wrong. Pretty much always. That's what the meaning of the word 'abuse' sort of brings with it as active payload, proper meaning.
That said, I think the abuse of animals 'lower' than us is wrongerererer.
Animals can be assholes, too. It's just that they have less brainpower to put into being assholes. If a cat scratches me, it was probably my fault. It's very rare, but it happens. I must have forced my will onto a cat, grabbed it in a way it didn't know and/or didn't like. If an asshole dog were to attack my - proper trained - dog, I would intervene. Always. Because I love my dog and I can handle physical pain with less emotional and psychological trauma than the rather emotional and easily impressionable 1-120 pounds of comparably stupid dog meat.
If a dog I don't know decides to bite me, it has trespassed, but since I choose to interfere, I have trespassed, as well. I punch, I slap, I bite the throat. Not so much to damage, but to get my point across, with no discussion or leeway. If a dog I don't know gets to my dog, I might have misjudged the situation, but the owner of that other dog made a mistake or two, as well. We humans can talk over biscuits and a nice cup of tea. That's not how animals handle things.
If a jealous parrot peels the meat off my finger bones, my bad. I knew I should have taken her more seriously. I didn't, so she went berserk. It's an asshole parrot with issues, but it was my decision to handle her. I'll slap her and I'll share my thoughts with her, but five minutes later I will go back to that very same parrot and try again. To get a more positive experience out of it for the both of us, and anyone else witnessing the carnage.
If a snake bites me or a scorpion stings me, it's highly probable that it was my fault. I am able to assess situations, make sense of the signals the animal in question sends out in its limited ways and I can decide to come back another day. The average animal does not have this choice, or even the raw processing power to ponder much over notions like this.
I am pro vivisection and pro animal testing, as long as we don't have alternatives. I love animals, so I'm also bound to love humans. Anything else would be very half-assed. However, animals have less choice, and what we perceive as cruelty coming from animals is not something they spend much thought on. They don't plan to be assholes. If we're out in the wild, we meet proud, strong and impressive beasts that would and could kill us without flinching, if we so much as gave them the opportunity. It's why we came up with weapons. Most animals come with all the weapons they need to defend themselves within the realm of nature. We don't have that. Maybe we used to have some of it. We don't anymore. So, we more than make up with brain power. However, not all of us make good use of that brain power. So - I find it far easier to consider a human I don't know to be an utter asshole I don't feel like going out of my way for. Animals, however, are not proper part of our unnatural ways. Some of them have 'chosen' to hang around with us. Most of those co-habit and co-exist in the cracks, inside our walls, on the other side of the painted structures we consider to make up proper habitat, not ever spending much though on the hollow portions of that thing we call 'home'.
From my very own ethic and moral vantage point, cruelty towards animals is the bigger sin, the lower deed, the less justifiable violence.
I could hand you several pages worth of reasons why misanthropy and the total and utter annihiliation of mankind would make proper sense. I could come up with, what, three lines at the very most of why we should wipe out any animal, and be it just friggin' ticks or midges.
We must preserve, for only we wield the power to annihilate everything.
Oh, and I absolutely despise PETA and I don't like WWF or Greenpeace much. I believe certain individuals amongst their ranks actually believe in what they do, and they do it properly. The rest - is the usual misguided asshole army bunch. But that's how we roll, isn't it.
No matter what any one of us manages to create, there's at least a thousand willing to piss all over it and tear it down.
It's what and how we really are.
Homo homini lupus.
I think we're a most fascinating bunch. I just wish we could breed out the asshole genes.
Captcha: until tomorrow
AngloDoom said:
This thread was inspired by that other thread,it completely different from a disguised version T_T
Trippy Turtle said:
While that might sound noble, it's actually a much less defensible position than you might think. Animal populations, and especially herbivore/prey animal populations have a built-in need for parts of the population to continually die off to remain healthy. In a crowded population, disease is sure to take hold, and the large number of members on too small an area ensures a slow and protracted death with a high risk of infecting others in the meantime. Aside from disease, there is the question of carrying capacity; area X can hold Y number of animal Z and still have them be reasonably well-fed and sheltered. When this is exceeded, non-migratory animals don't suddenly become migratory and move on to a territory that can feed them. No, they graze on what they can find, come winter many of them starve to death, and come spring the surviving females can't repopulate because gestation depends on food availability and fat stores. Suddenly overpopulation becomes underpopulation, and risks becoming no population.
Humans are apex predators; we hunt, but nothing hunts us. Do you want to know why killing a human isn't the same as killing an animal? Empathy and emotional connections. A moose cow, say, will let her calf tag along and give it suckle for maybe a little more than a year, after which she will drive it off herself because she's going to mate again, and the calf will be expected to fend for itself, and usually can and does. Humans are children for so long that a moose can be born, live and die of old age in the same timespan. A human child represents a considerable investment of time, resources and effort, and when it becomes an adult represents an equally considerable return on all of those commodities. This, from an evolutionary standpoint, justifies our strong emotional bonds, and empathy for one another.
This. All of this.Headdrivehardscrew said:
Eh? Might be the whole "Played mount and blade all night instead of working" thing, but are you making the argument that humanity is shit cause reasons?KaZuYa said:
Gonna have to counter with my usual: Humanity is humanity. The vast majority of people are not assholes. The vast majority of humans are totally and utterly nice people. Some people are assholes. And assholes are usually the loudest people. But the fact that we try to stop them, some of us even die to stop them, shows more about humanities beauty then anything else.
With the acception of, you know, all the art we have made and whatnot.
Yes, Humanity is sometimes less then pleasant. Everything is sometimes less then pleasant. All life is if conflict. Thats not an excuse, just a statement of fact. Everything kills, fights and fucks.
So... Yeah. If you were to choose your pet over a human, and were willing to watch a human get executed infront of you, you would be mentally ill. Displacement would be occuring, shit like that. You would not be sane. You cannot make that idea rational.
Humanity is not that bad.
Oh, and if you are going to attack "All" humans, as you are doing, could you please not use the universal "We". Personally, I do not murder, nor enslave, nor impoverish my own people. Far from it, I am a marxist activist. Just saying. If you are going to hate all of humanity, I would rather not be involved with your hatred in any way.
Well human abuse because, mainly because we are more intelligent and there are more ways for us to suffer.
Then again, humans are the only creatures I know of that "abuse" anyone or anything.
Then again, humans are the only creatures I know of that "abuse" anyone or anything.
The same could be said for humans in some areas so lets just assume everything is going swimmingly for the population of whatever animal/human you plan on killing.Ingjald said:
Your second argument explains well why we might choose to save a human over an animal but, unless I'm missing something, doesn't justify human abuse being worse than animal abuse.
Also certain animals live far longer than humans, and have a longer 'childhood' as far as I know. Would the time invested on them make it worse to kill them then humans?
Are humans actually Apex predators? A lion or shark or something could kill us and eat us if we were alone. I know prey sometimes uses group tactics to overcome a predator though so wouldn't that just make us well adapted prey instead of their predators?
I'm not sure what your answer to my first point means. Can humans be said to have a built in need for continuous predation? I'll assume you were referring to the carrying capacity question, to which I'll reply that humans have the brains to be aware of the problem, and the means to rectify it on a level that animals do not. Also, I'm not really arguing from a hypothetical scenario, so "assuming everything is going swimmingly" would'nt be applicable. I'm from Sweden; we have a moose population that ranges between 300.000 and 400.000, and the only predator we have that takes moose on a regular basis is the wolf, of which we have about 500 with a generous estimate. this imbalance causes problems for humans and animals alike,including the moose themselves, and therefore I feel the hunting is justified in that not hunting would cause an already imbalanced ecosystem to spiral out of control entirely.Trippy Turtle said:
Do also note that I responded to your claim that killing an animal would be as bad as killing a human, but in your response you seem to think that I'm trying to justify abuse, which is another matter entirely. In my first post, I reasoned around it, but didnt say one was worse than the other.
My point with the emotion and empathy part was about anthropomorphism; we know how devastating it would be for a mother to lose her child (which is evolutionarily justified), so without insight we might assume that a cow losing her calf would be the same (which isn't). The depth and width of our emotions is useful for forming tight-knit groups of the kind humans have always needed to thrive and survive, but not applicable to solitary animals, and not even applicable to most herd, flock or pack animals. Outside of primates, the only other example that comes to mind is the elephant, the hunting of which I certainly do not support.
As for your bonus question, Yes, Humans are apex predators. We aren't pure carnivores, but we are predators, we take prey. Meat in our diet was significant in the development of our brains. And we belong on the apex list because nothing hunts us as a matter of routine. Sure, there have been individual big cats, crocodiles and others that have decided that human tastes great, and even more instances of singular individuals, babies and small children being taken as prey of opportunity. But ever since we discovered fire and invented the spear, humans have been more trouble than we're worth as prey, and thus have continued to hunt, with nothing to hunt us.