(Untitled)

[monkee_madness]

"Defenders of speciesism often argue that humans are superior to other species because of their greater intelligence. Taken to its logical extreme, this argument would imply that humans with higher I.Q. scores should have more rights than humans with lower I.Q. scores."http://www.svar.org

Comments

[bamzam229]

I do consider your points. It's just they aren't reasonable points.

Whatever you do, benefits you as well. Whether it's that feel-good feeling through some thought of making this place a better world.

What you're doing is for your own salvation to feel good about yourself, not for any animals.

I care about them in a whole different way than just trying to protect them from the world.

Far be it from me to to have to explain how lions aren't responsible at all. In fact there barely even hunters. There more scavengers than hunters.

Ever think that when lions do eat too much, their prey's population goes down, and then the lion population goes down. It's not a constant at all. It's very much in fluctuation. Not through some natural "responsible" hunting that animal lovers seem to think of. It's not realistic. That goes with all sorts of different examples of animals being so more "responsible" than humans.

I'm not saying stop living the way you do, just stop thinking everyone needs to live like you for this to be a better place. And if you don't think that, don't act as if you do, saying, Stop making excuses for the way you live is a real self-righteous thing to say. You're saying that as if you're somehow above me seeing all that I do in my life.

self-right·eous /ˌsɛlfˈraɪtʃəs, ˈsɛlf-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[self-rahy-chuhs, self-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-adjective
confident of one's own righteousness, esp. when smugly moralistic and intolerant of the opinions and behavior of others.

If you're going to point back a word that I use, know what it means. I am not intolerant of your behavior. You're the one thinking I need to make excuses for my life.

I'm going to link to a story that's titled "A Week of Eating Dangerously". It has some interesting info about chopsticks. Also, the whole story is about the author eating un-PC foods all week. And we talks about all sorts of stuff to do with the corresponding foods.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/29023.html

and the last paragraph: "A line from the Greek poet Bion comes to mind: "Little boys throw stones at frogs in jest, though the frogs die, not in jest, but in earnest." This doesn't suggest we should try to forcibly change the ways of little boys. Nor does it ignore the sacrifice that the frogs make on their behalf."

He even says "indifference doesn't suit me."

[bamzam229]

Well, I am intolerant of your self-righteousness, but that is certainly justifiable.

As for your vegetarianism, go on, keep on keepin on.

[monkee_madness]

No that isn't what it is. You can't say I'm intolerant of your behaviour just because I think differently than you do. If I say "eating animals is wrong" and you say "No it isn't" that's fine, and I am sorry about your lack of compassion. Its the fact that you deny these things happening that is ignorant. You could say yes they happen but I don't give a crap and that would be different than blatantly ignoring fact. Its like you are trying to argue that something isn't wrong because you don't think it really happens.

Scavengers will pick off of something that's already been killed, unlike lions who do hunt.

You have no idea why other people do things unless you listen to them, and you've obviously missed the point. By a longshot.

[bamzam229]

It's the fact that you add "I'm sorry you lack compassion"

Just because I eat meat doesn't mean I lack compassion. This is what I'm talking about with your self-righteousness you talk down to me and others who don't see it your way.

Like I said, lions are more scavengers than hunters, I didn't say they didn't hunt. I just said they were more scavengers than hunters. That doesn't mean they aren't hunters.

[monkee_madness]

They aren't MORE scavengers than hunters. Or do you say that because the females to the hunting. Anyway, it is applaudable that rather than feeling the need to hunt EVERY time, they would make use of something they found that a hyena left. Waste not.

[bamzam229]

Just looked up one site and it said, "40% of their diet is from scavenging" another said, most.

It's a toss up.

But as to the point that lions are "responsible", that's poppycock.

[monkee_madness]

Ok what you lack is the willingness to critically examine your own behaviour. Maybe you are afraid of change? That's what gets most people.

I'm sorry you think I speak down to you. You insisting that you know my motives and that they are "self righteous" is speaking down to me. I am only trying to get people to examine. Maybe you know other people who promote the same things I do in a different way, and in those similarities it provokes thoughts of hostility because of what you have seen somebody else do.

If me questioning your logic and very method of existance insults you, then I don't think you are actually as confidant of your position as you think you are.

[bamzam229]

You're not questioning my logic.

You're questioning my behavior by saying things like "You lack compassion".

That has nothing to do with my logic.

[bamzam229]

I'm not afraid of change. I'm not going to be for change that is absolutely asinine though.

I would really like some response to the argument on what rights are.

Just because we see instances of animals behave morally (that's simply a personification).

I'm sorry I think if you screaming is more important than a dog yelping.

There's potential with humans. What potential do animals have other than dying in a middle of a forest?

Just as lions give purpose to an abandoned dead carcass, we give purpose to animals we kill for fur coats. Otherwise, they'd rot. With coats, their beauty is shared with generations. And it doesn't mean foxes/minks will go extinct.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/30401.html

If you read anything that I post from this site, read this one. It's about Africans living on the borders of national parks that have to deal with alligators, gazelles, giraffes and things that have to deal with regulations that say they can't kill them or build things since it's "protected land". They found a way to make things work without that jazz though.

Or a separate link explaining what CAMPFIRE does if you don't want to read something from reason.com. (I tend to overuse that site anyway).

http://www.american.edu/TED/campfire.htm

If animals are made to be something that can't be used for any sort of resource, why should we try to conserve their populations? They're populations will only grow and grow. That gives people incentive to poach. Sell things on the black market heedlessly because of really needless high prices.

Perhaps this will open YOUR eyes.