Stick Online Forums

First off, I won't even respond to Torch as I stopped caring about his "opinions" long ago.

Secondly, to Mr Pwnage who believed animals intended to be killed for food are NOT always killed quickly and humanely nor are euthanized. Partially because it's more expensive that way. There was some group that went under cover to some large company(I want to say Hormel.. but I'm not 100% sure...) and they videotaped the employees torturing the pigs before killing them.. they would spray paint in their eyes, they would cut them, they'd cut off their tails, they'd do things that were indesputedly unnecessary to these pigs, and laughed about it.
No, I do not believe all butchers do this, I don't believe all butchers are cruel to the animals they kill. But it does happen.

And I would just like to point out that I don't personally believe that animals should be killed for their coats purely for fashionable reasons. Infact, it gives me unwanted chills to even touch rabbit/chinchilla/etc. fur coats... i presonally find it repulsing. I was more referring to the way native americans used animals... they used every part of the animal and didn't waste anything. To me, that's the most sensible way....

Quote from: Lingus on December 15, 2009, 08:22:44 PM

Quote from: Cactuscat222 on December 15, 2009, 07:27:10 PM
1) I made reference that we can survive without meat.

2) I don't hunt myself. I don't oppose hunting when the animal is killed for use. I say hunt for a reason, not killing for sport.

3) Humans haven't just been eating meat because we like it. If we decided to stop eating meats 100's of years ago, those people probably would have died off, due to our lack of understanding. Yeah, we have the understanding now. But it is still in our blood to be omnivores.

4) I'm talking about being vegan/vegetarian, for the sake of the animals. Why do you care about the animal in question? We have to survive somehow.

5) The entire growing meat in a vat is years off. I read the same article about it, and the scientists said "We are about 5 years off from having this meat meet the same quality of sausage". SAUSAGE. The worst meat out on the planet.

EDIT: Please read my posts before making assumptions like that. In fact, I can't see anything in your post about what I said that was ridiculous. All you mentioned was that we can survive without meat; I said there are plants that mimic that.... and that is about it for "whats ridiculous in my post".

You're way off. I did read your whole post. Get over yourself. You say you made reference that we can survive without meat. So why are you continuing to say we need it to survive. We don't... and I'm not even talking about vat meat. I actually said beans, nuts, etc. Soy bean in particular is a massive source of protien. And there are plenty others. So I say to YOU, read MY posts before responding...

And what the hell is wrong with not eating meat for the sake of the animal? People care a lot about animals. I would bet most animals are better people than most people.

It is an opinion, for god's sake. I was stating why I don't see you should be a vegetarian for the sake of the animal. Almost everyone else here says nearly the same thing; we kill and eat to survive. AND YOU HAD A POST ABOUT VAT MEAT, THAT'S WHY I BROUGHT IT UP. I have no problems with vegetarians, but I believe certain things like you do, but apparently my beliefs are wrong to you, oh hoh hoh.

I don't mind people questioning me, but to do it so antagonistically, like I'm criminal and inherently wrong just pisses me off.

EDIT: I don't understand where the misunderstanding occurred, but I blatantly oppose animal cruelty, and any harm, for the sake of harming the animal. I was stating that I disagree with the sentiment of being a vegetarian for the sake of the animals, as it is more or less futile. Yes, you can survive without eating meat; I never once said you couldn't. However, just because we CAN, doesn't mean we SHOULD. That is all.

To reiterate my view.  I don't have a problem with killing an animal, as long as you have a damn good reason to do it.  You want a fur coat?  Then you better be in a !@#$ing cold climate.  Killing for the sake of killing is a horrible thing.  You might as well be arguing that school shootings are a-okay.

"Hey, I'm bored!  Let's go kill things!"

Let me make this perfectly clear for ALL of you.  I attach no special meaning to any of your lives.  If you honestly want to argue with me that causing suffering to other living things is okay, then you damn well better not meet me in real life, because I will gladly use your moral code when dealing with you.

Quote from: Torch on December 15, 2009, 08:38:27 PM

Quote from: Delicious on December 15, 2009, 08:36:16 PM

Quote from: Torch on December 15, 2009, 08:29:15 PM
I don't know why, but I have no problem with any inhumane treatment of any animals except cats and huskys. I love meat and I see no reason why we shouldn't kill animals for meat when it tastes so good. There is no benefit to not eating meat or refusing to by fur coats, all that does is inconvenience you.

I agree that humans are, like any other animal out there, killers to another species (And our own at times). I also agree that I can't bare to watch dogs nor cats get treated horribly from all the other animals out there, maybe because we grown so close to them as our house pets.

Animal testing is a major problem as well... Has anyone seen the video with the cat that was put into a tank and given LSD? I mean, we don't need knowledge on what would happen if a cat was high on a drug such as that. There are plenty other useless tests done for the sake of doing them, and it's disgusting. Animals do not deserve to be tested with our chemicals.  :'(

All species care more for their own species than others. This is natural. It is better for us that the effects of drugs are tested on other animals than on humans.

Torch you are wrong. Testing on humans would be a lot more efficient then testing on animals. Seeing as testing on a human would produce a faster, more accurate result seeing as we have the same exact DNA; albeit being more costly.

Quote from: NotoriousM4^ on December 15, 2009, 09:11:26 PM

Quote from: Torch on December 15, 2009, 08:38:27 PM

Quote from: Delicious on December 15, 2009, 08:36:16 PM

Quote from: Torch on December 15, 2009, 08:29:15 PM
I don't know why, but I have no problem with any inhumane treatment of any animals except cats and huskys. I love meat and I see no reason why we shouldn't kill animals for meat when it tastes so good. There is no benefit to not eating meat or refusing to by fur coats, all that does is inconvenience you.

I agree that humans are, like any other animal out there, killers to another species (And our own at times). I also agree that I can't bare to watch dogs nor cats get treated horribly from all the other animals out there, maybe because we grown so close to them as our house pets.

Animal testing is a major problem as well... Has anyone seen the video with the cat that was put into a tank and given LSD? I mean, we don't need knowledge on what would happen if a cat was high on a drug such as that. There are plenty other useless tests done for the sake of doing them, and it's disgusting. Animals do not deserve to be tested with our chemicals.  :'(

All species care more for their own species than others. This is natural. It is better for us that the effects of drugs are tested on other animals than on humans.

Torch you are wrong. Testing on humans would be a lot more efficient then testing on animals. Seeing as testing on a human would produce a faster, more accurate result seeing as we have the same exact DNA; albeit being more costly.

But because as humans, we care more about other humans, it is safer for us to test on non-humans.

If it's potentially not-safe for human beings, what makes us think using it on other living creatures is okay?  They can feel pain just as much as we can.  You can say we care more about our own species, and that's true.  But what makes it right?  Aren't we supposed to be the 'intelligent' ones?


EDIT:  Lingus, Cactus, settle down, take a deep breathe.  We're adults, yes?  Let's discuss like them, shall we?  No need to get antagonistic.  Clarify your positions and get on the same page.

(Yes, I sound like a hypocrite.  Alas, I don't really care.)

DOUBLE EDIT:  Actually, looking back at this topic, it's seems to have gotten pretty heated on every side.  Let's all take a deep breathe, then, and take this back to a mature discussion.

Quote from: Torch on December 15, 2009, 09:20:16 PM

Quote from: NotoriousM4^ on December 15, 2009, 09:11:26 PM

Quote from: Torch on December 15, 2009, 08:38:27 PM

Quote from: Delicious on December 15, 2009, 08:36:16 PM

Quote from: Torch on December 15, 2009, 08:29:15 PM
I don't know why, but I have no problem with any inhumane treatment of any animals except cats and huskys. I love meat and I see no reason why we shouldn't kill animals for meat when it tastes so good. There is no benefit to not eating meat or refusing to by fur coats, all that does is inconvenience you.

I agree that humans are, like any other animal out there, killers to another species (And our own at times). I also agree that I can't bare to watch dogs nor cats get treated horribly from all the other animals out there, maybe because we grown so close to them as our house pets.

Animal testing is a major problem as well... Has anyone seen the video with the cat that was put into a tank and given LSD? I mean, we don't need knowledge on what would happen if a cat was high on a drug such as that. There are plenty other useless tests done for the sake of doing them, and it's disgusting. Animals do not deserve to be tested with our chemicals.  :'(

All species care more for their own species than others. This is natural. It is better for us that the effects of drugs are tested on other animals than on humans.

Torch you are wrong. Testing on humans would be a lot more efficient then testing on animals. Seeing as testing on a human would produce a faster, more accurate result seeing as we have the same exact DNA; albeit being more costly.

But because as humans, we care more about other humans, it is safer for us to test on non-humans.

That is not a fact, that is an opinion.

The central tenet of my views is that humans are higher than animals. Period. If you can understand the implications of that, you'll very quickly understand my view. Hitler, we'll use him. We all know he was muck. That is on a moral/ethical scale. Are there MICE that have been higher on the ethical scale? I'll bet. However, Hitler has a higher intelligence. If he had done right, he would have been far higher on that scale than a mouse. On a side note, I've often wondered what might have happened to our world if Hitler had obeyed God. Even though scientists classify humans as animals(yes, I knew that already, chaos), they have yet to identify what separates humans from beasts. There is a difference. I don't see apes building cities. I don't think that being alive makes you equals. Are you really saying that you have no more worth than an amoeba?

Chaos, apologies. Even if my views were the same as yours, I don't think I'd like to run into you in real life. You seem rather mean. You may be passionate about your belief, but I think the insults were uncalled for.

Quote from: Jackabomb on December 15, 2009, 10:20:34 PM
The central tenet of my views is that humans are higher than animals. Period. If you can understand the implications of that, you'll very quickly understand my view. Hitler, we'll use him. We all know he was muck. That is on a moral/ethical scale. Are there MICE that have been higher on the ethical scale? I'll bet. However, Hitler has a higher intelligence. If he had done right, he would have been far higher on that scale than a mouse. On a side note, I've often wondered what might have happened to our world if Hitler had obeyed God. Even though scientists classify humans as animals(yes, I knew that already, chaos), they have yet to identify what separates humans from beasts. There is a difference. I don't see apes building cities. I don't think that being alive makes you equals. Are you really saying that you have no more worth than an amoeba?

Chaos, apologies. Even if my views were the same as yours, I don't think I'd like to run into you in real life. You seem rather mean. You may be passionate about your belief, but I think the insults were uncalled for.

Gtfo. Seriously I'm tired of every damn topic going back to Nazis, and Religion. We can definitely have a civilized debate without bringing up the two. And if your trying to debate on morals and ethics then this is clearly going nowhere.

Edit: Chaos I would love to have you on my debate team  ;). [I'm one trophy away from competing in Finals]

Well, for one Notorious, this debate is about Morals and Ethics.

Religion is VERY tied in with both Morals and Ethics, so he is completely justified in bringing it up. Hitler is always brought up because it is the best absolute case we can think of.

Next, Jackabomb... Scientists have already found what makes us different from beasts. Heck, it wasn't even scientists, it only takes someone with a brain to figure out. We can REASON, we can THINK (at least on a much much higher scale than they can). We surpass their knowledge and intelligence, and with reason. That is what makes us different. We are animals - humans do alot of things, that are incredibly stupid, that even animals wouldn't do.

I really understand your viewpoint. I do tend to hold humans in higher regards, but I don't think we are on the higher pedestal.

Quote from: Chaos on December 15, 2009, 09:31:49 PM
If it's potentially not-safe for human beings, what makes us think using it on other living creatures is okay?  They can feel pain just as much as we can.  You can say we care more about our own species, and that's true.  But what makes it right?  Aren't we supposed to be the 'intelligent' ones?

Nothing makes it "right". Morals differ from person to person. There's no way to argue whether or not it's "right" because it is an opinion. Animal fur makes excellent material for clothing so the most logical choice is to make use of that. If someone finds this morally wrong, they have the option to not buy fur coats, and that's fine by me. I just wish people wouldn't force their own moral values upon people who don't think the same way as they do.

@Notorious: What I said wasn't an opinion. I said species care more for their own species. I shouldn't have to prove that to you, I think it's pretty obvious but if you don't believe that, I won't argue it with you.

Quote from: Chaos on December 15, 2009, 09:08:27 PM
I don't have a problem with killing an animal, as long as you have a damn good reason to do it.  You want a fur coat?  Then you better be in a !@#$ing cold climate.  Killing for the sake of killing is a horrible thing.

This guy is one of the few people in this topic that has the right idea about all of this.

As an agricultural and horticulture student, I actually know a thing or two about all of this. During my classes I did go to a slaughter house and witnessed all of this. I know what it is like. I'm also an animal lover (like most here). Anyway, Chaos and others have made a reference to the "energy cycle" (without using the name), for those who don't know what this is it's the cycle of matter/energy/whatever you call it. An example of this would be when you eat something and the nutrients gathered from whatever you just ate are used in the body. The output of this energy for humans can be anything of the following; bone growth, hair growth, ability to run and walk, poo, etc. Now any physics students should know that the output energy that comes from a reaction is the same as the input energy.

Therefore, In = Out.

In the example I said above, I stated a number of outputs, most of these were solely in the body itself. However poo is a waste product. Now, in chaos's fur coat is also a waste product (only becuase the animal is dead and has no need for it), Chaos makes the reference to the "usefulness" to the waste produces. As there is no point wearing a fur coat in Melbourne during summer time! But have any of you ever thought how poo can be useful? It's very useful in terms of agriculture and horticulture. Did anyone know that Urea (piss) is 46% nitrogen and is the most major nutrient for plant growth? With that said, it would make more sense to "sell" our poo cheaply to farmers to use as fertiliser? Now that's an idea. It helps plant growth and completes the energy cycle. Plus we have some cow hides to make leather with.

I might be a little unclear with this, but I'll drew a diagram of the energy cycle with a human, a plant and a cow in it.



Conclusion: Everything has it's place in the world, if science has taught me anything it's that humans are no means special then anyone else. If have to kill something then use what have have killed well.

Also on another note, Jackabomb GTFU.

Quote from: Torch on December 15, 2009, 10:36:10 PM
Nothing makes it "right". Morals differ from person to person. There's no way to argue whether or not it's "right" because it is an opinion. Animal fur makes excellent material for clothing so the most logical choice is to make use of that. If someone finds this morally wrong, they have the option to not buy fur coats, and that's fine by me. I just wish people wouldn't force their own moral values upon people who don't think the same way as they do.

Does that mean you think Schindler was wrong for trying to save as many Jews as he could during the Holocaust? After all, he was imposing his beliefs into Hitlers view system, despite the fact that his Morals were not anymore right or wrong than Hitlers.

Quote from: Jackabomb on December 15, 2009, 10:20:34 PM
The central tenet of my views is that humans are higher than animals. Period. If you can understand the implications of that, you'll very quickly understand my view. Hitler, we'll use him. We all know he was muck. That is on a moral/ethical scale. Are there MICE that have been higher on the ethical scale? I'll bet. However, Hitler has a higher intelligence. If he had done right, he would have been far higher on that scale than a mouse. On a side note, I've often wondered what might have happened to our world if Hitler had obeyed God. Even though scientists classify humans as animals(yes, I knew that already, chaos), they have yet to identify what separates humans from beasts. There is a difference. I don't see apes building cities. I don't think that being alive makes you equals. Are you really saying that you have no more worth than an amoeba?

I didn't say being alive makes you equal.  I said that being intelligent doesn't make you BETTER.  Humans are intelligent, yes.  We are not fast.  We can not fly.  We can not breathe under water.  We can't (easily) climb trees.  We aren't very strong.  We can't jump very high.  The list goes on.  My question is, what makes the gift of complex intelligence so special?  Claiming you're superior because you can think a bit better is an awfully arrogant statement.  

And if we aren't superior, then, logically, we are equal.  We aren't better than other animals.  We just happen to have a different strength.

As far as moral and ethics go, there is no such thing.  It's a man-made construct, and we set the rules on right and wrong.

Let me put this another way.  An alien race arrives on earth.  They are far more intelligent and advanced.  Obviously, by your logic, that means they are superior to us.  Therefore, they should be allowed to take advantage of us and be allowed to kill us for their own amusement?  If you would not want that, why would you think it's okay to do it to other living creatures?

Quote from: Jake on December 15, 2009, 11:02:03 PM

Quote from: Torch on December 15, 2009, 10:36:10 PM
Nothing makes it "right". Morals differ from person to person. There's no way to argue whether or not it's "right" because it is an opinion. Animal fur makes excellent material for clothing so the most logical choice is to make use of that. If someone finds this morally wrong, they have the option to not buy fur coats, and that's fine by me. I just wish people wouldn't force their own moral values upon people who don't think the same way as they do.

Does that mean you think Schindler was wrong for trying to save as many Jews as he could during the Holocaust? After all, he was imposing his beliefs into Hitlers view system, despite the fact that his Morals were not anymore right or wrong than Hitlers.

Hitler was trying to enforce his beliefs upon other people. Schindler was trying to prevent that.