Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I like it better than the last one

It's good, but I don't see the need with the discussion thread

It's not going to go anywhere good, just lock it now.

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

That's with domesticated pets when you start to tread onto how humans treat them like that
And I'm not sure for that
You stab a wild wolf pup and it's mom will kill you, or it will certainly bite you
But domesticated animals can and have just sit there and take it
I don't know honestly with that

No animal cruelty isn't ok, why kill something that just wants to protect you?
There is no reason for it and it's not ok

[UXLZ]

Not really sure. What I can extrapolate from the Bible, is that Lucifer[I'll call him "Lucy" for short] wanted mankind to be able to perceive good and evil. God wanted them to be ignorant, because They knew that, given knowledge of good and evil, they could choose evil, which was bad. After the whole Garden debacle, Lucy was stripped of his wings[Dragon turned to serpent] and cast down. Not really sure what canonically hapens afterwards. The Bible describes Lucy a fair bit less then the actual Church does[See "Shitty fanfics, above"]. In any case, according to Revelation[Questionable canon, please take with 1/12th of a saltshaker], Lucy would be cast into Hell[Described as a pit of burning brimstone] for eternity at the same time as everyone else at the Last Judgement. Not ruling it. IN it.

That seems logical, though I think we're better off going purely with what's in the Bible. Everything else is... Questionable, at best, one would think, being written by humans, who are flawed. I think the original bible was written by God on golden tablets or something though I may be getting confused.

Let me backpedal a bit though... I thought free will was something God gave to humans (that is, the ability to choose)? Was it Lucy instead, and God merely chose not to immediately take free will away thus 'giving' it to humans?
Also, can you please fill me in on a bit of the context I must be missing? Because that short version is seriously, seriously making me think Lucy was the 'good guy' in this scenario. Actually, I think I remember hearing something else and actually thinking that I sympathized a lot more with Lucy than with God, which will probably condemn me to hell or something. Anyway, what am I missing?
Also, how could Lucy possibly have done something against God's wishes? It's omniscient and omnipotent (apparently), so I can't understand how Lucy was able to get around that and actually do something that God truly, seriously didn't want Lucy to do (as opposed to just something God said It didn't want Lucy to do but it was Just As Planned all along. Actually, given my understanding of God it seems to be totally impossible for something to *not* be Just As Planned). Is there some sort of clause exempting the angels from God's direct influence or something? Seriously, what am I missing? >_>


Also, Dwarfy, I read the question about stabbing the puppy and did think it was really heavily loaded. Which I've been guilty of myself, actually, I think you said that I was guilty of it. >_>

[TD1]

That's with domesticated pets when you start to tread onto how humans treat them like that
And I'm not sure for that
You stab a wild wolf pup and it's mom will kill you, or it will certainly bite you
But domesticated animals can and have just sit there and take it
I don't know honestly with that

No animal cruelty isn't ok, why kill something that just wants to protect you?
There is no reason for it and it's not ok

Someone stabs you, your mum will do her utmost to harm them if she's nearby. This only shows that animals are as soulful as humans. Different doesn't make it somehow less, don't you agree?

Also, Dwarfy, I read the question about stabbing the puppy and did think it was really heavily loaded. Which I've been guilty of myself, actually, I think you said that I was guilty of it. >_>

I did? Well, I wasn't aware it was particularly loaded in any case, just an emotive way to ask the question.

[smeeprocket]

That's with domesticated pets when you start to tread onto how humans treat them like that
And I'm not sure for that
You stab a wild wolf pup and it's mom will kill you, or it will certainly bite you
But domesticated animals can and have just sit there and take it
I don't know honestly with that

No animal cruelty isn't ok, why kill something that just wants to protect you?
There is no reason for it and it's not ok

well okay, but domestic animals are especially for human use, we've selectively bred them for that.

but, let's say it is a wild animal. Is animal cruelty okay in that sense?

If like, instead of hunting deers I were to shoot their legs off and let them die slowly and leave the carcasses, would that be bad? Because in the context of animals being for human use, I would -think- that that would be acceptable, even if just because it gave the hunter involved entertainment.

Once again, I am not saying you are okay with that, I am just trying to take the argument to what I feel is its logical conclusion.

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

No
How in the heck does that fit in with animals for human use?
Deer are out there for naturey things as well as food not entertainment


Animals are different than humans, they can have emotions but they weren't made as humans were they weren't made in his image or with the special things we were given

[UXLZ]

Even if animals are solely for human use God obviously gave them emotions, if not sapience. One would think that willfully causing another thing suffering, even if it was soulless, would be perceived as bad by God.
As, indeed, would slaughtering random wild animals needlessly. They're there to maintain the planet's ecosystem, as I'm pretty sure It isn't actively doing the gardening.

I did? Well, I wasn't aware it was particularly loaded in any case, just an emotive way to ask the question.

I think so, at least. I dunno, maybe I read it wrong but the question seemed to imply that 'if you believe that animals are solely for human use you are supportive of animal cruelty and an inhuman monster.' Maybe I read too much into it, though.

[TD1]

I did? Well, I wasn't aware it was particularly loaded in any case, just an emotive way to ask the question.

I think so, at least. I dunno, maybe I read it wrong but the question seemed to imply that 'if you believe that animals are solely for human use you are supportive of animal cruelty and an inhuman monster.' Maybe I read too much into it, though.

No, that's a fair interpretation. Just not one I'd thought of when writing it, but it shows I have to be careful with what I write
t:
Edit: To Cryxis

Animals are different than humans, they can have emotions but they weren't made as humans were they weren't made in his image or with the special things we were given

What do we display that other animals do not? What makes humanity any better? We have all the same vices present in the animal kingdom, and all the same redeeming qualities.

[Arx]

We display reasoning, intelligwnce, sentience - whatever you want to call it. We're the only animals that have it.

This is also an answer to how to be in the image of a metaphysical concept, I think.

[UXLZ]

What do we display that other animals do not? What makes humanity any better? We have all the same vices present in the animal kingdom, and all the same redeeming qualities.

Actually, Ii'd argue that we have both more vices and redeeming qualities.
I'm not sure about what Cryxis thinks, but the obvious answer is sapience. We (well, I) can't actually be sure that animals aren't sapient/sentient, truthfully, but neither can I claim to be sure about the level of intelligent thought of say, a rock.
Also, the ability to save another species' from extinction (though I wouldn't say the ability to wipe another one out is unique.)
Large-scale fighting within the species. (Wars)
Advanced technology beyond simple tools.
Complex speech.

Some of these are admittedly not intrinsic to humans and are rather developments that have occurred over time, and animals could be capable of complex speech that is simply beyond our knowledge. Though once again, the same could also be said of a rock. Or an atom.

@Arx
Why the hell did your avatar wink at me?
Also, I'd swear everyone but Cryxis is changing their avatar every time they make a post. Am I just insane?

[MonkeyHead]

We display reasoning, intelligwnce, sentience - whatever you want to call it. We're the only animals that have it.

Demonstrably false.

[smeeprocket]

We display reasoning, intelligwnce, sentience - whatever you want to call it. We're the only animals that have it.

This is also an answer to how to be in the image of a metaphysical concept, I think.

this is wrong, I'm not arguing on a religious level, I'm just saying that statement, which is commonly expressed is wrong.

Plenty of animals use reason to accomplish things, are intelligent, and... I think sentience needs to be defined before you can go one way or the other on that.

Animals use tools, express deep emotions, feel pain, can be deceptive, can do some crazy things to outsmart their competition, and on a more depressing level, some species are capable of torture and rape.

Now if you are saying that as a religious belief, then that's fine. But I assume your statement was made outside of a dogmatic perception but meant as a general statement.

Cryxis, Prince of Doom

I'm seriously not trying to offend you. I'm wondering if what I am defining as existing for human use is different than your definition. Because if an animal exists for human use it seems like any use that fulfills a desire of a human, whether as work animals or entertainment, would be acceptable. If not, does the Bible draw a distinction, and if not, where do you draw the line exactly?

[UXLZ]

Demonstrably possibly false.

The scientific status of "consciousness" in animals continues to be hotly debated

[smeeprocket]

Demonstrably possibly false.

The scientific status of "consciousness" in animals continues to be hotly debated

tbf, all evidence points to it being false. But once you start attributing creatures like rats as sentients, you can't just test on them in a myriad of oftentimes sadistic and unnecessary ways. A moral dilemma arises that no one wants to confront.

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

Many different forms of communication (we have more than one language and correct me if I'm wrong but most animals that can communicate only speak in one 'language')
Sentience
Preservation of life (I don't know how many animals know how to keep each other from dieing)
Inteligence (unless dolphins are running Atlantice (however you spell it))
The power to physically destroy everything (I do not know of a single animal that has the ability to kill everything in it's path with no resistance)
Other things that have been mentioned



-animals for human use- when I said this I meant to say they are here to 'support' 'help' 'assist' 'keep nature running' I don't know the right words. They are here for us to use for things like farming and protection, entertainment maybe but not cruel entertainment where pain is used.
I draw the line at hurting the animal.
Having an animal pull a plow doesn't harm it especialy if you feed it. Forcing it to pull the plow till it dies of exaughtion is not ok

[Arx]

However you want to define it, there's a difference between humans and apes, cetaceans, and so on. I am well aware of the whole animal cognition deal; I phrased that poorly.

UXLZ:

The wink is just because.  The changes are avatar rotators.