Print

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

[Akhier the Dragon hearted]

but obviously they are trying to devalue my highly unique product by comparing it with animals of a more common nature and really when it comes down to it you can sue almost anyone nowadays.

[Jackrabbit]

A state where a living creature is aware of it surroundings.

"Doesn't that mean that you could sue anyone on the planet?"
"Not just people, animals too. Hell, if I wanted I could sue a fucking octopus."

[Yanlin]

Hey, that octopus ripped off my 8 sided dildo.

[Akhier the Dragon hearted]

ah but they counter sue because they have concrete evidence that they did in fact come before you 8 thanged widget.

[Yanlin]

Bullshit. My dildo was patented by me way before that Octopussy patented its tentacles.

[Jackrabbit]

Reguardless, it's an animal so should obviously winany legal battles reguardless of it's standing

[Splendiferous]

you guys would make terrible lawyers.

[Jackrabbit]

We're good at sarcasm though. Also, I have no respect for my fellow man so I think I could make a pretty good lawyer.

[Areyar]

Some of my arguments against excessive animal protectionism.

1) HUMANS ARE NOT SPECIAL
I'm an animal, an omnivore at that, why should I not eat meat?
Other animals are allowed to do so by PETA.
Sure this implies other animals should be allowed to feed on me. Sure, but I intend to use my natural advantages (brains and technological tools) to avoid such a fate. Any other animal with a survival instinct would!

2) Domestication is natural too:
Domesticated animals are bred, specifically with the goal of feeding humans, that is their sole purpose on earth. Without that purpose they would not have been conceived, without humans to breed, feed and protect them from natural predators. I even severely doubt any would survive past the initial generation after being left to fend for themselves, they would either be killed by predators, outcompeted or die of starvation in droves (over population/grazing).
Domestication is a form of symbiotism: selected animals gain the benefit of human protection and edge against natural competition in trade of being excusively preyed opon by humans.

2b) Good intentions pave the road to hell:
I'm always annoyed by animalists that release ferrets, minks and such fur animals in the wild. Without considdering the harm these will do when released outside their natural habitat.
killing local competitors, breeding birds etc. Like cats in Australia.
These generalist onmivores, will overwhelm local specialized animals. Natural selection sure, but human induced.

These two points combined yield one point in favour of animal rights though: (higher) animals are aware of their surroundings and themselves, inficting suffering on an aware being IS an ethical crime.
Definitions of cruelty, suffering and awareness tend to vary though.

[numerobis]

I once had someone argue that humans are biologically best geared to eating raw grains and fruits, just like gorillas, our closest relatives.

It was hard to be nice while correcting this person.

(For the record, I choose not to eat meat, because I don't need to, and I don't like the taste.  But I don't claim I'm doing something natural.)

[Yanlin]

Some of my arguments against excessive animal protectionism.

1) HUMANS ARE NOT SPECIAL
I'm an animal, an omnivore at that, why should I not eat meat?
Other animals are allowed to do so by PETA.
Sure this implies other animals should be allowed to feed on me. Sure, but I intend to use my natural advantages (brains and technological tools) to avoid such a fate. Any other animal with a survival instinct would!

2) Domestication is natural too:
Domesticated animals are bred, specifically with the goal of feeding humans, that is their sole purpose on earth. Without that purpose they would not have been conceived, without humans to breed, feed and protect them from natural predators. I even severely doubt any would survive past the initial generation after being left to fend for themselves, they would either be killed by predators, outcompeted or die of starvation in droves (over population/grazing).
Domestication is a form of symbiotism: selected animals gain the benefit of human protection and edge against natural competition in trade of being excusively preyed opon by humans.

2b) Good intentions pave the road to hell:
I'm always annoyed by animalists that release ferrets, minks and such fur animals in the wild. Without considdering the harm these will do when released outside their natural habitat.
killing local competitors, breeding birds etc. Like cats in Australia.
These generalist onmivores, will overwhelm local specialized animals. Natural selection sure, but human induced.

These two points combined yield one point in favour of animal rights though: (higher) animals are aware of their surroundings and themselves, inficting suffering on an aware being IS an ethical crime.
Definitions of cruelty, suffering and awareness tend to vary though.

Amen.

[Jackrabbit]

I once had someone argue that humans are biologically best geared to eating raw grains and fruits, just like gorillas, our closest relatives.

It was hard to be nice while correcting this person.

(For the record, I choose not to eat meat, because I don't need to, and I don't like the taste.  But I don't claim I'm doing something natural.)

And thats why we accept you!

[MuonDecay]

I once had someone argue that humans are biologically best geared to eating raw grains and fruits, just like gorillas, our closest relatives.

It was hard to be nice while correcting this person.

(For the record, I choose not to eat meat, because I don't need to, and I don't like the taste.  But I don't claim I'm doing something natural.)

[Duke 2.0]

 If he is such a bad guy, why did he give them bibs?

[Jackrabbit]

He's really fussy?