Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Squees Lair. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Locked Topic
Is owning a pet the same as slavery and is it wrong or right?; look at Title.
Topic Started: Jul 4 2013, 09:00 PM (2,180 Views)
Warden of Wisdom
Member Avatar
The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent. -Carl Sagan
I'm not even going to debate this anymore. It would take hours and hours to explain your misconceptions of evolution and natural selection, as well as others. Let's just agree to disagree.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Torabisu
Member Avatar

I actually would like to know how am I wrong? And so I shall not agree to disagree.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Warden of Wisdom
Member Avatar
The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent. -Carl Sagan
I don't really feel like taking the time to explain this. Maybe later.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
PvtCryan502
Member Avatar
More than Just a Conjurer of Cheap Tricks
Okay so I decided To step in, and this is rediculous. Here we go the definition of slavery for first find here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/slavery?s=t

Now pets as slavery....... Not really.
Why
1. most "pets" as slavery is because people are bastards and abuse them which I'm totally against.
2. Pets if you hadn't noticed would retaliate, and moan in pain if it wasn't bad. Because their pets they live at least twice to three times their lifespans.
3. Their Companions you want to bring a kind of arguement I've seen in Pokemon Black and White. N supports pokemon so they can be free, and whenever. This happens while you as the player go across a continent fighting against them because pokemon are your friends, and you take care of them better than most modern parents with their children.
4. It's rediculous for farm animals to be released because it's "slavery". So let's say you freed them. (good job) What will you do for the human population to compensate for the lack in dairy, and meat products. Vegetarianism? There's something called alergies which humans die from if from the wrong mushroom or WHEAT.

Now my opinion is out let's butt heads with you:
Animals have some intelligence to choose to eat things or not. If you see they are geared to survival. The dog for the treat to stave the everyday hunger, the chimpanzee to eat more in its condition, the human to answer the question to the test to make sure he gets the job. Through this life is put in choices, and things like praise are added side products. The motivation you speak of is to live. But animals can't debate, animals can't make technology, ANIMALS CAN'T BUILD SPACESHIPS TO THE MOON. Now this is arrogant but animals, can't surpass humanity. Maybe the chimpanzee but don't forget the chimpanzee is related to MAN. Who can do those things.
Plus nothing can replace us. NOTHING. And even then NATURAL SELECTION is evolution through survival of the fittest. Not replacing a species evolving to survive. Doesnt involve anyone but the individual making sure that he lives to see tomorrow not take up a mantle because one species is gone.
Now farmming. Yeah farms could use a few more regs to not hook the animals on steroids, but whatever. Why did we domesticate them? Because yeah we evolved the fastest and thus took control. Animals can't be on a level like humanity. Why? Not because they can';t evlove is because MAN has raised itself so far so fast they can't catch up unless something wipes us out. Then maybe in the time it took us they can replace us maybe. If there are hostile aliens. Which could couldn't but hasn't happened yet so IT AINT HAPPENING based on now. And even then those aliens would probably replace humans, but that's a big assumption and WAY TOO MANY IFS. And now you're saying that seeing if you can is unethical? Why cause we have them in a box, and are watching.
So what's our evidence that being a pet that's sheltered, fed, taken care of, loved, and healed, is better than being out in the wild free, dying, being hunted, unsheltered, and just stayiing in one place? (Hint: It's a rhetorical question)((Double hint: Don't be cute and give a rhetorical answer it would be stupid))
How are human emotions more complex?
Does the dog feel guilt over killing it's own kind? Does it feel responsible for feeding a nation? No because it doesn't have the power or the station to. They can be happy but we can have more like guilt because all they have to worry about is eating and breathing while others have to worry about the health, and pride of their nations.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
ViperKang
Member Avatar

I'm with Warden on this one. It's clear you are VERY set in your way of thinking and your way of thinking goes against pretty much everything science knows about animals. So I'm going to agree to disagree. You keep fightin the good fight tora.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Torabisu
Member Avatar

PvtCryan I take it that you have not read the prior post for if you have than one would know that I'm no longer stating that animals are the same as slaves but since your post directs to me I shall respond. Italic = I do not fully comprehend what is written.

" Now pets as slavery....... Not really.
Why(:)
1. most "pets" as slavery is because people are bastards and abuse them which I'm totally against."
So your saying some pets are slaves... dependent on their circumstances. OK
" 2. Pets if you hadn't noticed would retaliate, and moan in pain if it wasn't bad. Because their pets they live at least twice to three times their lifespans."
People who were slaves have retaliated and suffered. Also I do not see how lifespans relate to slavery.
" 3. Their Companions you want to bring a kind of argument I've seen in Pokemon Black and White. N supports Pokemon so they can be free, and whenever(whatever). This happens while you as the player go across a continent fighting against them because Pokemon are your friends, and you take care of them better than most modern parents with their children."
I can understand that a video game may hold some sort of point but how does that relate to our debate. I'm not saying that we should let them into the wild or be independent from our society and also a difference from the Pokemon universe from our own that is worth noting is that all Pokemon are able to communicate in the same language that also humans can understand. (I think but I could be wrong and if so inform me.)
What I suggest is research to find more efficient ways of teaching animals behaviors more effectively in turn benefiting their lives; not some-sort of idiotic revolt that attacks the people who support their ideals. (I have not played either Pokemon White or Black so I may be miss-leading due to my lack of knowledge of the events partaken.)
"4. It's re(-e +i)diculous for farm animals to be released because it's "slavery". So let's say you freed them. (good job) What will you do for the human population to compensate for the lack in dairy, and meat products. Vegetarianism? There's something called al(l)ergies which humans die from if from the wrong mushroom or WHEAT."
Well I did not know that their were people who were allergic to anything non-meat or non-dairy. I say if someone was allergic to tomatoes they can still be a vegetarian but they simply have to be cautious of tomatoes so how many humans will die well I would say it be the same as it were before but that's my take of it. Also do you expect that meat products will disappear or something. Why? Maybe your referring to the ideal of letting them go into the wild and if that's the case than the amount of food being produced(meet and dairy) shall decline and I can see that to be possible but I think that people will one way or another get what they desire. And as you state that the human population will diminish because of lack of dairy and meet products. Because of hunger? Think about the amount of food that would be gained if we switched from eating meat to plants; from plant to animal to human is noneffective and losses about 90% of the energy compared to from plant to person. Here's the evidence I used before: Food Energy Pyramids
Also here is how a Mediterranean diet equals an longer life:


" Animals have some intelligence to choose to eat things or not. If you see they are geared to survival. The dog for the treat to stave the everyday hunger, the chimpanzee to eat more in its condition, the human to answer the question to the test to make sure he gets the job. Through this life is put in choices, and things like praise are added side products. The motivation you speak of is to live."
OK
" But animals can't debate,"
How do you know? According to what evidence? Did you perform an experiment that proves they can not debate? If so wheres the proof?
" animals can't make technology,"
I shared this video before but you may have not seen it:
" ANIMALS CAN'T BUILD SPACESHIPS TO THE MOON."
Well I guess the Greeks were animals than. ^_^
"Now this is arrogant but animals, can't surpass humanity."
Why? Whats your proof of this to be 100% true?
" Maybe the chimpanzee but don't forget the chimpanzee is related to MAN."
All animals are decedents from a common ancestor or in other words related.
" Who can do those things."
Define things for me please.
" Plus nothing can replace us. NOTHING."
Why?
"And even then NATURAL SELECTION is evolution through survival of the fittest. Not replacing a species evolving to survive."
When a species goes extinct commonly after a certain period of time another species moves in or threw evolution one rises up to replace what had died off. Its simply biodiversity from high school.
"Doesn(')t involve anyone but the individual making sure that he lives to see tomorrow not take up a mantle because one species is gone."
I do not understand what this sentence is saying are you saying that humans should not care for species going extinct or something about not taking the mantle, which meaning is unclear. I don't understand what you are trying to convey.

" Yeah farms could use a few more regs to not hook the animals on steroids, but whatever."
Sure
" Why did we domesticate them?"
Because of Appealing food that's not as efficient as what plants provide.
" Because yeah we evolved the fastest and thus took control."
How did humans evolved faster exactly? If you mean threw the number of tools under our bets than sure.
" Animals can't be on a level like humanity. Why? Not because they can';(-;)t evolve (but) is because MAN has raised itself so far so fast they can't catch up unless something wipes us out. "
Wait the term "catch up" refers to that animals are capable of 'human level' but above you state that animals do not replace other species and that animals will never reach our level. Maybe you meant something else or change your mind but anyways I do agree that threw human extinction would open up the bondage that's upon animals. But what if humans done research to aid animals in their journey of evolution threw the correct and ethical steps. What's so wrong or impractical with that?
" Then maybe in the time it took us they can replace us maybe."
Yes.

" If there are hostile aliens.(,) Which could couldn't but hasn't happened yet so IT AINT HAPPENING based on now."
um. The point is?
" And even then those aliens would probably replace humans,"
K
" but that's a big assumption and WAY TOO MANY IFS."
Which 'ifs' are you referring to?
" And now you're saying that seeing if you can is unethical?"
How have I said "seeing if you can is unethical"?
" Why(.) cause we have them in a box, and are watching."
So you are referring to my scenario of the child being left upon an island (I think). My point was that testing if an human would develop language in the case of being isolate from the rest of the world would be unethical because it would be unfair to the adult test subject and that threw experiences both animals and humans learn. Have not you looked upon the link I shared as my proof.

" So what's our evidence that being a pet that's sheltered, fed, taken care of, loved, and healed, is better than being out in the wild free, dying, being hunted, unsheltered, and just stayiing in one place?" (Hint: It's a rhetorical question)((Double hint: Don't be cute and give a rhetorical answer it would be stupid))
Where did I suggest that being out in the wild is better than within society?

" How are human emotions more complex?"
Whats the point?
" Does the dog feel guilt over killing it's own kind? Does it feel responsible for feeding a nation? No"
How do you know? Whats your proof? Did you do an experimenter were a member of an species killed another member of its species and than did you attach some sort of device upon its head to read its thoughts? I suspect not.
" because it doesn't have the power or the station to. They can be happy but we can have more like guilt because all they have to worry about is eating and breathing while others have to worry about the health, and pride of their nations."

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Torabisu
Member Avatar

Also for Warden of Wisdom, and ViperKang I hope that you two had an grand time in the debate and also may you two have a great day. ^_^
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
PvtCryan502
Member Avatar
More than Just a Conjurer of Cheap Tricks
Point 1:
Why: I say having pets doesn't mean they're slaves.
-Because most pets aren't put to work, and are fed, and are happy. Plus they can be turned into slaves due to circumstances like dog fighting arenas.
Point 2
- If you are being a slave means, you are put to work which pets aren't working means pets have longer times than slaves, and since pets don't suffer like slaves, and certainly don't work like them they aren't.
Point 3
- So you say animals can't talk, but pets such as a dog can communicate too like barking for food, and growling at a stranger, but hey they don't respond to anything. Plus most animals communicate the same way except through sounds instead of a language. A bird runs from a growling dog , understanding its hunting intent. But yeah research would make sense if it wasn't controlled, but keeping animals to watch is also looked down upon buy animal rights activist due to animals being abused by scientists like Killer Whales (hint: Seaworld.) Just saying.
Point 4-
- Well the reason why I say compensate, and sure vegetarianism is healthy and you live loner but what I meant is the hardcore meat eaters. Who would go to a black market for hamburger meat, and such. If you're keen on letting farm animals go how do you stop that. Not only are people being cheated but animals too from freedom. Heck I would pay for meat, and fish. What about fish? Want to save salmon from fishing? ren't they animals too? How will you solve those?
Point 4-
Why animals can't debate? You know in hindsight I;m wrong they can, but only over these two subjects: Who's the alpha, and who gets to eat what? Who gets the female? But this is more brawling than civil debate through words. Just saying. Lion King.
Point 5-
Great animals have used stones, and sticks. Humans use metal rods, ovens, and ice to do the same thing. Now tell me how they are better without external help.
Point 6-
Greeks are humans. Humanity can build spaceships. Greeks (a ethnicity not a species or race. ((might gotten ethnicity and race wrong pollitically correct me if so))) can't afford a space program. Animals still haven't built a space ship despite knowledge of tiny pebbles and sticks.
Point 7-
Because we have evolved so far ahead that they can;t catch up.
Point 8-
Yes but Chimpanzees the one who has used a wooden tool is more closely related to a fish who still blubs around in the ocean, but is related to man.
Point 9-
Use tools to make life easier.
Point 10-
Because they don't have the power/ mental capability to kill us all before we could kill them. The only way to surpass humanity is to kill us.
Point 11-
Biodiversity although related to natural selection is very different. Not equal to each other different. You've been labeling things as Natural selection "evolution through survival" which is different from biodiversity which is "variation of life" this doesn't mean that something will replace us means things are different
Point 12-
What I'm trying to explain is that Natural Selection is about surviving not being the most advance. Yes we should care for extinct species since it's loss of life, and biodiversity not natural selection which you have happily switching around.
Point 13-16-
Now you realize that since our brains evolved as humans we were able to use more tools, domesticating animals to act as easier sources of foods, and companions to make life better for us. Maybe not them, but us. Now with animals catching up I remember distinctly saying that the ONLY WAY FOR ANIMALS TO GET TO OUR LEVEL IS THROUGH US RESEARCHING OR US DYING. This leads into the hypothetical alien craziness, otherwise we're on top.
Point 17-
The reason I use hostile aliens is that the only way to elevate animals is get rid of humans which we'll die from war or outside forces. Which so far haven't shown up, and so the only way is for animals to rise to our level is if WE as humans do it from research. Not animals naturally. As of this moment if humans die, which we aren;t yet.
Point 18-
Yay we agree, but they haven't been able to since humans have domesticated them.
Point 19-
The IFS are aliens coming from outer space to kill us.
Point 20-
I don't understand. I think you're referring to if we did research on animals, it would be unethical since we are trapping them in a closed location without help to see if the species survives. Which some need our help, and that's cold to leave something alone to just see if it dies or evolves.
Point 21-
Your saying being farm animals is slavery right? Well there;s my response
Point 22-
The point to show is that the human brain is more complex than any animal one.
Point 23-
Exactly so how do we know that they do? We don't so thus the answer is neither yes or no. It's possible but right now it;s not, and a dog doesn't feel responsible since I don't see dogland ruled by dogs in a history book.
Point 24-
Well I'll be damned 1- out of the billions of animals on earth has a concious. Brilliant. Let's see the othe 6,999,999,999 animals get one too.
Edited by PvtCryan502, Dec 9 2013, 04:38 PM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
ClassicGamer102
Member Avatar

I really feel like this thread shouldn't have as many pages as it does.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Vosoros
Member Avatar

Has anyone noticed that the arguments for and against are going in circles? I'm afriad that no matter how good an argument formed, or proof as to your beliefs in this matter...some folk are just NEVER pursuaded that viewpoint is wrong.

Do I have an option on this matter? Could I eloquently argument my case and beliefs on this matter? Heck yeah! Sadly, I'm just weary of going in circles on this subject here. Hummmm, maybe one day I'll be able to convince others of my thoughts and beliefs on this matter...but I don't think that that day is today sadly!

I wish all who continue with such things here all the best however.

;)
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Debate Section · Next Topic »
Locked Topic

Theme Orbital by tiptopolive of Zathyus Network Resources.