Animal vs Human: Needing a simple answer

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Wed Sep 24, 2008 8:08 pm

This week I've been in two forums dealing with animal rights/welfare issues. I do not want to start a Peta bashing thread or a humans are superior thread but I would like if possible a short and sweet answer to one question.

Why do people feel so threatened when other people consider animal life to be just as valuable as human life?

When this subject comes up -anywhere-it turns into a hatefest. People foam at the mouth about ALF, Peta, their crazy neighbor who rescues cats, whatever. And invariably some yahoo will throw in the obligatory "If a house was on fire would you save a kid or a dog?" And they always think they're the first to come up with that. Since it's all hypothetical anyway I always say "both.":rolleyes:

I understand having different views.

What I don't understand is the threat people perceive from other people who don't think like they do.

Most of you know where I stand on this and I know where a lot of you stand so I'm not going there. But if anyone or a few someones could answer this one simple question, I would appreciate that:

Where is the threat?

Thank you.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Wed Sep 24, 2008 8:46 pm

Thank you for your answer, Hoss.

shelbell · Post by **shelbell** » Wed Sep 24, 2008 11:33 pm

That's a tough one RG and has had me actually sitting here pondering an answer...something that is rare for me. I'm sure you already know this about me, I'm such an animal lover...but I'm still one that loves a good steak.

I think one of the simplest answers to your question is, entitlement. Some people have the mindset that no matter what, no matter where, no matter who or what is disrupted by their wants...they are entitled to it. "I want that land for my new summer house mansion, who cares if the bears, wolves, mountain lions etc, have to be displaced." Animals need room to live on this earth also, but we humans want to own it all. I agree with Hoss about not just coming in and taking someones land because of a tree bug. On private property, if it becomes necessary for a species, move it to another place that is still their natural habitat. The problem is, we need a place to relocate it to, and those places are becoming harder to find. A prime example is all the wild fires in California. People keep pushing the limits of safety because they want the "view"...then they're puzzled when a wild fire comes thru and destroys everything they own. Some things, animals and places need to be left untouched...we're not "entitled" to have it all.

Post by **spot** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 12:17 am

Excluding Antarctica, which distorts the figures when considering wildlife, 25% of land is wilderness and 75% is human-dominated. That's far enough. If humans encroach further into the space available for wildlife then the humans aren't getting much more than they've already taken and the wildlife is losing a lot of what little it still has.

I don't consider animal life to be just as valuable as human life at all. If it comes down to saving what's left in that 25% or saving Homo Sapiens as a species I'd ditch the people every time.

What distorts your question, RG, is domestic animals - the ones on farms and in peoples' homes. They're valueless aberrations. They can't live without people to look after them, they're degraded and they fudge the issue of biodiversity which is the only one that matters in this area.

nvalleyvee · Post by **nvalleyvee** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 12:29 am

PETA - people eating tasty animals

Sorry- I like meat.

Post by **spot** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 12:36 am

nvalleyvee;994941 wrote: PETA - people eating tasty animals

Sorry- I like meat.

That's fine. Set aside land for wildlife and kill yourself a pot-roast. Stop enslaving wildlife and transforming it into designer animals with no other function than to serve people.

nvalleyvee · Post by **nvalleyvee** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 12:49 am

spot;994953 wrote: That's fine. Set aside land for wildlife and kill yourself a pot-roast. Stop enslaving wildlife and transforming it into designer animals with no other function than to serve people.

LMFAO.....

I really can't believe you said that. I don't quite know how to reply except to say ---I LIKE MEAT. I enjoy a good brisket - some fine chicken a good hamburger - with cheese.

Post by **spot** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 12:53 am

nvalleyvee;994961 wrote: LMFAO.....

I really can't believe you said that. I don't quite know how to reply except to say ---I LIKE MEAT. I enjoy a good brisket - some fine chicken a good hamburger - with cheese.

That's fine. Our two statements aren't contradictory. What's missing is that you're not making explicit your implication, which is that domesticating animals is fine as far as you're concerned. That's where we differ, not in liking or disliking meat.

I'd be quite happy for you to get your milk and meat from industrial vat-grown tissue, by the way. My objection is to domestication and the disappearance of genetic diversity, nothing else.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 1:05 am

shelbell;994893 wrote: That's a tough one RG and has had me actually sitting here pondering an answer...something that is rare for me. I'm sure you already know this about me, I'm such an animal lover...but I'm still one that loves a good steak.

I can understand that, Shelbell. I've been on and off (now back on) being a veggie for years. Mostly on but there were times I'd give in and get a MccyD cheeseburger or chicken nuggets because I was used to that taste. I understand your want for a steak.

I think one of the simplest answers to your question is, entitlement. Some people have the mindset that no matter what, no matter where, no matter who or what is disrupted by their wants...they are entitled to it. "I want that land for my new summer house mansion, who cares if the bears, wolves, mountain lions etc, have to be displaced." Animals need room to live on this earth also, but we humans want to own it all. I agree with Hoss about not just coming in and taking someones land because of a tree bug. On private property, if it becomes necessary for a species, move it to another place that is still their natural habitat. The problem is, we need a place to relocate it to, and those places are becoming harder to find. A prime example is all the wild fires in California. People keep pushing the limits of safety because they want the "view"...then they're puzzled when a wild fire comes thru and destroys everything they own. Some things, animals and places need to be left untouched...we're not "entitled" to have it all.

I think you said that well. Maybe that's the word I've been looking for all night- entitlement. Over at the other forum some are becoming slightly less than rabid at the idea of having to sacrifice something of themselves to show some compassion to animals (we're talking mainly of animal testing over there) and a sense of entitlement seems to fill the bill. I'm just always so surprised when it becomes that way. Mention Peta for instance and people get all wild-eyed. So I thought I would just ask outright what is the deal?

spot;994929 wrote: Excluding Antarctica, which distorts the figures when considering wildlife, 25% of land is wilderness and 75% is human-dominated. That's far enough. If humans encroach further into the space available for wildlife then the humans aren't getting much more than they've already taken and the wildlife is losing a lot of what little it still has.

I like the way you put that. I've read it over several times.

I don't consider animal life to be just as valuable as human life at all. If it comes down to saving what's left in that 25% or saving Homo Sapiens as a species I'd ditch the people every time.

Is that right, Spot? How do you mean that? Why do you feel this way? Are you saying you value animal life not equally but more or am I reading wrong? Sorry to be so inquisitive, I'm just surprised by your answer. I thought I was the odd one out. But I might be misunderstanding too.

What distorts your question, RG, is domestic animals - the ones on farms and in peoples' homes. They're valueless aberrations. They can't live without people to look after them, they're degraded and they fudge the issue of biodiversity which is the only one that matters in this area.

I can understand that. Would you say though Spot that there is value in the companionship that pets (and maybe farm animals?) provide?

SuzyB · Post by **SuzyB** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 1:14 am

Before I got Alfie I would have said Human without any hesitation, but I must admit that since getting the little fella my opinions have totally changed, I now 'get' what everyone is so passionate about :-4

It sounds terrible but for an example; if a stranger or Alfie was going to get hit by a car then I think I would go to save Alfie, yet I would of never understood someone saying that before

Post by **spot** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 1:17 am

RedGlitter;994964 wrote: Would you say though Spot that there is value in the companionship that pets (and maybe farm animals?) provide?Of course there is. There was value in flogging generations of darkies[1] and selling the cotton too. We see that as unethical nowadays, don't we? If you feel the two circumstances have nothing to do with each other then I'd be happy to share a thread discussing why I think it's a valid comparison.

[1]The use of this obscene term is intended to shock. There will come a day when "domesticated" invokes the same shudder of revulsion.

shelbell · Post by **shelbell** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 1:18 am

SuzyB;994967 wrote: Before I got Alfie I would have said Human without any hesitation, but I must admit that since getting the little fella my opinions have totally changed, I now 'get' what everyone is so passionate about :-4

It sounds terrible but for an example; if a stranger or Alfie was going to get hit by a car then I think I would go to save Alfie, yet I would of never understood someone saying that before

Isn't it amazing Suzy how our pets can become family? I'm sure you understand that saying now too! I have had at least one dog, usually more, since the day I was born. I'm sure that can explain why I'm so passionate about dogs. I wouldn't know how to live without them.:-4

shelbell · Post by **shelbell** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 1:24 am

spot;994969 wrote: Of course there is. There was value in flogging generations of darkies[1] and selling the cotton too. We see that as unethical nowadays, don't we? If you feel the two circumstances have nothing to do with each other then I'd be happy to share a thread discussing why I think it's a valid comparison.

Spot, the way I see it about our domesticated animals is that most people give their dogs a much better life than if they were in the wild. My dogs know that they are dogs, and they lead much healthier and longer lives in good homes. My big baby boy needs momma cuddle time at least a couple of times a day...they need the companionship as much as we do. We also don't flog our pets...at least most of us don't.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 1:34 am

SuzyB;994967 wrote: Before I got Alfie I would have said Human without any hesitation, but I must admit that since getting the little fella my opinions have totally changed, I now 'get' what everyone is so passionate about :-4

It sounds terrible but for an example; if a stranger or Alfie was going to get hit by a car then I think I would go to save Alfie, yet I would of never understood someone saying that before

:-6:-6:-6 I love that you adopted Alfie. You have the cutest stories of him and the way Jimbo talks about "the little poop machine" it's so obvious he's got a hold on you guys.

spot;994969 wrote: Of course there is. There was value in flogging generations of darkies[1] and selling the cotton too. We see that as unethical nowadays, don't we? If you feel the two circumstances have nothing to do with each other then I'd be happy to share a thread discussing why I think it's a valid comparison.

Actually Spot, I'm pretty sure I get the drift...not that we treat animals as slaves but that we have taken them out of their world and brought them too far into our own? That even if a being proves to hold value for someone else it shouldn't be at the expense of that being's natural state. That's what I'm taking from that, am I on your same track?

[1]The use of this obscene term is intended to shock. There will come a day when "domesticated" invokes the same shudder of revulsion.

Post by **spot** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 1:34 am

shelbell;994972 wrote: Spot, the way I see it about our domesticated animals is that most people give their dogs a much better life than if they were in the wild. My dogs know that they are dogs, and they lead much healthier and longer lives in good homes. My big baby boy needs momma cuddle time at least a couple of times a day...they need the companionship as much as we do. We also don't flog our pets...at least most of us don't.

People were saying exactly the same thing about slaves too, back in the nineteenth century. It's just the same argument. It's in their own interests, it's good for them, they like it, we keep them from harm and provide for all their wants, aren't we noble.I hold that in the present state of civilization, where two races of different origin, and distinguished by color, and other physical differences, as well as intellectual, are brought together, the relation now existing in the slaveholding States between the two, is, instead of an evil, a good - a positive good.

I feel myself called upon to speak freely upon the subject where the honor and interests of those I represent are involved. I hold then, that there never has yet existed a wealthy and civilized society in which one portion of the community did not, in point of fact, live on the labor of the other. Broad and general as is this assertion, it is fully borne out by history.

This is not the proper occasion, but, if it were, it would not be difficult to trace the various devices by which the wealth of all civilized communities has been so unequally divided, and to show by what means so small a share has been allotted to those by whose labor it was produced, and so large a share given to the non-producing classes. The devices are almost innumerable, from the brute force and gross superstition of ancient times, to the subtle and artful fiscal contrivances of modern.

I might well challenge a comparison between them and the more direct, simple, and patriarchal mode by which the labor of the African race is, among us, commanded by the European. I may say with truth, that in few countries so much is left to the share of the laborer, and so little exacted from him, or where there is more kind attention paid to him in sickness or infirmities of age.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Slavery_a_Positive_Good

The author, I might mention in passing, was one of your Vice-Presidents.

Post by **spot** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 1:38 am

RedGlitter;994978 wrote: Actually Spot, I'm pretty sure I get the drift...not that we treat animals as slaves but that we have taken them out of their world and brought them too far into our own? That even if a being proves to hold value for someone else it shouldn't be at the expense of that being's natural state. That's what I'm taking from that, am I on your same track? That's not a bad summary. I'd expand on the innate value of the natural state and distinguish it from the domesticated, but that's only because I don't think many people have a grasp of the difference.

Post by **spot** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 2:18 am

RedGlitter;994964 wrote: Is that right, Spot? How do you mean that? Why do you feel this way? Are you saying you value animal life not equally but more or am I reading wrong? Sorry to be so inquisitive, I'm just surprised by your answer. I thought I was the odd one out. But I might be misunderstanding too. I have absolutely no reason at all for thinking there's life anywhere in the universe other than on Earth. Perhaps someday the known facts will change and my argument will be wrong. As far as current knowledge goes, I think I'm justified in what I say. In my opinion, any argument that life is more likely than not to exist elsewhere is less persuasive than the argument that life exists only on Earth. If anyone would like to discuss that then, as usual, a thread on the topic would be needed. All I've done here is state a conclusion which I think I can support with a valid argument.

It's taken at least 600 million years for the current diversity of animals to evolve from the first animal. Before then there were forms of life which are now represented on Earth by bacteria and plants and fungi and a few very strange things which aren't any of those. There was, once ever, a single life which was different to all the other lives before or since in that it is the common ancestor of all animals on the planet. It was, as far as I can tell, a single-celled life form.

The evolutionary effort which went into producing that one life was far greater than the evolutionary effort which has subsequently gone into creating all the different animals that descended from it. All those dinosaurs and reptiles and worms and spiders and gazelles have more in common with each other than that common ancestor had with all the bacteria and plants and fungi it shared the planet with. That single-celled common ancestor was more like you than it was like some of the other stuff around it. There's more evolutionary history in creating that common ancestor than there has been since, and we haven't a clue what it is yet. Not even a glimmer. All we can trace today is what's happened since then, the divergence of descent from there to now.

If you regard that time period, 600 million years, as a single day from dawn to dusk, then the evolutionary change which allowed our branch of mammals to develop speech happened about 15 seconds before sundown. Our branch of life is totally insignificant when compared to the investment put into all the other stuff we currently share the planet with and my figures relate only to animals, the other stuff's far more extensive and diverse, we just don't even notice most of it.

Now, if you're putting me in a position where I have to either blot out that 15 second investment in "improvement" or the rest of the variation that's been built so slowly and laboriously and unrepeatably, it's no contest. Life wins over people. Life's bigger and more valuable, people are insignificant by comparison.

People have to scale back to the point where the rest of life can retain a permanent toe-hold on the only place it exists.

Post by **spot** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 7:33 am

Hoss;995213 wrote: Can you clarify that a bit further? Define 'human dominated' please. If I fly across the US 90% of it is open land. I think Europe may be more densly populated and use more of its land but not 75% worth.

I'm using "More than one human per square kilometer" to define human dominated, and the rest as wilderness. It's not my definition, it's in common use. The 25%:75% division on that basis is accurate for the world landmass less Antarctica.

Chezzie · Post by **Chezzie** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 7:46 am

Im not a vegetarian.

I am an animal lover.

I would walk on coals for my dog, if he was in danger id be right next to him trying to help him out. He is utterly adored... If I had to save my family or the dog, i'd save my family first. Course I would, I'm only human after all.:-4:-4

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 7:47 am

I like the 'everyone is entitled to their own opinion' stand. Most 'whack job' groups don't agree with that stand. And before anyone gets their shorts in a knot, I'm not just talking about supposed animal rights groups. I'm talking about all of the militant folks out there, from environ-terrorists up to and including Osamas group... any means to achieve your desired 'end'.

I don't like people. I like animals. I also eat meat, use milk and expect my dog to come back when I call her.

If someone wants to change a law, work to change a law. If Peta wants to deceive folks into handing over animals and then killing them behind the scene, because Peta feels it's the better outcome for that animal... hey, that's legal too. Says a lot to me about how morally right they really feel their behavior is, but so long as other 'supposed' animal rights groups do nothing to rescue the animals or change the laws to require disclosure, they have no legitimate gripe either, IMO.

I think we all have an obligation to tell these folks they are whack jobs, however. Not to throw stuff on them, put their loved ones in harms way or worse , kill them in protest maybe.... but at some point folks have to just stand up and say F.O and be just as willing to back that statement up as the whack job is to harm normal folks while in pursuit of their ideal world.....

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 8:58 am

Hoss;995358 wrote: LOL, ok just so I know for sure and can put things into perspective. So then all land mass is 'weed' dominated? I say that because for the past three days I pulled a ton more weeds than saw humans on just a 20X40 foot garden box.

I disagree with using that terminology I think its much more complicated than just 1 human per square kilometer.

Didn't the world trade centers have like 100000 people in a one block area...?

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:14 am

PETA

anyone else see this - PETA protesting Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream?

Peta wants B&J to use BREAST MILK in their ice cream instead of cows.?

Personally - No thank you

this would probably open up alot of jobs B & J ad: Milkers needed.:wah:

OK , didn't mean to throw the thread.

Patsy

Post by **spot** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:19 am

Patsy Warnick;995523 wrote: anyone else see this - PETA protesting Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream?We were discussing it on http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showt ... hp?t=40653

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:21 am

spot;995285 wrote: I'm using "More than one human per square kilometer" to define human dominated, and the rest as wilderness. It's not my definition, it's in common use. The 25%:75% division on that basis is accurate for the world landmass less Antarctica.

Not a very good definition although I agree with your percentages - how about significantly altered from its natural state, by man, to fit man's use.

In answer to Red's original question, I don't feel threatened by the attitude, I just disagree with the implications of it.

Post by **spot** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:24 am

Bryn Mawr;995550 wrote: Not a very good definition although I agree with your percentages - how about significantly altered from its natural state, by man, to fit man's use.I refer the gentleman to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_Ear ... derness.22 and recommend watching it.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:29 am

spot;995564 wrote: I refer the gentleman to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_Ear ... derness.22 and recommend watching it.

Since when did I get promoted - or did this place fuge into a debating house whilst I wasn't looking :wah:

Post by **spot** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:34 am

Bryn Mawr;995585 wrote: Since when did I get promoted - or did this place fuge into a debating house whilst I wasn't looking :wah:

I've been told to be politer, Sir.

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:38 am

I'm probably going to get slammed for this, but it's what I believe.

Genesis 1:26-28 says:

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

27 So God created man in his own image,

in the image of God he created him;

male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

Does it mean I believe in animal cruelty, no. I just take it to mean I'm not on equal terms with an animal. I'm its caretaker. I support animal testing in some fields of medicine. I support hunting as long as it's for food and such, not just trophies. I think some zoos strive to give the best most natural environments for their animals and be educational, while others fail miserably.

Post by **spot** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:40 am

A better reason to avoid literalism in biblical interpretation has yet to be discovered.

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:45 am

Why are you insulting me for my personal beliefs, I don't insult yours?

Post by **spot** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:52 am

Sheryl;995661 wrote: Why are you insulting me for my personal beliefs, I don't insult yours?

I wouldn't dream of doing so. I was making a comment on a major defect in biblical literalism.

Chezzie · Post by **Chezzie** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:54 am

Sheryl;995635 wrote: I'm probably going to get slammed for this, but it's what I believe.

Genesis 1:26-28 says:

Does it mean I believe in animal cruelty, no. I just take it to mean I'm not on equal terms with an animal. I'm its caretaker. I support animal testing in some fields of medicine. I support hunting as long as it's for food and such, not just trophies. I think some zoos strive to give the best most natural environments for their animals and be educational, while others fail miserably.

No slams off me Sheryl, you summed it up perfectly..

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:56 am

spot;995678 wrote: I wouldn't dream of doing so. I was making a comment on a major defect in biblical literalism.

Ok

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 10:00 am

I don't own pets either, my two dogs own me.

Bark--let me out

Bark--let me in

Bark--feed me

Bark-- I'm thirsty

Bark bark bark bark bark bark--You weren't ready for bed anyways

kazalala · Post by **kazalala** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 10:56 am

spot;995613 wrote: I've been told to be politer, Sir.

and you are doing quite well so far;):D i am actually finding this thread very interesting and informative, i have no comment however as i dont thnk i know enough about the op to keep on topic.

BTS · Post by **BTS** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 2:44 pm

spot;994969 wrote: Of course there is. There was value in flogging generations of darkies[1] and selling the cotton too. We see that as unethical nowadays, don't we? If you feel the two circumstances have nothing to do with each other then I'd be happy to share a thread discussing why I think it's a valid comparison.

[1]The use of this obscene term is intended to shock. There will come a day when "domesticated" invokes the same shudder of revulsion.

Yah you could start one.............spot

(ironic name for one that wants all dogs obliterated, spot:))

Or you could just refer everyone on over to the petah site and save the thread as that is already their angle..........ie slavery/domestication hand in hand

Oh I see you swallowed their tripe already and are out and about spreadin the news...........

you go boy

Post by **spot** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 2:47 pm

BTS;996029 wrote: Oh I see you swallowed their tripe already and are out and about spreadin the news...........

you go boyNo, I don't recall ever looking at a PETA website. If my analysis matches theirs it just goes to show they got it right, doesn't it.

BTS · Post by **BTS** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:04 pm

spot;996031 wrote: No, I don't recall ever looking at a PETA website. If my analysis matches theirs it just goes to show they got it right, doesn't it.

Why don't you start that thread?

Post by **spot** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:12 pm

BTS;996044 wrote: Why don't you start that thread?

Because nobody's given me any reason why the two circumstances have nothing to do with each other. What do I have to argue against?

shelbell · Post by **shelbell** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 7:47 pm

jimbo;995355 wrote: i'm n animal lover ,what we are doing is wrong , look in the eyes of these animals ,they look almost human like ...wisey ,shelly or immy

how can we treat these almost human apes like this

watch the 2nd video down please

http://savetheorangutan.org/category/video-clips/

I wish I was this cute. That was a very hard video to watch...so freaking sad. Those poor babies.