This makes me angry

robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
This makes me angry

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ml_iraq_stray_dogs

Yea I'm angry at lack of care.

Baghdad kills 58,000 stray dogs in 3-month span

 

FILE - In this Nov. 23, 2008 file photo, Iraqi police officer Qassim Ahmed takes aim before shooting a stray dog in the Mansour neighborhood of Baghda AP – FILE - In this Nov. 23, 2008 file photo, Iraqi police officer Qassim Ahmed takes aim before shooting …

 

  By BUSHRA JUHI, Associated Press Writer Bushra Juhi, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 12 mins ago

BAGHDAD – Teams of veterinarians and police shooters have killed some 58,000 stray dogs in and around the Iraqi capital over the past three months as part of a campaign to curb an increasing number of strays blamed for attacks on residents.

The Baghdad provincial government said in a statement released Sunday that 20 teams have been moving around Baghdad and the outer-lying districts daily looking for and putting down the dogs. The operation, which was first announced in late 2008, only truly took off this April after funds were allocated for the project.

The surge in strays — estimated by provincial officials to number around 1.25 million — is ironically linked to what officials say is an improvement in some elements of daily life in Baghdad, a city that for seven years has been struggling to return to normalcy after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion to topple Saddam Hussein.

Officials with the provincial veterinary directorate said that with open-air markets and bustling city life returning, the dogs are able to find more food and are having bigger litters.

Figures for the number of attacks by packs of stray dogs were not available Saturday, the last day of the weekend in Iraq.

But officials said resident complaints have increased steadily in tandem with the rise in the stray population. In the capital, dogs have attacked children, in some cases killing them.

Efforts since the campaign was first announced in 2008 met with limited success because of a lack of funding and follow-through. There are not believed to be any dog shelters in Baghdad.

The teams begin their work daily at 6 a.m., and coordinate with relevant security forces in the area — ostensibly to ensure that their presence does not draw retaliatory fire by security forces who may mistake them for insurgents.

Provincial officials said before the teams move into an area, residents are also notified, and warned to not pick up meat they find on the ground because it could be the poisoned food used to lure and kill the dogs.

Under Saddam Hussein's regime, stray dogs were routinely shot. But their numbers grew steadily following the 2003 U.S.-led invasion when a host of more serious security issues sidelined efforts to deal with the dogs.

 

 

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
  The explosive number of

  The explosive number of dog births is entirely the fault of the human population.  Even in the US where I live millions of idiots refuse to sterilize their companion animals.  Right now I have six cats that I have either rescued at work or who have wandered into my yard.  I have cared for as many as twelve at one time.  The most important thing I do with these throw away animals is to take them to my vet and pay to have them either neutered or spayed.

   I do keep them as pets but mostly because their needs are life-long and they rely on me for care .  Just another reason I hate the f**king human race.

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


liberatedatheist
atheistScience Freak
liberatedatheist's picture
Posts: 137
Joined: 2009-12-08
User is offlineOffline
 What would you have them

 What would you have them do. over a million strays in a city of 7 million. its not like they could get them adopted. 

I Am My God

The absence of evidence IS evidence of absence


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
How about being proactive

How about being proactive instead of reactive ?  Who is supposedly the more intelligent species here ?

clarification:  contraception is not practiced in the animal kingdom; humans know this don't they ?

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
I always find it absurd when

I always find it absurd when people who will gladly eat pigs (more intelligent) suddenly care about dogs- one particular species out many, which happens to be seen as more cute.  IMO, only vegetarians really have a place to complain about non-human animals being killed. 

Are any of you complainers vegetarians?  Eh?

 

I'm sure the people would love to be "proactive" if they had time machines, and the available veterinary resources in the country to devote to such a task.

Stray dogs are wild and dangerous; they can't just be adopted, and they will readily hunt and kill pet cats and other dogs, and even humans.  I'm in no place to judge people for protecting themselves and their children.


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
So to kill these animals

So to kill these animals without guilt is fine. stfu

They obviously don't have a pig problem smart ass. If people kept pigs as pets and let the population get so bad I would feel the same way about them, smart ass straw man.

 

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


liberatedatheist
atheistScience Freak
liberatedatheist's picture
Posts: 137
Joined: 2009-12-08
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:So to kill

robj101 wrote:

So to kill these animals without guilt is fine. stfu

They obviously don't have a pig problem smart ass. If people kept pigs as pets and let the population get so bad I would feel the same way about them, smart ass straw man.

 

But is there a feasible alternative? If there isn't, i guess you'll just have to use whatever bad feelings arise out of doing what is necessary to make sure we are never again in this situation. Do you feel bad enough to do something about it in Iraq?

I Am My God

The absence of evidence IS evidence of absence


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Instead of simply disposing

Instead of simply disposing them, maybe they should use them to feed starving people. Lol, and that's not a very "modest" proposal. I still prefer selling the Vatican though...

Edit: Well, I don't know if that would actually be cost effective.

robj101 wrote:
They obviously don't have a pig problem smart ass. If people kept pigs as pets and let the population get so bad I would feel the same way about them, smart ass straw man.

Ooooohhh, are you implying that you're angry because people have dogs as pets and not because dogs are cute and familiar? Then, would you feel the same way if people kept ants as pets?

 

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:If people kept

robj101 wrote:

If people kept pigs as pets and let the population get so bad I would feel the same way about them, smart ass straw man.

 

Oh, but raising and killing a billion pigs a year is absolutely fine- as long as it's all deliberate, for sake of human pleasure, instead of cleaning up after a mistake to protect human lives.

Good to know trivial human pleasure is a great reason to harm animals without  a shred of guilt, but self defense isn't.

 

Either you're some kind of psychopath who really believes that, or you're a hypocrite.

 

 

It's very like you to completely miss the point.  I'll try to be more explicit.

 

Here's an idea: stop judging other people for killing animals you think are cute out of defense of themselves and their children while you chow down on and order the deaths of even more intelligent animals (ones that certainly plenty of other people think are cute) out of mindless gluttony.


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
liberatedatheist

liberatedatheist wrote:

robj101 wrote:

So to kill these animals without guilt is fine. stfu

They obviously don't have a pig problem smart ass. If people kept pigs as pets and let the population get so bad I would feel the same way about them, smart ass straw man.

 

But is there a feasible alternative? If there isn't, i guess you'll just have to use whatever bad feelings arise out of doing what is necessary to make sure we are never again in this situation. Do you feel bad enough to do something about it in Iraq?

So by your logic it is ok, considering you do nothing about personally.

The situation should not have arisen in the first place. My dogs are spayed, that's all I can feasibly do. To pretend that nothing anyone else could have done to curb this seems ridiculous. The dogs are not at fault here, the people are.

 

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Instead

butterbattle wrote:

Instead of simply disposing them, maybe they should use them to feed starving people. Lol, and that's not a very "modest" proposal. I still prefer selling the Vatican though...

Edit: Well, I don't know if that would actually be cost effective.

robj101 wrote:
They obviously don't have a pig problem smart ass. If people kept pigs as pets and let the population get so bad I would feel the same way about them, smart ass straw man.

Ooooohhh, are you implying that you're angry because people have dogs as pets and not because dogs are cute and familiar? Then, would you feel the same way if people kept ants as pets?

 

 

ants are fukin bugs, I step on them with glee

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote: So to kill

robj101 wrote:

So to kill these animals without guilt is fine. stfu

They obviously don't have a pig problem smart ass. If people kept pigs as pets and let the population get so bad I would feel the same way about them, smart ass straw man.

 

No, Rob, it is not fine.  It is not fine the dogs were not spayed or neutered, it is not fine they had to be shot, it is not fine children have been killed by the dogs, it is not fine there are so many.  It is not fine that there really isn't a place for all the stray animals in the world where they can be loved and cared for. 

Remember we do rescue.  Yesterday we had to put to sleep a dog we have tried to rehabilitate for two years.  He bit my husband - the husband had an abscess form and had to go on two antibiotics.  The dog liked my husband.  But if he is not safe with someone he likes, who can he be safe with?  And he was old and had medical problems as well. 

What you learn if you do animal rescue (dogs, cats, horses, rabbits, guinea pigs, pot-bellied pigs, etc) is you have to set limits for yourself.  It does not help any pet if you manage to burn out or you burn your neighbors out.

So there are hundreds of thousands of feral dogs who have learned to kill to feed themselves.  What can be done?  If they were given contraceptives in meat, they still would be alive to kill children.  If someone had thought about it when the US first went into Iraq and started feeding contraceptives to the feral dogs then, it would probably have made a difference now. 

I am not happy about this.  I can not fix it.  I can only try to fix the ones here, near my home.  One or two dogs at a time.  I am not always successful with a dog that was raised with a family.  A feral dog would be beyond my capabilities to rehabilitate. 

I would not be willing to bring a feral dog into my home as I have six dogs already and I live in town on a small city lot.  It would be putting my other dogs and the people who live in my house and who visit my house in jeopardy as well.  It is not wonderful, it is not fun, but I can only do what I can do.  There are plenty of good dogs who are needing homes that need help without trying to save a dog that might takes years to train and will have to be handled like a wild animal the entire time.

Killing the feral dogs won't work anyway.  Like coyotes, if you try to kill them off, they will just have more and larger litters.  And they are probably shooting only the dumbest ones.  The smart ones will be the ones to survive and breed.  The best solution is probably to get the garbage under control and watch your children and starve them out.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Blake wrote:robj101 wrote:If

Blake wrote:

robj101 wrote:

If people kept pigs as pets and let the population get so bad I would feel the same way about them, smart ass straw man.

 

Oh, but raising and killing a billion pigs a year is absolutely fine- as long as it's all deliberate, for sake of human pleasure, instead of cleaning up after a mistake to protect human lives.

Good to know trivial human pleasure is a great reason to harm animals without  a shred of guilt, but self defense isn't.

 

Either you're some kind of psychopath who really believes that, or you're a hypocrite.

 

 

It's very like you to completely miss the point.  I'll try to be more explicit.

 

Here's an idea: stop judging other people for killing animals you think are cute out of defense of themselves and their children while you chow down on and order the deaths of even more intelligent animals (ones that certainly plenty of other people think are cute) out of mindless gluttony.

Trivial human pleasure? Where do you get this stuff? You realize we have made these animals what they are today? I don't think they should be stabbing bulls either, but I don't want one for a fukin pet.

You tellin me 58,000 dogs were attacking people? It's a fukin warzone huh.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:robj101 wrote:So to

cj wrote:

robj101 wrote:

So to kill these animals without guilt is fine. stfu

They obviously don't have a pig problem smart ass. If people kept pigs as pets and let the population get so bad I would feel the same way about them, smart ass straw man.

 

No, Rob, it is not fine.  It is not fine the dogs were not spayed or neutered, it is not fine they had to be shot, it is not fine children have been killed by the dogs, it is not fine there are so many.  It is not fine that there really isn't a place for all the stray animals in the world where they can be loved and cared for. 

Remember we do rescue.  Yesterday we had to put to sleep a dog we have tried to rehabilitate for two years.  He bit my husband - the husband had an abscess form and had to go on two antibiotics.  The dog liked my husband.  But if he is not safe with someone he likes, who can he be safe with?  And he was old and had medical problems as well. 

What you learn if you do animal rescue (dogs, cats, horses, rabbits, guinea pigs, pot-bellied pigs, etc) is you have to set limits for yourself.  It does not help any pet if you manage to burn out or you burn your neighbors out.

So there are hundreds of thousands of feral dogs who have learned to kill to feed themselves.  What can be done?  If they were given contraceptives in meat, they still would be alive to kill children.  If someone had thought about it when the US first went into Iraq and started feeding contraceptives to the feral dogs then, it would probably have made a difference now. 

I am not happy about this.  I can not fix it.  I can only try to fix the ones here, near my home.  One or two dogs at a time.  I am not always successful with a dog that was raised with a family.  A feral dog would be beyond my capabilities to rehabilitate. 

I would not be willing to bring a feral dog into my home as I have six dogs already and I live in town on a small city lot.  It would be putting my other dogs and the people who live in my house and who visit my house in jeopardy as well.  It is not wonderful, it is not fun, but I can only do what I can do.  There are plenty of good dogs who are needing homes that need help without trying to save a dog that might takes years to train and will have to be handled like a wild animal the entire time.

Killing the feral dogs won't work anyway.  Like coyotes, if you try to kill them off, they will just have more and larger litters.  And they are probably shooting only the dumbest ones.  The smart ones will be the ones to survive and breed.  The best solution is probably to get the garbage under control and watch your children and starve them out.

A much more reasonable response, thanks.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:ants are fukin

robj101 wrote:
ants are fukin bugs, I step on them with glee

Uh, okay, I just asked that weird question because you said you would feel the same way if people kept pigs as pets.

Do you feel any guilt over factory farms? Would it be okay if people ate those dogs after they killed them?

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
It just seems more rational

It just seems more rational to look at the root of the problem rather than an after the fact piss poor solution and call it good.

Yes I realize they can't humanely dispose of every stray animal but they should not have had this problem in the first place.

I had hoped everyone would have agreed on that and moved on rather than taking advantage of an opportunity to bash me personally (typical Blake).

Bash away I don't care, in some cases it is amusing in others it is a sad reminder of our own species.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:It just seems

robj101 wrote:

It just seems more rational to look at the root of the problem rather than an after the fact piss poor solution and call it good.

Yes I realize they can't humanely dispose of every stray animal but they should not have had this problem in the first place.

Meh, yeah, maybe I agree. Just killing them all is like a I-give-up-I-don't-give-a-*uck-anymore solution.

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:robj101

butterbattle wrote:

robj101 wrote:
ants are fukin bugs, I step on them with glee

Uh, okay, I just asked that weird question because you said you would feel the same way if people kept pigs as pets.

Do you feel any guilt over factory farms? Would it be okay if people ate those dogs after they killed them?

I'll be honest as usual and say I'm not entirely certain the "cute" factor would not be in play there. We have bred dogs as companions however, not food. We breed cows for food. I do despise the practices in some of the breeding farms and slaughter houses though.

 

 

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:Trivial human

robj101 wrote:

Trivial human pleasure?

 

Yes, taste is a trivial human pleasure.

 

Anybody who orders the killing of animals up for food in any first world country is indulging in just that.  There are no arguments from necessity or nutrition in any first world countries.  It's no different than dog fighting for the trivial human pleasure of visual entertainment, rather than your culinary entertainment.

Only vegetarians, and possibly only vegans, have the ability to criticize animal cruelty without being hypocrites.  You, sir, are a hypocrite.

 

Focus less on criticizing others, and more on your own actions.

 

 

Quote:
Where do you get this stuff? You realize we have made these animals what they are today?

 

What animals are you talking about?  The dogs or the pigs?

 

We're responsible for both; it doesn't excuse our harm of either of them.

Self defense, though, as a reason for action against a mistake is much better than entertainment as a reason for perpetuating an industry.

 

I've tried to be as unambiguous as possible, but you're avoiding my point:  Unless you're advocating entertainment as a better reason to hurt animals than self defense (that is, if you're some kind of psychopath), you're being a hypocrite.

 

You *could* avoid the hypocrisy entirely by either living up to your own values, or just not judging other people so much.

 

 

Quote:
I don't think they should be stabbing bulls either, but I don't want one for a fukin pet.

 

If this is some kind of red herring or straw man of an argument, I don't even know what you're referencing.

 

Quote:
You tellin me 58,000 dogs were attacking people? It's a fukin warzone huh.

 

58,000 dogs are at risk of attacking people; only some of them have already done so, but they all need to be removed as a matter of self defense.

That's like saying we shouldn't try to eliminate malaria because only some of them attack people.

 

 

robj101 wrote:

I'll be honest as usual and say I'm not entirely certain the "cute" factor would not be in play there.

 

You're honest for an instant, but then you regress into bad rationalizations:

 

Quote:
We have bred dogs as companions however, not food. We breed cows for food.

 

Yeah, and we bred blacks in captivity as slaves- that made it O.K.?

The purpose some random human ascribes to a birth is absolutely irrelevant to the morality of what is done to the creature.  We are not gods, and you can't make the argument that 'that is the meaning to their lives' as a justification.

 

If, unbeknownst to you, you were born to be brutally experimented upon at the time you reached the age of 40, that would be A-O.K.?

Because, after all, you were born for it...

 

What one person wants to do with another upon the inception of the other (even if that desire is causative) does not impose that initial desire as absolute moral good.

 

Quote:
I do despise the practices in some of the breeding farms and slaughter houses though.

 

Then I suppose you never support any of them by buying or consuming their products?  Oh, what's that?  It's too inconvenient?  Yeah...

 

Well, there are other solutions to this wild dog population that would be inconvenient too... hypocrite.


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Blake wrote: Well, there

Blake wrote:

 

Well, there are other solutions to this wild dog population that would be inconvenient too... hypocrite.

Er, Blake, I'm gathering Rob is trying to tell you his beef (pardon the pun) isn't with the slaughter of animals, per se, but with the human population that failed their responsibility to their pets in the first place now effectively punishing the victims of their own irresponsible behaviour.  So as valid as your point may be, I reckon Rob doesn't see it as having any relevance to his.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Blake wrote:I always find it

Blake wrote:

I always find it absurd when people who will gladly eat pigs (more intelligent) suddenly care about dogs- one particular species out many, which happens to be seen as more cute.  IMO, only vegetarians really have a place to complain about non-human animals being killed. 

Are any of you complainers vegetarians? 

 

    I am a vegetarian.  I always find it absurd ( and arrogant ) when vegetarians assume that no one else is also a vegetarian.  

 

 

  Yes I understand the situation in Iraq must now be dealt with as an emergency and they are past the point of prevention, I never contested that.  Did I ?    

 Incidentally, this whole pathetic stray animal scenario reminds me of the massive f**k up being experienced by BP in the Gulf of Mexico   ....ignore potential problems until it becomes a huge natural disaster then fall back onto some hastily thought out, half-assed "solution".  How rational is that ?

   Besides, why are you condescending to me ?     I simply offered my opinion on how to avoid the whole mess before it happened ( which is preferable, no ? )  and where does my alleged hypocrisy come into play ?

 

 

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:Er, Blake, I'm

Eloise wrote:

Er, Blake, I'm gathering Rob is trying to tell you his beef (pardon the pun) isn't with the slaughter of animals, per se, but with the human population that failed their responsibility to their pets in the first place now effectively punishing the victims of their own irresponsible behaviour. 

   Thank you Eloise, I agree with that completely.

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15831
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:How

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

How about being proactive instead of reactive ?  Who is supposedly the more intelligent species here ?

clarification:  contraception is not practiced in the animal kingdom; humans know this don't they ?

Our species has always had a tendency to be reactive vs proactive, on just about every subject, not just this. This is a bad situation for dogs, but what are humans going to do when we get over populated. Our planet is already over polluted, imagine what it will be like if we get to 20 billion or 4O billion people. Hopefully I wont be around when we get to that point.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Rich Woods
Rational VIP!
Rich Woods's picture
Posts: 868
Joined: 2008-02-06
User is offlineOffline
In a world full of

In a world full of atrocities... genocide, and barbarism... Especially in that region of the world...I have to be honest when I say that IMHO...This ranks pretty Low on my list of things to fix...

Is it unfiortunate?.. Sure... Could *I* (with  my western upbrininging) shoot a dog? No.

But I only have so much empathy to give before I become consumed with grief, I choose to rail against violence against women first & foremost... along with other genocidal, (religion based) atrocites...

 

 

 

 

...Oh... and I also get angry at censorship...


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Blake wrote:robj101

Blake wrote:

robj101 wrote:

Trivial human pleasure?

 

Yes, taste is a trivial human pleasure.

 

Anybody who orders the killing of animals up for food in any first world country is indulging in just that.  There are no arguments from necessity or nutrition in any first world countries.  It's no different than dog fighting for the trivial human pleasure of visual entertainment, rather than your culinary entertainment.

Only vegetarians, and possibly only vegans, have the ability to criticize animal cruelty without being hypocrites.  You, sir, are a hypocrite.

 

Focus less on criticizing others, and more on your own actions.

 

 

Quote:
Where do you get this stuff? You realize we have made these animals what they are today?

 

What animals are you talking about?  The dogs or the pigs?

 

We're responsible for both; it doesn't excuse our harm of either of them.

Self defense, though, as a reason for action against a mistake is much better than entertainment as a reason for perpetuating an industry.

 

I've tried to be as unambiguous as possible, but you're avoiding my point:  Unless you're advocating entertainment as a better reason to hurt animals than self defense (that is, if you're some kind of psychopath), you're being a hypocrite.

 

You *could* avoid the hypocrisy entirely by either living up to your own values, or just not judging other people so much.

 

 

Quote:
I don't think they should be stabbing bulls either, but I don't want one for a fukin pet.

 

If this is some kind of red herring or straw man of an argument, I don't even know what you're referencing.

 

Quote:
You tellin me 58,000 dogs were attacking people? It's a fukin warzone huh.

 

58,000 dogs are at risk of attacking people; only some of them have already done so, but they all need to be removed as a matter of self defense.

That's like saying we shouldn't try to eliminate malaria because only some of them attack people.

 

 

robj101 wrote:

I'll be honest as usual and say I'm not entirely certain the "cute" factor would not be in play there.

 

You're honest for an instant, but then you regress into bad rationalizations:

 

Quote:
We have bred dogs as companions however, not food. We breed cows for food.

 

Yeah, and we bred blacks in captivity as slaves- that made it O.K.?

The purpose some random human ascribes to a birth is absolutely irrelevant to the morality of what is done to the creature.  We are not gods, and you can't make the argument that 'that is the meaning to their lives' as a justification.

 

If, unbeknownst to you, you were born to be brutally experimented upon at the time you reached the age of 40, that would be A-O.K.?

Because, after all, you were born for it...

 

What one person wants to do with another upon the inception of the other (even if that desire is causative) does not impose that initial desire as absolute moral good.

 

Quote:
I do despise the practices in some of the breeding farms and slaughter houses though.

 

Then I suppose you never support any of them by buying or consuming their products?  Oh, what's that?  It's too inconvenient?  Yeah...

 

Well, there are other solutions to this wild dog population that would be inconvenient too... hypocrite.

Who exactly am I criticizing? You seem to be doing a fine job of that as usual. I do what I can btw, I donate $ to the spca and $ and time on occasion to the local humane society shelter. Take your hypocrite and shove it.

Your self defense thing is funny, once again, you say 58,000 dogs were all attacking people. I would guess it would be a minimal percentage of actual aggressive dogs and they are probably hungry. The foolish carelessness of people has caused this problem now the animals must suffer for it and you seem to imply that it's ok, just shoot them when they get out of hand.

You go to far with the slave thing, thats ridiculous. Just as ridiculous as the indoctrination of children into religion. If you are born and told slaves are ok you will probably go with the flow though I like to think I would not have been one of those and you can't prove otherwise, *burn slave strawman burn*

There is no problem with eating meat it is a natural thing for humans we have done it since who knows when. Science has determined it is possible that the mix of protein from meat and plant stuff could have had an impact on our development. However nowdays we have the means to be more humane about it. I don't care if a cow dies, I begin to care when it suffers unnecessarily.

There is no good solution to the problem now it's too late, they fucked up and they don't even seem to care. I have not even touched on their religion making dogs "unclean" animals which is a repulsive notion to me considering once again, humans have made dogs what they are today and humans have made them what they are in Iraq as well.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Rich Woods wrote:In a world

Rich Woods wrote:

In a world full of atrocities... genocide, and barbarism... Especially in that region of the world...I have to be honest when I say that IMHO...This ranks pretty Low on my list of things to fix...

Is it unfiortunate?.. Sure... Could *I* (with  my western upbrininging) shoot a dog? No.

But I only have so much empathy to give before I become consumed with grief, I choose to rail against violence against women first & foremost... along with other genocidal, (religion based) atrocites...

 

 

 

 

...Oh... and I also get angry at censorship...

I agree with you on priorities but it's not like we can't discuss this issue. Animals have no say and I happen to like animals more than some people especially when said people are the cause of the problem in the first place.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3944
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
The real problem is that

The real problem is that humans are not spayed and neutered.

 


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:The real problem

EXC wrote:

The real problem is that humans are not spayed and neutered.

 

Good point, I should have had that thought. ><

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:So to kill

robj101 wrote:

So to kill these animals without guilt is fine. stfu

They obviously don't have a pig problem smart ass. If people kept pigs as pets and let the population get so bad I would feel the same way about them, smart ass straw man.

Who in their right mind gives a damn about hounds anyways, esp. the stray ones? Slice the damn strays up and use them to feed the poor of impoverished nations.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote: The real problem

EXC wrote:

The real problem is that humans are not spayed and neutered.

 

An even bigger dilemma is why no one puts humans out of their misery like they do other animals.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:robj101

Kapkao wrote:

robj101 wrote:

So to kill these animals without guilt is fine. stfu

They obviously don't have a pig problem smart ass. If people kept pigs as pets and let the population get so bad I would feel the same way about them, smart ass straw man.

Who in their right mind gives a damn about hounds anyways, esp. the stray ones? Slice the damn strays up and use them to feed the poor of impoverished nations.

We could slice up stray Kapkao's to feed the hungry but I doubt it would be any more cost effective.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:Kapkao

robj101 wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

Who in their right mind gives a damn about hounds anyways, esp. the stray ones?

Slice the damn strays up and use them to feed the poor of impoverished nations

.

We could slice up stray Kapkao's to feed the hungry but I doubt it would be any more cost effective.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:robj101

Kapkao wrote:

robj101 wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

Who in their right mind gives a damn about hounds anyways, esp. the stray ones?

Slice the damn strays up and use them to feed the poor of impoverished nations

.

We could slice up stray Kapkao's to feed the hungry but I doubt it would be any more cost effective.

You really have a hard time with me huh

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:Kapkao

robj101 wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

robj101 wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

Who in their right mind gives a damn about hounds anyways, esp. the stray ones?

Slice the damn strays up and use them to feed the poor of impoverished nations

.

We could slice up stray Kapkao's to feed the hungry but I doubt it would be any more cost effective.

You really have a hard time with me huh

Yes... it's just terrible, reading your harsh posts towards me...

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


ragdish
atheist
ragdish's picture
Posts: 461
Joined: 2007-12-31
User is offlineOffline
 Whether it is slaughtered

 

Whether it is slaughtered dogs, pigs or aborted fetuses, this evokes a natural negative emotional response of revulsion amongst most humans. And based on those innate emotions, it is easy to assume that the perpetrators are evil. And of course religion amplifies these emotions. So IMO there does seem to be a commonalities among pro-lifers and animal rights activists (both religious and secular). Furthermore, it is very easy among them to equate abortion and sacrificing animals to the following:

 

It is when human emotions are irrationally displaced that many make moral equivalences to all of these images. Are atheists capable of developing superior moral peaks and valleys? I don't know. I have no qualms about swatting a fly, experimenting on a mouse for a cancer cure, eating a complex multicellular lifeform such as a tomato or giving a woman the choice to abort after rape. And all things considered, if killing life is for the sake of safety and survival of human beings, I'm all for it. What atheists should strive for is a secular moral philosophy that prevents the wanton killing, torture and subjugation of life that our theistic cousins will justify in the name of their sky daddies.


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Everything that lives does

Everything that lives does so via death. In a sense every thing that exists does so through the destruction of something else.

 

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:I am a

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

I am a vegetarian.  I always find it absurd ( and arrogant ) when vegetarians assume that no one else is also a vegetarian.


I did not assume that you weren't, and I'm not surprised that you are- based on your writing I guessed that you had a 50-50 chance at being.

The first half of my post was primarily directed at the OP, the latter half generally at your comments.

Proactive is great in theory.

The thing is that it isn't always practical to be proactive instead of reactive.  We can't always guess which pile of shit is going to hit the fan until it does- if we addressed everything that might possibly go wrong, we'd be spending all of our time cleaning up that shit, and not much time doing anything else.

Proactive is only practical and wise in hindsight- before the problem occurs, there's no way to know it was going to get so out of hand without a kind of prescience (Maybe Luminon could help us out with that Eye-wink ) or extremely organized intelligence that human communities simply lack.  There is a limit to how much people can learn and process.


I don't think I could have foreseen this out of the mire (although if put to it I could have identified it as one of thousands of potential problems); if you think you could have known the magnitude of this problem, I find *that* a little arrogant- hindsight is 20/20, and there was a lot of shit well ready to hit the fan in the region (and still is).


Yes, the situation sucks.  It is important to neuter and spay one's cats and dogs- but in an impoverished medieval nation (one that was already struggling with wild dogs anyway), that isn't always practical (if people even had the necessary education to do it anyway).

I can't really see anybody to actually get angry at here.  Uneducated people failed to do something responsible that they barely had the means to do anyway.  And those jerks in Zimbabwe keep spreading AIDS?  People can only do what is within their means.

I'm not sure if the OP even knows who or what he's angry at- tends to be the case.

 

 

robj101 wrote:

I do what I can btw, I donate $ to the spca and $ and time on occasion to the local humane society shelter.

 

All I'm getting out of that is that you arbitrarily care about dogs.

 

robj101 wrote:
Your self defense thing is funny, once again, you say 58,000 dogs were all attacking people.

 

If you would pay attention, that's not what I said.

 

robj101 wrote:
The foolish carelessness of people has caused this problem now the animals must suffer for it and you seem to imply that it's ok, just shoot them when they get out of hand.

 

I don't think it's O.K., but I'm not going to criticize them for self defense.  I probably like it even less than you do.

Yes, stupid people did something irresponsible at some point in the past (and quite a bit of that was probably the war itself); it's what people do when they are apathetic and uneducated.

 

robj101 wrote:
You go to far with the slave thing, thats ridiculous.

 

I'm surprised that you couldn't grasp the oh so complicated analogy.

 

You say it's A-O.K. to use and harm others if those were bred/born for that purpose.  I provided a counter-example (or at least something that you might consider a counter example).

 

robj101 wrote:
If you are born and told slaves are ok you will probably go with the flow though I like to think I would not have been one of those and you can't prove otherwise, *burn slave strawman burn*

And yet you were born into a society that uses and kills cows, and you were told it's O.K., and you go with the flow.

We have evidence that you are one of 'those' now... whether you would have been then- probably- but you can fantasize if you want.

 

robj101 wrote:
There is no problem with eating meat it is a natural thing for humans we have done it since who knows when.

 

Where did this come from?

 

Another strain of bad reasoning from you to defend something you want to do so you don't have to feel bad about it.  Rationalize away, and likely ignore the refutation:

 

'Natural therefore right' is bunk.  Rape is a natural thing and humans have been doing it since who knows when.  The penis itself is an appendage evolved to make rape an efficient means of copulation.  The majority of copulations in our near relatives, Oragutans, are rapes, and in many primitive countries virginity is almost always lost by rape.

Hey, but rape is natural- so it's must be A-O.K.  That's right Rob, go ahead and let yourself run wild- no reason to feel guilty about raping any girl you see now!  Just don't get caught, since it's inconveniently illegal (pesky laws, illegalizing things which are so obviously right and natural like rape!).

That is, unless you don't actually agree that "natural means right"... but in that case, it would just be silly to use it as an argument, don't you think?

 

robj101 wrote:
Science has determined it is possible that the mix of protein from meat and plant stuff could have had an impact on our development.

 

 

What relevance, at all, does that have today?

 

Even you should understand evolution well enough to know that an environmental condition that contributed to a certain trait doesn't need to persist to maintain that trait provided that the trait is useful and not damaging to the reproductive success of the organism.

The argument you are likely referring to was that the increased amount of fats and proteins in the diet provided an overabundance of nutrition and building blocks to allow the development of a larger brain and higher intelligence.  If true, it is only an argument for good nutrition, not an argument for meat. 

By the way:  In respect to the nutritional needs and dietary content of near relatives, and the vast diversity of prehistoric human diet, the theory is relatively unfounded.

 

robj101 wrote:
However nowdays we have the means to be more humane about it.

 

Yeah, such as eating plants and supplementing nutrition with that which is provided by modern technology and food processing!

 

robj101 wrote:
I don't care if a cow dies, I begin to care when it suffers unnecessarily.

 

Any suffering that cow experiences is unnecessary.  You choose to delude yourself into believing some small amount of that suffering is necessary for one bad reason or another- when all it comes down to is a matter of your culinary entertainment that demands that suffering.  No different from enjoying the suffering of dogs in a dog fighting ring for visual entertainment.

Animals are suffering for your entertainment- you have no place to criticize any animal suffering, whether it's shooting dogs for self defense, or kicking them across the living room for a good laugh.


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:Everything

robj101 wrote:

Everything that lives does so via death. In a sense every thing that exists does so through the destruction of something else.

Rob's evident conclusion:  Therefore it's right and moral for me to kill as much as pleases me without a shred of guilt instead of putting forth a tiny effort and sacrificing some flavours to minimizing my impact on death and suffering by trying only to kill things that don't have complex brains or consciousness!

 

I prefer Kapkao's response; he's an honest sort of apathetic bastard

Kapkao wrote:

Who in their right mind gives a damn about hounds anyways, esp. the stray ones? Slice the damn strays up and use them to feed the poor of impoverished nations.

 

See?  Not a trace of hypocrisy.  And look!  Amazing!  He doesn't even have to use bad reasoning and faulty logic to rationalize his actions!

I like Kapkao- he's a right bastard, but he's a rational and logical bastard.

 

 

It's not the apathy I'm critical of- any man has the right not to give a shit about whatever he doesn't want to give said shit about- it's the hypocrisy and abysmal miscarriage of logic and reason that I'm criticizing.

Like the proverbial cake, there is no legitimate way to have your morals and ignore them too.


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi Ragdish, I appreciate

Hi Ragdish, I appreciate your post,

ragdish wrote:

So IMO there does seem to be a commonalities among pro-lifers and animal rights activists (both religious and secular). Furthermore, it is very easy among them to equate abortion and sacrificing animals to the following:

 [images iconic of slavery and the WWII holocaust]

 

I have certainly noticed those commonalities too.  Both also tend to think that if you make something illegal, people will magically obey the law and stop doing it instead of moving it underground where it is unregulated, and more dangerous.

 

I hope you aren't suggesting that I made the equivocation; I only make analogies where they are apt.  E.g. in dispelling the bad reasoning that having been born for something makes it right (I don't suggest that it makes it wrong either).  I don't draw parallels where there are none.

 

ragdish wrote:
I have no qualms about swatting a fly, experimenting on a mouse for a cancer cure, eating a complex multicellular lifeform such as a tomato or giving a woman the choice to abort after rape. And all things considered, if killing life is for the sake of safety and survival of human beings, I'm all for it. What atheists should strive for is a secular moral philosophy that prevents the wanton killing, torture and subjugation of life that our theistic cousins will justify in the name of their sky daddies.

 

I agree. 

In addition, I think it's important- even crucial- in that pursuit to recognize more universal priorities- e.g. self defense, survival, health, freedom, efficiency/economy, on down to entertainment.

 

That's why I'm hard pressed to criticize any animal testing on moral grounds; because for the ones doing much of the testing, it's for preservation of human life.  We all have our priorities. (criticizing some unnecessary tests, though, done for economy does seem more reasonable)

I can understand that the priorities of some might differ from others, but when people violate that hierarchy in some extreme way- such as criticizing animal testing done to save human lives while indulging in harm of animals for entertainment- I find that reprehensible. 

Preferring entertainment over health, survival, and even self defense?  It's either the mark of a nutcase or a hypocrite- maybe both.


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Blake wrote:ProzacDeathWish

Blake wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

I am a vegetarian.  I always find it absurd ( and arrogant ) when vegetarians assume that no one else is also a vegetarian.


I did not assume that you weren't, and I'm not surprised that you are- based on your writing I guessed that you had a 50-50 chance at being.

The first half of my post was primarily directed at the OP, the latter half generally at your comments.

Proactive is great in theory.

The thing is that it isn't always practical to be proactive instead of reactive.  We can't always guess which pile of shit is going to hit the fan until it does- if we addressed everything that might possibly go wrong, we'd be spending all of our time cleaning up that shit, and not much time doing anything else.

Proactive is only practical and wise in hindsight- before the problem occurs, there's no way to know it was going to get so out of hand without a kind of prescience (Maybe Luminon could help us out with that Eye-wink ) or extremely organized intelligence that human communities simply lack.  There is a limit to how much people can learn and process.


I don't think I could have foreseen this out of the mire (although if put to it I could have identified it as one of thousands of potential problems); if you think you could have known the magnitude of this problem, I find *that* a little arrogant- hindsight is 20/20, and there was a lot of shit well ready to hit the fan in the region (and still is).


Yes, the situation sucks.  It is important to neuter and spay one's cats and dogs- but in an impoverished medieval nation (one that was already struggling with wild dogs anyway), that isn't always practical (if people even had the necessary education to do it anyway).

I can't really see anybody to actually get angry at here.  Uneducated people failed to do something responsible that they barely had the means to do anyway.  And those jerks in Zimbabwe keep spreading AIDS?  People can only do what is within their means.

I'm not sure if the OP even knows who or what he's angry at- tends to be the case.

 

 

robj101 wrote:

I do what I can btw, I donate $ to the spca and $ and time on occasion to the local humane society shelter.

 

All I'm getting out of that is that you arbitrarily care about dogs.

 

robj101 wrote:
Your self defense thing is funny, once again, you say 58,000 dogs were all attacking people.

 

If you would pay attention, that's not what I said.

 

robj101 wrote:
The foolish carelessness of people has caused this problem now the animals must suffer for it and you seem to imply that it's ok, just shoot them when they get out of hand.

 

I don't think it's O.K., but I'm not going to criticize them for self defense.  I probably like it even less than you do.

Yes, stupid people did something irresponsible at some point in the past (and quite a bit of that was probably the war itself); it's what people do when they are apathetic and uneducated.

 

robj101 wrote:
You go to far with the slave thing, thats ridiculous.

 

I'm surprised that you couldn't grasp the oh so complicated analogy.

 

You say it's A-O.K. to use and harm others if those were bred/born for that purpose.  I provided a counter-example (or at least something that you might consider a counter example).

 

robj101 wrote:
If you are born and told slaves are ok you will probably go with the flow though I like to think I would not have been one of those and you can't prove otherwise, *burn slave strawman burn*

And yet you were born into a society that uses and kills cows, and you were told it's O.K., and you go with the flow.

We have evidence that you are one of 'those' now... whether you would have been then- probably- but you can fantasize if you want.

 

robj101 wrote:
There is no problem with eating meat it is a natural thing for humans we have done it since who knows when.

 

Where did this come from?

 

Another strain of bad reasoning from you to defend something you want to do so you don't have to feel bad about it.  Rationalize away, and likely ignore the refutation:

 

'Natural therefore right' is bunk.  Rape is a natural thing and humans have been doing it since who knows when.  The penis itself is an appendage evolved to make rape an efficient means of copulation.  The majority of copulations in our near relatives, Oragutans, are rapes, and in many primitive countries virginity is almost always lost by rape.

Hey, but rape is natural- so it's must be A-O.K.  That's right Rob, go ahead and let yourself run wild- no reason to feel guilty about raping any girl you see now!  Just don't get caught, since it's inconveniently illegal (pesky laws, illegalizing things which are so obviously right and natural like rape!).

That is, unless you don't actually agree that "natural means right"... but in that case, it would just be silly to use it as an argument, don't you think?

 

robj101 wrote:
Science has determined it is possible that the mix of protein from meat and plant stuff could have had an impact on our development.

 

 

What relevance, at all, does that have today?

 

Even you should understand evolution well enough to know that an environmental condition that contributed to a certain trait doesn't need to persist to maintain that trait provided that the trait is useful and not damaging to the reproductive success of the organism.

The argument you are likely referring to was that the increased amount of fats and proteins in the diet provided an overabundance of nutrition and building blocks to allow the development of a larger brain and higher intelligence.  If true, it is only an argument for good nutrition, not an argument for meat. 

By the way:  In respect to the nutritional needs and dietary content of near relatives, and the vast diversity of prehistoric human diet, the theory is relatively unfounded.

 

robj101 wrote:
However nowdays we have the means to be more humane about it.

 

Yeah, such as eating plants and supplementing nutrition with that which is provided by modern technology and food processing!

 

robj101 wrote:
I don't care if a cow dies, I begin to care when it suffers unnecessarily.

 

Any suffering that cow experiences is unnecessary.  You choose to delude yourself into believing some small amount of that suffering is necessary for one bad reason or another- when all it comes down to is a matter of your culinary entertainment that demands that suffering.  No different from enjoying the suffering of dogs in a dog fighting ring for visual entertainment.

Animals are suffering for your entertainment- you have no place to criticize any animal suffering, whether it's shooting dogs for self defense, or kicking them across the living room for a good laugh.

 

There are grey area's and middle ground upon which you refuse to tread.

Wtf does eating cows, shooting dogs in self defense and kicking animals around have in common? Those are 3 totally different aspects and one can not expect everyone to either condone or propogate each of them based on one. You go from black to white in a pinch.

You refuse to understand that some things have to be accepted, you breathe oxygen and microbes die by the thousand when entering your lungs, should you stop breathing? Roaches and rats invade your home, does that mean you should let them stay? One snake will eat hundreds of small animals in it's lifetime, is that fair? Theres you a straw or two and I could go on and on.

One day we may be rid of all animals as we lose any need and care for them at all.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Blake wrote:I don't think

Blake wrote:

I don't think it's O.K., but I'm not going to criticize them for self defense.  I probably like it even less than you do.

Yes, stupid people did something irresponsible at some point in the past (and quite a bit of that was probably the war itself); it's what people do when they are apathetic and uneducated.

 

I will repeat:  probably the only long term solution is to starve them out.  Get the human garbage and shit under control with waste collection and sewer systems.  Teach your children how to not be dog food.  The adult dogs will either move on or starve and the bitches will go into estrus less often so there are fewer puppies. 

In the meantime, shooting the more obvious dogs predating on lousy sanitary conditions will at least cause people to feel something useful is being done - regardless of the actual consequences of increased numbers and size of litters.  They might also want to hunt out the dens and drown the puppies.  Sorry, Rob.

People can be exceedingly short-sighted and stupid.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


liberatedatheist
atheistScience Freak
liberatedatheist's picture
Posts: 137
Joined: 2009-12-08
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:  I will

cj wrote:

 

 

I will repeat:  probably the only long term solution is to starve them out.  Get the human garbage and shit under control with waste collection and sewer systems.  Teach your children how to not be dog food.  The adult dogs will either move on or starve and the bitches will go into estrus less often so there are fewer puppies. 

In the meantime, shooting the more obvious dogs predating on lousy sanitary conditions will at least cause people to feel something useful is being done - regardless of the actual consequences of increased numbers and size of litters.  They might also want to hunt out the dens and drown the puppies.  Sorry, Rob.

People can be exceedingly short-sighted and stupid.

There may be other options. I think that this might be a good time to do some interesting artificial selection experiments. Maybe they could kill all the dogs that come from large litters to try to control breeding in the future. Or maybe kill all the large dogs and allow the smaller ones to breed creating a race progressively smaller feral puppies (only half joking with this one).

It might cost an extra few thousand dollars now but could save money and effort in the future.

I Am My God

The absence of evidence IS evidence of absence


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Blake wrote:I don't

cj wrote:

Blake wrote:

I don't think it's O.K., but I'm not going to criticize them for self defense.  I probably like it even less than you do.

Yes, stupid people did something irresponsible at some point in the past (and quite a bit of that was probably the war itself); it's what people do when they are apathetic and uneducated.

 

I will repeat:  probably the only long term solution is to starve them out.  Get the human garbage and shit under control with waste collection and sewer systems.  Teach your children how to not be dog food.  The adult dogs will either move on or starve and the bitches will go into estrus less often so there are fewer puppies. 

In the meantime, shooting the more obvious dogs predating on lousy sanitary conditions will at least cause people to feel something useful is being done - regardless of the actual consequences of increased numbers and size of litters.  They might also want to hunt out the dens and drown the puppies.  Sorry, Rob.

People can be exceedingly short-sighted and stupid.

They are apparently short sighted enough to not have one single dog pound. Actually once again I believe it is "care", they don't. Complete lack of care is a destructive force in some cases.

 

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:cj

robj101 wrote:

cj wrote:

People can be exceedingly short-sighted and stupid.

They are apparently short sighted enough to not have one single dog pound. Actually once again I believe it is "care", they don't. Complete lack of care is a destructive force in some cases.

 

You are right, they don't care and lack of care can be a destructive force. 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
I wonder what will be the

I wonder what will be the consequences of the dog massacre. In Egypt they slaughtered population of pigs, reputedly to not spread swine flu. Eventually the bureaucracy found out, that the heaps of garbage suddenly piling up on streets might have something to do with that. So now when urban Egyptians are without their only way of disposing of garbage, the government might find out that classical diseases like typhus can be much worse.

I have no idea where I first heard about that, it might even be on this forum, but here is the report.
It seems to me that both pigs and dogs were so readily slaughtered, because they're considered unholy animals in Islam. I'm not sure about dogs.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Time for me to stock up on

Time for me to stock up on canned rations, bottled water, ammunition, and light sweet crude...

Blake wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

Who in their right mind gives a damn about hounds anyways, esp. the stray ones? Slice the damn strays up and use them to feed the poor of impoverished nations.

 

See?  Not a trace of hypocrisy.  And look!  Amazing!  He doesn't even have to use bad reasoning and faulty logic to rationalize his actions!

I like Kapkao- he's a right bastard, but he's a rational and logical bastard.

 

... someone HAS FINALLY FIGURED ME OUT.

Which is of course, a sign of the endtimes.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote: I will repeat: 

cj wrote:

 

I will repeat:  probably the only long term solution is to starve the humans out.  Get the dog garbage and shit under control with waste collection and sewer systems.  Teach the human children how to become dog food.  The adult humans will either move on or starve and the human bitches will go into estrus less often so there are fewer babies. 

In the meantime, shooting the more obvious humans predating on lousy sanitary conditions will at least cause dogs to feel something useful is being done - regardless of the actual consequences of increased numbers and size of human litters.  They might also want to hunt out the human dens and drown the babies.  Sorry, Rob.

Dogs can be exceedingly short-sighted and stupid.

 

  Edit: fixed   ( ...sorry cj )

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:cj

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

cj wrote:

 

I will repeat:  probably the only long term solution is to starve the humans out.  Get the dog garbage and shit under control with waste collection and sewer systems.  Teach the human children how to become dog food.  The adult humans will either move on or starve and the human bitches will go into estrus less often so there are fewer babies. 

In the meantime, shooting the more obvious humans predating on lousy sanitary conditions will at least cause dogs to feel something useful is being done - regardless of the actual consequences of increased numbers and size of human litters.  They might also want to hunt out the human dens and drown the babies.  Sorry, Rob.

People can be exceedingly short-sighted and stupid.

 

  Edit: fixed   ( ...sorry cj )

 

You ain't sorry - or you wouldn't have done it.

 

Dogs have a brain the size of a lemon - they do the best they can with what they've got.  People have a brain the size of a cantaloupe - no excuses.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:   People have a

cj wrote:

 

  People have a brain the size of a cantaloupe

  What an appropriate metaphor for the human brain, and not just regarding it's dimensions....

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:cj

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

cj wrote:

 

  People have a brain the size of a cantaloupe

  What an appropriate metaphor for the human brain, and not just regarding it's dimensions....

Shame it's not delicious.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:There are grey

robj101 wrote:

There are grey area's and middle ground upon which you refuse to tread.

 

I'm in the middle ground- it's called being rational and consistent.

 

robj101 wrote:
Wtf does eating cows, shooting dogs in self defense and kicking animals around have in common? Those are 3 totally different aspects and one can not expect everyone to either condone or propogate each of them based on one. You go from black to white in a pinch.

 

We can expect people who will endorse animal suffering for entertainment (as you do), to be accommodating of animal suffering for more important or noble causes, such as human health, survival, and self-defense.  It seems we can only expect that of sane people, though.

You seem to be suggesting that you find entertainment to be more important than human health, survival, or self defense.  If that's your priority, I consider you a psychopath of some kind, but that's your prerogative.

 

robj101 wrote:
You refuse to understand that some things have to be accepted, you breathe oxygen and microbes die by the thousand when entering your lungs, should you stop breathing? Roaches and rats invade your home, does that mean you should let them stay? One snake will eat hundreds of small animals in it's lifetime, is that fair? Theres you a straw or two and I could go on and on.

 

You refuse to accept responsibility for your choice to harm animals in those cases where animal suffering doesn't need to be accepted.

And you persistently use poor reasoning to rationalize your choices so you don't have to feel guilty about them- all the while criticizing others for harming animals in cases which are much more justified than your actions.

 

Stating extreme cases as just another bad excuse and rationalization: it doesn't change your responsibility and choice in this matter- there are things we don't have the practical ability or technology to avoid, and then there are things we do.  When we choose not to prevent suffering we could prevent- particularly of conscious beings, and particularly when that is an choice to perpetuate that suffering through our demands- that is on us.

 

Just because we can't eliminate all harm, doesn't mean we shouldn't bother moderating ourselves or eliminating the harm we do have power over, especially when it is easily viable and within our means- that is and remains a choice, no matter how much you try to pretend that it isn't.

 

Just take responsibility for your own choice to harm the extra animals you do, and recognize that it isn't necessary- that you do have a choice in the matter, and you have made the choice to harm animals for sake of your entertainment.

 

 

 

cj wrote:

I will repeat:  probably the only long term solution is to starve them out.

 

Absolutely- I agree with you that the ultimate solution needs to be holistic; it's a red queen's race to swat the fruit flies coming out of a garbage bin.  However, those things take serious infrastructure- something that has been damaged, and needs time to be rebuilt after the war.

Shooting and poisoning the dogs is definitely a quick fix that won't last, but of course it does still do something.

 

It would seem more practical to me to replace the dogs with another species- such as a breed of pig (of course, Muslims don't like them either)- which would be less dangerous to humans (though still potentially dangerous) and would be able to out-eat the dogs and starve them out in the mean time (while infrastructure is being replaced and improved).

After all, the best way to get rid of roaches in your house, next to actually cleaning things up, is to have a strong population of ants or centipedes; the food rubbish has to go somewhere.