Styles2112
-
Posts
424 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Styles2112
-
-
The only difference between the bear in the forest and the one that hurt/killed is location, and since 2 miles is close enough for it to easily come and do what the other bear did, then it represents just as much of a threat as the first bear. It is in the nature of bears as such to have no respect for property or human life. Killing all bears that are within range of civilization is the same as putting out all forest fires that are within range of civilization.
HOW? Why would a bear want to? Contrary to your belief, these creatures are not lumbering automons that just attack everything in sight. If you see a bear in the woods, most likely it is going to go its own way and leave you alone (unless, of course, you have a tasty treat). Bears do not go out of their way (certainly not miles) to find your home and kill people and trash it. That bear is not a threat to you. Now, if that bear is standing in your yard yelling and kicking your trash around...that's a different story. I can't see any rational reason to kill an animal simply because YOU wrongly percieve it as a threat.
I disagree that it shouldn’t be killed and I disagree that it can be “convinced.”That's fine. I disagree with you.
Animals do not have rights. I will remind you that it is against the rules to make assertions of that kind in this part of the forum.I'm trying not to, so after this post I'm going to cease posting in this thread. Thanks for an interesting argument though.
Then the next time a bear perceives and marks its home to include your house, I guess you’ll have to move out. If the bear has the right to do what a bear does, then you don’t have a right to oppose it. Since bears cannot be made to refrain from perceiving and marking their territory to include human property, then you have to either resort to force, or lose your life and/or property.No, I'll do the same thing it did to me in the forest, defend my home. You twisted my words and put it out of context. How nice of you. Animals actually do respect property areas to a certain degree. That's why you don't generally see bears in downtown detroit or other such animals.
A bear, on the other hand, by its very nature, will not respect human lives or property.That's just not true. A bear will NOT simply attack a human just because it's a bear. I already said that most bears/carnivors leave humans alone. You're making a collective assertion about a group when it needs to be judged on individuals. All animals have individual personalities and tendencies just like humans.
-
I saw it a couple weeks ago. I thought it was a brilliant and completely depressing movie. Not in the "sense of life" aspect...just it seemed such a shame. Especially from such a dirty fighter (the one who put her in that predicament). Anyways, definitely a good movie.
-
I have written on this topic, at length, before. The key to understanding it is to ask yourself: "What if someone released 100 bears into downtown Detroit? Is there any way that such a situation could be resolved without using force? Could we and the bears simply 'learn to get along?'"
Yet another a contextual, and arbitrary, example. Let's rephrase.
"What if someone released 100 Al Queda terrorists into downtown Detroit? Is there any way that such a situation could be resolved without using force? Could we and the terrorists (HUMAN) simply 'learn to get along?'"
I think that one answers itself.
"What if someone released 100 fluffy bunnies into downtown Detroit? Is there any way that such a situation could be resolved without using force? Could we and the bunnies simply 'learn to get along?'"
Sure, you pick them up and put them forest outside of detroit. Chances are they didn't want to be in Detroit anyways (who does, really?).
"What if someone released 100 Juvenile deliquents into downtown Detroit? Is there any way that such a situation could be resolved without using force? Could we and the children simply 'learn to get along?'"
Feel free to answer this one.
"What if someone released 100 squirrels into downtown Detroit? Is there any way that such a situation could be resolved without using force? Could we and the squirrels simply 'learn to get along?'"
Since there probably are a bunch of squirrels there, I can't see this making a big difference. We seem to get along fine with them as it is. If we didn't...I'm sure they'd all be dead by now.
Of course, the real answer to that question is WHO is that SOMEONE. Wouldn't that make the animals the responsibility of that someone? Virtually none of those animals would CHOOSE to go into downtown of a city. Why would someone release a dangerous threat to the city? Does the threat need to be killed? Or simply captured and placed in a safer area? If 100 bears just randomly entered the city like that, there'd have to be some kind underlying reason because bears just don't do that. So, it seems a bit arbitrary. Funny, I see you give people grief for putting out those types of questions, including myself.
Based on his clarification, I think you may have misrepresented Inspector's position.I don't think I have. Even in that second paragraph you posted, he still expressed a DESIRE for all bears to die. I can understand wanting justice for a single animal that does injustice to you. If a bear came and killed my family, I would want that bear dead. I would hunt it down and kill it. However, I fail to see how another bear 2 miles away deep in a forest had anything to do with that action, and why I should want it dead (especially if said bear is not inclined to attack humans). Likewise if all the orignal bear did was throw some trash around and break a window, I hardly see a reason to kill it. I might find some other ways to convince said bear that he doesn't want to be around my area. In another situation, if I'm walking out in a forest, and I come upon a bear cave and the "owner" of that bear cave thinks I'm an enemy, I respect the right of that bear to defend its home (which means I'm going to run like hell the other way.). I'm not, however, going to go home, find the biggest gun I can, GO BACK to that cave and blow that bear's mind out. Seems quite pointless to me, since they bear was merely defending it's percieved (and chances are, marked) home.
My question, for Inspector, is; what is the rational basis for a DESIRE (whether acted upon or not) for wanted A collective dead based on an individuals action? This seems really similar to some of the war/terrorist threads that I read, where certain people on here have expressed that ALL arabs should die because SOME of them are terrorists.
-
You don't lock up your horse or your dog?
The horse is put in it's stall for protection and food. It goes into its stall WILLINGLY. We don't have to force it. The dog usually does not get "locked" up. We have a fence that keeps him from going in other's yards. I don't see any difference between those and sending a child to their room for the evening. It's all the same.
Again with this whole "pain-feeling" thing. Tell me why that should matter? I see no reason to make that kind of distinction. They are using a resource to further their sport. You could just as easily say that auto racers use gasoline for their sport.I do see a reason to make that distinction. Gasoline does not think. It does not feel pain. Animals THINK. They feel PAIN. Just because it is not on the same level as a human does not take away from that nature. If you can't, or aren't willing to make that distinction then the argument is moot anyways.
No, as you are a human being and have rights. We have a government with laws to deal with disputes between us, which we are both capable of respecting. There can be no objective authority to deal with the disputes between bears and humans, which bears are capable of respecting. Furthermore, I do not recognize the right of the bear to exist. It is not in my objective interests as a human being to do so.Bears, being wild animals... and big, strong ones at that, represent a threat to me and all that I love. The goal would be to wipe out any possible threat.
No, you're right. When a bear attacks, we simply resort to the first primal law - Survival of the fittest. No they don't. You represent more of a threat to them, than they do to you. That's silly and acontextual, you're doing the same thing that you just gave me grief about. Most bears will not be around humans, and avoid humans at all cost (as most "lower-in-the-food-chain" animals do). That's like saying because one human wrecked your house, or hurt your family, that all humans should die. There is no objective logic in that.
I completely and utterly disagree. Animals do not have rights. They simply are what they are. They do not have the "right" to do anything, as such. There are only the rights of the human who owns the animal. If, for example, a crook trespasses on a dog owner's property and gets bitten, this is allowed in the same way that it would be allowed for him to defend his property in any other way (such as with a gun). The animal, itself, does not have rights.Let me ask you something. If you kill my family. Do I have a right to kill you? Has that taken away from your right to exist?
-
Could you elaborate on the animals' thoughts/feelings and how these have affected your views?
I guess it's somewhat hard to explain. Animals do not understand our words (or, at least, all of them), but we communicate with them all the time. They understand the few words we can teach them and tone of voice, but more importantly they understand our body language. They understand certain scents that go along with certain emotions. We (or most of us), on the other hand, do not understand when animals use the same cues to try and communicate with us. I'll use general/basic examples here, but most people do not realize that if a horse has it's ears pinned back at them, it means it doesn't want/like you, and it may very well bite or kick you if you try to go near it. It is communicated it's intent very clearly early on. Same as a dog baring it's teeth, or raising it's hackles, or a cat hissing. That is, of course, a basic example that most every knows. Short anecdote- I once worked at a summer camp taking care of a horse barn. One of the mornings I was out giving grain, I went into the pasture to get the buckets. One of the horses was trying to get the grain from me and I pushed him away. The other horse, Snickers, was being fine by me, but was annoyed by the other horse (whose name I forget). Well, the other horse started doing laps around me, and snickers went to kick him and, whoops, kicked me instead (right in the thigh, good thing I turned, though, otherwise I wouldn't be having the kid I'm having next month. Kicked me so hard, it made me lose my vision and balance. That's also where I learned that when a horse kicks a human, they pull their kicks). Now, following Inspector's logic, I should kill that horse (that threatened my life/body) or want him dead and subsequently EVERY horse dead, since many people would not be able to distinguish between being kicked or the reason behind it. I knew that Snickers had no intent of kicking me and was aiming for the other horse (who was doing a wonderful job of running behind me at the time). Now, I was pretty pissed at the other horse, but since it was not my horse, there was little I could do.
Many animals communicate through their eyes. I can tell, to a certain degree, what my dog, max, is thinking by looking at his eyes. To me, having animals, is the same as having a child that will never grow up. I love watching them be perplexed by things they don't understand, and trying to use their doggy, or kitty, minds to figure it out. For me, I supsect this will be even grander when I have a child. Unfortunately, I can't explain all the little details of animals that lead me to this conclusion.
-
I'd highly recommend checking out your nearest shelter. I don't, generally, recommend pure breeds because they tend to die sooner, and be more open to diseases. You can find all sorts of wonderful dogs at shelters (just becareful to notice behaviors when choosing), and it's usually cheaper. Check out Petfinder.com as you might find something in your area, as well.
As far as breed, or breed combos-
German shepard or any cross with is usually good
A smaller pit Bull or cross are happy dogs
Collies or border collies are great dogs
Virtually any terrier.
-
(Obviously, we have enslaved/de-programmed some creatures, such as cats and dogs, which places them into a different category than wild creatures. I still don’t trust those things, though; while they are fun to pet at other peoples houses, I wouldn’t want one in mine)
I think that's rather sad. It's been proven that petting animals releases endorphins that help one to relax. It is well known that animals and much of our relationships with them are quite therapuetic. Likewise, our relationship through animals isn't by force. We do not "force" our dogs to be pets. They choose to be our pets. Many times they choose US to be their guardian/owner. I cannot "force" my horse to do something he does not want to do. Same with my dog. When do an action, it's because they WANT to, not by any FORCE. Now, is there a certain amount of Intelligence needed to convince said animal that a certain action is what they want to do? Possibly. But, I find most animals have US trained as much as we have them trained. Wild animals on the other hand, operate under more of a stranger principle. I don't tend to trust anyone or anything until I've been around them a bit. I'm not willing to go up and shake the hand of a guy weilding a Tommy gun, just as I'm not likely to go up to a bear and pet it. A deer or other such herbivor will likely just run away should I approach it.
I do not feel any such waste; killing animals is a human survival skill; it is an exercise of his mind and body. It has all the elements that make any other sport a value. I don’t feel any more sense of waste than when wood is used to make baseball bats instead of homes. (I’m not really a baseball fan, you see)Wood/plants are not sentient. Animals are. I see no reason why, when we differentiate reason from non-reason, we shouldn't differentiate pain-feeling from non-pain feeling. Especially since most animals can form concepts around the level of a 4 yr old. That is really not an appropriate analogy.
However, when something is a threat to my life and values, I take it personally. If a bear were to damage my property or hurt anyone I love, I don’t care that it was in that bear’s nature to do so: I want that bear dead. I want that bear’s entire family dead. I want any bear who ever met that bear dead. I might just want every bear on the continent; every bear that could ever conceivably do the same thing… dead. I do not suffer lightly a threat to my values.I can understand that, and would probably want that bear dead if he/she destroyed my home (unless that bear had cubs that needed her). Possibly, growing up with animals has made me much more aware of their nature and thoughts/feelings. However, if I damaged your property or hurt someone you love, would you just kill me? Or would you kill me, my entire family and everyone that's ever met me? I don't see much of a difference. Those other bears did nothing to you, yet you would want them dead? For what purpose? Revenge? Only one bear was a threat to your values, yet you would kill them all? That doesn't add up.
Quick anecdote- I used to raise chickens (a fascinating creature after further study, but I digress) called silkies. An interesting bird (fluffy fur-like feathers and five toes). It's not really good for anything but showmanship (since I was in 4-H at the time, that was what we did). I kept them in the barn, but one week, I was finding my prize chickens were being picked off one by one by an unknown source. Well, later in the week, I went down to the barn late and saw my culprit. A female raccoon and about 5 little coonlings (I have no idea what baby raccoons are called, but that seems good enough). Of course, I called for my father to bring my rifle down to me, but when he came down he wouldn't let me shoot the coon and the babies. He, of course, didn't see much point. It was simply a mother feeding her children. I was pretty angry about it for days to come but I realized that he was right. Killing the coon would've served no purpose other than simple revenge, and I'm not sure I'd have had the heart to put bullets into cute little baby raccoon heads (and they are cute). Thus I couldn't leave them without their mother. I never saw them again. and my chickens were fine after that. My point is, there is nothing in killing them that would have furthered my life, made me feel better (for if I had shot them, I think I would've felt worse), or any such point. Now, for argument's sake if my dog bites my kid, the first thing I'm going to do is figure out why. If my kid kicked the dog, then I would simply punish BOTH the child and the dog (the child for abusing a dog, and the dog for biting, even though I understand why it was done). As far as I'm concerned, an animal has RIGHT to defend itself from humans. Now, if the dog bit the child out of malice with no cause, then we would need to either get rid of the dog, or (depending on the severity of the bite) put it down. For the most part, just like children, I don't believe a well raised dog would attack someone if it was not; responding to abuse or protecting it's family.
On the other hand, I'm not sure that the application matters anyway, as I would just as soon kill a human who tries to harm my family as I would an animal. So there is no difference there.
You should know by now that you can’t take a single, a-contextual, action and ask of its universal moral status. Non-human life on this planet is often delicious and simply wiping it all out would be hurting the values of many humans. That’s only one example of what’s wrong with your question.You're right, and I apologize. I've stated before I'm not very good at stating questions appropriately.
But if you mean, “do animals have any right to exist, such that we would be immoral in wiping them all out,” then the answer is NO: they do not, and no: wiping them all out isn’t immoral as such. (it is only immoral inasmuch as we would be wiping things out that have value as food or slaves *ahem* pets or entertainment (zoos) or objects of scientific study or as a source of heart valve transplants, etc, etc.)Which was the answer I was suspecting. Much like your bear situation. According to your values, it would not be immoral to kill every bear that exists because one of them destroyed some property.
-
Well, interesting super bowl. What'd people think? I'm a die-hard packer fan, so I can't make fun of anyone here (except Pats fun, but I just generally hate the patriots.) I was SOOOO happy when Denver crushed them.
Who do you think is in it for next year?
my picks
NFC-
Seahawks
Packers (just cause I have to...)
Carolina
Redskins
Bears
Bucs
AFC-
Broncos
Steelers
Colts
Miami
Bengals
Patriots
SuperBowl
Seahawks 28 Colts 24
-
I think, to a certain extent, that having a child is less about the child itself and about the selfish act of creating it. When my wife and I have our child I don't see it as something to learn from (although it is) or propogation of species (though, it is that, as well) I see it as a personal creation between my wife and I. A culmination of values, if you will. Everything that we had with each other, now in one tiny (yet, growing) package. It's extremely hard to explain but in my mind, the actual act of creating a child is more about my relationship with my wife and our acts together. I guess I see the child as a (PLEASANT) product of that. Once the child is born and the responsibility of raising and independant being sets in....well, that's a whole other story (one that I'll learn about in the coming years.)
-
If you valued the propagation of the human race?!? Is that even a concern in a time when people are starting movememts to make the human race extinct?!?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
I wonder what Darwin would think of that. Talk about natural selection at work....
He has a little drum set in the living room. After watching some G3 he realized that he could play his drums while daddy played the guitar...just like the guys on the TV do! Man, that's good stuff.Well, at least you're starting him off right. Remember. Zildjian good, Sabian bad....repeat after me...
-
Interesting idea. I wouldn't do it, just because I take a great deal of pride in my lyrics (even the bad ones). But, it would be fun, musically, to write an album to, say, Emily Dickinson.
On the other hand Rush already did XANADU (based almost word for word from Samuel Taylor Coleridge's "Kubla Kahn")
-
I've had a slight change of heart on this matter, as further readings have shown me a new way to think about it. I have to say, after completely reading this thread (whoo boy...) I completely agree with Dismuke and admire the way he (she?) put forth his thoughts. I suppose I see it as this- Men can kill an animal for food, because man is an animal, by nature, and that is ONE way we survive is by eating other animals. I do not feel badly for an animal that is hunted and turned into food. I do feel a certain waste for animals that are hunted for sport, and those who enjoy the killing, rather than the value of the product. I, obviously, have no respect for those willing to torture an animal because, as a sentient creature, it is quite easy to liken them to a human life. At the same time, I do not think any wrong doing of an animal that attacks a human in either self-defense or in desire for food. It is in their nature.
I remember reading, in either this or a previous thread, about animals initiating force against humans, being a violation of rights. But, can one violate rights if one has (two things);#1 no rights to begin with and #2, supposedly, no concept of rights? Or do we simply acknowledge the nature of the individual creatures themselves or the nature of man's relationship with the other creatures of Earth?
Is it also being said, that if we felt like it, it would be morally okay to eradicate all non-human life on this planet? (regardless of the manner)
I think I have an idea of what the answers entail, but I would like to read them anyways. Thanks for any responses.
-
Since it was asked for...
http://www.pet-abuse.com/pages/abuse_connection.php
http://vivisection-absurd.org.uk/abs02.html
http://www.rcpets.org/partnersincrime.htm
http://www.critcrim.org/redfeather/journal...m/001Myers.html
http://aacantiques.com/animalabuse.htm
I realize that some of these are somewhat biased in their other goals, but the information remains the same.
-
http://www.memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=1035#
Wow....I'm not sure if this was set up to be a comedy or what....but what a laugh it is. They seem to suggest that they were just "standing there, minding their own business" and we just invaded them. It must be fun to be on T.V. and to never actually watch it.
-
Sheesh...if you can't make fun of religion....what's left to make fun of?
I don't think there's anyway that an international law, like that, could get passed (but, I've been wrong before). Welcome, my friends, to 1984. Big Brother really IS watching you.
-
Well, I suspect our posts would be trashed if we started talking like that. that's problaby reason number one....reason number two - the thread didn't really seem to have to do with the physical act of sex (or maybe I missed something along the line.) Anyways, I think it's a very interesting thread.
-
I agree with pretty much all you listed there Moose (I'm a bit hesitant on the bombs over Mecca and such thing, maybe as a last measure...IMO). I still think having a counter-terrorism unit, similar to Italy's that not only helps prevent recruiment, but also prevents individual attacks from PRIVATELY funded terrorists. Unfortunately, not all Terrorists are state funded, and I can't see bombing a nation over a mis-guided moron from one nation. Proof of state funding would have to be there.
-
Sometimes, I find that just smiling at my wife puts her in a better mood. So, I'd add that use the dopey stunned looked and follow it with a sincere smile. I haven't known a woman to not love that yet.
-
Cool...I signed up....I might try posting some lyrics up....
-
Heh....new life goals.....
-
Hunting cells is not the way to destroy terrorism. Terrorism must be fought ideologically and financially. Individual terrorists are too easily replaced. Trying to defeat terrorism by hunting down each individual terrorist cell is somewhat akin to a dog trying to cure his flea problem by individually biting each one to death.
So, what's your solution?
-
"Al Qaeda is a lot less active in Italy where counter-terrorist agencies hunt its cells to earth relentlessly."
There's the key right there.
-
I have this optimistic streak in me when it comes to Iran, and yet... I also remember that the Islamist revolution that installed the current theocracy over 25 years ago was a youth movement; and "the support of the young" matters only in a democratic society, which Iran is not. Not only are elections not free and open (excluding "unacceptable" candidates is SOP), but the youth largely boycotted the last elections when Satan was elected. It would be interesting, though, to do a follow-up to see what becomes of some of those kids -- how many of them are arrested or killed by Vevak in the next month or year as a consequence of speaking against the government. Perhaps in 50 years when those now in power are gone and these youth are in charge of Iran, things will change, as long as the youth keep hold of their ideal of freedom. The situation since June has gotten vastly worse, and my analysis of the situation is that a significant economic downturn that was attributable to the present Iranian government could be the most effective weapon for political change.
I would agree with that. It seems such a shame too. I imagine it must be close to IMPOSSIBLE to even start anything resembling organized that could possibly further their cause. That, and it seems almost paradoxal that one should have to fight and, possibly die, just to have some fun and freedom (in terms of the video.) For them, it comes down to "I really like this kind of fun, and I would like more freedoms, but I'm not sure I'm willing to die for it, yet." It makes you wonder where the line is. On the other hand, I've often wondered the same thing about christians.
-
I would suggest that the situation is more complex than that....But, we'd never see eye to eye on it anyways.
Your thoughts on why some music is good?
in Music
Posted
Another band I like, but I can't speak for their musicianship. The drumming is quite plain, and frankly not that good. Decent lyrics and nice poppy sound, though.