Political Crossfire Forums

[Kindred]

http://www.themainmeal.com.au/evolution.mpg

This ad is being played on Australian T.V. Given this, do you think it would be okay for animal rights organisations to put across their moral view-point in a similar vain? (For example, they might point out the capacity of many higher animals to fell pain as showed through scientific studies, or perhaps they might show images from a modern factory farm.)

Why/Why not?

[John Galt]

I don't see why not. Most people, if not all people aside from the very stupid, know animals feel pain, but nearly all people don't care because they are animals we are talking about, not humans. Both of the commericals would be correct: animals do indeed feel pain, but on the flip side had animals are an important part of the diet of humans and their pain is our gain. Like I said, they are animals. They feel pain, but really no one cares, aside from you and other people like the infanticide-advocate Peter Singer.

[Winchester]

Catchy add, I like it.

As far as the other side airing their propaganda (as long as it's based on facts), why not. The more factual information available, the better, as far as I'm concerned. I always mistrust sources who want to quash opposing viewpoints. I also always like to make as informed decisions as possible.

[Achilles The Myrmidon]

John Galt wrote: I don't see why not. Most people, if not all people aside from the very stupid, know animals feel pain, but nearly all people don't care because they are animals we are talking about, not humans. Both of the commericals would be correct: animals do indeed feel pain, but on the flip side had animals are an important part of the diet of humans and their pain is our gain. Like I said, they are animals. They feel pain, but really no one cares, aside from you and other people like the infanticide-advocate Peter Singer. Well, we can kill animals painless you know....

[Infinite911911]

John Galt wrote: because they are animals we are talking about, not humans.

Wrong again John. Sorry to damage you superiority complex but Humans are animals.

[OneZero]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Great ad!

[Infinite911911]

Achilles The Myrmidon wrote: John Galt wrote: I don't see why not. Most people, if not all people aside from the very stupid, know animals feel pain, but nearly all people don't care because they are animals we are talking about, not humans. Both of the commericals would be correct: animals do indeed feel pain, but on the flip side had animals are an important part of the diet of humans and their pain is our gain. Like I said, they are animals. They feel pain, but really no one cares, aside from you and other people like the infanticide-advocate Peter Singer. Well, we can kill animals painless you know....

Of all the animals, man is the only one that is cruel. He is the only one that inflicts pain for the pleasure of doing it. -Mark Twain

[OneZero]

Infinite911911 wrote: Achilles The Myrmidon wrote: John Galt wrote: I don't see why not. Most people, if not all people aside from the very stupid, know animals feel pain, but nearly all people don't care because they are animals we are talking about, not humans. Both of the commericals would be correct: animals do indeed feel pain, but on the flip side had animals are an important part of the diet of humans and their pain is our gain. Like I said, they are animals. They feel pain, but really no one cares, aside from you and other people like the infanticide-advocate Peter Singer. Well, we can kill animals painless you know....

Of all the animals, man is the only one that is cruel. He is the only one that inflicts pain for the pleasure of doing it. -Mark Twain

Gosh there is an animal that does that, I swear there is, but I can't remember what it is! :-|

Um I guess you could say the Shrike kinda does that.... but that's not what I was thinking of. :(

[John Galt]

Infinite911911 wrote: John Galt wrote: because they are animals we are talking about, not humans.

Wrong again John. Sorry to damage you superiority complex but Humans are animals.

In the physical sense we are the highest animal ever, but of course we are now completely above all of them because we have morals and they are amoral. I attribute morals and reason to being human, while things that don't have them we'll call "animals." When one thinks of "animals" one thinks of lions and tigers and bears -- not humans. We've been over this. Besides, what do you care here? You eat animals and are a walking hypocracy.

[John Galt]

Achilles The Myrmidon wrote: John Galt wrote: I don't see why not. Most people, if not all people aside from the very stupid, know animals feel pain, but nearly all people don't care because they are animals we are talking about, not humans. Both of the commericals would be correct: animals do indeed feel pain, but on the flip side had animals are an important part of the diet of humans and their pain is our gain. Like I said, they are animals. They feel pain, but really no one cares, aside from you and other people like the infanticide-advocate Peter Singer. Well, we can kill animals painless you know....

What relevance is that to the conversation? My patience with you runs thin.

[mathurin]

Infinite911911 wrote: Achilles The Myrmidon wrote: John Galt wrote: I don't see why not. Most people, if not all people aside from the very stupid, know animals feel pain, but nearly all people don't care because they are animals we are talking about, not humans. Both of the commericals would be correct: animals do indeed feel pain, but on the flip side had animals are an important part of the diet of humans and their pain is our gain. Like I said, they are animals. They feel pain, but really no one cares, aside from you and other people like the infanticide-advocate Peter Singer. Well, we can kill animals painless you know....

Of all the animals, man is the only one that is cruel. He is the only one that inflicts pain for the pleasure of doing it. -Mark Twain

first off, animals can and will inflict pain for little or no reason, we dont know for sure if they are getting pleasure from it, but i assume they are because it is the only reason for it
just 2 examples, if a raccoon gets inside of a chicken house it will kill every chicken, even though it could only eat a portion of one
cats frequently capture their prey live and play with it, a rather annoying habit when they bring said mouse onto the deck outside your house and toss it about, or a neibor of ours whose cat threw mice into the bathtub so they couldnt get away while it played

painless methods of death?
how about this, we thonk them in the head so they become senseless, then slice their throat with a razor sharp knife
what other methods? keep in mind that we cannot use sedatives, they would taint the meat

that commercial is almost loaded
sure its propaganda, but in its mildest form

the worst propaganda, well, nearly the worst, invokes anger and fear, because those are irrational emotions, when people feel either they are rarely making rational and logical decisions, and it affects children even worse, which i think was the point of this post, to refute our position against PETAs ad campaign
an example of fear and anger propaganda would be "bush is a nazi"
whether you like the man or not i sincerely doubt anyone could come up with any kind of evidence that bush was ever involved with nazism

there is a difference between this commercial, espousing a viewpoint in a reasonably rational way, and telling a child that their mother kills animals

[Winchester]

Infinite911911 wrote: Achilles The Myrmidon wrote: John Galt wrote: I don't see why not. Most people, if not all people aside from the very stupid, know animals feel pain, but nearly all people don't care because they are animals we are talking about, not humans. Both of the commericals would be correct: animals do indeed feel pain, but on the flip side had animals are an important part of the diet of humans and their pain is our gain. Like I said, they are animals. They feel pain, but really no one cares, aside from you and other people like the infanticide-advocate Peter Singer. Well, we can kill animals painless you know....

Of all the animals, man is the only one that is cruel. He is the only one that inflicts pain for the pleasure of doing it. -Mark Twain

Thats because of all the animals man is the only one that reasons. Animals don't reason which is why they don't care nor feel pleasure or empathy when they kill other animals

[forthegreatergood]

John Galt wrote: I don't see why not. Most people, if not all people aside from the very stupid, know animals feel pain, but nearly all people don't care because they are animals we are talking about, not humans. Both of the commericals would be correct: animals do indeed feel pain, but on the flip side had animals are an important part of the diet of humans and their pain is our gain. Like I said, they are animals. They feel pain, but really no one cares, aside from you and other people like the infanticide-advocate Peter Singer.

So does the humans who eat animals; Does that make them worse than animals or the same as animals?

[forthegreatergood]

Achilles The Myrmidon wrote: John Galt wrote: I don't see why not. Most people, if not all people aside from the very stupid, know animals feel pain, but nearly all people don't care because they are animals we are talking about, not humans. Both of the commericals would be correct: animals do indeed feel pain, but on the flip side had animals are an important part of the diet of humans and their pain is our gain. Like I said, they are animals. They feel pain, but really no one cares, aside from you and other people like the infanticide-advocate Peter Singer. Well, we can kill animals painless you know....

But consider ethics and The Knowledge of GOOD and evil.

[forthegreatergood]

Infinite911911 wrote: John Galt wrote: because they are animals we are talking about, not humans.

Wrong again John. Sorry to damage you superiority complex but Humans are animals.

But don't you get it... meat eating humans like to delude themselves by this justification: we are given higher domain over the animals, so it is okay, and it is not wrong. Just as serial killers can do the same thing.

[forthegreatergood]

John Galt wrote: Infinite911911 wrote: John Galt wrote: because they are animals we are talking about, not humans.

Wrong again John. Sorry to damage you superiority complex but Humans are animals.

In the physical sense we are the highest animal ever
***Giraffes are taller than humans physically, so are other physical forms.


, but of course we are now completely above all of them because we have morals and they are amoral.
***Are you sure? What about meat eating "humans" and vegetarian "animals"

I attribute morals and reason to being human, while things that don't have them we'll call "animals."
So in your viewpoint, a tiger that saves a thousand innocent lives is an "amoral animal?", while a human who kills a thousand innocent lives is a "moral human"? That is not logical and is incorrect.

When one thinks of "animals" one thinks of lions and tigers and bears -- not humans. We've been over this. Besides, what do you care here? You eat animals and are a walking hypocracy.
Don't be duped. Think about semantics(meanings) of words. Beings can have different forms. Do you not think you are being racist, or a bigot. Is that GOOD or evil? Do you not think that a being in another form besides one that is considered human can do good deeds? Of course they can!

[John Galt]

forthegreatergood wrote: John Galt wrote: Infinite911911 wrote: John Galt wrote: because they are animals we are talking about, not humans.

Wrong again John. Sorry to damage you superiority complex but Humans are animals.

In the physical sense we are the highest animal ever
***Giraffes are taller than humans physically, so are other physical forms.

This does not deserve comment.

Quote:
, but of course we are now completely above all of them because we have morals and they are amoral.
***Are you sure? What about meat eating "humans" and vegetarian "animals"

I do not follow. Morals come from the ability to reason. A serial killer is still a moral being, which is why we execute him, since he knows what he does is wrong.

Quote: I attribute morals and reason to being human, while things that don't have them we'll call "animals."
So in your viewpoint, a tiger that saves a thousand innocent lives is an "amoral animal?", while a human who kills a thousand innocent lives is a "moral human"? That is not logical and is incorrect.

I'm sorry, did you just say something about a tiger saving a thousand lives? That aside, myt postion is objectively correct. Saying something is moral makes no judgement as to it's goodness or wickedness, it only is dealing with it's capacity to know good and evil.

Quote: When one thinks of "animals" one thinks of lions and tigers and bears -- not humans. We've been over this. Besides, what do you care here? You eat animals and are a walking hypocracy.
Don't be duped. Think about semantics(meanings) of words. Beings can have different forms. Do you not think you are being racist, or a bigot. Is that GOOD or evil? Do you not think that a being in another form besides one that is considered human can do good deeds? Of course they can!

A lion is not evil when it kills a man and a dog is not virtuous for saving a man, as both are amoral. They just are.

[Warmonger]

In response to the initial post, yes. It would be perfectably tit-for-tat to have animal rights advocacy groups promoting their set of values and morals through tv and advertisements.

However, demonizing and fearmongering seem to be the inherint traits of ads from AR groups. These types of ads, while rich in shock value, do little to sway opposing viewpoits in their favor. If anything, they make meat advocates dig in their heels and further set their position.

It seems silly to me, the way that PETA and other likeminded groups advertise their side of the issue. It's like their ads aren't even remotely interested in swaying you with logical and well thought out arguments, but rather to shock you and piss you off. Whoever writes their material for them needs to rethink his job plan.



When discussing the morality of this issue, my views tend to fall nicely into John Galt's corner. An animal is not a moral creature. If a "tiger saved a thousand lives", it would be no more a moral creature than a bear who mauled a family of campers in the Ozarks. By the same token, a man who kills a grocery store owner is a moral being, the same as a man who jumps into freezing water to save a child. Humans are moral, but they act according to the particular set of morals that they adhere to and live their life by.

[Achilles The Myrmidon]

John Galt wrote: Achilles The Myrmidon wrote: John Galt wrote: I don't see why not. Most people, if not all people aside from the very stupid, know animals feel pain, but nearly all people don't care because they are animals we are talking about, not humans. Both of the commericals would be correct: animals do indeed feel pain, but on the flip side had animals are an important part of the diet of humans and their pain is our gain. Like I said, they are animals. They feel pain, but really no one cares, aside from you and other people like the infanticide-advocate Peter Singer. Well, we can kill animals painless you know....

What relevance is that to the conversation? My patience with you runs thin. What i did again?I just try to say my opinion about something...

[mathurin]

try to actually make a point, be more verbose about your statement

for example, how can we kill animals painlessly?
if it involves drugs which taint the meat that it is infeasible