Topic: What makes humans deserving of life, but not animals?
Anonymous A started this discussion 15 years ago #5,129
Both humans and animals alike feel pain, neither wants to die.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 9 minutes later[^] [v] #90,560
Humans have a higher consciousness whereas animals do not. That's the reasoning. Animals are at human disposal and human life is paramount to animals that are of social/commercial use to human beings. Humans believe they are more important because they can create a computer, or invent something, and this ability sets them higher than other organisms.
(Edited 23 seconds later.)
sexual aerosolâ„¢ !!mtq555+/1 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 58 seconds later, 10 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #90,561
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 10 minutes later, 21 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #90,567
Because we are humans. We look out for our own.
Syntax joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 24 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #90,569
At this very moment, I am eating Tri Tip roast grilled on the "Q"
Cow died for my Sins. Cow tastes so much more better, then alternatives,
Virgins are tempting for turnaround here.
Cow died for my Sins. Cow tastes so much more better, then alternatives,
Virgins are tempting for turnaround here.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 22 seconds later, 24 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #90,570
@90,560 (B)
> Humans have a higher consciousness whereas animals do not.
So should geniuses be allowed to kill retards? One has "higher consciousness".
@90,567 (D)
White supremists said a similar thing. You can draw a line anywhere and say "we on this line watch out for our own". It's useful to be in the position of power, as you can exploit the ones that aren't.
But does that make it okay?
> Humans have a higher consciousness whereas animals do not.
So should geniuses be allowed to kill retards? One has "higher consciousness".
@90,567 (D)
White supremists said a similar thing. You can draw a line anywhere and say "we on this line watch out for our own". It's useful to be in the position of power, as you can exploit the ones that aren't.
But does that make it okay?
Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 32 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #90,578
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 22 minutes later, 55 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #90,599
Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #90,604
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #90,610
@90,570 (A)
Unless you want to say that individual blades of grass have as much of a right to exist as humans do, you have to draw a line somewhere. The line that has typically been drawn is at sentience and sapience. Nonliving things get no rights. Living things that have no central nervous system have no rights because they cannot feel pain. Living things with central nervous systems have some rights. Living things with rational capabilities have the maximum amount of rights. There's nothing "arbitrary" about it.
Unless you want to say that individual blades of grass have as much of a right to exist as humans do, you have to draw a line somewhere. The line that has typically been drawn is at sentience and sapience. Nonliving things get no rights. Living things that have no central nervous system have no rights because they cannot feel pain. Living things with central nervous systems have some rights. Living things with rational capabilities have the maximum amount of rights. There's nothing "arbitrary" about it.
(Edited 25 seconds later.)
Rogi !tiQBrOS.jo joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 hours later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #90,721
That's because no animal has actually asked kindly for people to stop killing them. That's all they gotta do, and yet they just sit there and die all over the place.
Green !pFNWNYROxA joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 34 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #90,739
Evolution. Chickens should have grown thumbs if they don't want to be eaten.