Blogcritics Comments on People Are More Important than Animals

Comment by Bill B on People Are More Important than Animals

Sun, 2 Sep 2007 13:12:38 EDT

Your long, boring rtepeat of all our messages hasn't even got the numbers correct, so I'm not going to even try to sort tyhe mess out. Clavos Regardless of the numbers your inability or unwillingness to follow your own logic speaks volumes. My citing of Bees was a simple attempt to show how one could make a case for the importance of who knows how many species. The closer one looks, I suspect it'll be more evident that in many ways all life is tied together (I know-Duh!) - and quite possibly, in the grand scheme of things, none is more important than any other. Now there's a novel thought. RE #70 - While I believe in God and consider myself a spiritual person, I try to steer away Bible references as the interpretations put forth often tell more about the interpreter than anything else. The 'Dominion' lines is in Genesis is it not? You do seem to have a good compassionate take on this though others can and have used the same line to justify all sorts of abuse. The key phrase is 'good steward'.

Comment by wdufkin on People Are More Important than Animals

Sun, 2 Sep 2007 12:17:20 EDT

Lots of facts but not many solutions. God created man to take dominion over the earth and over everything in it. With that comes enormous responsibility, for which we will give and account, to administer wisely and not destroy what we've been given. One person can not take dominion over the entire earth, but each can choose to take authority and responsibility for that which God has given him. This includes your own family, children, animals etc. We are here to bless the earth. The chicken keeper to care wisely for the chickens, the beekeeper the bees etc. We err in at least two ways, one way is when we, like Romans 1:25 states, worship and serve the creature rather than the Creator. Or antithetically we can fail to be the good "steward" we were intended to be, ie the guy who microwaves his puppies.

Comment by Clavos on People Are More Important than Animals

Sun, 2 Sep 2007 11:16:03 EDT

Ruvy, "The cow (I should say steer), ... lives its entire life bound in a situation where it can barely move two inches all of its life." You're referring to cattle raised in feed lots, which ARE smaller than open ranges, but are NOT so restrictve the cattle can only "move two inches." That's simply not true. Calves raised for slaughter as veal ARE raised in a box too small for them to lie down so that they can't bruise themselves, which would devalue the meat. For that reason, I will NOT eat veal, and I think that practice should be outlawed. Chickens and turkeys raised for their meat are also raised in small cages, but not so small that they can't move at all; they simply don't have freedom to roam around at will. Ditto egg layers. This is done for efficiency (and as you pointed out, to keep the meat high in fat and not tough), and in no way causes either injury or pain to the birds; to do so would again devalue the meat. To say that the birds are leading boring lives is anthropomorphism way beyond their intellectual level, Ruvy. I owned chickens as a kid; they're not real smart (actually, they're downright dumb) , they live to eat, shit and reproduce, and the food "factories" allow them to eat and shit in abundance. I see no harm or cruelty there. Dairy cows ARE allowed out to roam during the day, and are kept confined in the barn only while being milked. Drive through Wisconsin one day, and you'll see cows roaming everywhere in pastures. Again, not a real smart animal; and one that has few, if any, "wants," Ruvy. Thou hast been listening too much to the extremists at PETA, methinks, Ruvy. I don't know anything about Kosher Law, so won't address that issue.

Comment by Clavos on People Are More Important than Animals

Sun, 2 Sep 2007 10:53:33 EDT

Bill, Your long, boring rtepeat of all our messages hasn't even got the numbers correct, so I'm not going to even try to sort tyhe mess out. If you want to think "bees (not bee's) are the most important species on earth," that's fine with me. Bees it is, Bill.

Comment by Bill B on People Are More Important than Animals

Sun, 2 Sep 2007 03:48:40 EDT

According to bugwise.net fully "one third of the human food supply is crops that are dependent on pollination by bees." I think we have a winner. Bee's are the most important species on earth. If bees were extinct I doubt another insect would fill that gap or that our artificial pollination technology could make up the vacuum. And they're not even addressing the percentage of food supply to other species we eat.

Comment by Ruvy in Jerusalem on People Are More Important than Animals

Sun, 2 Sep 2007 03:37:06 EDT

I can't give you hard stats on sexual abuse of humans. People generally do not like to talk about this kind of thing. The reality and what gets reported to authorities are two very different things. As for animals, please consider the cows, turkeys and chickens raised for slaughter in America. The vast majority are raised in circumstances that would make a person sick. The cow (I should say steer), or chicken, lives its entire life bound in a situation where it can barely move two inches all of its life. The reason is simple. It has to be grown to be fat and delicious - quickly. So, it is injected with hormones drugs, and grows quickly to its slaughter weight, at which point it is shipped for slaughter and "processing." The same is true for chickens that are "layers" and for cows that give milk. Their lives are miserable and kept that way for the sake of the almighty dollar. Now don't get me wrong. I'm not arguing for vegetarianism or for animal rights per se. Cattle and poultry have been raised for slaughter for millennia. But to deny an animal at least one day a week to enjoy what little boring life it has is, in my eyes, abuse. An abused animal may not be considered as kosher. It is analogous to an animal that has been wounded with an arrow. So I'm saying two big things here, the first of which is particularly germane to the thread. The first is that all the animals raised for consumption have be abused in a most cruel way in their short pathetic and boring lives. You can look up those stats by checking how many animals are raised for slaughter at "factories" called fancifully "farms." The second, which is not particularly relevant here, is that all of these animals, no matter how correct the ritual slaughter of them might have been, are not kosher, for they are analogous to animals who have been wounded by arrows.

Comment by Bill B on People Are More Important than Animals

Sun, 2 Sep 2007 03:24:09 EDT

Um, I believe you have that backwords Clavos. I'll do a little backtracking if you're having trouble keeping up. You said in comment 55

"How could we possibly know for sure what the pecking order of living organisms is, or more over whether or not there even is a pecking order." Hmm. I think science has pretty much solved that riddle (at least as far as earthly organisms are concerned) for us.

Note: You left out the preceding sentence of the quoted paragraph which was;

"To say we humans are more important than any species is at best presumptuous and at worst egocentric."

Then I said in comment 56

"Hmm. I think science has pretty much solved that riddle (at least as far as earthly organisms are concerned) for us." By what measure? Who decides what measure is appropriate? Science says we use what, about 10% of our brains? Is it at least possible some portion of that other 90% may have a different take on the issue in the future? btw I doubt science, as it deals with measureable facts and proveable theses can even take a stance on which species is more important than another. Most developed by an objective set of measures set by science, yes; Most important, not in the realm of scientific study.

And then you said in comment 57

"Science says we use what, about 10% of our brains?" You may use only 10% of yours, Bill, but the rest of us utilize the full 100%, thanks very much. This is one of the tiredest and sillest urban legends out there.

Then I said in 59 (I see a pattern forming here)

"You may use only 10% of yours, Bill" You got jokes. Wasn't aware it was one of them urban legend thingies. Any reason you ignored the rest of my point? Maybe because yours is an opinion and not a provable fact backed by science?

Then you in 60 said

You don't have a point, Bill; all you have is an opinion. So far, you've presented zero evidence to back it up.

So in summary it was you who responded to my statement of, yes indeed opinion, purporting to have science on your side. And it is indeed you who have yet to produce any facts supporting that position. Understandably so, as science can not prove humanity is more important than any other species. Now to the central point. Your agreement with the author that "people are more important than animals" is also an opinion but an unknowable as far as facts go. My simple point was folks of that opinion should skip the bs concrete declaritive statement and just admit what I alluded to in comment 54. Here say it with me. You'll feel better. Promise. "I don't know if any one species is more important than another but as far as I'm concerned what benefits us humans is most important to me"
There. Thats better isn't it. Maybe you should try using all of your brain ;)

Comment by Clavos on People Are More Important than Animals

Sun, 2 Sep 2007 02:57:09 EDT

OK, Ruvy, You allege that both child and animal abuse are much more widespread in the USA than any of us care to admit. Now, show us. Define child, and especially animal, abuse. Show us numbers from credible, and especially, objective sources, supporting your allegations. Then, we can talk. But not until tomorrow, because it's 0300 here, and I'm going to bed.

Comment by Ruvy in Jerusalem on People Are More Important than Animals

Sun, 2 Sep 2007 02:50:36 EDT

Man, did I mess up that last comment!! Didn't close the underline tag properly, didn't use the html link tag properly. Didn't go to "preview", which I normally do. Sorry about that, All!!

Comment by Ruvy in Jerusalem on People Are More Important than Animals

Sun, 2 Sep 2007 02:47:46 EDT

Clavox, To hit the nail on the head, I'm not positing a hypothetical, per se. The kind of child abuse I'm talking about is very real - read this Desicritics article to see what I mean. And if you follow the comments there, you'll find Indians very reluctant to talk about the core issue that Kavita Chhibber raises in her article, female infanticide in South Asia. Both animal abuse and child abuse are widespread in America - far more so than Americans feel comfortable admitting, much less talking about. Hypotheticals - thought experiments, to use a scientific term - are a way to consider uncomfortable topics. In this instance, the thought experiment is a way to get Americans to admit to the fact that animal and child abuse is far more widespread than they are willing to admit. As to whether we should discuss hypotheticals on this thread, read the following from comment #51. Seems to me that Utah needs to beef up it's penalties for sexual abuse, assault of a P. O. etc. "RJ posits some great hyotheticals that haven't really been addressed. As usual the devil's in the details." I rest my case...

Comment by Clavos on People Are More Important than Animals

Sun, 2 Sep 2007 02:25:21 EDT

Ruvy, You're beginning to sound as whacky and incoherent as Moonraven. Why should anyone attempt to answer a hypothetical? It's your postulate; you answer it.

Comment by Ruvy in Jerusalem on People Are More Important than Animals

Sun, 2 Sep 2007 00:25:01 EDT

Still, nobody had deigned to take my question from comment #18: Let's say that child abuse was made a more serious felony than animal torture and that animal torture was a felony requiring prison. Let's say that both laws were actually enforced in America. My only question is: how would the eighty percent of the population that was NOT in jail be able to feed and support the twenty percent that would be in jail? What's the matter folks? Truth hurts?

Comment by Clavos on People Are More Important than Animals

Sun, 2 Sep 2007 00:13:41 EDT

You don't have a point, Bill; all you have is an opinion. So far, you've presented zero evidence to back it up.

Comment by Bill B on People Are More Important than Animals

Sun, 2 Sep 2007 00:08:48 EDT

"You may use only 10% of yours, Bill" You got jokes. Wasn't aware it was one of them urban legend thingies. Any reason you ignored the rest of my point? Maybe because yours is an opinion and not a provable fact backed by science?

Comment by REMF on People Are More Important than Animals

Sun, 2 Sep 2007 00:05:15 EDT

"My Gawd! What sort of sick monster would do such a thing!" Um, Eric Olsen? Didn't he once kick a dog to death? (MCH)

Comment by Dr Dreadful on People Are More Important than Animals

Sat, 1 Sep 2007 23:28:51 EDT

Science says we use what, about 10% of our brains? You may use only 10% of yours, Bill, but the rest of us utilize the full 100%, thanks very much. This is one of the tiredest and sillest urban legends out there.

Comment by Bill B on People Are More Important than Animals

Sat, 1 Sep 2007 23:14:33 EDT

"Hmm. I think science has pretty much solved that riddle (at least as far as earthly organisms are concerned) for us." By what measure? Who decides what measure is appropriate? Science says we use what, about 10% of our brains? Is it at least possible some portion of that other 90% may have a different take on the issue in the future? btw I doubt science, as it deals with measureable facts and proveable theses can even take a stance on which species is more important than another. Most developed by an objective set of measures set by science, yes; Most important, not in the realm of scientific study.

Comment by Clavos on People Are More Important than Animals

Sat, 1 Sep 2007 22:36:03 EDT

"How could we possibly know for sure what the pecking order of living organisms is, or more over whether or not there even is a pecking order." Hmm. I think science has pretty much solved that riddle (at least as far as earthly organisms are concerned) for us.

Comment by Bill B on People Are More Important than Animals

Sat, 1 Sep 2007 22:24:16 EDT

Seems to me that Utah needs to beef up it's penalties for sexual abuse, assault of a P. O. etc. RJ posits some great hyotheticals that haven't really been addressed. As usual the devil's in the details. To say we humans are more important than any species is at best presumptuous and at worst egocentric. How could we possibly know for sure what the pecking order of living organisms is, or more over whether or not there even is a pecking order. It's convenient to assume intelligence/abstract thought crowns us king when those same traits could be cited within an argument making the case that we should know better. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating any revolution here; But honest discourse would be better served w/o the rationalizations/proclamations. Something like "I don't know if any one species is more important than another but as far as I'm concerned what benefits us humans is most important to me" would be refreshing.

Comment by Zedd on People Are More Important than Animals

Wed, 29 Aug 2007 21:27:59 EDT

Ray, I cant imagine how you recovered from such shocks. I am tearing up just from reading your posts. That is beyond sick. I had a German Shepard when I was a small kid. I still mourn its death today. He was a family member. We had to put him to sleep because he was attacked by someone so badly that he couldn't ever live a life worth living even with the best medical intervention. I was six.

Comment by Ray Ellis on People Are More Important than Animals

Wed, 29 Aug 2007 20:01:39 EDT

The same group of punks poisoned my German Shepherd. I learnde at a very young age there are a lot of sick fucks out there, RJ. And people wonder why I'm cynical at times.

Comment by RJ on People Are More Important than Animals

Wed, 29 Aug 2007 18:34:40 EDT

When I was very young, 8 or so, I had a couple of rabbits who mated. They had four babies. One morning, I went outside to find the grown rabbits, along with the four bunnies, dead. They were neatly laid out, ears and tails separated from their bodies, all in a row. My Gawd! What sort of sick monster would do such a thing!

Comment by Clavos on People Are More Important than Animals

Wed, 29 Aug 2007 09:18:29 EDT

Yes, I have, Zedd. Thanks for your concern. I think I HAVE partially answered my own questions (#27). My purpose in asking them, however, was to see what everyone else's ideas on the topic were. So far, you're the only person who's addressed them.

Comment by Zedd on People Are More Important than Animals

Wed, 29 Aug 2007 07:10:59 EDT

I don't think that anyone has ever dealt with Clav's questions. Not even Clav. Perhaps the sexy hot topic about dots at the end of a sentence distracted him. Have you recovered Clav?

Comment by Zedd on People Are More Important than Animals

Wed, 29 Aug 2007 07:06:16 EDT

If you live in a particular part of Asia, is it cruel to microwave a dog or a cat? Off course not alive. If you lived in New Guinea or in parts of South America at the turn of the last century, would it have been evil to eat the body parts of a human opponent in battle?