This ad from the Center for Reproductive Rights...

Why not? Look at mans cruelty. In so many ways man is on animal level. In fact in some ways some animals are higher than man. I dont just mean that so many animals are superior to man on physical plain in many aspects but say dogs display the quality of faithfulness in way which is clearly by far superior to human standard.
Are animals less cruel because they're better-natured than we are, or simply because they lack the psychological capacity for cruelty?
 
That would have to come from lack of psychological capacity. It would vary a little bit by species, but any real dissent would almost have to come from spending far too much time around the most domesticated of species and perhaps some herd grazers and not nearly enough contemplation about the rest of the entire kingdom.
 
Um, I'm not really objecting - I'm not a vegetarian so I'm not in a position to at all - just considering really.

I suppose what you're saying is along the lines of "if it wasn't for us farming them they wouldn't exist at all." Which is something I've heard many times before.

The best answer to that I've come up with is: But what a price to have to pay for existing!

Spoiler :
I'm not sure about it all.

This, vegetarianism, probably warrants a thread of its own. But I don't think I can start one. Not being a vegetarian myself. And it's an old argument anyway.

edit: Oh it's the fox fur collar you're talking about. I had the image of Picasso's Guernica in my head. You know, the one with the horses.

edit: as for eating animals and being concerned about their welfare, I suppose it's just a matter of recognizing a fellow being with similar feelings to my own, which I object to as much as anything. If I object at all.

I meant we selectivly bred them for that purpose, If it wasn't for us they wouldn't exist as they are now.
 
OK. And this makes a difference in some way?

Well yes, we made them that way and with specific functions in mind, it's the only reason for their existence and it's the only purpose they have.
 
Ah. So like the animal in Hitchhiker's Guide, our domestic animals have been bred to commit suicide especially for our convenience. Is that what you're suggesting?

I don't think it is. Of course. But that's the natural conclusion you seem to heading towards.
 
Ah. So like the animal in Hitchhiker's Guide, our domestic animals have been bred to commit suicide especially for our convenience. Is that what you're suggesting?

I don't think it is. Of course. But that's the natural conclusion you seem to heading towards.

I've never read Hitchhiker's Guide. :dunno:
 
You ought to! (Or not as you wish. Makes no difference to me does it?)

Anyway, it does feature a most alarming domesticated animal that comes to your table in the restaurant, indicates the best parts of its anatomy to you (it is a talking animal) and then goes and kills itself in the kitchen. Something it's more than delighted to do. Having been bred to do so.
 
If it's ok to kill an innocent life because it was meant to be killed, is it then not ok to kill an innocent life which was never meant to be born.

Keep in mind that without intervention both innocent lives would not be terminated, and in both cases the motivation for their termination is a human desire.

No, I haven't thought this through, I am blurting.
 
Are animals less cruel because they're better-natured than we are, or simply because they lack the psychological capacity for cruelty?

The argument was that man is higher animal becouse of his developed physical mind not who is more or less cruel. Some sort of cruelty is natural part of every animal life or animal part of human life.
Of course the twisty part comes with fact that mans capacity if missused allowes him for even more cruel behavior.
 
Top Bottom