Absolutely. Causing harm to a sentient being is fun or fulfilling? That's absurd.
36 days ago | Tagged As: yes
There is ABSOLUTELY ZERO evidence that animals are sentient. In face all evidence we have suggest the opposite. Just because some of them look like us doesn't mean they are self aware.
15 days ago | Tagged As: No
That is very, very wrong. That is so absolutely and unbelievably wrong. An animal is sentient if it can feel or perceive things. Non-human animals can feel pain, fear, joy, anxiety, anger, even jealousy! As for animals that are self-aware, we know that humans are self-aware, as well as apes, dolphins, and elephants (all of which can recognize themselves in a mirror).
14 days ago | Tagged As: yes
This is not sentience. A robot can perceive things, and some can recognize themselves in mirrors. that does not make them self aware. And you have provided no evidence that the "emotions" you claim animals can feel are no more than primitive survival instincts. give a source next time. opinions don't make arguments.
10 days ago | Tagged As: No
They're not my opinions, love. They're facts. I'll give you just a few examples of higher thinking and emotions in non-humans. Orangutans will often climb a dead tree, destablize it as it begins to fall, and scream with excitement as they plummet to the ground, jumping onto nearby trees or vines seconds before the tree hits the earth. Chickens are very social birds, as intelligent as dogs, cats, and even primates. Mother hens will cluck to their brood while they are still within the egg, and the chicks will chirp in response to her and to the others. Cows are clever animals that have been known to go to great lengths to escape from slaughterhouses. Within a herd, they develop complex relationships, much like dogs in a pack. On dairy farms and cattle ranches, cows can be heard calling out for their calves for days after they've been separated. Fish have memories and the ability to learn, and are known to feel fear and to fear the anticipation of pain. They can communicate with sound (inaudible to humans) when they are in distress. Pigs are considered smarter than three-year-old humans. They are naturally very clean, loyal, and friendly. Turkeys love having their feathers stroked and to listen to music, to which they'll often sing along to quite loudly. Geese mate in pairs for life and grieve for considerable amounts of time if their mate for any reason disappears. More and more scientists are agreeing that animals are conscious and can feel basic human emotions, such as happiness, sadness, boredom, and depression. Some of these scientists do agree that, yes, animals can feel even higher emotions, such as jealousy, love, and spite.
9 days ago | Tagged As: yes
Killing other sentient beings just for fun is barbaric. It shows our lack of compassion and perhaps reflects the way we cherish other human beings too.
36 days ago | Tagged As: yes
You misunderstand the word sentient (or you're just a nut). the definition of sentient is "Having the ability to think, feel, and perceive subjectively". Animals do not have this higher consciousness. Just because the emulate human behaviors does not make them sentient.
15 days ago | Tagged As: No
Meh.. fishing I don't know But hunting is kinda fucked up. I'd like to hunt the people who go around hunting them. Then what would they say?
37 days ago | Tagged As: yes
I'd like to hunt the people who go around hunting them. Then what would they say? As Jean-Claude Van Damme. He knows all about that.
36 days ago | Tagged As: yes
Murder: Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder). You are committing murder. Something that they DIDN'T do.
36 days ago | Tagged As: No
IDC.. lol. That's not the point is it. The point is.. if they do something that causes needless pain and suffering for their own enjoyment.. then I should as well. FUCK WHAT THE LAW SAYS..
36 days ago | Tagged As: yes
So you're an anarchist. Well, as an anarchist, I hope you can appreciate one's right to hunt animals then.
35 days ago | Tagged As: No
Noo.......... How did you get the THAT one?
35 days ago | Tagged As: yes
You said fuck what the law says. Anarchists don't care about laws. Anarchists believe in individualism.
34 days ago | Tagged As: No
A - Yes I did B - I do care about laws C - I don't believe in individualism Conclusion D - I'll specify fuck what THIS law says.
34 days ago | Tagged As: yes
Yes, killing animals for fun is cruel. It also worries me when I am around people who take so much pleasure in killing things. First its starts at animals, usually it will stay there, but then again maybe it will go to humans. What about if someone, who was a little twisted, went hunting and they accidentally or purposely killed your pet such as your dog or horse? I doubt you would respond, "Hey at least you had fun." A person who takes pleasure in such dominating power because they are able, as in killing a "lesser" creature, is not someone I would respect. I'm not sure about fishing for sport. It looks like it could be painful to the fish. I mean if someone stuck a hook in your cheek it would be painful, but its ok because it would heal. If all the other sports that kill or seriously harm animals were banned except sport fishing i would be happy enough.
36 days ago | Tagged As: yes
I completely agree with your argument, except... if someone stuck a hook in your cheek it would be painful, but its ok because it would heal Wait. So because it'll heal, that makes it alright? Or what? I'm confused.
30 days ago | Tagged As: yes
I was being sarcastic in response to dallowar's argument: "In a great majority of cases you can catch a fish and release it without serious or long lasting harm". I took that as meaning that it is ok to do harm to something as long as it's not fatal or long lasting. So i applied that logic to humans to point out how stupid i think it is. I probably should have commented under that post instead. However, i feel that a lot of people hold that belief and thus i wanted to comment on people in general instead of focus on dallowar.
30 days ago | Tagged As: yes
Ohh, I understand! Yes, thank you for clearing that up. I found it oddly unfitting with the rest of your argument. :)
29 days ago | Tagged As: yes
Whatever happened to the law against cruelty to animals? Duh they should be banned it is a violation of the law.
36 days ago | Tagged As: yes
fishing really is the only "sport" that i would accept. Hunting, bullfighting, and stuff like that, seem a bit too violent to me.
36 days ago | Tagged As: yes
Really? And why exactly would you accept fishing? People need to calm down! Its just hunting! Its a sport and its all in good fun.
36 days ago | Tagged As: No
Really? All in good fun? I'm not too sure the one being hunted would agree.
35 days ago | Tagged As: yes
This world is survival of the fittest. Hunting helps control the animal population which otherwise, is taking up land that we need anyway. Even if they were not hunted, our actions as humans will kill them off slowly anyway. The only animals that are truly thriving, are the ones that we are farming. We are the superior beings and thats the circle of life(and death lol).
35 days ago | Tagged As: No
Humans are definitely overpopulated. What should be done about that? And why do humans need land more than non-humans?
31 days ago | Tagged As: yes
Its not about NEED. Its the circle of life. Even in nature, the superior species will take more land. We are the superior beings. Survival of the fittest my friend.
30 days ago | Tagged As: No
You can't honestly believe that we kill animals to eliminate competition and survive (a.k.a. survival of the fittest). And about taking more land... just because we can do something, we should? Humans are different from other animals because we can make the choice not to harm.
29 days ago | Tagged As: yes
We can make that choice you are right. However, it is a CHOICE. Your choices(ie not killing animals) should not be forced on others.
28 days ago | Tagged As: No
I'm choosing not to harm/kill sentient creatures. So are you, when you choose not to go on killing sprees. But since that's your choice, should murder not be illegal? We wouldn't want to force your choice on others.
28 days ago | Tagged As: yes
Yes. If it is for fun. If its a necessity then, you can kill animals. Animals feel as much pain as we do.
36 days ago | Tagged As: yes
It is a chemical response in their brains. they are not aware of it as we are. They are not sentient.
15 days ago | Tagged As: No
It is murder; simply as that.................................................
32 days ago | Tagged As: yes
No, it's not murder. Murder is when one human being kills another human being on purpose, and last time I checked animals are not human beings. I don't doubt that 99% of people on this site eat beef. In the Bible, After the flood, God gave the animals as food for humanity to eat (Genesis 9).
30 days ago | Tagged As: No
What kind of a "sport" is it when a person takes a gun and goes about shooting an unarmed creature ? What kind of a pleasure does it give the so called "sportman" ? Like the games people play "let jim, james, harry and I go and lick tom ", killing animals is at best a cowardly and selfish act. I can understand the killing of animals for food, which, though is odd in a civilized society, is a hangover from the days of the cave man and we have to go still some distance in abandoning our natural instinct of killing for power. No, i strongly urge that there should be a ban on any killing of animals and especially for sport.
14 days ago | Tagged As: yes
|
Fishing doesn't have to cause harm to animals, and hunting can be a way of survival. What we can do is try to understand why some people find fun, entertainment and satisfaction in killing animals. And lock 'em up until we find a cure...
37 days ago | Tagged As: No
(a) How does fishing not cause harm to animals? (b) Yes, hunting can be a means of survival, but the question asked about killing for sport.
36 days ago | Tagged As: yes
a) In a great majority of cases you can catch a fish and release it without serious or long lasting harm. I slipped some adjectives in there to avoid wasting time in defining 'harm'. I just don't think you'll find many antisocial, potentially criminal, probably mentally ill people doing sport fishing. b) Yeah... But the description says 'activities'. Anyway, both questions are bogus. Killing animals in itself is not the problem. They taste good, they carry diseases, they destroy crops... You can think of a lot of reasons where exercising our species supremacy would be ok. The real problem is that some people find pleasure, satisfaction and fun in taking a life. You can't solve that problem by banning a sport. If anything you'll just make test subjects for finding a cure harder to find...
36 days ago | Tagged As: No
As a vegan, I can't agree that killing animals isn't the problem, but that's a whole different debate, so I'll avoid that topic. As for catch and release fishing, I certainly can't imagine that being dragged through water with a hook through your cheek is a pleasant experience.
36 days ago | Tagged As: yes
I really don't know if it's pleasant or not. As I said, I don't find it harmful enough to be indicative of a problem with the human engaged is such activities. It's very simple, and I'll try it one more time. If I see a man kill an animal for no good reason and derive some pleasure from it my first thought is not "Oh that poor animal!" It's "Oh that poor man is sick, can he be helped?" A few years back it would be "What a sick fuck I hope he dies a slow and painful death!", but I've grown. And that too is a whole different debate... I’ll say it again – the goal should not be to stopping animals getting killed because they're bound to be. Unless you firmly believe thay should and can all be made not to pose a threat to us in any way. It should be having less sick people around.
36 days ago | Tagged As: No
What I've gleaned from that is that animals should be killed if/when they pose a threat to us. I have a few questions about that. Firstly, does that hold true for humans? Secondly, how in the world does a fish pose a threat?
35 days ago | Tagged As: No
I said that about threats because I don't think even a vegan can be opposed to self defense. I'm not saying you are, just wanted to save time. That right holds for humans too, of course. I personally extend every possible chance of a peaceful resolution to both humans and animals, but I can understand if someone is not skilled enough to deal with a venomous snake or insect or a carnivorous mammal in a way that doesn't get the animal killed. Humans>animals. That's the way things are and no amount of hysterics is going to change that. Secondly, how in the world does a fish pose a threat? Sharks? Again, in an effort to save time: Killing animals - OK in some cases, killing humans - NOT OK in most cases, the point - why are some people sick and how to help them, not the point - burying the sickness so we don't have to watch it on TV.
35 days ago | Tagged As: No
I suppose the problem that we have is that we differ in the most basic of points that this debate offers. I believe that killing any animal is absolutely and undeniably wrong. You don't. I don't think we can get past that.
31 days ago | Tagged As: yes
Nowhere have I said that there is some arbitrary classification of which animals are to be killed and which ones are not. You’ve just made that up. This debate is not even about animals, and that’s the point you can’t seem to get past. It’s about humans and trying to identify what makes us human and how to preserve it. I believe those things to be, among others, compassion, empathy, sense of fairness, reason, etc. And none of those involve killing anything for fun. And all of those hold up if you kill in a life threatening situation, i.e. strong possibility of an attack, hunger etc. Just go about it from the other side, human side, your side. It will be much clearer…
1hr 1min ago | Tagged As: No
I don't have a problem with hunting or fishing, as long as the animal isn't being beat with a club or bled to death or something cruel, and as long as we're not causing the extinction of that species. I do have a problem calling them a sport though. That's bs and I think hunters and fishers know it.
34 days ago | Tagged As: No
I agree with the first part, but I know that when I fish with my grandparents we do it just to eat- fishing is BORING, but fresh fish is delicious! So, just saying...
32 days ago | Tagged As: No
I'm with you on this. Hunting and fishing are okay as long as there is no torture involved or wiping out a species, which basically is just not braking the law while hunting. And it's not really a sport. 20 points if you kill a deer! rofl.
30 days ago | Tagged As: No
No, killing animals can often be fun. And we've done it for thousands of years as a means of survival. Now we do it for entertainment, but the act is the same. Torturing animals, though, is different. It never helped us survive (unless you're a Pagan) so there's no reason to see it as part of normal, human instinct. But killing lesser species is part of our very nature. and, as I said, it's a fun thing to do.
37 days ago | Tagged As: No
Besides, we're all a part of the circle of life. It's a natural human instinct to hunt for food. We're predators, and some people think that's too mortifying to think about, but there was a time when it was eat or be eaten. We're animals at heart. So why shouldn't we have the freedom to act like them?
36 days ago | Tagged As: No
Animals don't kill for fun. Animals kill for survival. We, on the other hand, are special in the sense that we actually have a choice. We can decide not to cause pain, we can even decide not to eat meat.
36 days ago | Tagged As: yes
Sure, we can. But we also don't have to. You'll become a pariah if you condemn it. It's a choice, yes. But it's also something people like to do, and the animal in question is going to return to the earth at some point anyways. We're animals. It's not a sin to act like one.
36 days ago | Tagged As: No
Hahahahah, I believe that you just called me a pariah. The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
35 days ago | Tagged As: yes
Once again, cute, but it's not very valid. Don't start with the sarcastic hate-laced comments. It won't get you anywhere. It won't.
35 days ago | Tagged As: No
That wasn't sarcasm. I'm completely serious. Well, actually, I was amused, but I was serious about being amused. If you understand that. You'll become a pariah if you condemn it. As a vegan, I condemn purposefully and needlessly causing any sentient being to suffer. Hence my condemnation of hunting, fishing, omnivorous diets, fur mills, et cetera. So I suppose I'm a pariah?
31 days ago | Tagged As: yes
You know what's also fun? Killing hobos. I mean, they're lesser. (Now is when the sarcasm font would come in handy....)
36 days ago | Tagged As: yes
Hobos are also human, so they are not lesser. duh. _ - -_ - -_ -_
36 days ago | Tagged As: No
So what separates a human from a non-human? The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
35 days ago | Tagged As: yes
The homogeneous. Part of basic biology. - __ - - --_- - _ - --_ __ __ -
35 days ago | Tagged As: No
So things that are different are lesser? The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
31 days ago | Tagged As: yes
No, things with a genus that is of a lesser evolution are lesser. We're all different, duh.
31 days ago | Tagged As: No
By "lesser," I assume you just mean "less developed." Which still doesn't explain to me why non-humans are lesser.
30 days ago | Tagged As: yes
Because are not as evolved or adapted. Natural Selection put us on the top. They're lesser because we're higher.
30 days ago | Tagged As: No
What is it about our evolution/adaptation that makes us higher?
29 days ago | Tagged As: yes
evolved brain structure (ability to critically think, mostly). Through this, we were ABLE to conquer the world. The abilities that evolution has given us is grounds enough to show that are higher.
29 days ago | Tagged As: No
So what about the severely retarded? (I've made this point in another debate, but here I go again.) Is a severely retarded human without the ability to think critically lesser than a "normal," functioning human?
28 days ago | Tagged As: yes
if they lack the human brain structure, than yes. But even the severely retarded have a human brain structure.
28 days ago | Tagged As: No
Incorrect word choice. you used "than", instead of "then".
28 days ago | Tagged As: yes
But it's not being used. The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
27 days ago | Tagged As: yes
IMO, animals do NOT have the same rights as humans. If a person is hunting, kills an animal, skins it and eats it, I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. Animal torture is wrong, though.
32 days ago | Tagged As: No
nooo. hunting is a way to get food and survive. as well as fishing. If you abuse it and dont eat the fish you kill then i dont think its right but other than that there is no problem with it
36 days ago | Tagged As: No
I personally believe population control is very important.
36 days ago | Tagged As: No
I agree. Controlling the human population is also very important. Let's break out the shotguns and go on a human hunting spree!
35 days ago | Tagged As: yes
Cute. But I actually agree with that statement to some extent. The human population should be controlled. I think people should have to obtain licenses to have children. That is a very valid point. You're just heading it in the wrong direction.
35 days ago | Tagged As: No
That is interesting. A license to have children? I'm creating a debate all over that one.
31 days ago | Tagged As: yes
i don't get it! either you kill or not, it is going to die some or the other day! then why fear?
27 days ago | Tagged As: No
Hunting and fishing are often for food. They should be banned for sport if the species are threatened, but otherwise most large game doesn't have any natural predators left- they need people as population control. Fisheries should be more controlled either way, for sport or not. However, killing animals humanely isn't inherently wrong, especially if it's better than the alternative.
36 days ago | Tagged As: No
Fishing and hunting=good. I don't know anything about fishing. Hunting is fun and profitable.
15 days ago | Tagged As: No
You could be helpful and actually offer a rebuttal instead of just down voting my argument because you don't agree with it. I'm down voting your argument, if you want to call it such, because there isn't any. Also i have noticed that you down vote many arguments that are pro-animal rights or pro-vegetarian without any decent rebuttal, with the only apparent reason being that you don't agree with the opinion.
15 days ago | Tagged As: yes
|
