@Invictus If that's the most monsterous thing you've seen posted on this forum you haven't been reading very much of the forum then.

Really, Celticfox? There are worse things here than equating slaves and Holocaust victims with animals?

I can almost understand how Putin33 feels this way, since his support for any and all oppressive communist regimes (including North Korea) shows he doesn't have any respect for human dignity. But for a (relatively) normal person like Draugnar to say something like that? It's sickening.

I'm sure there have been worse things said.

Fine, then keep focusing on that detail of scale rather than what a terrible thing that is to say. You're usually better at seeing the point than this.

@Putin
<"Putin, shall we go back again and discuss how, in your world view, the action of a single person who claims membership of a group bestows those view on the entire group."

Yes, Mr. Libtards. >

Excellent - so you agree that in all cases, one person of a group speaks for all members of said group.

Next question: PUTIN, Are you a teacher of children in your professional life?

I don't think Draug was trying to equate slaves and jews in the holocaust as animals. I think he was using those as an example that even though other people had seen them as animals or property, or worth less then someone else that doesn't mean they are.

He's said humans and animals are equal, so he absolutely was equating them.

By elevating animals like that you devalue human life. Slavery and the Holocaust were wrong because those atrocities were done to humans, not because they were done to any arbitrary living thing. It diminishes the horror of these events to equate the victims with animals. It's a fucking disgusting position to hold.

The UN is actively trying to eradicated the guinea worm. Is that genocide? It would be if we subscribe to the lunacy that humans and animals were equal, and that altering the environment and habitat to promote human interests is somehow wrong. These people make me sick.

Even if you feel that way I'm still sure it's not the worse thing I've seen on here. I just don't feel as passionate about this as everyone else on this thread.

Invictus there's got to be a compromise point between both sides though. Oh and the guinea worm is an insect not a thinking mammal.

Tis true. The donkeypunch thread from days of yore was far worse.

"Even if you feel that way I'm still sure it's not the worse thing I've seen on here."

You're purposely missing the point. It being literally the "worst" is trivial.


"Invictus there's got to be a compromise point between both sides though. Oh and the guinea worm is an insect not a thinking mammal."

There is. Treat animals humanely but don't perpetrate this farce that they're our equals.

Why eliminate the guinea worm because it's not a mammal? Ravens are smarter than pretty much every mammal but most primates. Cuttlefish and octopuses are up there too. What I think you've just betrayed is that most of these radicals on animal rights only really support treating cute animals so nicely. They'll still swat mosquitoes and get the exterminator to kill the termites or rats in their home.

Not callingyou one of those, Celticfox, to be clear.

Probably, but remember I'm not one of them so please don't attack me. I'm in the middle position here myself I don't feel all life is sacred because we're meant to eat some animals, but I don't agree with hunting for sport.

Especially in the case for the Rhino. In this first case it may be an elderly rhino but who's to say that it won't be a slippery slope where people just want the money and let needed members of the herd be hunted.

As you see, I wasn't.

Back to the rhino, it may well be a slippery slope. But a million dollars for conservation efforts might just be worth the risk. As I said, you can hire a lot of armed park rangers for that kind of money.

See I would say it's not worth the risk myself. But I tend to be more cynical of people actually stopping after the first time.

Well THAT is a perfectly legitimate position to hold. These other clowns...

If "I would say it's not worth the risk" is a perfectly legitimate position but "hell no" is lunacy, you need to heighten your reading comprehension significantly.

"I tend to be more cynical of people actually stopping after the first time. "

....I'll bet that statement fades away into the ether if we asked you to apply it to something like "should we let the government manage 1/6th of the economy through health care legislation....because they promise they won't go any further...."

I find moderates and their wishy-washiness tend to wash away their wishy washy stance the next time and issue comes up, and it seems they are more interested in just "getting along" than they are in taking a *consistent* principled belief.

We shouldn't kill the animals....oh wait, well nasty bugs...icky!!!...but never those furry mammals...well except the tasty ones....but only in a factory farm, never in the wild....oh what? You mean if we don't cull the deer herd in Michigan they'll suffer and die from starvation and disease the studies show....oh then we can kill a few deer....but...

good god...

Invictus needs a doctor everything is 'sickening' to him all the time. Especially equality and respect for non-human life. So melodramatic.

@Krellin You do know I'm NOT in favor of Obamacare right? I do think we need to have universal health care but that sure as hell isn't the right answer. No one is going to profit from that but the Insurance Companies.

Oh and out of curiosity would you say Draug is pretty consistent in his beliefs?

"Invictus needs a doctor everything is 'sickening' to him all the time. Especially equality and respect for non-human life."

Equality between humans and animals does sicken me, as it should everyone. As I keep saying, elevating animals like that necessarily devalues human life.

With regards to respect, it depends what "respect" means. If respect means not being cruel to animals then of course I support that. But if respect means jokes about rhino steaks are held to be the same sort of thing as racist or rape jokes then I do not. Nor should any sane person.

And saying otherwise devalues animal life. You could just go the neutral route, the way Mother Earth prefers (and she's not gonna lose, mind you), which means that you aren't elevating the value of anything or vice versa.

You miss my point entirely.

'I don't feel all life is sacred because we're meant to eat some animals'

- it is possible to think all life is sacred and animals killed to keep you alive are part of this sacred process, that it is moral BECAUSE it is part of keeping life around - meanwhile killing for sport does not take a part in that sacred life cycle;

That said i don't subscribe to this notion, i value quality of life aswell as quantity - i don't think either is sacred or deserves special protection at the cost of the other.

"Equality between humans and animals does sicken me, as it should everyone. As I keep saying, elevating animals like that necessarily devalues human life."

how does this necessarily devalue human life? Unless you think humans should be able to use all the natural resources and wipe out all other animals, quantity of humans is not something i consider sacred so i don't think this devalues human life at all.

Of course I do, Invictus. It's because you DON'T HAVE ONE.

The idea that some lives are of lesser (or greater) value than others is the root of all that's wrong in the world.

don't* ^

The idea that some *HUMAN* lives are of lesser (or greater) value than others is the root of all that's wrong in the world.


An animal's, any animal's, life is of lesser value than any human's. You people really don't realize what a disgusting position you hold.

Okay, I'll play your hand.

My life is of equal value to yours. I want to live within nature. Without it my life will be of lesser value, inherently. I'm sure you can find someone like that on any given street corner. It's a sentimental argument, but since you won't accept logic and reason, that's the next step, don't you think?