Things that make you go.......WTF?

[stui magpie]

^ I suspect that we'll be saying something similar about our treatment of animals in years to come. Either way, surely you'd agree that the welfare of animals is slightly more important than that of wheat!

Where your argument falls down is that the black slaves were considered inferior, but reasonably quickly showed that given education they were just as intelligent as anyone else.

When you can teach a pig to read, write and speak at 3rd grade level I'll happily swear off bacon.

And yes, the welfare of animals is significantly more important than that of grains.

So you think it's ok to eat the retarded? Or babies? Or the demented elderly? Why does intelligence or cognitive ability predetermine the right to life?

FWIW I don't think egalitarianism is an inherently worthy philosophy but in the absence of a higher ideal it's probably the right way to look at most simple, non metasocial issues.

No, because as I've already explained, they're people. I'm using relative intelligence as a species as the measure.

[David]

[3.14159]

Here you go 3.14159, you can just pretend like these perfectly sane and grounded individuals.

in the mean time...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDjHDmL3Kp0

[Tannin]

but if we didn't eat them they wouldn't exist. They would have died out.

^ This is a statement betraying truly monumental ignorance about the biological world.

Really? Do you think they would thrive?

Duh. Of course they would. How the hell do you think they managed to survive and thrive for millions upon millions of years? (Much longer than humans, in fact.) Did you think the world was populated by nothing but grass and cockroaches until God miraculously delivered brand new pre-packaged dehydrated inflatable goats, cattle, sheep, and chickens to Mesopotamia in 10,000BC using an Australia Post courier? Sheesh, this is an outlandish question with an answer so clear and obvious that it isn't even a question. Clive Palmer could probably get this one right.

[stui magpie]

They didn't thrive in their current form for millions of years, they've been bred to the point of dependence.

Also, the environments where they originally thrived before being domesticated have changed.

Personally, sheep in Australia would largely die out quickly in Australia if they had to rely on native vegetation to survive on, cows would have a limited range and chickens would be in deep shit.

You underestimate the amount of domestication these breeds have undergone over centuries and how ill adapted they are to many of the environments they find themselves in.

[HAL]

What happened to it?

[stui magpie]

What happened to it?

It kept humping a rock until the moss absorbed enough semen, became sentient and ate it.

[Morrigu]

I'm certainly not arguing with you that animals are inferior to us in most capacities. But I'm not sure that inferiority should necessarily translate to "worthy of being kept in cages and being killed indiscriminately". From an ethical point of view, does it matter how smart they are? That's not a rhetorical question, I genuinely don't know the answer. I'm probably not the right person to argue this. Where's Morrigu?

No it doesn't matter at all! What is " smart" - whose terms of references are we using to determine what " smart" is ?

We have sat at waterholes for hours in Africa and watched the community of critters - the elephants in particular who were so gentle with their young, who nurtured each other and greeted each other with wonderful tactile embraces and who mourned the loss of one of their own - to see them come across the bones of one of their kind deceased and the way they responded could teach the " clever" humans a thing or two!

Yet we " smart" humans kill them for ivory to make us useless " trinkets"

Or the magnificent orangutans of Borneo - I defy you to go and observe these beautiful creatures and tell me they are "dumb" . Yet we " smart" humans destroy their environment and then capture them to provide entertainment or perform menial tasks or yum yum sell as bush tucker to cashed up f*wits

Not people who who have traditionally eaten such to survive that is a different scenario - this is those who think it is " exclusive" so think it adds to their status ( note your dick is still WAY too small!)

" Smart" humans can make excuses for all their bad behaviour and greed based on their perceived entitlement and sense of superiority - that's why sad f*ckers continue to pimp and traffic children and poor women and there will always be a market as we " smart" humans with cash can buy and do as we please cause we are the smartest and we just can so na na na!

When you consider the way humans still treat their fellow humans - it is fairly obvious that our treatment and respect of any rights for animals is a long way down the list for so many.

Personally with every passing day I care less about humans - you reap what you sow!

[Tannin]

You underestimate

Nope. I am not "estimating", I am reporting known, verifiable facts.

They didn't thrive in their current form for millions of years, they've been bred to the point of dependence.

Sorry, wrong. Most domesticated species - and every single one of the species you mention in your post - are perfectly capable of surving in the wild. This is not "estimation", it is fact. Every one of those species you mention does survive in the wild, and has done for hundreds of years.

Personally, sheep in Australia would largely die out quickly in Australia if they had to rely on native vegetation to survive on

No. Vast herds of sheep in Australia today eat virtually nothing but native vegetation. In particular, I draw your attention to the huge rangeland areas where saltbush (various species but especially Atriplex nummularia) forms the main item on the menu. Almost the whole of south-western Victoria, like much of New South Wales, parts of Queensland, bits of Western Australia, and much of south-east South Australia) was covered in native grassland and woodland. The reason why Plains Grassland and Plains Grassy Woodland are the two rarest major Ecological Vegetation Classes in the state today - both have been almost entirely destroyed, with less than 1% remaining semi-intact - is that these habitats were ideal for sheep, not requiring any modification at all. Sheep, of course, were far from ideal for them: early graziers over-grazed so badly and so consistently that very little remains today, most of this once-beautiful country is now a 50/50 mix of imported pasture grasses and weeds. But make no mistake, until bad land management and appalling weed control led to their destruction, the Western Victorian Plains were brilliantly good sheep country. Feral sheep populations are scattered around the country, but tend to be small as they are easily rounded up and added to domesticated herds. Very closely related to sheep are goats, which are less herd-oriented and prefer more rugged country: both reasons make them so suited to survival in Australia that, despite endless and expensive efforts, they are impossible to eradicate.

Finally, sheep are native to Asia, not Australia. Even if it were true that they would "die out" here (which it is obviously not), that "fact" is irrelevant: the question is would they survive in their native land - which of course they can and do.

Cows would have a limited range

I presume you mean "limited" to most of Australia outside oceans, jungles, and deserts? So what? Feral cattle not only can survive in Australia (where they are in any case not a native species), they do survive, and have done for centuries despite efforts to round them up for both commercial and land management purposes.

chickens would be in deep shit.

Still wrong. The domestic chicken, more properly known as the Red Junglefowl, is once again not native to Australia but is perfectly capable of surving in self-sustaining feral populations here given suitable habitat. (Their native country is the tropical jungles of south-east Asia, and still-wild populations remain there to this day.) Although most habitats here are not well suited to them, Wild Red Junglefowl - all of them descended from domestic chickens - are uncommon but nevertheless present in Australia.

Also, the environments where they originally thrived before being domesticated have changed.

No. The environments where they originally thrived have not "changed". Very little natural change has occurred in the ten-thousand-odd years since the first of these species was domesticated. Humans, however, have destroyed a great many of these environments. The environments didn't change, selfish, ignorant human beings changed them, mostly to the point of destruction. But these are adaptable, resourceful species. They can and do cope with all sorts of destruction and change - as witness their persistent success as wild feral inhabitants of even this buggered-up and (from their evolutionary point of view) very strange and unfamiliar continent.

As you can see, the claim that these creatures could not and would not exist without us is transparently false. The reverse, however, is unquestionably true. We certainly could not have developed civilisation as we know it, or indeed civilisation of any kind at all, without the domestication of plants and animals such as wheat, flax, sheep and chickens. Nor could we survive in one one-thousandth of our current numbers without them. In short, it is not only untrue that these creatures could not exist without us, we could not exist without them.

[Wokko]

lots of stuff

Told!

I'd add to that list horses, camels, cats, rats and pigs that all thrive as feral/wild animals in Australia. Very few domesticated species would die out if we didn't eat/use them. At worst their population would be drastically lowered because nobody would purposefully overbreed them, but they'd still survive.

[think positive]

Just saw a surfer on telly cast hunks of meat (roast sized) from his surf board, at a shark, and then the shark towed him round the bay! damn nutcase!

Myth not busted!

[Bucks5]

This driver's attitude, more concerned about the damage to her car then the guy she hit.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/i-jus ... 36qyl.html

[think positive]

They should crush her phone inside her car.

Dumb bitch

[ronrat]

They should crush her phone inside her car.

Dumb bitch

This is a case where the Police should keep her phone, with sim, as evidence. The magistrate also needs a kick in the arse. How about 5 years without a licence. One hopes the cyclist sues civilly and she has to sell her car and phone.

[David]