rickyarbino wrote:Yeah, but there's no reason
Just boils down to greed imho. Not saying I'd let a dog eat me if it was hungry, but our 'importance' is no reason to justify moral conduct between species.
We are white, therefore it's perfectly natural for us to think that white people are the most important people. The perpetuation of our genetic line is ingrained in all of us, like it is in all people. I'll try harder to make my people survive than any other. Within the population, I'll try harder to make my family line survive than any other.
You might be able to abstract yourself from that with drum-circle philosophy, but it doesn't make it any less true. You'd defend your Mum or your Son harder than you'll defend your neighbour, unless you're a proper wrong'n.
If you could ask a black person, it'd probably think black people are.
You're trying too hard to get a reaction here. Outside of family and friends, all humans are equal. Races aren't species, you silly person.
If I can mate with it, it's equal to me. If I love it, it's better.
Meus equus tuo altior est
"Let me eat when I'm hungry, let me drink when I'm dry.
Give me dollars when I'm hard up, religion when I die."
nowaysj wrote:I wholeheartedly believe that Michael Brown's mother and father killed him.
Naturalistic is the primary interest and affection for wildlife and the outdoors. Ecologistic is the primary concern for the environment as a system, for interrelationships between wildlife species and natural habitat. Humanistic is the primary concern and strong affection for individual animals, principally pets. Moralistic is the primary concern for the right and wrong treatment of animals, with strong opposition to exploitation or cruelty towards animals. Scientistic is primary interest in the physical attributes and biological functioning of animals. Aesthetic is primary concern in the artistic and symbolic characteristics of animals. Utilitarian is primary concern for the practical and material value of animals of the animal's habitat. Dominionistic is primary interest in the mastery and control of animals typically in sporting situations. Negativistic is primary orientation for an active avoidance of animals due to indifference, dislike or fear
knowledge about animals and attitudes towards them have only a low correlation
no one is going to convince anyone of anything, our minds are already made up into 1 or more of those 9 categories
No, although those are good, it's more a question of how you weigh or combine those in the context of society than it is about clinging onto one of them.
So a discussssion could make that balance more clearererer.
There should be one where it puts humans over animals and one where animals decide everything like ehb wants
rickyarbino wrote:Yeah, but there's no reason
Just boils down to greed imho. Not saying I'd let a dog eat me if it was hungry, but our 'importance' is no reason to justify moral conduct between species.
We are white, therefore it's perfectly natural for us to think that white people are the most important people. The perpetuation of our genetic line is ingrained in all of us, like it is in all people. I'll try harder to make my people survive than any other. Within the population, I'll try harder to make my family line survive than any other.
You might be able to abstract yourself from that with drum-circle philosophy, but it doesn't make it any less true. You'd defend your Mum or your Son harder than you'll defend your neighbour, unless you're a proper wrong'n.
If you could ask a black person, it'd probably think black people are.
i thought magma actually wrote that for a second and was preparing for some bants
RKM wrote:
when bae hands u the aux mixtape and your squad blunted 9/11 aye lmao
rickyarbino wrote:Yeah, but there's no reason
Just boils down to greed imho. Not saying I'd let a dog eat me if it was hungry, but our 'importance' is no reason to justify moral conduct between species.
We are white, therefore it's perfectly natural for us to think that white people are the most important people. The perpetuation of our genetic line is ingrained in all of us, like it is in all people. I'll try harder to make my people survive than any other. Within the population, I'll try harder to make my family line survive than any other.
You might be able to abstract yourself from that with drum-circle philosophy, but it doesn't make it any less true. You'd defend your Mum or your Son harder than you'll defend your neighbour, unless you're a proper wrong'n.
If you could ask a black person, it'd probably think black people are.
You're trying too hard to get a reaction here. Outside of family and friends, all humans are equal. Races aren't species, you silly person.
If I can mate with it, it's equal to me. If I love it, it's better.
The point I'm trying to make is that the grounds on which you deliberate between the value of humans and other animals aren't really that good. Species are precisely collectives of organisms that can reproduce with eachother, and people are essentially the same. It might seem silly for me to say this to you, but to many people, not all humans are people, some are animals, others are property. Reproduction is still an option, but that clearly isn't what grants us equality.
Also, we tend to die, so the notion that we should value life based on our ability to create it doesn't seem thaaaaaaat solid to me, but c'est my opinion.
Also, shouldn't the fact that dogs are so respectful of humans earn them some brownie points? Fuck having babies if you're still miserable because shitty people still do shitty shit imo.
