|TL;DR BE KIND TO ANIMALS!
Eddy Vluggen wrote:If you in a bad mood
Not so good, gained another kg
Eddy Vluggen wrote:To illustrate my point, how is your weight doing?
I don't know how that illustrates your point though.
Vegetarians can be as unhealthy and overweight as meat eaters
Because she doesn't know any better, I do.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:it will simply ignore lettuce
I don't need meat and it's not so good that I'd be willing to cruelly sacrifice animals for it.
It's the production process I'm opposed to, not so much the eating.
It has been extended to animals, animal cruelty is forbidden.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:That has never been extended to animals; that's why one is called murder, and the other is simply slaughter (and taxed).
Anyway, "entitlement" is a cultural construct, so by natural laws you're no more entitled than the mouse you killed.
Except you're big and strong and the mouse isn't.
You could've used that big and strong body and those smart brains to find a way to get the mouse back in the field where it belongs, but unfortunately for the mouse you decided to kill it instead.
If everyone did what you do, we'd be out of animals real soon (and die because a lot of animals, mostly insects, are necessary for life to flourish).
No we can't and no we didn't.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:We can and did. We even standardized its testing, and some animals do the same tests (and succeed).
We invented some test that tests some things we find important.
Math and language, typical stuff that computers can ace, but you wouldn't call a computer intelligent.
A jungle tribe wouldn't even know what the test was, but they survive in the jungle, something we are to "stupid" for.
In earlier times such tests would've looked very different as well.
So even if that test measures any form of intelligence is very much place and time bound.
"Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid." - Unknown (not Einstein as is often believed)
Yes it is, that's why I said chickens.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:An undamaged rooster is a dangerous animal.
And we're nothing but mammals, so basically we have the same rights as that mouse.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:Point is that laws and moral have no place in nature, and animals have no God-given rights.
Which people brought over.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:see the rabbit in Australia.
Lots of pests we have are self-inflicted either by introducing a non-native species, by destroying natural habitats or by killing a natural enemy
And here you are saying these poor bunnies that didn't even want to be there are an evil pest
That's just my point, mine is NOT cultural.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:The line you draw is a cultural one and ours is just one of many
I just try to respect other animals as I would like to be respected.
It's not always easy or possible, I too have some basic survival instinct, that's why I'm now killing the ants in my house, but I wouldn't kill a single mouse just for being there.
And to be fair, if hundreds of people came into my house and started stealing me food, like the ants try, I'd start killing them too
So why did you kill the mouse and not your neighbor?
Eddy Vluggen wrote:What man doesn't want to hear is that all animals are equal
You say it, but try to act like it a bit more
For clarity, by letting that mouse live, not by killing your neighbor