[QUOTE=ThePuska;29736569]How would a vet with knowledge about animal brains be qualified to run a centre for animal ethics?
Holding that many professorates related to ethics should qualify him.[/QUOTE]
Um, because they would actually be able to give concrete, informed answers on the status of animals as relating to issues such as intelligence, pain, feelings, and other issues which would form the core of animal ethics concerns? Sorry if I want an actual knowledge base to form my ethics on and not just uninformed rhetoric and theories.
I prefer to call my pet 'best friend' :3:.
I don't think my cats give a shit what I call them.
'Pet' is a much friendlier word than 'companion animal'.
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;29736592]Um, because they would actually be able to give concrete, informed answers on the status of animals as relating to issues such as intelligence, pain, feelings, and other issues which would form the core of animal ethics concerns? Sorry if I want an actual knowledge base to form my ethics on and not just uninformed rhetoric and theories.[/QUOTE]
The centre consults people with knowledge about the biological and neurological differences between humans and other animals if you're concerned that they're too detached from the reality or something
Besides you can just choose to ignore them
Honestly I don't see why you think a guy who has clearly earned lots of renown in the field of animal ethics is not qualified to run a centre for animal ethics
Do you think that ethics is too philosophical? That you need to have some experience dissecting animal brains before you can talk about what's right and wrong when it comes to animals?
[QUOTE=ThePuska;29736779]The centre consults people with knowledge about the biological and neurological differences between humans and other animals if you're concerned that they're too detached from the reality or something
Besides you can just choose to ignore them
Honestly I don't see why you think a guy who has clearly earned lots of renown in the field of animal ethics is not qualified to run a centre for animal ethics
Do you think that ethics is too philosophical? That you need to have some experience dissecting animal brains before you can talk about what's right and wrong when it comes to animals?[/QUOTE]
No I don't think you need to have hands on experience, that's a stupid assumption. I think you should have in depth knowledge of the actual issues that are dealt with in the field rather than just ethical knowledge. It should be the other way around, they should consult ethicist and merge this knowledge with their knowledge of how the animals work. And I find it funny that you say he's earned renown in the field of animal ethics when this field looks like it's not exactly the most rigid or reputable field.
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;29736860]No I don't think you need to have hands on experience, that's a stupid assumption. I think you should have in depth knowledge of the actual issues that are dealt with in the field rather than just ethical knowledge. It should be the other way around, they should consult ethicist and merge this knowledge with their knowledge of how the animals work. And I find it funny that you say he's earned renown in the field of animal ethics when this field looks like it's not exactly the most rigid or reputable field.[/QUOTE]
You disagree more with that organization and the field itself than this guy's qualifications for his job. It's a philosophical and a theological organization and he's very qualified to hold his position as its director. If you think it's all bullshit, then he's a qualified bullshitter.
[QUOTE=ThePuska;29736957]You disagree more with that organization and the field itself than this guy's qualifications for his job. It's a philosophical and a theological organization and he's very qualified to hold his position as its director. If you think it's all bullshit, then he's a qualified bullshitter.[/QUOTE]
I disagree with the perception of the field and organization that's being presented to me, yes. I do not disagree with the actual thought of a field of animal ethics at all, though.
[QUOTE=Bluesummers;29736369]How about the fact they are sub-human animals with no other purpose then to please our boredom and old ladies loneliness.
Stop making them something they are not. They are animals we have bred so far into worthlessness to make them safe and 'cute" to preform a worthless task.
They are not people. They are not the same as a person. We should not treat them as such.[/QUOTE]
As long as people are not abusing their pets then they can think whatever they want.
I call my cat by his name. When they ask me "Who's Ian?" I say "MAH KITTUH KAHT :333"
A lot of you didn't even read the entire article. Go back and read it before you post.
OP gave it a crap title which makes you think it's an unjustified cause, when it's not.
"pet-names" in a relationship are seen as cute and loving. They aren't derogatory.
Since when did they find the word "pet" to be derogatory and demeaning?
When they said we shouldn't use phrases like "eat like a pig" that just made me think they were flat out stupid.
Also my dog doesn't make any decisions in this house, brings in no income, needs very little space and food compared to a human, and doesn't pay rent. I would argue I do own her. That doesn't mean I treat her like an object.
Now I don't own any animals, but I've had a few pets anyway. <Insert additional BDSM innuendo here>
The concern is genuine. People who treat other animals like pieces of trash are disgusting, and so are people who like to think that they themselves are not animals. I will not go out of my way to not call my cats and dog my pets, but ridiculing people who are against the term is childish.
Pets are companions and family. They are not worthless.
I'll stop calling my dog a pet when he starts telling me that it hurts it's feelings.
[QUOTE=Sanius;29743156]The concern is genuine. People who treat other animals like pieces of trash are disgusting, and so are people who like to think that they themselves are not animals. I will not go out of my way to not call my cats and dog my pets, but ridiculing people who are against the term is childish.
Pets are companions and family. They are not worthless.[/QUOTE]
Sanius has point.
[QUOTE=Mingebox;29743230]I'll stop calling my dog a pet when he starts telling me that it hurts it's feelings.[/QUOTE]
You're a dimwit if you honestly think that any animal that is not capable of sapient speech is somehow of less worth than you. Dogs and almost every other animal are capable of both verbal and non-verbal communication.
Humans are in many ways inferior to other animals. Take away our tools and contraptions and we are completely defenseless.
and again facepunchers try to have a big hub-bub over nothing
"oh he thinks about something differently what a faggot"
bunch of conformists you are, fucking disgusting
[QUOTE=Sanius;29743285]You're a dimwit if you honestly think that any animal that is not capable of sapient speech is somehow of less worth than you. Dogs and almost every other animal are capable of both verbal and non-verbal communication.
Humans are in many ways inferior to other animals. Take away our tools and contraptions and we are completely defenseless.[/QUOTE]
That's nice, but what does it have to do with what I said?
i'm sorry fluffy how can i make amends?
[QUOTE=thisispain;29743319]and again facepunchers try to have a big hub-bub over nothing
"oh he thinks about something differently what a faggot"
bunch of conformists you are, fucking disgusting[/QUOTE]
Pain, you don't get it. We LIKE arguing.
[QUOTE=Mingebox;29743329]That's nice, but what does it have to do with what I said?[/QUOTE]
You said that your dog is worthless because it isn't capable of speaking human languages. You're a fucktard.
[QUOTE=archangel125;29743337]Pain, you don't get it. We LIKE arguing.[/QUOTE]
IT'S SICKENING I TELL YOU WHat!
[QUOTE=Sanius;29743353]You said that your dog is worthless because it isn't capable of speaking human languages. You're a fucktard.[/QUOTE]
That's quite the interpretation. :allears:
Bullshit. Pet is term just as woman and man is. if anything, yo uwould need the change the definition of pet and not the nickname you give to tha tdefinition.
This is bloody pointless, you've purposelly making our language less efficient, and yo utry to justify it with an idiotic excuse that it will cause debate. It won't fucking do jack.
[QUOTE]How about the fact they are sub-human animals with no other purpose then to please our boredom and old ladies loneliness.
Stop making them something they are not. They are animals we have bred so far into worthlessness to make them safe and 'cute" to preform a worthless task.
They are not people. They are not the same as a person. We should not treat them as such.[/QUOTE]
So, the entire purpose of a species, because they are dumb is to cater to the smart? Should dumb people serve as slaves to smart people?
Regardless of the happiness you generate in others, your happiness still has worth. Humans are capable of generating much more happiness than dogs, and as such (happiness is itself has equal worth among all consciousnesses), are superior, but to state that their sole purpose is to make you feel good is bloody retarded.
Why dislike bestiality, then? You got a vagina anytime you want, and fuck the dog, that's his job.
:colbert: Seriously, man.
I'm not going to lie, I call my chinchilla a bro, not a pet.
[QUOTE=Sanius;29743353]You said that your dog is worthless because it isn't capable of speaking human languages. You're a fucktard.[/QUOTE]
No he didn't?
What I got out of that post was that dogs and cats really could not give less of a damn whether you refer to them as pets or companions
I guess you could say....
*sunglasses*
[I]It's their pet peeve.[/I]
YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
Meh, I consider my pets more as family than pets. I've eaten meals more times with my cat then I have with my actual "family".
So I got 3 cats and a canary. They are no longer pets, they are companion cu... Animals.
But... I don't take them for a walk or anything of the sort. How are they companions?
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;29736527]uh you shouldn't say that word either way
i will beat you up i have to[/QUOTE]
Internet tough guy
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.