0

Yes - it reminds me that we gave up immortality to have sex - worth it?

We are not giving up anything -- you can't give up something you never had in the first place. I'd choose sex anytime over immortality via cloning -- see Multiplicity

1

We are not giving up anything -- you can't give up something you never had in the first place. I'd choose sex anytime over immortality via cloning -- see Multiplicity

That was a metaphorical 'we' - animals and/or multi-cellular creatures that reproduce by binary fission are essentially immortal (barring predation). Once life-forms started having sex and/or reproducing using the binary sexual differentiation, then death was inevitable (including predation). That was a binary choice, an either/or 'choice' procreate by fission = immortality; procreate via sex and death in inevitable.
Parthenogenesis will make men obsolete (the 'y' chromosome is just a broken 'X' anyway, heh,heh) - and may restore immortality.

Edited by GrimJack: it was an evolutionary 'choice'

0

(the 'y' chromosome is just a broken 'X' anyway, heh,heh)

That a great quote which may even be true. I never thought of it that way but yea lol.

0

We are not giving up anything -- you can't give up something you never had in the first place. I'd choose sex anytime over immortality via cloning -- see Multiplicity

Now, immortality via respawn points is a different story. Nothing like some real life Quake 3 Arena.

0

Back to the original question.
Like it was said before: you don't give rights to animals. They won't take you to court. You're giving governments or 'other people' the right to fine/sue/convict/imprison you for 'doing' something to an animal.

Why would having intimate relations with a sheep (a favourite pastime of my fellow compatriots) and letting it "have a reward" be more of a problem than say, transporting the thing for miles in a couped up shed on wheels and then killing it before chucking its remains on the fire on the off-chance that somebody will want to take a bite out of it? The world's mightily messed up.

0

Back to the original question.
Like it was said before: you don't give rights to animals. They won't take you to court. You're giving governments or 'other people' the right to fine/sue/convict/imprison you for 'doing' something to an animal.

Why would having intimate relations with a sheep (a favourite pastime of my fellow compatriots) and letting it "have a reward" be more of a problem than say, transporting the thing for miles in a couped up shed on wheels and then killing it before chucking its remains on the fire on the off-chance that somebody will want to take a bite out of it? The world's mightily messed up.

1

Why would having intimate relations with a sheep (a favourite pastime of my fellow compatriots) and letting it "have a reward" be more of a problem than say, transporting the thing for miles in a couped up shed on wheels and then killing it before chucking its remains on the fire on the off-chance that somebody will want to take a bite out of it? The world's mightily messed up.

Let me get this straight. You're saying it's better to have "intimate relations" with a sheep than to eat it? The former is just gross and the latter is the way nature works. It's the food chain, survival of the fittest if you will. To me, the rights issues need to not revolve around trying to make humanity vegetarian, but to have animals treated ethically. It's one thing to use an animal for food, for natural survival, but it's another thing to treat them like garbage the entire time they're alive just to be slaughtered in the end, which is where the rights should be changed, in my opinion. Animals eating animals is part of nature, but a species as intelligent as we are should also be a bit more compassionate about the treatment of the living. I'm not ALF or PETA, but I do think a line needs to be drawn somewhere.

0

Why would having intimate relations with a sheep (a favourite pastime of my fellow compatriots) and letting it "have a reward" be more of a problem

Despite supposed statistics of the zoophilia rate, you're more likely going to get a claw hammer aside the head or face full of buckshot in reaction to such a "reward"; than just getting sued.

2

I don't agree when you say equal rights for animals and humans because they are the food that we consume. But when you say animal rights for pets and other animals that will be on extinction, then i would definitely vote for it. I also do not agree with animal testing laboratories because they are really harming the animals. animals are also great source of our daily needs. they contribute a lot to our environment.

0

I think next human civilizations will do !
yes I completely agree with you.

old days we had kings and kings are violating everyone's rights.But
now we got the laws and human rights.Therefore we can say our human
civilization is under construction (called evolution ).

Next generations most probably reject meat from their meal dishes.
Next generations will respect those rights for sure.

We need to listen to the young ppl's ideas , yes this is something that
going to happen.

0

I think it would be a good thing to get animal rights, but not necessary same rights as humans.

1

I agree that there should be laws against animal abuse. However, the hunting of animals falls under the survival of the fittest. Animals are in our food chain. If we are not going to hunt animals you will run into too many environmental problems. If deer are not hunted, they overpopulate. Fish are the same way. The question is not whether we should hunt animals but where do we draw the line between hunting for food and hunting for sport. Hunting for sport is what leads to animal extinction. Hunting for food merely keeps the ecosystem in balance. Why would we try to change what has been going on since the cavemen? Why is it now wrong to hunt for food?

Edited by jmg2hp: n/a

0

I agree that there should be laws against animal abuse. However, the hunting of animals falls under the survival of the fittest. Animals are in our food chain. If we are not going to hunt animals you will run into too many environmental problems. If deer are not hunted, they overpopulate. Fish are the same way. The question is not whether we should hunt animals but where do we draw the line between hunting for food and hunting for sport. Hunting for sport is what leads to animal extinction. Hunting for food merely keeps the ecosystem in balance. Why would we try to change what has been going on since the cavemen? Why is it now wrong to hunt for food?

Hunh? You need to do a little research - there is nothing in your post after 'laws against animal abuse' that has the vaguest basis in the real world.

-1

Hunh? You need to do a little research - there is nothing in your post after 'laws against animal abuse' that has the vaguest basis in the real world.

After the fiasco with Michael Vic I wasn't aware I needed to clarify about laws against animal abuse. My fault for not realizing I had to spell everything out in black and white.

0

After the fiasco with Michael Vic I wasn't aware I needed to clarify about laws against animal abuse. My fault for not realizing I had to spell everything out in black and white.

Michael Vic is not a hunter, was never a hunter and has nothing to do with hunting - therefore bringing him up to support a post that considers hunting a part of the 'balance of nature' is just pointless.

It is your fault that you do not understand the English language. It is your fault that you do not know how to argue a point of view. It is your fault that you post with no idea what you are doing.

Votes + Comments
Does not pay attention in a forum and instead resorts to bashing a poster for their response.
0

"I was mainly referring to things like animal abuse and hunting of animals" That was a quote by the author of this poll on the very first page of this forum. Perhaps before you bash somebody, you should read the whole forum. The author of this poll was indeed referring to ANIMAL ABUSE as well hunting. Since I am not a hunter, I merely addressed the issue with which I could be familiar with. I think you should go back and read the forum before you embarass yourself further.

2

"I was mainly referring to things like animal abuse and hunting of animals" That was a quote by the author of this poll on the very first page of this forum. Perhaps before you bash somebody, you should read the whole forum. The author of this poll was indeed referring to ANIMAL ABUSE as well hunting. Since I am not a hunter, I merely addressed the issue with which I could be familiar with. I think you should go back and read the forum before you embarass yourself further.

Interesting suggestion about embarrassment - this exchange started with this:

However, the hunting of animals falls under the survival of the fittest. Animals are in our food chain. If we are not going to hunt animals you will run into too many environmental problems. If deer are not hunted, they overpopulate. Fish are the same way. The question is not whether we should hunt animals but where do we draw the line between hunting for food and hunting for sport. Hunting for sport is what leads to animal extinction. Hunting for food merely keeps the ecosystem in balance.

which I consider to be one of the least thoughtful posts I have seen on this site. There are so many silly statements in that quote it is not even worth pointing to any particular piece. Now, if you want to defend any of that, please feel free. I am interested in how you relate hunting and fishing to survival of the fittest. That particular phrase is actually stated as Natural Selection which is defined as

A process in nature in which organisms possessing certain genotypic characteristics that make them better adjusted to an environment tend to survive, reproduce, increase in number or frequency, and therefore, are able to transmit and perpetuate their essential genotypic qualities to succeeding generations.

As you can see, there is no room for hunting or fishing in the definition; but I am open to learning something new if you have way to go from perpetuating successful genes to killing things with guns or fishing poles - have at it.

Votes + Comments
Agreed. His original post was sheer nonsense.
This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.