I hate people

[deadly7]

http://www.kare11.com/news/ts_article.aspx?storyid=131517
Why is it that everyone else that enjoys seeing those animals has to suffer because some retarded piece of shit nine year old girl has to be.. well.. retarded and reach over the glass?  'the hell is her problem?  Does she think that that's a petting zoo or something?  Seriously.  I feel like finding her parents and bitch slapping some sense into them, and then throwing her kid in the exhibit, since she clearly wants to be over the glass and feel like a big kid.

[iago]

They really shouldn't use the word "destroyed", that's an extremely rigged word. 

But other than that, if somebody gets bitten by an animal, regardless of the circumstances, they have to be tested for rabies.  I value a human life more than I value animal lives, so as sad as it is that animals had to die, I think they made the right choice. 

[Rule]

I value a human life more than I value animal lives, so as sad as it is that animals had to die, I think they made the right choice. 

Any non-human animal life and under any circumstance?

[deadly7]

But other than that, if somebody gets bitten by an animal, regardless of the circumstances, they have to be tested for rabies.  I value a human life more than I value animal lives, so as sad as it is that animals had to die, I think they made the right choice. 

It's not the rabies testing I cared about.  It's the nine-year old's idiocy, the parent's lack of parenting, and the pointless death of animals that are pretty cool to watch.  "ZOMG THEY BIT OUR DAUGHTER WHO WAS TOO STUPID TO REALIZE THAT GLASS MEANS THAT IT WILL PROBABLY HURT YOU"!

[iago]

I value a human life more than I value animal lives, so as sad as it is that animals had to die, I think they made the right choice. 

Any non-human animal life and under any circumstance?

I'll say 'yes' for now, but I reserve the right to go back on it

But yeah, if I had to choose between an animal dying or a human dying, I think I would always choose the human. 

Unless of course the animal dying causes even more humans to die (killing off all the cows in the world, for some reason), but that's a wholly different situation.

It's not the rabies testing I cared about.  It's the nine-year old's idiocy, the parent's lack of parenting, and the pointless death of animals that are pretty cool to watch.  "ZOMG THEY BIT OUR DAUGHTER WHO WAS TOO STUPID TO REALIZE THAT GLASS MEANS THAT IT WILL PROBABLY HURT YOU"!

Well constructed argument.  But really, I don't really care how it happened.  It's not like the animals were being punished for being bad.  Animals have to be put down to check for rabies, so they were put down.  Whether she was accidentally bitten or whether they leaped out of the shadows is immaterial. 

[Rule]

Any non-human animal life and under any circumstance?

I'll say 'yes' for now, but I reserve the right to go back on it

To clarify, you would have 100 intelligent seals slaughtered to save an abusive farmhand with an IQ of 90 and an attitude problem?

Also, why?

[deadly7]

I'll say 'yes' for now, but I reserve the right to go back on it

But yeah, if I had to choose between an animal dying or a human dying, I think I would always choose the human. 

A minute ago you just said you pick humans > animals.. now you're saying animals > humans?

Unless of course the animal dying causes even more humans to die (killing off all the cows in the world, for some reason), but that's a wholly different situation.

I love the example.

Well constructed argument.

Was that sarcasm?

But really, I don't really care how it happened.  It's not like the animals were being punished for being bad.  Animals have to be put down to check for rabies, so they were put down.  Whether she was accidentally bitten or whether they leaped out of the shadows is immaterial. 

Wait wait wait.. animals have to be checked for rabies by dying?  This I did not know.  Can't they run a blood test on it, or is rabies not detectable that way?  And I don't see why the girl can't get shots.  It's not like she'll lose permanent use of her arm if she gets shot there 5-7 times, whereas an animal that has to die to be tested for rabies loses permanent usage of its body.  It's not like the rabies vaccine has an extremely high potential for negative effects, either.

[Rule]

I'll say 'yes' for now, but I reserve the right to go back on it

But yeah, if I had to choose between an animal dying or a human dying, I think I would always choose the human. 

A minute ago you just said you pick humans > animals.. now you're saying animals > humans?

Unless of course the animal dying causes even more humans to die (killing off all the cows in the world, for some reason), but that's a wholly different situation.

I love the example.

Well constructed argument.

Was that sarcasm?

But really, I don't really care how it happened.  It's not like the animals were being punished for being bad.  Animals have to be put down to check for rabies, so they were put down.  Whether she was accidentally bitten or whether they leaped out of the shadows is immaterial. 

Wait wait wait.. animals have to be checked for rabies by dying?  This I did not know.  Can't they run a blood test on it, or is rabies not detectable that way?  And I don't see why the girl can't get shots.  It's not like she'll lose permanent use of her arm if she gets shot there 5-7 times, whereas an animal that has to die to be tested for rabies loses permanent usage of its body.  It's not like the rabies vaccine has an extremely high potential for negative effects, either.

An animal definitely does not have to die to get tested for rabies.

[iago]

To clarify, you would have 100 intelligent seals slaughtered to save an abusive farmhand with an IQ of 90 and an attitude problem?

Also, why?

Not exactly.  I would let 100 seals die to save a human.  Your wording is rigged ('slaughter'?). 

And why?  To put it simply, because the human is human.  It depends on what you believe, but there are several ways of saying it:  humans have a soul, humans are conscious, humans are sentient, etc.  We constantly 'slaughter' 'helpless' 'intelligent' animals (pigs, for example) in order for people to enjoy themselves more.  I mean, bacon is barely even food, bacon is more like entertainment then food. 

And incidentally, I'm not going to confirm that I actually believe this, either.  This is purely for the sake of argument.  On how I stand on human:animal relations, I won't commit to a standpoint here.  I generally take the opposite of what others take. 

I'll say 'yes' for now, but I reserve the right to go back on it

But yeah, if I had to choose between an animal dying or a human dying, I think I would always choose the human. 

A minute ago you just said you pick humans > animals.. now you're saying animals > humans?

oops, s/dying/living/g

Well constructed argument.

Was that sarcasm?

yes.  Valuable arguments are rarely type with caps lock on.

An animal definitely does not have to die to get tested for rabies.

That's interesting, then why is it constantly done?  If any kind of animal bites a person, you always hear about it being put down to be tested for rabies.  Is there some reason that they are generally put down rather than just tested?

[AntiVirus]

Couldn't the Zoo just pay for the girl to get the shots and/or to see if she has rabies or not?

[Rule]

To clarify, you would have 100 intelligent seals slaughtered to save an abusive farmhand with an IQ of 90 and an attitude problem?

Also, why?

Not exactly.  I would let 100 seals die to save a human.  Your wording is rigged ('slaughter'?). 

.......  1000, 1000000, 1000000000?  How many would it take to surpass the human's life?  It doesn't matter what the human is like? 

And why?  To put it simply, because the human is human.  It depends on what you believe, but there are several ways of saying it:  humans have a soul, humans are conscious, humans are sentient, etc. 

Can you prove that humans have a soul?  Can you prove that non-human animals don't have a soul?  Can you explain what consciousness is?  Can you prove that humans have consciousness?  Can you prove that other animals do not have consciousness?  Can you prove that other animals aren't sentient?  Seems like you'd be letting go of a lot of potentially "valuable" life (by your criteria) based on what you feel towards questions with extremely uncertain answers.

We constantly 'slaughter' 'helpless' 'intelligent' animals (pigs, for example) in order for people to enjoy themselves more.  I mean, bacon is barely even food, bacon is more like entertainment then food. 

Saying that something is done is certainly no justification.  Many men hit their wives because it makes them feel better.  That doesn't make it ok.  I could point to many previously societally acceptable practices that you would now find outrageous, as well.  Doing something is not a justification for doing that thing!

An animal definitely does not have to die to get tested for rabies.

That's interesting, then why is it constantly done?  If any kind of animal bites a person, you always hear about it being put down to be tested for rabies.  Is there some reason that they are generally put down rather than just tested?

Because humans are an arrogant, self-centred, aggressive, inconsiderate and stupid species (in general), and we tend to do whatever is easiest for us without regard for other life.  Rabies is a bacterial infection and so would be incredibly easy to detect, and is even rather simple to treat now (so long as it's caught early enough).  At most an animal would just need to be tranquilized for testing.

[MyndFyre]

To clarify, you would have 100 intelligent seals slaughtered to save an abusive farmhand with an IQ of 90 and an attitude problem?

Also, why?

Not exactly.  I would let 100 seals die to save a human.  Your wording is rigged ('slaughter'?). 

I'm glad someone else picked up on this, since Rule is typically accusing *me* of using rigged diction.

[Rule]

To clarify, you would have 100 intelligent seals slaughtered to save an abusive farmhand with an IQ of 90 and an attitude problem?

Also, why?

Not exactly.  I would let 100 seals die to save a human.  Your wording is rigged ('slaughter'?). 

I'm glad someone else picked up on this, since Rule is typically accusing *me* of using rigged diction.

I'm glad you felt this was important enough to comment on  .  Rigged wording usually becomes a problem when you are paraphrasing your opponent's beliefs in an argument.  Technically every wording is rigged wording because people are always biased and always have discretion over their diction.  When a question is asked, it can be answered as is -- with the wording used and all that it implies -- or it can be changed (like iago chose to do); there is no distortion of reality or rather large assumptions made when the opponent hasn't been labelled as doing anything and he is given the option to clearly define his own position.  When possibly inaccurate wording (that may or may not be central to the debate in question) is used to describe someone else's position, then it becomes a problem.    This is what you are guilty of doing.  Understand?

[iago]

.......  1000, 1000000, 1000000000?  How many would it take to surpass the human's life?  It doesn't matter what the human is like? 

Never. I'd raher you kill every animal in the world than kill a human.

Can you prove that humans have a soul?  Can you prove that non-human animals don't have a soul?  Can you explain what consciousness is?  Can you prove that humans have consciousness?  Can you prove that other animals do not have consciousness?  Can you prove that other animals aren't sentient?  Seems like you'd be letting go of a lot of potentially "valuable" life (by your criteria) based on what you feel towards questions with extremely uncertain answers.

Nope, I can't prove them in any way that would be universally agreed upon.  But I think that everybody can agree that there's something special that humans have that animals don't.  Call it what you want, but it has to be there.  No other animals seem to have the ability to reason the way we do. 

Saying that something is done is certainly no justification.  Many men hit their wives because it makes them feel better.  That doesn't make it ok.  I could point to many previously societally acceptable practices that you would now find outrageous, as well.  Doing something is not a justification for doing that thing!

If you aren't a vegetarian, then it's difficult to argue that animals are as important as humans.  My point was that most people aren't. 

I'm glad you felt this was important enough to comment on  .  Rigged wording usually becomes a problem when you are paraphrasing your opponent's beliefs in an argument.  Technically every wording is rigged wording because people are always biased and always have discretion over their diction.  When a question is asked, it can be answered as is -- with the wording used and all that it implies -- or it can be changed (like iago chose to do); there is no distortion of reality or rather large assumptions made when the opponent hasn't been labelled as doing anything and he is given the option to clearly define his own position.  When possibly inaccurate wording (that may or may not be central to the debate in question) is used to describe someone else's position, then it becomes a problem.    This is what you are guilty of doing.  Understand?

I disagree.  There are certain words that conjure certain strong emotions ('slaughter' and 'terrorist' come to mind -- see also: 'fnord), and other words that don't.  People often use those words as part of an argument to convince people that don't realize what's going on.  And they work great on most people, politicians are the best at using those words.  I normally try to avoid rigged words, or if I use them I indicate that they are.  And sometimes, I'll use rigged words that go both ways (remember when I used both 'murder a fetus' and 'throw out a clump of cells' in the same post about abortion? .  When I do use them, I have fun with them. 

[Rule]

.......  1000, 1000000, 1000000000?  How many would it take to surpass the human's life?  It doesn't matter what the human is like? 

Never. I'd raher you kill every animal in the world than kill a human.

That is a really poorly thought out response I think.  What if the human is a pedophile?  What if he is mentally retarded?  I think humans are very stupid to think they're so special.  You claim you're not religious at all (you actually seem to detest the idea of faith), yet you hold this naive belief that humans are so different -- grasping to vague concepts like the completely unscientific idea of a soul -- in order to justify a pig-headed standpoint.

Nope, I can't prove them in any way that would be universally agreed upon.  But I think that everybody can agree that there's something special that humans have that animals don't.  Call it what you want, but it has to be there.  No other animals seem to have the ability to reason the way we do. 

No, I don't agree, most biologists don't agree, and most thoughtful people who have spent time with intelligent animals don't agree.  So this vague "something special" idea you have makes 1 human life more important than any animal life?  I just can't really believe what I'm reading.  The notion seems so revolting to me.  There are so many stupid, awful people out there, and certain animals have repeatedly demonstrated exceptional intelligence in certain areas. Most lazy, self-important humans just can't be bothered to think about whether it's right to slaughter certain animals. Thoughtless murder is more our style.
--

I'll let you in on a secret.  We are human so we're all inclined to feel that our species is better than anything else.  It's not logical, it's an instinct.  You'll find the same trait in other sorts of animals.  And if you actually study university-level biology you'll realize that there is nothing particularly special about humans.  We got lucky in some ways with tool development and this is why we have advanced so far. 

We could probably keep arguing about this forever.  But in the end you must realize that you won't be able to pinpoint a logical reason for believing that human life is more valuable than certain animal life (yes I choose to be specific to animals like killer whales, seals, sea-otters, wolf-dogs, bears, etc).  If "something special" is why you would choose to sacrifice an unlimited number of animals to save 1 human, then I seriously think you need to re-examine your position.  All mammals are linked together on a phylogenetic tree, and there is nothing notable (genetically) to differentiate humans: we're just the end of one more branch on a big tree.  In order to have an intelligent discussion and also make such an incredibly strong statement, I think you need to go out of your way to study animal intelligence and really consider if there is something that should differentiate all humans from other animals; somehow I don't think you've done this.   And I don't imagine using words like "pig-headed" helps my case, but it's how I feel, and I really have invested myself into thinking about this question. Besides, the callous way we seem to disregard animal life bothers me in the same way it might bother you if someone said that they'd sacrifice your whole family to save the leader of North Korea because he has something special that your gene-pool does not.  I'm not kidding, it's really sickening to me.  I probably feel more strongly about this than any other so-called common "debate" (e.g. gay marriage..).

When a question is asked, it can be answered as is -- with the wording used and all that it implies -- or...

I disagree.  There are certain...

I don't really see how you can disagree.  Everything I said was irrefutably true.  I didn't say certain words don't have stronger emotional connotations.  Should we just get rid of those words altogether for that reason?  What are those words?  Would all other people agree with you on which words are most "loaded"?  Is it a discrete thing -- is one word "loaded" and the other not?  Or is it a continuous spectrum?  Is it well defined?  I pointed out that so-called "loaded" language should only be a problem when it is used to inaccurately refer to someone else's beliefs, and that technically speaking nearly all language is "rigged" (whether it is intentional or not). I can ask a question that uses whichever wording I want, and it is your responsibility how you answer it, not mine! I think that's fair game.  Anyways, this is bordeline minutia crap that's besides the point.

--
Aside (not specifically directed towards iago):
The way most people tend to think is unbelievably irritating.  I'd guess that most of the same people who would be completely outraged if a braindead human patient were euthanised would be totally indifferent to the death of thousands of guide-dogs.  People are so fucking awful.  Anything amazing done by our race has been done by a few very select incredibly gifted people who represent probably 1/1000000 of the population.  And somehow the human race gets credited for their work when everyone else is a thoughtless, self-centred, self-gratifying waste of oxygen. 

Most people base their entire lives on these questions:
1) Will there be negative consequences to me for what I do
2) Will it bring me immediate pleasure
3) Is it easy

(of course most of this is subconscious).  I believe almost no-one would be willing to truly compromise their own position for someone else's benefit, in spite of what they would like others to believe.  The title of this thread is really appropriate.