Cats would never go for a deal like that. They’re way too smart 
Oh shit. Every time I mow tha lawn I might be facing jail time for "plant cruelty’
This hardline stance from your link?
A saner version of PETA exists, Born Free USA United with Animal Protection Institute (yes an unweildy name, it was actually two organizations that combined into one). They have several camapigns, animal circuses, extoci animals, trapping, etc. But they don’t rely on publicity stunts to get their message across.
Not to derail this thread or turn it into a PETA Bashing Party, but I don’t think PETA can even be saved, much less improved. They have lost every shred of credibility they ever had to anyone but extremists. Ask any Average Joe or Jane on the street their opinion of PETA and their answer will likely be something along the lines of, “…they’re a bunch of publicity-hungry idiots.”
PETA should redefine their message, scrap their directors, carefully choose their tactics and image management and then disappear for a year or two while they restructure. They should then re-appear after a suitable period with a new name, a new image and a new message.
I believe you just contradicted yourself by just using the word ecosystem. If you truely believe we operate in an ecosystem then whats the purpose for them being here besides the fact that they are here to make use of in our daily lives for food and clothing.
Everything thing on this earth is here for a reason, otherwise why is it here? It seems that you believe in evolution so I don’t even know how to argue with you on this one because that is a WHOLE other subject.
These terminology games you are playing are useless as you get the factual point I was trying to make.
I contradicted nothing except your silly statement. There is no purpose. Which is exactly what i said.
You have a marvellous ability to make a circular argument. “Everything on earth is here for a reason. The proof that it’s here for a reason is that it’s here.” Brilliant!
It is a whole other subject. I “believe” in evolution the same way i “believe” in gravity; because to not “believe” in it is to defy reason altogether.
What factual point? I haven’t yet seen you make one.
Mhendo
If you do not believe everthing on this earth was put here for a reason then there is no help for you and this argument between us is over because I simply will not have the ability to convence someone of such ignorance.
Where do you see a circular argument? What you pointed out is not a circular argument, I only pointed out that is that if we are here for no reason at all then why are we even here? Everything is not just here, there is a reason for everything.
So when you speak of evolution, you think that we as humans came from monkeys? This all has nothing to do with PETA.
I guess it does have something to do with PETA in that if you believe that God created us and created animals to serve our needs, then it would make PETA’s notion that animals don’t exist for mankind’s use seem pretty ludicrous.
What’s the reason, then?
All you have said so far is:
-
everything is here for a reason
-
we are here
-
why are we here, if not for a reason?
Classic circular argumentation; it’s right there again in the second paragraph i just quoted. So far, the only evidence you have given that we are here for a reason is the fact that we are here. This begs the very issue it seeks to elucidate. What is the reason? Where does it come from? Whose reason is it?
Never said it did. You’re the one who brought up evolution, remember? My sole purpose with my first post was to dispute your unsupported claim that animals “were put on this earth for us to use.” I never argued that we shouldn’t use animals, or that we have no right to use animals; i simply deny, categorically, that the presence of animals on the planet relates in any way to a conscious decision to place them here for human use.
That is an interesting question: next to anti-evolutionists, does PETA start to look like of reasonable?
Absolutely, PETAs rhetoric and media whoring activity are not reasonable, and they do have som epretty extreme ideas (like comparing KFC to Hitler), but their general theme and many of their campaigns are at their root, not so bad, that we can provide better welfare for animals.
So while PETA is ludicrous in it’s message delivery and tactics, it’s philosophy not so much. Anti-evolutionists are almost the opposite, they try to sound all reaonsable and sutff, but the underlying intellectual dishonesty is abhorrent.
If you want me to go through all of the worlds ecosystems starting at the bottom of the chain of each one to prove my point that everything on this earth is here for a reason then you won because I simply do not have the time for that.
And if you read back you said that animals evolved into what they are now, this is where evolution was initially brought up, by you! Now, because you brought up evolution I was simply asking you how much of evolution you believed in. I was just wondering if you thought you came from a monkey?
This is about equivalent to my asking you, “I was just wondering if you believe that you’re made entirely of rib meat?” It betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of the other person’s beliefs.
As for me and most other folks on this board, I’m wholly convinced by the arguments and evidence in favor of natural selection and speciation. If that means that you have nothing further to say to me, I’ll certainly cry myself to sleep tonight, but by tomorrow I’ll be on the road to healing.
You are, unsurprisingly, completely missing the point.
Arguing that each and every creature has a place within the existing ecosystem is NOT the same as arguing that all creatures are on this earth for a reason. And it’s a far, far cry from arguing that animals “were put on this earth for us to use.”
As Left Hand of Dorkness has noted, your phrasing of that question suggests that you don’t actually understand the topic you purport to be addressing. Either that, or you’re being wilfully provocative. Either way, i don’t think i’ll bother with a response to it.
Or anyone on this message board, I guess.
So as sort of a follow-up for the folks of a fundamentalist Christian view, if you believe that animals were put here for our use, by God, I’ll assume, then why did he create them with the capacity to suffer? Why not just have steak trees along with apple trees, if he wanted us to eat beef? Assuming all of this is part of God’s plan, then do you think he had factory farms in mind? Or does all this have something to do with the fall…I don’t think Adam and Eve were eating meat in the Garden, right?
Mhendo
Yes, there are animals that our society uses for food, clothing and whatever else we can make use of. Like I said if you want to play word games then I am sorry. But there are certain animals that each society makes use of just like other species of animals prefers to hunt and eat that is easily done in their geographic area. This actually brings up geezermom67 concern.
Why don’t you go to youtube or any website of the sort and look up lets say lion attacks( first meat eating animal I thought of) and watch them attack their prey. Now why do they do this? Does their prey have the capacity to sufur? You need to come up with something better than that.
Show me where i ever said otherwise. I’m perfectly aware of the various ways that our society uses animals. I went to an agricultural high school, i spent some of my summers working on sheep farms, i have many friends who came from farming backgrounds, and my own mother keeps alpacas for their wool.
But nothing there contradicts the point that i 've been making all along, which is that animals were not placed on this earth for our use. Yes, we use them, but that does not mean that the purpose of their existence is to be used by us. Can you not understand this distinction?
You continue to miss the point. I never once suggested otherwise.
Is that really the best you’ve got? “Go to YouTube and watch some lions”? You’re pretty funny.
What would that prove, and how would it support your claim that animals “were put on this earth for us to use”? Please be specific.
Maybe if i spell it out in very short sentences, using your own example, you might grasp the concept. Here goes. Follow along, if you can:
-
Lions sometimes eat wildebeest.
-
Lions eat wildebeest in order to live. Eating wildebeest provides lions with nutrition and helps them to stay alive, reproduce, etc.
-
It is natural for lions to eat wildebeest. Wildebeest form part lions’ natural prey.
-
Wildebeest feel fear and pain when hunted and killed by lions, but this in no way implies that the act is unnatural or wrong.
Now here’s the important part, so read carefully:
- NONE of the above 4 points constitute evidence that wildebeest “were put on this earth for [lions] to use.” The observation that lions eat wildebeest does not constitute evidence that the reason or purpose of wildebeest’s existence is to serve as food for lions. There is no reason or purpose here. There is no conscious, rational intelligence behind the existence of wildebeest.
Your whole argument about things being “put on earth for [other things] to use” implies a specific choice, and an a priori purpose behind the existence of each and every creature. There is no such thing.
You’ve got it completely backward. Cows cannot reproduce without human assistance anymore. They literally WOULD NOT EXIST. Except that God, in His infinite wisdom, put humans on the planet to help cows live. We are here to serve them, not vice versa.
Hmm. It’s also true that many modern grains can’t reproduce without human help: their seeds are too heavy for proper dispersal. Praise be to God, who created humans as a multifunctional tool that can help both cows and corn reproduce!
But that’s only the beginning. Not only are we a tool for the reproduction of cows and corn, we are the entire world for certain disease organisms. Without us, there would be no HIV. Again, glory to God in the highest for creating such a perfect mechanism for allowing HIV to thrive!
(The alternative–that species A’s use of species B doesn’t indicate that species B was put here to sere species A–is too silly to contemplate)
I dont know about cows not being able to reproduce is true or not, but I would say we do help this process out because I would say up to 100% of cows on this planet live on farms where we are able to have more effective reproduction methods.
I wish I could take back the phrase “animals were put on this earth for us to use” that all of you have clung on to. The message I was trying to send was that everything on this earth is here for a purpose. And that there are certain animals that we make use of, and there are certain animals that make use of other animals for survival purposes.
The word “use” might of be taken wrong as we should respect God’s creation and use our resources like they are scarce. It’s just that if you observe how every species are you can see that there are particular things that each like to use as food or other things. This is why I said use, so just get over it, you all have been taking it the wrong way.