[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
If you say so. You are stomping and sneering and crying around. But if you don’t want to call it whining, that’s fine.
Your contempt and anger comes through loud and clear, just like you intended. You should be content with that.
[/QUOTE]
So tell me, sir or madam, Where do you stand on the decision to save the life a kitten or that of a child?
How about a teenager?
A man in his sixties?
A crack addict?
A crack addict with aids?
[QUOTE=Euthanasiast]
So tell me, sir or madam, Where do you stand on the decision to save the life a kitten or that of a child?
[/QUOTE]
I’m for it.
[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
I’m for it.
[/QUOTE]
Good. Now that we got that cleared up. 
What if you had to choose between the kitten or the child?
More to the point, what if you had to choose between one of your beloved 8 cats or the life of a child?
[QUOTE=Euthanasiast]
Good. Now that we got that cleared up.
What if you had to choose between the kitten or the child?
[/QUOTE]
Why would I have to?
Functionally, since I spend discretionary money on cat food instead of kid food, I guess I’ve chosen the kitten.
[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
Why would I have to?
Functionally, since I spend discretionary money on cat food instead of kid food, I guess I’ve chosen the kitten.
[/QUOTE]
Why are you avoiding the question?
[QUOTE=Euthanasiast]
Why are you avoiding the question?
[/QUOTE]
What the fuck is the question? You’ve chosen the internet over the life of a child. I’ve chosen cats over the life of a child. You can try all day to make up some stupid hypothetical that will actually force me to choose, and all that will reveal is that when you make up some stupid hypothetical I’ll choose something. In my day-to-day life, I spend money on cats, which is money I don’t spend on children. You spend money on this messageboard, which is money you don’t spend on children. That’s the real choice, not some implausible theoretical.
[QUOTE=Euthanasiast]
Just how are they better than people, asshole.
Take a look around your living room at your sixteen cats (average Doper). Now turn a mouse loose in there and watch as they slowly toy with it before killing it for sport. Then watch as they leave his carcass on your floor (because they really weren’t hungry after all) and go off to take their eleventh nap of the day.
Animals are brutal to one another, and if it wasn’t for the fact that you were at the top of the food chain, the ones that were would do what they could to eat you. And they wouldn’t even wait until you were fucking dead to start chewing and swallowing bits of you. You’d still be breathing while they were snacking on your entrails. So I’m beginning to think that some of you are just feeling guilty about being the best, most advanced species on the planet, and that has fucked you up inside.
See, you think you have a friend in animals. You think you have a sacred pact with them and that you share a mutual respect. You call yourself an ally to your finned, feathered and furred neighbors. And I am certain that if you found yourself wandering naked along the Serengeti, and happen to come upon a pride of lions that were feeling a bit peckish or just bored, they’d show you the same fucking courtesy, right?
[/QUOTE]
Your premise is flawed *in favor * of anthropomorphism- the very attitude you are complaining about. The cats have no sense of empathy for the fears of feelings of the mouse; they are performing built-in, instinctive, behaviors designed to prolong the cats’ survival.
This quote is attributable to many sources depending on context, but I’m going to whip it out here without credit for my own purposes:
Nature isn’t cruel; Nature is indifferent.
People, however, have the capacity to care for lower animals when resources are abundant. Quoting you, “…humans are at the top of the food chain”; therefore it is in our best interest to keep the chain as balanced and healthy as possible. Sometimes we choose to throw money at cleaning up the bay instead of curing herpes. In the long run, you and yours will benefit far more from protecting the ecosystem than making sex safer for the reckless.
[QUOTE=Euthanasiast]
Just how are they better than people, asshole.
[/quote]
Well, let’s start with this: they don’t log onto the internet to call random strangers ‘asshole.’ They don’t gather together in groups to stone a young girl to death. They don’t build concentration camps. They don’t go on crusades. They don’t use napalm. They don’t drop bombs on cities full of women and children. They don’t buy domestic animals for the sake of shooting them to death in cages. They don’t poison the air, the land, and water.
Look around you. Watch a nature show on the telly. Animals don’t kill each other out of cruelty.
And as far as ‘peckish lions’ are concerned - brother, you know as well as I do I have more to fear from my fellow humans than I do from any animal. Man’s only predator is Man. We slaughter more of us in any year than all the lions in history. Would you feel safer in the Serengeti, or on the streets of Iraq?
You think animals aren’t capable of compassion? Which animals are you talking about? Dogs? Cats? Lions? All of them are capable of compassion.
We ARE animals, friend. We are part of a continuum. We are not nearly so different from other mammals on this planet as you think we are.
And you think I’m ignorant - sorry, “fucking stupid” - because I don’t share your prejudices about the supposed specialness of our species? Or is it that I know something of history, and you, apparently, don’t?
[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
What the fuck is the question? You’ve chosen the internet over the life of a child. I’ve chosen cats over the life of a child. You can try all day to make up some stupid hypothetical that will actually force me to choose, and all that will reveal is that when you make up some stupid hypothetical I’ll choose something. In my day-to-day life, I spend money on cats, which is money I don’t spend on children. You spend money on this messageboard, which is money you don’t spend on children. That’s the real choice, not some implausible theoretical.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not arguing that you shouldn’t spend money on your cats when there are hungry children to feed. Never said it. I’m arguing against the premise that animals are better than humans. You are twisting my words here. You can spend your money on food that you eat in front of homeless people for all of me. I’m simply railing against the notion that animals are intrinsically better than humans.
If you can’t answer the question, that’s fine as well, though your refusal to do so is telling.
No, it isn’t. The cats are not torturing and killing a mouse because of some built-in, instinctive behavior to survive. The mouse is no threat to them and they don’t even eat the damned thing. Cats frequently demonstrate their willingness to be playful at the expense of lower animals and you are giving them a pass simply because they are elegant and beautiful animals that have fooled you into thinking they care about you in some meaningful way that doesn’t involve you being the source of reliable food. Humans have the same instincts as all lower animals, yet we are condemned when we act upon them.
What I don’t understand is that many of the same people who subscribe to the theory of evolution (something I totally agree with), thereby accepting the fact that we are fundamentally animals, are incapable of understanding how we sometimes act like them for our needs or survival.
[QUOTE=LinusK]
Well, let’s start with this: they don’t log onto the internet to call random strangers ‘asshole.’ They don’t gather together in groups to stone a young girl to death. They don’t build concentration camps. They don’t go on crusades. They don’t use napalm. They don’t drop bombs on cities full of women and children. They don’t buy domestic animals for the sake of shooting them to death in cages.
[/QUOTE]
And countless other horrors to be found if only you’d look.
[QUOTE=Euthanasiast]
I’m not arguing that you shouldn’t spend money on your cats when there are hungry children to feed. Never said it. I’m arguing against the premise that animals are better than humans. You are twisting my words here.
[/quote]
Since I haven’t made that argument, why are you asking me?
Since I haven’t made that argument, why are you asking me?
I have already answered it. I answer it every day, in the ways that matter.
See, you want to say that if I’ll jump in a lake to save a child rather than my cat that it means that I value the child over my cat. I say that such an occurrence is so fucking rare that it’s not indicative of anything. What’s indicative is that I feed my cats. What’s indicative is that you have a membership here. You value the internet over a child’s life. The internet. Where you hang out with people you despise and ridicule. I value the internet and my cats over a child’s life.
You can make up stories in which I’ll choose the kid, but that is meaningless. That would be me attempting to look all noble when it’s a situation that never happens. What does happen is me making choices every day that rank my cats above you.
That’s the answer to the question. I’ve said it three times now; will the third time be the charm?
[QUOTE=Euthanasiast]
No, it isn’t. The cats are not torturing and killing a mouse because of some built-in, instinctive behavior to survive. The mouse is no threat to them and they don’t even eat the damned thing. Cats frequently demonstrate their willingness to be playful at the expense of lower animals and you are giving them a pass simply because they are elegant and beautiful animals that have fooled you into thinking they care about you in some meaningful way that doesn’t involve you being the source of reliable food. Humans have the same instincts as all lower animals, yet we are condemned when we act upon them.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not a biologist; I’m a social worker, so I guarantee that I understand what motivates people to commit cruel, unkind acts better than I understand exactly what goes through my cat’s walnut sized brain when she beats up a mouse. But I can watch the same behaviors in non-domesticated cats on nature documentaries, and observe that “playing” with small prey is a natural, instinctive behavior that results directly in the animal’s ability and skill at procuring food.
Tell me again why you think that domestic pets “play” with small prey?
[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
Since I haven’t made that argument, why are you asking me?
[/quote]
Because you jumped in and misinterpreted what I wrote. I was setting you straight. Then I countered with the question to demonstrate my point about a handful of individuals on this board.
[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
What’s indicative is that I feed my cats. What’s indicative is that you have a membership here. You value the internet over a child’s life.
[/QUOTE]
Because I have an internet account and a membership to the SDMB, that means I value the internet over the life of a child?
I can’t argue with shitty logic to this extreme.
[QUOTE=Euthanasiast]
Because I have an internet account and a membership to the SDMB, that means I value the internet over the life of a child?
I can’t argue with shitty logic to this extreme. I’ve made my point.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, you’ve made a very clear point. I just don’t think you will ever recognize what it is. And you’ll be very smug about it, which will actually reinforce the point you don’t know you made. It’s a thing of beauty.
[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
It’s a thing of beauty.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, and I imagine your home with 8 cats running around spraying, shitting and shedding everywhere is a thing of beauty as well. :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=Euthanasiast]
But they sure as hell will completely invade a home that others have built and murder everyone inside (thousands) and make the home their own.
And countless other horrors to be found if only you’d look.
[/QUOTE]
Cats and dogs are willing, low maintainence, agreeable companions to humans, and soon, someone will be along to explain why horses, ferrets, snakes, and parrots make agreeable pets, too. But the minute that a Doper (evolutionist or creationist) enters this fray to tell a heart warming story of rescuing a nest of angry hornets, I’ll agree with you. I have yet to open my front door to a howling hive of bees and ask “Hey, little guys, are you hungry? Would you like to come in out of the rain, have a snack, and maybe sit in my lap while I read awhile?”
Your argument is all over the place, and I would like to understand your point of view.
Are you asking why some people enjoy the company of cats and dogs over human companionship? Are you railing against people who supplement their quality of life with the hobby of pet-keeping? Are you making the assertion that if someone has an extra 20 bucks that it should be spent on a children’s charity instead of dog chow? Or are you insisting that pet owners have poor social skills? If it is the last one, then statistics suggest that you are the one lacking the empathy to relate to your peers, and not the other way around. According to this marketing survey: 63% of US homes own pets. You’d be painting with a pretty broad brush to assume that 63% of Americans are socially irresponsible, socially inept, and purposefully ignorant of nature and biology.
[QUOTE=Euthanasiast]
Yes, and I imagine your home with 8 cats running around spraying, shitting and shedding everywhere is a thing of beauty as well. :rolleyes:
[/QUOTE]
Is this where I’m being convinced that you have more compassion than a cat? I feel the urge to golf clap.
I’m glad that I’m so important you had to look up the number of cats. Show your skills now and name them!
[QUOTE=Beaucarnea]
Cats and dogs are willing, low maintainence, agreeable companions to humans, and soon, someone will be along to explain why horses, ferrets, snakes, and parrots make agreeable pets, too. But the minute that a Doper (evolutionist or creationist) enters this fray to tell a heart warming story of rescuing a nest of angry hornets, I’ll agree with you. I have yet to open my front door to a howling hive of bees and ask “Hey, little guys, are you hungry? Would you like to come in out of the rain, have a snack, and maybe sit in my lap while I read awhile?”
Your argument is all over the place, and I would like to understand your point of view.
Are you asking why some people enjoy the company of cats and dogs over human companionship? Are you railing against people who supplement their quality of life with the hobby of pet-keeping? Are you making the assertion that if someone has an extra 20 bucks that it should be spent on a children’s charity instead of dog chow? Or are you insisting that pet owners have poor social skills? If it is the last one, then statistics suggest that you are the one lacking the empathy to relate to your peers, and not the other way around. According to this marketing survey: 63% of US homes own pets. You’d be painting with a pretty broad brush to assume that 63% of Americans are socially irresponsible, socially inept, and purposefully ignorant of nature and biology.
[/QUOTE]
Are you even reading what I am posting?
The answer is no, to all of your questions. I am railing against people who make assertions that, “Animals are better than people, and are more deserving of help.”
I have a pet. I love my pet. I do not think he is better than me.
I do not think that people who prefer the company of animals over humans are flawed. I do believe that people who assume that animals are better than people are deeply flawed.
Just read what I post in response to what I quote and you should have no problem understanding where I am coming from.
[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
I’m glad that I’m so important you had to look up the number of cats. Show your skills now and name them!
[/QUOTE]
I was curious as to why you were so quick to ‘pounce’ on my post. I had a hunch, and as it turned out, my hunch was correct.
If I had to guess, I’d say they were all named after imaginary friends that got you through high school, where your real classmates thought your social skills made Crispin Glover look like Remington Steele.
Euthanasiast, I am sure you will have a scathing comeback for me, but I won’t be back to take my punishment until later.
So chew on this while you are forming your withering reply: Many people feel that caring for and spending time with animals enhances their lives. There is medical evidence that pet keeping can lower blood pressure. There is a Doper here who trains animals to help those with physical and emotional handicaps- you can decide whether or not her work benefits humans directly or indirectly. There are Dopers here who are avid birders, Dopers who keep dogs for safety, who credit dogs with helping them stay motivated to excercise and use the pet park as an opportunity to socialize.There are Dopers here who take great pains to feed wildlife. It is a hobby, get it? There are Dopers who are crazy cat ladies, and long discussions often take place about how hard it is to turn away from a starving cat in a dark parking lot when you already have more pets than one person needs. Ain’t a Doper out there who woke up one day and said “You know what this house needs? 8 cats.” It just doesn’t happen that way.
It isn’t that hard, really, to explain why we domesticated animals for companionship instead of just relegating them all to food or beasts of burden. And you can consider any or all the reasons I listed, or just ask a few people whom you actually like and respect why they have a cat or dog.
But ultimately, pet owners no more need to justify spending resources on animals than you need to justify your own hobby of belittling others who differ from you.