BF2S Forums China and non existent animal rights

I honestly have no idea how you are able to put the environment and animals above fellow countrymen and everyone else. 

How old are you?  Do you have kids?

And those people believe in reincarnation? Oh sht im dog again *boiling sounds*

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

bogo24dk wrote:

http://www.ptroa.co.il/petitionmovie/petition-English.php


How inhumane do you have to be before you can do something like this.

While I respect "the people of Israel"s concern about animal welfare in China, they need to get a clue on human rights in that country first and foremost.

But Palestinians aren't cute and cuddly!

Some people here fail to grasp the most basic. Animals are helpless. They do not attack humans or skin humans alive. We are responsible for them. When people die it's mostly our own fault for either being to damn greedy, evil or inhuman. But animals  can't protect themselves they are at our own mercy.

1785: Kant
“     Animals ... are there merely as a means to an end. That end is man. — Immanuel Kant[25]     ”

The German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), following Augustine, Aquinas, and Locke, opposed the idea that human beings have duties toward non-humans. For Kant, cruelty to animals was wrong solely on the grounds that it was bad for humankind. He argued in 1785 that human beings have duties only toward other human beings, and that "cruelty to animals is contrary to man's duty to himself, because it deadens in him the feeling of sympathy for their sufferings, and thus a natural tendency that is very useful to morality in relation to other human beings is weakened."[26]

Last edited by bogo24dk (2009-05-03 12:09:22)

LividBovine wrote:

bogo24dk wrote:

Some people here fail to grasp the most basic. Animals are helpless. They do not attack humans or skin humans alive. We are responsible for them. When people die it's mostly our own fault for either being to damn greedy, evil or inhuman. But animals  can't protect themselves they are at our own mercy.

1785: Kant
“     Animals ... are there merely as a means to an end. That end is man. — Immanuel Kant[25]     ”

The German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), following Augustine, Aquinas, and Locke, opposed the idea that human beings have duties toward non-humans. For Kant, cruelty to animals was wrong solely on the grounds that it was bad for humankind. He argued in 1785 that human beings have duties only toward other human beings, and that "cruelty to animals is contrary to man's duty to himself, because it deadens in him the feeling of sympathy for their sufferings, and thus a natural tendency that is very useful to morality in relation to other human beings is weakened."[26]

And babies are able to defend themselves and provide for themselves?  I love animals, I have a cat, dog, and an annoying bird.  I have donated money to animal shelters and always adopt pound pets instead of breeder ones.  I am not saying we forget the animals exist and not try to defend them to some extent.  It is just sad to me how much some people put animals above people.

It's harder to see hate in animals.

As much as animals suffering is a bad thing, I will still hold human life over that of an animal.

Don't forget about the starving children, the children left in orphanages that die due to malnurishment/understimulation/abuse.

AussieReaper wrote:

As much as animals suffering is a bad thing, I will still hold human life over that of an animal.

Humans, as a species, are creating their own rights abuse. I think there is a little difference in the fact most animals lack the intelligence, capacity, and forethought to be able to change what is.

Not that I disagree.. but I understand the other point of view.

LividBovine wrote:

bogo24dk wrote:

Some people here fail to grasp the most basic. Animals are helpless. They do not attack humans or skin humans alive. We are responsible for them. When people die it's mostly our own fault for either being to damn greedy, evil or inhuman. But animals  can't protect themselves they are at our own mercy.

1785: Kant
“     Animals ... are there merely as a means to an end. That end is man. — Immanuel Kant[25]     ”

The German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), following Augustine, Aquinas, and Locke, opposed the idea that human beings have duties toward non-humans. For Kant, cruelty to animals was wrong solely on the grounds that it was bad for humankind. He argued in 1785 that human beings have duties only toward other human beings, and that "cruelty to animals is contrary to man's duty to himself, because it deadens in him the feeling of sympathy for their sufferings, and thus a natural tendency that is very useful to morality in relation to other human beings is weakened."[26]

And babies are able to defend themselves and provide for themselves?  I love animals, I have a cat, dog, and an annoying bird.  I have donated money to animal shelters and always adopt pound pets instead of breeder ones.  I am not saying we forget the animals exist and not try to defend them to some extent.  It is just sad to me how much some people put animals above people.

Why do you insist that a fetus is a baby. You sound like one of those christian fanatics. A fetus is not a baby. I for one believe in abortion.  A country like china without the one child rule will be in 50 years 2 billion people. And seeing for example India and how poor people are i don't agree that a child should be brought to world just because some ancient  tale book says so. There are enough poor people in the world.