[Comrade Ogilvy]

I think animals not only have no rights, I think they should all be exterminated and made extinct to ensure that humanity has complete power over the resources and land of the world, in order for greater agricultural (horticultural) efficiency in adequately and efficiently feeding all of humanity much more efficiently, and also the extinction of all animals would reduce a lot of anti-social behavior among many humans at present.

Buddy, do you have any idea the havoc that this would create on the ecosystem?

Why do all capitalists strongly reject animal cruelty much more than non-capitalists?

By the way, I meant to say that all animals that are not agricultural should be exterminated, since the non-agricultural animals are a threat to horticultural sector of agriculture, however the agricultural animals (livestock) are essential for their manure which acts as an essential means of producing efficiency as a natural fertilizer for the horticultural things.

[Todd D.]

By the way, I meant to say that all animals that are not agricultural should be exterminated, since the non-agricultural animals are a threat to horticultural sector of agriculture, however the agricultural animals (livestock) are essential for their manure which acts as an essential means of producing efficiency as a natural fertilizer for the horticultural things.

So insects, some of which are vital to cross polination, should be exterminated? What about monkeys? No agricultural value, but vital to the natural ecosystem. Giraffes? Ditto. What exactly are you advocating here?

[Comrade Ogilvy]

By the way, I meant to say that all animals that are not agricultural should be exterminated, since the non-agricultural animals are a threat to horticultural sector of agriculture, however the agricultural animals (livestock) are essential for their manure which acts as an essential means of producing efficiency as a natural fertilizer for the horticultural things.

So insects, some of which are vital to cross polination, should be exterminated? What about monkeys? No agricultural value, but vital to the natural ecosystem. Giraffes? Ditto. What exactly are you advocating here?

I meant like pests and rodents: Dogs, cats, rats, etc. and other animals that are not important for agriculture/eco-system.

[jaakko]

Why do all capitalists strongly reject animal cruelty much more than non-capitalists?

Do you have some data on this?

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Why do all capitalists strongly reject animal cruelty much more than non-capitalists?

Do you have some data on this?

No, not right now, for I base this on personal observations over a long time, through actual off-line observations and observations from corroborating the off-line observation results with those on-line, such as from debates, chats, and news articles.

[Todd D.]

Yeah you might want to do more reasearch then, because even rats, cats, dogs, and such are vital to the ecosystem. Extinction of them could cause some shock to it and that's certainly not a good thing.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Yeah you might want to do more reasearch then, because even rats, cats, dogs, and such are vital to the ecosystem. Extinction of them could cause some shock to it and that's certainly not a good thing.

Like?

[Attila The Nun]

I meant like pests and rodents: Dogs, cats, rats, etc. and other animals that are not important for agriculture/eco-system.

Dogs herd cattle and sheep, cats catch mice, and mice really can't be destroyed no matter how hard you try. They breed like rabbits, they're small, nimble, and quite clever at times.

[bradley]

Mathematical Chimp and dolphin experiments offer support for my argument.

errr... no they don't. It seems YOU are the one who needs to do research on the 'net: look up what 'abstract thought' means.

[Liberal]

Animals should be spared from unnecessary distress unless it is to the advantage of humans to cause the distress.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

I meant like pests and rodents: Dogs, cats, rats, etc. and other animals that are not important for agriculture/eco-system.

Dogs herd cattle and sheep, cats catch mice, and mice really can't be destroyed no matter how hard you try. They breed like rabbits, they're small, nimble, and quite clever at times.

The whole point is the extermination of common extinctable pests like dogs and cats, by the way, snakes depend more on mice, than do cats, cats often cry from hunger, because humans won't feed them. So basically domestic (urban/suburban) animals.

How on Earth can dogs herd cattle? Even if they do, the dogs are just as parasitic as machines, because they replace the job of human herders of cattle and sheep.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Slaughterhouses and such are a nesscarey evil. Some animals were intended to be eaten, however I believe a little elbow grease could result in these animals being killed and pastored more humanely and mercifully and thus it would get peta off thier back and they'd be doing the morally right thing..

I don't however see any reason to peform horrible cosmetic testings and expirimental drugs on animals, they do not deserve that sortof treatment, they're innocent as far as I'm concerned and I don't care about ranks, I care about innocence. It'd make me sleep alot easier knowing convicted terrorists and Jack the ripper were the ones being injected with some new botax treatment for expiriemental reasons rather then my dog skip.

[Al Khabir]

http://maddox.xmission.com/sponsor.html


Forevery animal you don't eat, I'm going to eat three!

[Comrade Ogilvy]

http://maddox.xmission.com/sponsor.html


Forevery animal you don't eat, I'm going to eat three!

I went to that web site and yes I do think that electricity and cars should be abolished. And the whole reasoning behind deeming a person a hypocrite if they are a vegetarian and wear a leather belt or an environmentalist and use electricity and drive a car is dependent on the assumption that individuals can make a difference, the thing is they can't, especially not from refusing to drive a car or use electricity to stop pollution, because the electric companies and car companies will always have customers until some epidemic becomes an obstacle to this. The only solution is for a revolution in which all industries of electricity and cars are seized by the people's state and abolished and replaced with much more environmentally sound means of transportation and labor, such as using one's 2 legs which are for natural transportation, and eliminating the need to travel long distances to get a job, by putting all businesses and means of livelihood in the community under the ownership of the community for the community to become self-sufficient, and for the replacing of electricity with agriculture, since electricity is only essential for cities and is just an extremely expensive counter-productive luxury.

[bradley]

yes, great idea, let's run life support machines on biofuel.

whilst you're right than normal individuals can't make a difference, a lot of changes have occur in the history of man, and only the major ones are based around flashpoints of change. Change can be cumulative - just like organisms, society can evolve, with small, random changes, one at a time, with the more advantageous surviving in the long run.

the thing is they can't, especially not from refusing to drive a car or use electricity to stop pollution, because the electric companies and car companies will always have customers until some epidemic becomes an obstacle to this

the problem with this logic therefore is that for these changes to occur in the long-term, iondividuals have to change their behaviour, even if that means one at a time switching to renewable means of electricity, such as farms becoming self-suficient with their own eolian generator. One by one, change snowballs, and long-lasting social change is achieved over several decades. Sure, someone could destropy all the power stations, forcing us to change our behaviour, immediately effecting the change you'd like to see. However not only would you have caused unhappiness, which runs contrary to the most basic human philosophy, but people would just rebuild what they had lost, and nothing would be changed.

Progress is never instantaneous, despite what your upbringing in an increasingly 'on-demand' world has taught you to believe.



Right, I'm off to go cook myself a steak, then take a shower and wash my hair with shampoo that I know won't make me blind if it gets into my eyes.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

One person CAN make a differance you fool. If I killed you right now it would effect everyone you know, that's a big impact. And I am but one man am I not?

To abolish all electricity and such out of your life simply because you are an enviormentalist would not be smart. If you actually believe that inorder to help our society we have to resort to such extremitsm then do us and yourself a favor and overdose on pain killers untill you die, because life is not about that.

Personally I do what I can to help the enviorment. I recycle, I re-use practically everything in my household several times, I rarely buy new clothes, the electric bill is an example of how I conserve on energy, and I'm trying to find a job so I can work up to get my blue hybrid.

Little things. They matter and they make-up life. Deal with it lazyass.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Deal with it lazyass.

Who are you calling that?

[Al Khabir]

whilst you're right than normal individuals can't make a difference, a lot of changes have occur in the history of man, and only the major ones are based around flashpoints of change. Change can be cumulative - just like organisms, society can evolve, with small, random changes, one at a time, with the more advantageous surviving in the long run.

Nothing changes for two hundred years. then in four years of the trenches, and entire socal system is swept away. I think that the modern age moves to fast for little changes to have a great effect (although the definition of little could be debated here).

And the whole reasoning behind deeming a person a hypocrite if they are a vegetarian and wear a leather belt or an environmentalist and use electricity and drive a car is dependent on the assumption that individuals can make a difference

No, he's mocking their moral hypocrisy. THEY can't make a difference by not eating animals.He's talking about doing this to spite them, not for any reason of ideology.

[Wilhelm]

Humans have dominated animals, and the rest of the world, through science and technology. HUmans are more important than animals. And animals have no individual rights.

I hate for this to sound so fascist, but I believe it to be true: animals have no rights because we have dominated them, and we have stripped them of teir rights for their own benefit. The only reason they shouldn't be killed in mass just for the fun of it is becau eit would affect the ecosystem, which would inevitably backlash on humankind. One animal can be submitted to as much pain one could want it to. It's better for this to happen for human benefit, but a human can go around torturing cats as they wish, as long as they are not the property of another human.

Now, as scientific research is regarded, I find the opinion of "animals shouln't be submitted to any pain" irresponsible. REsearch done with animal experimentation has led to a great advance in developing cures for many diseases and researching the human body. We ar enot equals to them, we are superior. We have a superior mind, superior body, and we have dominated them through teh developments of our mind and body. We deserve to do what we wish with them as long that which we do does not harm us in the long run.

[democrat-hippie]

yes. I agree that we are bigger and smarter than animas. But i seriously do not think that we are better than them.

and for the stupid "for every animal you dont eat- i will eat three" i just think that is really stupid. Go ahead..eat three times the amount.

1. you will get fat. And even thought he said it can be solved by "exercize", you will have to do a crap load of exersize to prove a stupid point.

2. We will just feel a lot better than you, knowing that we did not contribute to the killing of inocent animals.

3.why do you people even care of what we eat? you people seriously need a life if you worrie that much about what we eat.