Yeah, I know. I'm terrible. I'm arguing against him too, and I'm not a vegetarian. HYPOCRISY AGAIN! ;P

It's still dickish in my book.

Ethan, I love you man, but you gotta quit jumping up people's assholes the moment they disagree with you.

I don't care if people eat meat in the slightest (I don't know the exact numbers but I doubt vegans are a very large minority) but when you turn and call someone an idiot for being a vegan than yeah I'm going to jump on your asshole.

I hate vegans with babies/young children

Give the kid some milk and cheese.

Fear is hardly an emotion more an instinct. It becomes more emotion-like when related to humans, who have irrational fears. And wanting food hasn't anything to do with emotions. So I did not contradict myself.

I'm sorry I called vegetarians idiots, they are not. I'll retreat back to the statement that people who think animal life is as valuable as human life are idiots (AKA PETA).

Can you explain 'vegan' to me? I have always been confused...Vegetarians don't eat meat, sometimes fish..Vegans......no dairy or meat?

Yeah.

Okay so why are people who think animal life is as valuable as human life idiots? You can't call someone an idiot just because of their beliefs.

And one can say that the spectrum of human emotions are instinctual as well. So is it okay to torture humans, because the love and emotion they feel is just instinct?

Should I call you an idiot for thinking that people who think animal life is as valuable as human life are idiots? ;)

Basically his argument is you have to have a certain IQ level to be worthy of life. Awesome.

i wouldn't say they are idiots, but they're priorities are definitly not in the right places.

It doesn't annoy you how much these people work to care for puppy's and trash micheal vick, all the while they're are starving HUMANS out in the world?

Damnit if that's the case, just kill me now.

First question: Humans feel love for each other and have hopes and dreams. That automatically makes their life more valuable, and you'd actually be surprised at how sympathetic I am for starving/indigent people compared to my views on animals.

Second question: Because we all know laughing at funny movies and falling in love are instinctual actions :|

Have you ever met anyone who says its good people are starving and then turned around and said what Michael Vick did was awful?

My dog totally laughs at movies.

No, it doesn't annoy me, there will always be starving people and tortured animals but at least these people are doing something for what they believe in. And I wasn't saying I was in favour of PETA I was just saying that you can't call someone an idiot because of what they believe in and what charitable actions they chose to perform in society. "Oh they're helping puppies but they're not helping the starving children of Ethiopia." - Well at least they're doing something for the community which is pretty rare these days.

Plus it's like sleepy jack said, mentally disabled people often have incredibly low IQs in many cases and have a limited range of emotions, but we don't eat them, do we?

WHOA. How dare you. Emotions and intelligence have nothing to do with each other, if what you said was true I'd say all retards deserve to die because they're taking up space. And THAT is NOT true.

That just made me really mad, is all.

So I take it you don't think a connection between high intelligence and complex emotions?

Does it make a bit of difference that i haven't come across this one person?

I never said PETA people were happy for human suffering, i said they should be focusing they're efforts on something more worthwile, that being human life.

Throwing paint on fur is damn rebellious and motivating, but water and food for people in need would also go a long way..

Are you involved in any projects that aim to make human life better?

If yes, then good on you.

If no, then PETA are doing more for the community than you are. So leave them alone for doing good work towards something they believe in.

Yeah I definitely know what you mean.

The bitch from PETA wrote a letter to a Palestinian leader asking him not to subject dogs to cruelty (by using them as vehicles for bombs). The same man was a major proponent of suicide attacks near Jerusalem, and when asked to comment about it she said it "wasn't her priority to dissuade him from using humans as targets."

We're a stable and progressive society who doesn't need fur and can afford to treat animals humanely. There's nothing wrong with protesting and asking them to do so. I don't like most of what PETA does but saying they're priorities are wrong because they're not shooting videos of starving Africans is just a bad argument. You could apply that same argument to every organization doing good just because it's not "enough good." "I mean come on, people want to clothe the homeless? There's starving children out there! Why don't they have their get their priorities straight?" You don't think that's a stupid thing to say?

Ok, my bad. Yes, there is, but I thought we were still talking about humans here. You seemed to be making it out that there's some cutoff where I think humans should be killed off if they're below it. Except for strange circumstances, all humans are capable of complex emotions like love and hatred.

Animals, whose IQs are so far below functioning handicapped people that it isn't even funny, cannot feel complex emotions like we can.

And in those strange circumstances? Your argument is way too circumstantial.

This thread is making me unhappy and I'm tired of arguing with people who think that certain belief systems make them 'idiots' so I'm going to go ride my new unicorn off into the distance. My new unicorn who I will treat with respect and not torture nor eat!

I target PETA specifically just because it's animals, and i can't relate.

I'm not going to argue against anyone against pollution, or deforestation. Something that serves the common good, and i know peta is involved partly in things like this.

But just look at Lucifer's example. Its literally that some of them value animal life OVER human, and that is what i can't understand.

It's also unfortunate that PETA seems to get a lot more celebrity and mass media promotion then those other organizations who are just "shooting videos of Africans"

OK. This is the part where I look most like a ****. Let's take Terry Schaivo (however you spell it). She was a vegetable, and doctors had determined she had next-to-no brain function. If all she's doing is making her family members' lives awkward and running up their medical bills, then I would be of the opinion that there would be nothing wrong with ending her life.

There is a bit of a grey area with cases like extremely dysfunctional handicapped people, where you're not sure what they feel. That would really be at the family's discretion.

PETA gets more attention in general because that's how our media works. When Oprah built her school it was all over the news and when PETA has Pamela Anderson going naked it gets press too. It's not something to look down on, it's just PETA being savvy.

Also Lucifer's example is fairly difficult to look at; at face value I'd say the woman is stupid but when you look at what the situation most likely was I can sort of understand where's she coming from (sort of.) There's a difference between blowing up a dog and a religious fanatic who thinks what he's doing is going to cause him to go to the heaven of seventy-two virgins. But that's not the point anyway. I'd say yes valuing a human life over an animal's life is stupid. If I see a baby about to die and a puppy about to die who am I going to save? The baby but if I can save both then why not?

Yeah but a dog has more brain function than someone who's brain dead.

In my mind, still not enough functionality to qualify as "important", in the sense we're talking about.

So then what's the point when something becomes "important" enough for you and how is that an objective point of importance?

Something's life is of value when it loves and can be loved. Animals have got the latter going for them, but I don't believe they have the first. Mentally handicapped people (except perhaps the most extreme cases) have both.

You can't say this because you don't know. You don't know that mentally handicapped people can love any more than if animals can love.

I can't know. It's what I think based on the evidence provided.

That's an incredibly flimsy standard. You really should have some objective footing before calling people idiots on an opinion you base strictly on love.

And I'm sure people who have loved and raised and worked with animals all their lives can say the exact same thing.

Dude, you said earlier that you value human life above animal life, so why does it matter what my standard is? As long as I realize that animals are not as important as humans, we're on the same side on this one <_<

I never said that.

And for each story you tell me, I can tell you how each "loving gesture" made by said animals were for their own benefit in the long run.

.

Saving a baby over the puppy means I value the baby's life more you know.

Yes, I know... unless you're being sarcastic. In which case I don't see how you can save someone's life over another's and not value the one you save over the other.

And how can you say that humans actions aren't for their own benefit as well?