Penn and Teller-Animal Rights

Do you have a logical, non-emotionally-founded, reason why any given species should be eliminated to preserve the life of one human? I'd be very interested to hear it.

The only species that come immediately to mind are pathogens that attack human hosts. Of course if that's the case then we're probably talking more than one human life at stake, and we'd probably have no choice by that point.

Do you have a logical, non-emotionally-founded, reason why any given species should be eliminated to preserve the life of one human? I'd be very interested to hear it.

The only species that come immediately to mind are pathogens that attack human hosts. Of course if that's the case then we're probably talking more than one human life at stake, and we'd probably have no choice by that point.

"The only species that come immediately to mind are pathogens..."
That's just self-interest - it doesn't get much more biased than that.

"The only species that come immediately to mind are pathogens..."
That's just self-interest - it doesn't get much more biased than that.

ocmpoma wrote

I wasn't talking about whether or not favoring the life of, say, a dog over a lawyer is criminal, or even morally right - I was just saying that it's arbitrary.

Do you have a logical, non-emotionally-founded, reason why any given species should be eliminated to preserve the life of one human? I'd be very interested to hear it.
I agree that wiping out cows is different than wiping out a species of fish, but I fail to see any objective reason why one should be chosen over the other - even hypothetically.

While one could admire the idea behind refocusing monetray resouces to aid people in less fortunate circumstances, I always look at such ideas with scepticism. Everyone who lives at a First World standard consumes vastly more resources than those who live at a Third World standard. To take your point about pet spending to its logical conclusion, those of us living at a First World standard should also stop spending money on other things such as in-home running water and refrigeration, let alone automobiles, media, etc.

You do realize that you are decrying people spending money on pets, even though you do it yourself? What's the difference if a person spends money on a pet for their own immediate gratification or if they spend the same amount of money on another's pet for their own (somewhat delayed) gratification?

Well, I do, as a matter of fact... I think :) Seriously, though, the logical reason would be self-preservation. If you don't favor another human over members of a different species, who says you won't be next? We create certain rules to ensure our survival. Sure in an abstract sense we're no more special than any other species, but we have to act this way to secure ourselves. I bet it's instinctual.

As far as aiding those in less fortunate circumstances, you make me sound like a commy :) What I'm condoning is excessive attention to animals while simultaneously ignoring extremely underprivildged human beings. You read/watch the news and the top piece is the valiant efforts to save the life of a dumb-ass whale that strayed into a river. For some reason, people consider it as being civilized. And it is, but only if does not come at the expense of other humans. This attention should also be shared with the real efforts some people make to help those in need, locally and worldwide.

As far as my occasional purchases of pet items for my girlfriend, it's social, nothing more, just like buying her flowers. She loves her pets and I'm treating them for her sake. On the other hand, to have my own pet and spend all this money on its maintenance and food is unnecessary, unless I can afford to contribute to the unfortunate at the same time.

Listen, I admitted, and admit again, that I'm not practicing what I preach. I am in a sense decrying my own actions. But that doesn't mean it's right.

ocmpoma wrote

I wasn't talking about whether or not favoring the life of, say, a dog over a lawyer is criminal, or even morally right - I was just saying that it's arbitrary.

Do you have a logical, non-emotionally-founded, reason why any given species should be eliminated to preserve the life of one human? I'd be very interested to hear it.
I agree that wiping out cows is different than wiping out a species of fish, but I fail to see any objective reason why one should be chosen over the other - even hypothetically.

While one could admire the idea behind refocusing monetray resouces to aid people in less fortunate circumstances, I always look at such ideas with scepticism. Everyone who lives at a First World standard consumes vastly more resources than those who live at a Third World standard. To take your point about pet spending to its logical conclusion, those of us living at a First World standard should also stop spending money on other things such as in-home running water and refrigeration, let alone automobiles, media, etc.

You do realize that you are decrying people spending money on pets, even though you do it yourself? What's the difference if a person spends money on a pet for their own immediate gratification or if they spend the same amount of money on another's pet for their own (somewhat delayed) gratification?

Well, I do, as a matter of fact... I think :) Seriously, though, the logical reason would be self-preservation. If you don't favor another human over members of a different species, who says you won't be next? We create certain rules to ensure our survival. Sure in an abstract sense we're no more special than any other species, but we have to act this way to secure ourselves. I bet it's instinctual.

As far as aiding those in less fortunate circumstances, you make me sound like a commy :) What I'm condoning is excessive attention to animals while simultaneously ignoring extremely underprivildged human beings. You read/watch the news and the top piece is the valiant efforts to save the life of a dumb-ass whale that strayed into a river. For some reason, people consider it as being civilized. And it is, but only if does not come at the expense of other humans. This attention should also be shared with the real efforts some people make to help those in need, locally and worldwide.

As far as my occasional purchases of pet items for my girlfriend, it's social, nothing more, just like buying her flowers. She loves her pets and I'm treating them for her sake. On the other hand, to have my own pet and spend all this money on its maintenance and food is unnecessary, unless I can afford to contribute to the unfortunate at the same time.

Listen, I admitted, and admit again, that I'm not practicing what I preach. I am in a sense decrying my own actions. But that doesn't mean it's right.

ocmpoma, I just read your quote and I realized that I essentially said what it said. Isn't that funny?! :D

ocmpoma, I just read your quote and I realized that I essentially said what it said. Isn't that funny?! :D

I'm not attacking your actions, or even trying to snipe your position. It's hard to convey that through bare text, I know, but I despise smilies and won't use them.

As you say in your first paragraph above, self-preservation is instinctual. But it's not objective; as I said right above your post, it's about as biased as you can get. I'm not saying it's wrong, mind you - I'm all about CYA. It's just pureley emotional.
Regarding what's civilized and uncivilized, that's pretty much individual / cultural. Personally, I think that if we were going to re-direct assets to assist those in need, there are better places to get the money than from whale-rescue ops. However, I do agree with your stated principle that one should, in most cases, aid one's own species (in the long term) before aiding others... usually. Agreeing with the principle, however, doesn't mean I think it's at all rational or objective.

Good thing you mention flowers - where do humans get off raising and dismembering living things for mere asthetics? Illogical in the extreme. Looks pretty, though.

I'm not attacking your actions, or even trying to snipe your position. It's hard to convey that through bare text, I know, but I despise smilies and won't use them.

As you say in your first paragraph above, self-preservation is instinctual. But it's not objective; as I said right above your post, it's about as biased as you can get. I'm not saying it's wrong, mind you - I'm all about CYA. It's just pureley emotional.
Regarding what's civilized and uncivilized, that's pretty much individual / cultural. Personally, I think that if we were going to re-direct assets to assist those in need, there are better places to get the money than from whale-rescue ops. However, I do agree with your stated principle that one should, in most cases, aid one's own species (in the long term) before aiding others... usually. Agreeing with the principle, however, doesn't mean I think it's at all rational or objective.

Good thing you mention flowers - where do humans get off raising and dismembering living things for mere asthetics? Illogical in the extreme. Looks pretty, though.

ocmpoma wrote

I'm not attacking your actions, or even trying to snipe your position. It's hard to convey that through bare text, I know, but I despise smilies and won't use them.

As you say in your first paragraph above, self-preservation is instinctual. But it's not objective; as I said right above your post, it's about as biased as you can get. I'm not saying it's wrong, mind you - I'm all about CYA. It's just pureley emotional.
Regarding what's civilized and uncivilized, that's pretty much individual / cultural. Personally, I think that if we were going to re-direct assets to assist those in need, there are better places to get the money than from whale-recue ops. However, I do agree with your stated principle that one should, in most cases, aid one's own species (in the long term) before aiding others... usually. Agreeing with the principle, however, doesn't mean I think it's at all rational or objective.

Good thing you mention flowers - where do humans get off raising and dismembering living things for mere asthetics? Illogical in the extreme. Looks pretty, though.

I guess we do agree after all. Apparently there was no need for this debate to begin with. <smiley here?>

Instinct certainly is selfishness in its purest form.

Peace.

Okay I've finally gotten around to watching the PETA episode in full (you can find truncated versions on youtube.com and google video) and I've realized that the comment was meant to be hyperbolic. Taken in context it was clearly said for pure shock value in order to satirize PETA's methods, which themselves are hypocritical, extreme, and ineffective. One of the main arguments of the episode was that they favor animal testing due to its benefits to human survival; killing chimps in such a crude manner would obviously accomplish no such thing.

In any event your average adult chimpanzee is physically stronger than your average adult human, so there's no way anyone could kill them with their bare hands. :rolleyes:

[Jahrta]

I have absolutely no compassion reserved for those who would knowingly endanger their own health and livelihoods, not to mention the health and livelihoods of anyone that could be considered to be their dependants, simply to pursue a temporary chemical high. These people are the dogshit in the nikes of life and I'm sick of watching the goverment use my tax dollars to pick them out from between the treads. They offer nothing to society, they have no future, and none of these programs are worth it - they rehabilitate one person for every thousand who go right back to habitually abusing various substances. I think it would be far cheaper to conduct medical testing on the fucking junkies and spare the goddamned chimps - after all, a chimp never raped anyone or shot a 7-11 clerk in the fucking head for the twenty dollars he keeps in the till. Fuck junkies.

Jahrta wrote

I have absolutely no compassion reserved for those who would knowingly endanger their own health and livelihoods, not to mention the health and livelihoods of anyone that could be considered to be their dependants, simply to pursue a temporary chemical high. These people are the dogshit in the nikes of life and I'm sick of watching the goverment use my tax dollars to pick them out from between the treads. They offer nothing to society, they have no future, and none of these programs are worth it - they rehabilitate one person for every thousand who go right back to habitually abusing various substances. I think it would be far cheaper to conduct medical testing on the fucking junkies and spare the goddamned chimps - after all, a chimp never raped anyone or shot a 7-11 clerk in the fucking head for the twenty dollars he keeps in the till. Fuck junkies.

Chemical dependence has caused how many rapes exactly? Does everyone who kills for money have drugs on their shopping list? Morality and drug use are not related.

You feel it's alright to test on people (I assume regardless of if it kills them or not) to save taxpayers cash? How is that different from someone willing to kill for 20 bucks?

[Jahrta]

Don't worry, Evel - I'm not talking about cheeba users. I wasn't saying all violent crime is linked to drug use, but a lot of it is. I don't have hard data to show you but it can't be too hard to find reliable statistics on-line. The fact is that many habitual users of hard drugs (like heroine) will commit crimes in order to get their hands on the money for that next fix. I define junkie as someone whose every thought is centered upon scoring drugs, and they can't think or see beyond that moment. I wasn't talking about recreational drug users - i could give a shit what they do. As far as I'm concerned, as long as you're not hurting me or impinging upon my rights to exist peacefully, I don't care if you live, die, or grow mushrooms out your crack. If you choose to then eat those mushrooms - hey man, that's your deal.