>>542213she probably tried to fuk it
Non-service dogs should be banned in general, such disgusting creatures.
>>542213These dogs are like breeding psychopaths. They need medical care.
>>542216A lot of dog owners also do not train the dog at all and do not use a leash. Especially pit bull owners because it's a machismo status thing (including when it's women doing it).
>>542223Pets are a huge waste of resources. Think about how much money and energy we put into taking care of pets when all of those resources could be spent on taking care of humans.
>>542235>proles having a familiar is the waste of resources.>not the vast, purposeful waste of the bourgoise like golf courses, plastics manufacturing and oil.The revolution will be done by people who want a better world for their cats, snakes, frogs, hedgehogs, etc…
>>542246The vast majority of pet owners aren't tiktok make-up salesfolk demonstating product effectiveness on a profesional camera dog. At most you'll need to give them the occasional bath (unless you train them to shower with you but that's teetering on white woman territory) and vet visit.
>>542245No one is saying plastics aren’t wasteful, idiot. We’re specifically talking about the wastefulness of pet ownership. But yeah, nice deflection.
>>542250Completely negligibe compared to the bourgoise wastes I described. Talking about Individual consumption choices when more pressing matters loom overhead is reformist.
>>542246>use wolves/dogs for hunting for 50 000 years<humans would be exinct without them>le pets are waste of resourcesYou are waste of resources.
>>542251Only a thing in suburbs. A park is a park. Also how would parks not be the same kind of wasteful as pets?
>>542256Hold this pit bull for me while I talk to your mother.
>>542253difference was our ancestors used them for survival.
we treat animals as personal emotional dildos mowadays.
>>542216Yeah humans are actually the problem for deliberately breeding an animal to be a combat dog with emotional and socialization issues straight out the box. If you deliberately make a dog breed to see a toddler and think "mmmm chicken nuggy" and then you walk past the local daycare with that dog off a leash, you deserve to be shot in the back of the skull twice.
>>542256Pitbulls were artificially selected to maul humans the same way farm plantains were artifically selected to be softer and sweeter than wild plantains.
>>542256if I see someone else's pitbull off a leash within 10 ft of my toddler I am unloading bullets into the fucker until it is dead. Not taking a chance that it will rip out her jugular. My neighbor illegally hoards/breeds german shephards and neither the cops nor animal control will do anything about it no matter how many times we call them. His dogs keep getting out because he's too old/broke to keep his fence in good repair after his wife let him over his alcoholism and dog hoarding. One time his shephards got out and fucking mauled someone's puppies to death. I'm frankly sick of people who own large hunting dogs in general and treat them like totally safe little toys and not deliberately human-bred killing machines. It's like expecting me to be calm while your self driving car does donuts in the middle of a school parking lot unattended.
>>542256Human "races" are not at all like breeds. If you think they are, you are a human racist.
>>542259I hate how evolutionary psych quacks strip away the agency of our ancestors to put them on a pedestal as the ideal worker drone. To explain away every joy they had as solely a cog in an "eat, sleep, grind, repeat, die" lifestyle so we can convince ourselves our current circumstance has always been, sans the unavoidably observed truth of what little joys remain, which must be degenerative and the source of our hardships.
>>542266perhaps I need to reword that.
Humans have always had pets but we dont snother them the way we do now.
Also we always had recreational practices. In fact I would say that most of our previous eras of recreation is far less tame/virtuous than what we have now.
>>542216Domestication of dogs is the first invention of mankind. And so far the most potentially consequential activity.
The way dogs are treated as vanity trophies.
Theyre not allowed freedom of range at all.
Every biological activity is an inconvenience.
They have to go outisde to piss or shit.
They have to wait upon owners to be fed.
The cannot even fuck due to neutering.
Worst of all are these stupid humans whom have long-hair breed of dogs in the south during the summertime.
Those dogs have to suffer.
>>542263>>542264People will defend the aggressive dogs as being innocent, that the children are always at fault.
I blame more the dog owners.
>>542234I think training dogs to be on leashes kinda makes them.aggressuve in the forst place.
I see some dogs at nature parks that are unleashed and they are well behaved.
I think its important that dogs know how to behave off- leash.
>>542235I agree, cats and dogs being terrible for the environment is the nail in the coffin.
>>542266Labor shapes humanity and societal relations.
>>542271Leashing dogs is not just to protect people from aggression. Dogs do not understand the concept of traffic and right of way and do not have the kind of self control a human does to not chase after a squirrel or something. A dog off a leash might also innocently approach an aggressive dog and get themselves hurt.
>>542274>Labor shapes humanity and societal relations.and visa versa, can't forget that part. It's mutual.
>>542264This anon is clearly a bigger menace to society than dogs are
>>542216pitbulls where bred for dogfights ackshually
>>542245It's not just about resources. Certain pets are a huge ecological problem. Cats for instance kill a lot of local wildlife especially in places like New Zealand where most birds didn't evolve to fly. Domestic goldfish were found to be a huge burden in lakes and rivers where they were usually dumped after the kids got board with them.
>>542265I think you might be the racist bud
>>542322Humans weren't purpose-bred into distinct lineages like dogs were.
>>542322Back to the gulag liberal
>>542224That medical care includes spaying and neutering
>>542234Shitbull owners are probably the most insufferable people on this planet. Imagine the personality of a landlord, a kulak, a gusano, a “human rights activist”, and a lumpenprole put together.
The only way to fix them are struggle sessions, lobotomies and hard work at the gulags.
>>542343Most anthropologists will say "ethnicities" aren't real things.
>>542322>>542343>>542363If you think that a low gestation time and quickly-maturing species being sloppily artificially bred for specific purposes across thousands of (relative) generations in a few decades is comparable to different groups of a species that has completely opposite characteristics to the ones mentioned above being exposed to attenuated natural selection for less (relative) generations, then you're genuinely retarded.
>>542327>allowing a dog near your newborn babyYou shouldn't do this with any breed, it's not just pitbulls.
>>542370its the same thing but accelerated
>>542375Not only accelerated, but also targeted (usually to the detriment of more general aspects, like the animal's inherent health).
And that's exactly the point. The differences between human ethnicities and races is comparable to artificially breeding a dog species for a few hundred generations in a year or so but then stopping. You'd end up with a minimally-changed breed that instantly becomes unrecognisable as soon as it mates with a normal dog. It's not quantitatively enough to be considered a proper qualifiable change.
That's not the case with the actually-bred dog species though. There's real differences between them because they're lineages exposed to different kinds of extreme artificial selection for thousands or even tens of thousands of generations.
>>542216pitchad to just keep attacking despite being kicked repeatedly by the horse
>>542506that just furthers my case that humans shouldnt keep dogs especially aggressive breeds in urbanised settings.
>>542340Dog worship is a disease in the modern world.
Its not just pitbulls.
Thats not to say dogs are bad, buy the way theyre exploited for emotional convenience by humans is disheartening.
Dog owmership is a core factor of suburban petit-bourgeois mentality.
>>542337True. Humans created atomic bombs, cyanide pills, and pitbulla
>>542246But he so cute tho!!!! We should spend resources om cute pets instead of funding Israel or whatever.
>>542506Yeah and it's retarded
>>542883He looks like the typical pet owner.
Finally some good news
>>542883Wanna save resources?
Human and pet neutering.
Dogs, cats, and humans will have population quotas.
Any number above threshold, even its one, will be treated as dire.
>>542956Most pets are already neutered anon.
>>542506How many times do poodles kill babies?
Maltese?
Yorkies?
>>542506Ever consider that dogs were bred from wolves and that even wolves raised in captivity still act like way more aggressive than dogs?
>>542980Yea. Extend it to humans.
Why should pets not be allowed to procreate freely but humans can?
Any defective human can habe a baby and pass on their genetic or psychological flaws onto them.
And people wonder why we have so many fucked up kids?
I like pets. Taking care of them, at least for me, is very fulfilling on a personal level, and IMO, that makes them worth it.
Leftypol has this tendency to get stuck in the imperialist-brained mindset that we need to min-max society to be as productive and resource efficient as possible at all costs. It's an attitude I understand, and can fall into myself from time-to-time, but at bottom disagree with. A good society, like a good machine, acts to improve the lives of the people living in it. Like the machine, it obviously needs to keep itself up-and-running, to perform its function efficiently, and to exist within the bounds of what physical reality allow. But to be sustainable, efficient, and realistic are not worthwhile goals unto themselves unless you're an idealist.
>>542216>Pitbulls really aren’t the problem.They certainly are. Psychopathy is a heritable trait and we wouldn't have this discussion if her pet tiger killed her.
>>542213Under socialism, would it make sense to round up all pit bulls and euthanize them so this never happens again?
>>543009But humams are the ones wjom created thepitbulls.
And alot of pitbull attacks are due to some negligence on the owmers behalf.
I think we should implement competency licensing for childrearing and pets.
>>542506How many times do Dalmatians kill people vs how many times do pitbulls?
>>543157>pit bull breeder killed by own dogsPottery
>>542266>>542274If we raised dogs purely to work, then why do they all know how to play fetch? Dogs are fun deniers btfo
>>543267I mean fetch is obviously descended from hunting behaviour
>>543268Imagining some drunk peasants in 2000BC laughing at their dog getting stuck at a gate because it refuses to drop a gigantic stick
>>543161Those two little jumpers could have gone towards building the productive forces 😠
>>543270It's funny to think about similar our ancestors were to us in a lot of ways. When we play with our pets it's kind of like a gift which they left for us.
>>543279Probably sneezed aggressively at them
>>543279kinda hot if you're into vore
>>543264They are also massively inbred. When you see on the ads "2X ROCKO" or "3X CHUMPER" that is telling you how many times they have that dog in their ancestry. They are inbreeding the dogs that win fights. And some of these dogs are getting into the general dog population and reintroducing their fucked up genes into mutts.
A lot of weirdo breeders have also started crossing pitbulls with other breeds and passing them off as not being pitbulls for some fucking reason. I've seen several people with dogs that are clearly a mix between a labrador and a pitbull. And they think it's a straight lab. Some cases are pretty obvious but even after generations of breeding the pitbull mixes are still going to have pitbull genes, including some with pitbull aggression but without looking like a pit any more. IDK what the point of this is other than to fuck with people. It's a good thing in general to intentionally breed more diversity into dog breeds (since a lot of them are badly inbred), but the key is that you do it
intentionally with
more diversity from other breeds that aren't inbred themselves and have traits that you want in a dog (i.e. not fucked up bodies and behavior).
>>543313>A lot of weirdo breeders have also started crossing pitbulls with other breeds and passing them off as not being pitbulls for some fucking reason. I've seen several people with dogs that are clearly a mix between a labrador and a pitbull. And they think it's a straight labI just got a new dog and there were so many pit crossbreeds at the pound. The worker who was showing us dogs was like "do you have any restrictions like no pitties?" Damn right I do, I am a dog racist lol. I got a GSD instead lol. Why woukd anyone get a pit when they are giving away non shit breeds too?
>>543314Some of that is just inherent problem with larger dogs though, apparently smaller dogs actually show more aggression and anti social behaviour and even bite more but they're so small they they can't really kill anyone. I don't really care about pit bans one way or another though, yes they seem to be more dangerous than other dogs but that's also a problem of the scumbags who want to own them and encourage them to be violent and territorial.
>>543314Rotties are based retards, they still bite less than pibble mixes but kill less than GSDs.
>>543313At the point where I think any dog with like 5% pit DNA shouldn't be legally allowed to be placed in a no kill shelter and should be classed as a dangerous dog.
>>543313It's weird when you think that lab's have the second highest rate of bite attacks and similar bite psi, but the damage they do pales in comparison.
>>543322>mauls everyone>runs away>it and its owners never held accountableSeems fitting
>>543323Sad, I hope they don't get banned and there's an effort to breed it out of them because they're pretty funny
>>543326>Seems fittingHe's not looking for trouble, but he's ready for it! He's a good boy!
>>543328>pic 2TRVE ROMANVM ROTTVVEILER
They used to use them for pulling carts too. Big boi!
>>543321PIt bulls are bred to fight.
Labrador
retrievers are bred to gently carry animals a hunter has shot (to not ruin the meat). This is reflected in the differences in how they bite. I had a lab mix as a kid and more than once she found a baby bird and just picked it up and held it in her mouth instinctively. She didn't get the "release" part of the instinct though so we had to pry her mouth off the bird (which seemed unharmed if a little shook up).
>>543331Lol yeah. I grew up in the hood in LA in the 90s and there was so much Rottie merch at every liquor store lol.
Side note, now I'm wondering if this is the same Top Dawg of Top Dawg entertainment. Interesting…
>>543323This data is not that helpful without being adjusted for how common the breeds are. Like "mixed breed" is over half of household dogs in the US (53%) and pitbulls are about 20% (from quick googling). Adjusting for these numbers, with some napkin math:
>Pit bull deaths: 284/18million>1.58 per 100,000>Mixed deaths: 17/45million>0.038 per 100,000The simple data suggests about 17x higher rate.
Adjusted for population it's more like 42x higher.
>>542246And thats only when you have a pet that is completely docile, they are alot of work and cost alot of money.
>>542343Nah, human features are all over the place, there isn’t a single group fully adapted to their environment, and attempts to create it like caste systems or eugenics always fail epicly.
Ban all dogs larger than a cat.
>>543511small dogs are the worst though
>>543512Small dogs cant kill me and I can punt it across the street if they try to bite me.
Dogs should be working dogs, trained to do useful things. They are typically happier and healthier to be doing things than sitting around waiting to be pet.
Should I buy chocolate and throw it at the pittbulls barking from a balcony every day in my neighbourhood?
>>542506So why are there so many bad pit bull owners?
>>542840> Dog worship is a disease in the modern world.Even millennials calling animals “fur babies” is cringe.
>>543554Pitbulls are attractive to bad owners. Its the other way round. A bad dog for bad people. Thats why LITERALLY every shitbull owner is intensely defensive and proud of their dog. Its overcompensation.
>>543688Fair point.
This is why people should have mandatory psych evaluation before having pets or kids.
>>543554Most dog owners in general are terrible
>>543556its cringey how they worship dogs as cute little angels when they poop, eat garbage, and slobber over everything but then get disgusted at little kids doing the same.
Everything faux pas that little kids do, dogs do it more.
>>543737Kids also don't (usually) hump your leg.
>>543323The difference is that Rotties are like the "crows" of the dog world in that they're exceptionally intelligent and can be easily trained to behave. They're work dogs and guard dogs and only attack when they feel like their owners are being threatened.
Pit bulls on the other hand are specifically bred to be overly aggressive and are too stupid to train.
>>543853The main difference and the essence of the conversation is the fact that one breed in particular is randomly attacking people while others arent
>>543854Pits account for 86% of dog-related fatalities IIRC.
>>543310>>543311Bulldogs aren't the same as pitbulls.
>>544855I was vegan for three years and it caused me to get anemia and tooth issues from lack of calcium. I'd take beef over tofu any day because I need the iron.
>>544855It's inhumane, but it isn't enslavement or rape.
>>544902Right, right. Could you give me a quick definition of those two words?
>>544852>being a vegan is when you literally believe that other animals are humansRidiculous strawman of the vegan position. And it's irrelevant that other mammals and avians aren't exactly like human beings when they're objectively capable of suffering.
>>544859Vegan sources of iron and calcium don't compare to animal sources.
I don't give a shit about chickens.
>>544966This tweet is indeed dumb, but she didn't imply that cows are human. But even if she did, one random person from twitter doesn't represent a movement. You know this. This is childish.
>>544978Every diet has drawbacks. You're more likely to have serious heart problems, to have digestive problems, and to get easily overweight with an omnivore or meat only diet.
>>544966god i want to eat bull yogurt, sounds hot
>>542235NOOOO YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING ENJOYABLE IN LIFE, WE NEED TO DEDICATE ALL RESOURCES TO SHITTING OUT AS MANY HUMANS AS POSSIBLE
>>542235animal domestication was probably one of our biggest breakthroughs as human beings lol
>>544986>But even if she did, one random person from twitter doesn't represent a movement. You know this. This is childish.Except that's not an isolated case.
There are vegan groups that stage protests where they have human actors play the role of animals. There's a whole set of discourse about how the egg and dairy industries are misogynistic. Literally just google it. It's not even that obscure, especially if you are at all familiar with veganism. Fucking Bojack Horseman has multiple episodes that treat feminism and animals rights issues as connected like that.
>>545013Yeah, they are connected in a sense they are both fronts against the cruelties of this world. If raping and murdering is evil, then raping and murdering animals might also be evil is hardly a far fetched comparison.
>>542213How would pit bulls be dealt with under socialism?
>>544964There are no sapient avians. There is only one sapient mammal:
homo sapiens.
>>544913Enslavement is when you own a human as property. You could extend that definition out to when you own any sapient being as property, but even then only humans would qualify because only humans are sapient. It also implies forcing someone to work for you without pay under threat of some kind of violence. The use of animals as work animals is fairly rare these days and, once again, they aren't sapient and cannot comprehend concepts like work and pay anyway.
Rape is when you're forced to have sex against your will, but when talking about animals you're really applying human sexual dynamics to these creatures that have significantly different sexual behaviors. In fact, its more the case that animals don't really
have sex like humans do so much as they
reproduce. In the case of domesticated animals, they're typically given artificial insemination or are introduced to a male in some controlled environment. To consider either of these things "rape" is to make out animals to be more human than they actually are.
>>545039Enslavement is when you own a human as property. You could extend that definition out to when you own any sapient being as property, but even then only humans would qualify because only humans are sapient. It also implies forcing someone to work for you without pay under threat of some kind of violence. The use of uyghurs as work uyghurs is fairly rare these days and, once again, they aren't sapient and cannot comprehend concepts like work and pay anyway.
Rape is when you're forced to have sex against your will, but when talking about uyghurs you're really applying human sexual dynamics to these creatures that have significantly different sexual behaviors. In fact, its more the case that uyghurs don't really have sex like humans do so much as they reproduce. In the case of domesticated uyghurs, they're typically given artificial insemination or are introduced to a male in some controlled environment. To consider either of these things "rape" is to make out uyghurs to be more human than they actually are.
>>545041Newgene says: The most dagerous animal in Florida is the homo sapien.
More human deaths are caused by their fellow species-kin than by any other animal.
People are wooried about snakes, spiders, alligators, wild hogs, and cougars?
Im more worried about the fellow white neighbors down the street.
Lots of junkies and whores and wannabe-thugs and creeps.
>>545053Do you live in Florida?
Another thread polluted by idealist vegan moralfags
>bee thread
bee thread
>>545043Also, black people are both human beings and sapient, so this trick doesn't work at all.
First off, I have multiple pitbulls. We go rat hunting.
They're monsters when they're hunting, but the sweetest most passive creatures when they're at home. Never shown any unwarranted aggression in my 10 years of ratting.
It really just comes down to training. There's no such thing as "pitbull nature", they're just animals who need proper training.
The difference between a pitty and Chihuahua is you can kick a Chihuahua across the street.
I also dislike the pitbull discourse because /pol/yps use it as a dog whistle, likening pits to black people.
It's crazy to see so many non-marxists takes here. Since when did we become biological determinist?
>>545124>There's no such thing as "pitbull nature"So why do you use pitbulls specifically to go rat hunting?
>>545124>There's no such thing as "pitbull nature"Pitbulls are animals. Animals are not sapient and are chiefly driven by instinct. They absolutely have a nature.
>Since when did we become biological determinist?Since we started talking about non-sapient
animals and not humans.
>>545039Slavery and rape of animals is not a spook.
And animals are sentient and sapient.
They may not have the same instinctual logic as humans but that doesnt mean theyre not mindless creatures.
>>545132Animals are not purely instinctual as we think.
>>545127Vegetable farming takes far less resources and land than animal farming, unless you have some better way for people to feed themselves then please go ahead and kill yourself.
>>545128I have multiple breeds, including 2 rat terriers and a Border Collie. The pitbulls just run faster.
>>545138>And animals are sentient and sapient.Sentience is debatable and depends on the animal in question. Sapience? Absolutely not. Not a single one. And you'll notice that people who aren't vegan will treat animals for whom this is even questionable, like chimps and dolphins, very differently and will typically refuse to eat them on the grounds that there's even a question that they might be sapient. Only vegans and other people who have allowed house pets to warp their view of animals uphold the idea that all animals are sapient.
>>545039I'm not the guy you're replying to in this post, and I also dislike his slavery against other people analogy. But let me explain why "sapience" – the thing your entire argument hinges on – is both subjective and irrelevant:
1. Subjective because humans aren't always smarter than animals. For instance, pigs are often smarter than human toddlers. They can recognize themselves in the mirror, while toddlers cannot. Does this mean that it's acceptable to be cruel to toddlers? No. Same for chicken and cows, who are often smarter than humans with mental disabilities. I'm guessing you also agree that it's unnacceptable to be cruel to mentally disabled people.
Not only that, but where you draw the line on how intelligent one must be in order to be "sapient" is subjective and meaningless.
2. Irrelevant because what matters is that farm animals are objectively capable of suffering, it's a scientific consensus. So if you agree that cruelty and suffering are bad things, then you must also agree that cruelty and suffering against farm animals is a bad thing.
>>544842Good post. Human beings being divorced from nature for so long has given us an infantile view of food,animals, and life.
>>545158Where did I say that animal cruelty was okay? I didn't. I'm not making the claim that being cruel to animals is okay, simply that treating them like their human is grossly misinformed and most of the claims based on treating them like they're human (ie - they're enslaved, they're being raped, etc) is based on nothing.
Also, sapience is a very concrete, not vague thing. It is not simple intelligence (though there is no animal that is more intelligent than humans saving for very severe mental impairment. Sure, with very undeveloped human brains or cases of severe mental impairment, some animals may have better cognition than humans in some limited areas, but only under the most severe mental impairment would you be able to say that a human is holistically less intelligent than an animal. As an example, only humans have the mental capacity for language, and this capacity is capable even in the youngest human infants, as even baby babble is an attempt on the part of the infant to speak their parents' language, and there's a unique baby babble for every language). Even the most intelligent of animals can only mock language without any actual comprehension (like some bird species) or only understand certain key words (like dogs). Chimps, the absolute most intelligent animal species we know of, can make the correlation between hand-signals and certain objects (and
maybe some concepts), but absolutely cannot grasp language.
>>545196using language as a proxy for intelligence is stupid given that language is the area where humans have some of the clearest specialization. it's the equivelant of a dog concluding that since humans fail to distinguish between rudimentary smells, humans must be retarded.
>>545196>I'm not making the claim that being cruel to animals is okayOh, so you are a vegan yourself?
>>545196>Also, sapience is a very concrete, not vague thing. It objectively isn't concrete. There's no single, universally agreed-upon definition of sapience. You're arbitrarily drawing the line on language. And you shot yourself in the foot by drawing this line, because according to this logic people unable to understand language aren't sapient, and therefore it's not unethical to rap- I mean, breed them and ensl- I mean, force them to lactate.
>>545204This.
Also dogs differentiate based on loudness of voice and body language.
>>545206Nope, I eat meat.
>>545204Developing language, and complex language at that, requires a degree of sapience and logical intelligence that goes beyond simple specialization. Your brain in general has to be significantly developed. And keep in mind this is not the only way humans are clearly more intelligent that animals, it is simply one example.
>>545208>It objectively isn't concrete. There's no single, universally agreed-upon definition of sapience.It's self-awareness, awareness of others, awareness of one's surroundings, the ability to reason and the ability to hold conceptual thoughts and introspection. Some animals have approached this, by passing the mirror test and thus proving self-awareness, for instance (and for this reason many people have reservations about eating them), but none of them have done anything to show that they are actually sapient.
Let me ask you a question. Piglets have to be separated from their mothers or the mothers will kill them. Are sows all murderous psychopaths, or are they just animals acting on a strange instinct? Male dolphins will often engage in coercive behavior to mate with females. Are dolphins all loathsome rapists, or are they simply non-sapient animals that know not what they do? Is that alligator I keep showing you a murderous psychopath who can't help wanting to rip the arm off of the handler he's with despite loving him, or is he simply an animal who has no love or hate for his handler, and simply acts on instinct? Are mother lionesses weird psychos for the fact that a male killing their children makes them horny (and, in fact, killing their children is the only instance in which they'll agree to mate with a new male lion) or are they just animals behaving on ingrained instincts?
This is the double bind of pretending that animals are humans. If we're going to judge animals by human standards, then you have to face the fact that most animals are the most horrific kind of psychopath. Are they really though? Of course not, because they're just animals who have limited cognition and behave mostly on instinct.
>>545234Yea, people tend to romanticise the animal kingdom as this deep intuitive fountain of empathetic wisdom.
However, aninals still have morals, though its not based on human logic.
>>545234>It's self-awareness, awareness of others, awareness of one's surroundings, the ability to reason and the ability to hold conceptual thoughts and introspection. First of all, you made this definition up because, again, there's no universally agreed upon definition of sapience. Second, you again made the mistake of drawing a line that would render many humans as not sapient, meaning that according to your logic it is ethical to rap- breed humans against their will and ensla- make them lactate against their will as long as they don't have the ability to hold conceptual thoughts and introspection.
I'm not going to engage with your time-wasting questions because you have yet to address this critical contradiction in your logic.
>>545234when a man spends 16 hours a day gooning, is he a freak of nature, or a dumb animal acting on instinct, tragically exposed to a superstimulus? when a man gorges himself to death on sugary treats, is he a moral failure, or the same again: dumb animal, superstimulus? when a man replies to a tweet based on what he thinks it says rather than the words that are written, is he a monster deserving of death, or a dumb animal acting on instinct? when a man works for more and more commodities despite the fact we know the hedonic treadmill is such that this new flatscreen TV will improve his overall lifetime happiness not a jot: pathological idiot, or simply dumb animal acting on instinct?
you wish for a clean smart/dumb divide where there's a clear continuum of "fairly retarded animals trying to survive". you want to look at one mammal and go "ah, this one isn't retarded but the rest are." even as he decides that since everyone else has said the 2" straw is longer than the 3" straws, they must be correct and he'll say that too. "animals are humans" is a dumb statement that makes no sense: humans are animals. that doesn't make cats dogs or dogs men.
>>545404This is a good argument.
Irony is, people dehumanise children the same way with "brain evelopment" or "cognitive awareness"
>>545386>they don't have the ability to hold conceptual thoughts and introspection.There is no human that isn't capable save maybe for the outright braindead.
>>545404>when a man spends 16 hours a day gooning, is he a freak of nature, or a dumb animal acting on instinct, tragically exposed to a superstimulus? Freak of nature.
>when a man gorges himself to death on sugary treats, is he a moral failure, or the same again: dumb animal, superstimulus?Moral failure.
>when a man replies to a tweet based on what he thinks it says rather than the words that are written, is he a monster deserving of death, or a dumb animal acting on instinct? I don't think that tweeting, no matter how bad the tweets are, makes you a monster deserving death, but it does make him an idiot.
>when a man works for more and more commodities despite the fact we know the hedonic treadmill is such that this new flatscreen TV will improve his overall lifetime happiness not a jot: pathological idiot, or simply dumb animal acting on instinct?Pathological idiot. Or maybe ignorant. Or oblivious.
Humans are sapient and the things they do are generally done consciously and with purpose.
>>545478And animals don't act with purpose?
>>545479It depends on the animal, but they primarily act on instinct.
>>545482>>545484is there even a meaningful difference between humans and animals in this respect at all? obviously there's some animals that are very simple and probably dont have any kind of rich internal life like bugs and so on but mammals definitely have humanlike thought processes. dogs for example can be trained to carry out complex tasks, how could they do that if they were solely instinctual?
>>545486Other animals generally lack the kind of impulse control and metacognition that are characteristic of humans, and this is reflected in our neuroanatomy (not just bigger brains but the prefrontal cortex in particular). That's not to say that humans are fundamentally different, but we are highly specialized in that sort of thing. Other animals definitely have these abilities but don't really use them as much as we do. Like you can train a dog to exercise self-control, but even the best dog will still struggle with it. Meanwhile a human can learn all kinds of sophisticated methods to mitigate their impulses including things like imagining some unrelated situation to distract themselves. We're also capable of coming up with very complicated plans of action and executing them, which we just don't see in animals. That said, these are
capacities that humans have which are greater in
degree than other animals seem to have. The average person is not some 3D chess master who exercises their brain to peak abilities. Especially in the present context where society has largely reduced the agency of the average person to a worker-consumer drone. Most people are only going to use those special human brain abilities if they have a hobby that requires it.
>>545491>Like you can train a dog to exercise self-control, but even the best dog will still struggle with it.You could say the same about humans lol. A well trained dog probably has more self control than an average human. Look basically you're just making a special category that only humans can fit in, yes I agree that humans are definitely the highlight in a lot of fields of intelligence but that doesn't mean animals are just biological robots (well anymore so than humans are). Like someone said upthread, dogs probably think humans must be retarded because of our terrible sense of smell, if you only define worthiness to not be tortured to death by language proficiency (lets ignore that some animals do have language since that's usually ignored by carnists), societal complexity, art, etc etc then yes only humans deserve to live but (many) animals can also have rich internal lives, emotions, feelings, etc etc. Why is that not deserving of respect?
>>545499it's really not that complicated bro, just kill as few animals as possible, if you have to kill one in self defense then ok or you need to exterminate ants from your house then again fine, but eating fellow mammals is right out
>>545499If you can avoid, you dont kill. If there is no other way, you kill. Hope this helps!
>>545500>You could say the same about humans lol.Not really. A lot of humans do struggle with self control, but most of us can overcome that to the point that you're considered neurodivergent if you can't. Meanwhile the "best" among us (at this task) can practically ignore the impulses entirely. Like a lot of our notions of virtue have developed around making yourself more capable of resisting urges that would be socially problematic. It's very characteristic of us as a species and our ideas about ourselves.
>if you only define worthiness to not be tortured to death by language proficiencyI wasn't doing that, just explaining the way that humans are different, which is significant but not qualitative, only quantitative. The point is we are just a lot better at this kind of thing than other animals. You just misunderstood the point of the post.
>animals can also have rich internal lives, emotions, feelings, etc etc. Why is that not deserving of respect?I didn't say it isn't.
>>545500>eating fellow mammals is right outWhat about population control of animals like deer that lack natural predators (thanks to us killing them off) or invasive species like razorback pigs? I mean if you need to keep the population in check (so they don't overgraze or otherwise drive other species extinct), you might as well eat them too.
>>545502>What about population control of animals like deer that lack natural predators (thanks to us killing them off) or invasive species like razorback pigs? I mean if you need to keep the population in check (so they don't overgraze or otherwise drive other species extinct), you might as well eat them too.Yea that seems like a very rare exception but i guess is ok to eat those. They will destroy the ecosystem if not stopped, so it needs to be done. Like a disease or a virus.
>>545491This is the second time you're trying to avoid addressing the critical contradiction in your logical framework. Stop filibustering about how humans have a higher sentience potential. I know this; it's irrelevant to my point.
I'll repeat the contradiction in your logic for the third and last time, so pay attention:
1. You claim that it's ethically justifiable to breed "non-sapient" beings against their will, and to force them to work against their will;
2. You believe that sapience means
self-awareness, awareness of others, awareness of one's surroundings, the ability to reason and the ability to hold conceptual thoughts and introspection.3. There are many humans that don't meet the criteria you created.
4. You still believe that it's fundamentally bad when forced breeding and forced work is applied to humans, and fundamentally irrelevant when applied to animals, even ones that exceed humans in your own definition of sapience.
>>545502The obesity crisis et al seems to suggest humans haven't mastered self control.
>Like a lot of our notions of virtue have developed around making yourself more capable of resisting urges that would be socially problematic.half of those notions are reactionary.
>I wasn't doing that, just explaining the way that humans are different, which is significant but not qualitative, only quantitative. The point is we are just a lot better at this kind of thing than other animals. You just misunderstood the point of the post.Well if it's not relevant to the argument then why even bring it up?
>What about population control of animals like deer that lack natural predators (thanks to us killing them off) or invasive species like razorback pigs? I mean if you need to keep the population in check (so they don't overgraze or otherwise drive other species extinct), you might as well eat them too.Well as for deer we should obviously reintroduce wolves and restore nature to a pre-human condition. As for invasive species, ok sure I guess they have to go, and fine eat them I guess, but hunters are the ones who wiped out wolves in the first place so to see them now use deer overpopulation as an excuse why hunting is moral is pretty fucked up. The invasive species thing is also our fault once again.
>>545504You're arguing with someone else. I was just saying that the (real) difference in cognition between humans and animals is one of degree. The anon I replied to was asking if there's any difference at all which there clearly is.
>>545506My apologies, I mixed up the posts. Can't see my phone right with my boomer eyes.
>>545505>The obesity crisis et al seems to suggest humans haven't mastered self control.That's a systemic problem not a personal choice one, but additionally the underdevelopment of self-control is also a social-cultural issue caused by capitalism encouraging people to be slaves to impulse and our education system failing to teach people life skills.
>half of those notions are reactionary.So what? The point is that people were identifying things about themselves they can control and work on, and this is a behavior distinct to humans. Animals also go through a process of socialization that involves learning to moderate impulses, but they don't develop theories of morality like we do.
>Well if it's not relevant to the argument then why even bring it up?I didn't, the anon I replied to did
>>545486<is there even a meaningful difference between humans and animals in this respect at all?>Well as for deer we should obviously reintroduce wolvesYes but that's not a short term solution for the rather immediate problem posed by overgrazing.
>but hunters are the ones who wiped out wolves in the first place so to see them now use deer overpopulation as an excuse why hunting is moral is pretty fucked up.That's reductive and wrong. Not only are present day hunters not the same people as historical hunters, it was
farmers who wiped out wolves for eating livestock.
>>545506I guess I was flippant to say 'there's no difference', it was a rhetorical flourish.
>>545510>That's a systemic problem not a personal choice one, but additionally the underdevelopment of self-control is also a social-cultural issue caused by capitalism encouraging people to be slaves to impulse and our education system failing to teach people life skills.I don't really see what your point is here, it clearly demonstrates that humans aren't that great at self control in general. Sure better than most animals but that's only because humans have a more advanced theory of future events. Also I doubt a starving caveman would be that great at the 'don't touch the biscuit' game, modern humans just have other things to lust over.
>So what? The point is that people were identifying things about themselves they can control and work on, and this is a behavior distinct to humans. Animals also go through a process of socialization that involves learning to moderate impulses, but they don't develop theories of morality like we do.Animals do have theories of morality though, at least social animals. Animals that disobey the rules of the group get exiled and/or punished. Monkeys have even been shown to have an instinctive understanding of 'fairness' and will get angry when they are not rewarded the same as another monkey for completing a task. They will also share rewards with other monkeys that helped them complete tasks.
>Yes but that's not a short term solution for the rather immediate problem posed by overgrazing.Well I mean fine if deer need to be shot in the short term then whatever, but overall hunting isn't the solution.
>That's reductive and wrong. Not only are present day hunters not the same people as historical hunters, it was farmers who wiped out wolves for eating livestock.Eh I mean I would say it was both, pelt traders were also a big killer of animals, but fine I take your point - once again that's animal agriculture making the problem though.
>>545499It's very easy. 1: when it's absolutely necessary, and 2: when it's done humanely. The meat industry meets none of these criteria.
>but what about vitamin ligma?Insects have it.
>but what about vitamin sawcon?Insects.
>but insects are animals too, and you're not even a real veganThey very likely aren't capable of suffering, and I don't care what I'm called.
>stop shadow boxingSuch my dick
>>545512or just fortify bread with artificial vitamins
>>545511>I don't really see what your point is here, it clearly demonstrates that humans aren't that great at self control in general.The point is there's a difference in capacity but that doesn't mean humans necessarily utilize it to its fullest. If you have humans vs other animals do their best at this there's a clear difference, but if they never actually use it you won't see such a huge difference. It's like that with a lot of traits, something you have to actually exercise to benefit from.
>Also I doubt a starving caveman would be that great at the 'don't touch the biscuit' game, modern humans just have other things to lust over.Cavement were modern humans though? Unless you aren't talking about species but about culture, which was my point anyway.
>Animals do have theories of morality though, at least social animals.What you listed aren't theories. The animals don't translate those behaviors into abstractions they can communicate to each other. They deal with actions and interactions in a concrete way. Reciprocity etc doesn't require theorizing. You could say they have a "moral sense" or something like that, but that's very different from consciously developing a theory of morality like humans tend to do.
>Eh I mean I would say it was both, pelt traders were also a big killer of animalsWe were talking about wolves. If we're talking about beavers then yes trappers killed those down to minute levels. The distinction about farmers killing wolves though is important because it was a mere byproduct of animal agriculture, which should be pretty important to vegans (you don't need to guard your grain field from wolves lol). That's why I made the distinction.
>>545512>Insects have it.Insects aren't animals? This isn't even like sponges or corals we're talking about here.
>They very likely aren't capable of suffering, and I don't care what I'm called.??? Plants are capable of "suffering" in that they have a systemic response to physical trauma that involves releasing hormones that cause a marked distress response. Plants can even communicate this pain to other plants (even across species) which induces defensive responses from those other plants. "Suffering" is not a very good criterion for this argument.
>>545513The vitamins you fortify with have to come from somewhere.
>>545516>Insects aren't animals? This isn't even like sponges or corals we're talking about here. Yes, I know I'm cheating. I'm an insectivore rather than a full on vegan, but I do align with vegans on everything except for insects, so their cause is mostly my cause too.
>Plants are capable of "suffering" No, they can't, you're objectively wrong and let me explain why. Suffering is an emotional condition that often happens when you feel pain. Emotions and pain (nociception) are
fundamentally things that happen in a central nervous system. Plants do not have central nervous systems, so it's almost impossible for them to feel pain, let alone suffer.
What you described is plants responding to stimuli, which isn't even remotely the same as pain. Your computer responds to stimuli and even responds negatively to negative stimuli, which obviously doesn't mean that it's feeling anything. It's just an automatic response, exactly like plants.
Even insects that are able to feel pain are very likely not able to suffer, since their brains are not complex enough for sentience and emotions, which are requirements for suffering. Except maybe for bees and wasps which are unusually smart, and I don't advocate for harming them.
>>542235How did the Soviet Union treat pet ownership?
>>545516>The point is there's a difference in capacity but that doesn't mean humans necessarily utilize it to its fullest. If you have humans vs other animals do their best at this there's a clear difference, but if they never actually use it you won't see such a huge difference. It's like that with a lot of traits, something you have to actually exercise to benefit from.IDK what this even has to do with the argument at this point so I'm gonna just stop arguing the point.
>Cavement were modern humans though? Unless you aren't talking about species but about culture, which was my point anyway.Yes I was talking about culture or more accurately the fact that humans can easily 'self control' around a test treat in a way animals usually don't because modern humans can just go buy a treat for themselves.
>What you listed aren't theories. The animals don't translate those behaviors into abstractions they can communicate to each other. They deal with actions and interactions in a concrete way. Reciprocity etc doesn't require theorizing. You could say they have a "moral sense" or something like that, but that's very different from consciously developing a theory of morality like humans tend to do.IDK dog it seems like morality to me, like sure humans make more elaborate moralistic systems but they definitely exist in animals too. It's not only reciprocity, social animals often defend hierarchies, mating rights, and so on, according to their senses of 'morals'.
>We were talking about wolves. If we're talking about beavers then yes trappers killed those down to minute levels. The distinction about farmers killing wolves though is important because it was a mere byproduct of animal agriculture, which should be pretty important to vegans (you don't need to guard your grain field from wolves lol). That's why I made the distinction.Fine, I guess I agree with you. Another reason why crop farming is better. Also with modern fences it would be easy to keep wolves out anyway.
>>545519has answered you better on the 'plant suffering' non-point, but even if plants did suffer, veganism would still be more ethical than carnism since carnism requires much more crop input to feed the animals than just eating the crops directly.
>The vitamins you fortify with have to come from somewhere.'better living through chemistry'
>>542506shitbulls can still easily kill people regardless of training
how many pugs do you see going around mauling kids?
>>542213Did the dog eat her afterwards?
>>54224699% of dog owners only give their dogs the occasional bath and trip to the vet
>>545544I've always thought it would be funny to release a van full of pitbulls on a politician or high flying exec. Especially considering in lots of places people don't get in trouble for maulings.
How was I supposed to know the van full of pitbulls I set loose as I was driving past my local representative was dangerous? They're nanny dogs sweatie stop being a dog racist.
>>542506Ultimate pitsimp cope.
TPBD
Unique IPs: 79