[ home / rules / faq / search ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM / ufo ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]

/siberia/ - Off-topic

"No chin, no right to speak."
Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password(For file deletion.)

Check out our new store at shop.leftypol.org!


 

Do you think that Humans are just as valuable as animals?
If you ask me the answer is yes but I feel that animals are still undervalued. Like if I see a human and a dog drowning I would try to save the Human first but I would never cut down a national park filled with endangered monkeys so I can use it to build an AI data-center. Humans being more valuable than animals does not mean that animals are worthless.

I agree with Rafiq. Animals are worthless.

Humans are animals.

as newgene says
man is not above the animals

>>761540
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

No not philosophically, but socially and economically yes of course (I would save a thousand human lives over any animal). Humans are the only animals who can exhonerate all life from nature and turn all matter in the universe alive, so in this sense we are also more valuable in the way an economic planner is more valuable than a non-productive individual.

>are apples more valueble than plants?

>>761551
Wouldn't that still be the same?

Value is subjective so there is no objective answer here. We are just articulating our sentimentality. I would spare animals and nature only as much as to not devastate the ecosystem since that would impact human life as well.

>>761538
Well we live in a eco system so we do need other animals, so they are just as valuable but it's precisely humans messing around and modifying the eco system that devalues other animals and promotes others.

File: 1771979762209.gif (448.78 KB, 220x262, 1770998844639.gif)

idc about mystic bullshit like "inherent value" or w/e but if animals didnt want me to eat them theyd fight for their own rights rather than humans having to do it for them

>>761557
Idk if that's true

>>761642
op isnt asking about your pet but animals as a whole

File: 1771986439831.jpg (52.77 KB, 585x492, animals.jpg)

>Do you think that Humans are just as valuable as animals?

i think humans are significantly less valuable than most animals

micro-organisms are more important than an animal tbh

>>761657
the life of all animals is worth more than the life of anastasia romanov, simple as

>>761538
Valuable in what way?

>>761870
Religionslop goes in >>>/ufo/
Every animal except for the bourgoise develops, "conciously" is irrelevant. Becoming a sophont just speeds up the process, and is an inevitability for any animal in the right conditions.

Does anyone think I went too far with the out of context clip?

>>761538
valuable for whom?
for humans, other humans are obviously more valuable: you can communicate with them, your society and livelihood depend on other humans, humans can reciprocate your feelings and wishes, help you, work with you, party with you, live with you, love with you, create art that you find compelling… so many things completely inaccessible to other animals. Also humans also have the ability to hurt you physically and socially if youre not considerate of them, and you have natural empathy for them, because we're a social specie. So its pretty obvious that for humans, other humans are more valuable than other animals, and anyone disagreeing will rightfully be treated as a weirdo and/or a psycho.
This doesnt mean we shouldnt have some consideration for other animal life and minimize their suffering where we can afford to. Our empathy naturally extend easily to mammals or even other animals and thats not a problem in itself, as long as it doesnt impede on our own and other humans happiness (and its a reasonable argument that shit like factory farming is more detrimental than beneficial to overall human happiness).

>>761673
>micro-organisms are more important than an animal tbh
So your penis is more important than an animal?

>>761538
>Do you think that Humans are just as valuable as animals?
No shit. I think this is one of those fundamental questions that separates good people from bad people. If you have to think about this question for more than a millisecond, you are a bad person. This was the best question that okcupid ever had in there question based dating algorithm.

I can't find a screencap of the question, but it used to be one of the default ones:

>Which is worse? Starving children or animal abuse:

>A
>B
>They are both equally bad.

Anyone who doesn't say starving children is a bad person I don't want to associate with in the slightest.

File: 1773111081484.png (1.13 MB, 741x1781, ClipboardImage.png)

And I need remind you again that extreme animal welfare advocates and vegans and etc. are motherfucking Nazis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_welfare_in_Nazi_Germany

There was widespread support for animal welfare in Nazi Germany[1] (German: Tierschutz im nationalsozialistischen Deutschland) among the country's leadership. Adolf Hitler and his top officials took a variety of measures to ensure animals were protected.[2]

Several Nazis were environmentalists, and species protection and animal welfare were significant issues in the Nazi regime.[3] Heinrich Himmler made an effort to ban the hunting of animals.[4] Hermann Göring was a professed animal lover and conservationist,[5] who threatened to commit Germans who violated Nazi animal welfare laws to concentration camps.[5] In his private diaries, Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels described Hitler as a vegetarian who was contemptuous of Judaism for the ethical distinction they drew between the value of humans and the value of animals;[6][5] Goebbels also mentions that Hitler planned to discourage slaughterhouses in the German Reich following the conclusion of World War II.[6] The Nazi government made a law against animal testing but in practice animal testing was permitted and even encouraged in Nazi Germany.[7][8][9]

The current animal welfare laws in Germany were initially introduced by the Nazis.[10]

At the end of the nineteenth century, kosher butchering and vivisection (animal experimentation) were the main concerns of the German animal welfare movement. The Nazis adopted these concerns as part of their political platform.[11] According to Boria Sax, the Nazis rejected anthropocentric reasons for animal protection—animals were to be protected for their own sake.[12] In 1927, a Nazi representative to the Reichstag called for actions against cruelty to animals and kosher butchering.[11]

In 1931, the Nazi Party (then a minority in the Reichstag) proposed a ban on vivisection, but the ban failed to attract support from other political parties. By 1933, after Hitler had ascended to the Chancellery and the Nazis had consolidated control of the Reichstag, the Nazis immediately held a meeting to enact the ban on vivisection. On April 21, 1933, almost immediately after the Nazis came to power, the parliament began to pass laws for the regulation of animal slaughter.[11] On April 21, a law was passed concerning the slaughter of animals; no animals were to be slaughtered without anesthetic.

Göring also banned commercial animal trapping and imposed severe restrictions on hunting. He prohibited boiling of lobsters and crabs. In one incident, he sent a fisherman to a concentration camp for cutting up a bait frog.[13][citation needed]

On November 24, 1933, Nazi Germany enacted another law called Reichstierschutzgesetz (Reich Animal Protection Act), for protection of animals.[14][15] This law listed many prohibitions against the use of animals, including their use for filmmaking and other public events causing pain or damage to health,[16] force-feeding fowls and tearing out the thighs of living frogs.[17] The two principals (Ministerialräte) of the German Ministry of the Interior, Clemens Giese and Waldemar Kahler, who were responsible for drafting the legislative text,[15] wrote in their juridical comment from 1939, that by the law the animal was to be "protected for itself" ("um seiner selbst willen geschützt"), and made "an object of protection going far beyond the hitherto existing law" ("Objekt eines weit über die bisherigen Bestimmungen hinausgehenden Schutzes").[18]

On February 23, 1934, a decree was enacted by the Prussian Ministry of Commerce and Employment which introduced education on animal protection laws at primary, secondary and college levels.[19] In 1934, Nazi Germany hosted an international conference on animal welfare in Berlin.[20] On March 27, 1936, an order on the slaughter of living fish and other poikilotherms was enacted. On March 18 the same year, an order was passed on afforestation and on protection of animals in the wild.[19] On September 9, 1937, a decree was published by the Ministry of the Interior which specified guidelines for the transportation of animals.[21] In 1938, the Nazis introduced animal protection as a subject to be taught in public schools and universities in Germany.[20]

On June 28, 1935, Nazi Germany enacted legislation that created a separate category in Paragraph 175 for "fornication with animals" and penalized offences of this type with up to five years in prison.





If you don't value a human life more than any other animal you are a bad person. Simple as.

>>761538
> I would never cut down a national park filled with endangered monkeys so I can use it to build an AI data-center.
The AI data center is worthless. It will take thousands or millions of years to recreate the natural environment. Our reasons for preserving the natural environment are in just as much in line with our own self-interest as the animals and plants we are saving. Their is no conflict. The natural world was created over billions of years and we are the greatest product of it but that doesn't mean we should degrade that which gave us birth for dead mechanical tomfoolery. The AI data center adds nothing to us any greater tgan the irreplaceable natural environment. Chopping down ancient forests so rich people can have nice taes and cabinets adds nothing to humanity as a whole.

>>765195
this is reactionary

>>765197
Veganism is reactionary. History proves that to us.

Someday, I think we will have a positive Ecologism or whatever the word is. Humans have the intelligence and capability to make this world more hospitable for all forms of life we deem valuable. Right now it is on the level simply of harm reduction and preserving the natural environment, ie limiting our destruction of it, but one day we might increase its bounty, not just for us, but all life we deem valuable. I say that because we are onviously not tryong to proliferate algal blooms and viruses and destructive bacterias and other parasites. This our planet and we are its stewards masters. We can't create all this life we find beautiful, but we can preserve it, and even more, we can propagate it.

>>765198
No comparing animal welfare to nazism is reactionary

>>765204
No, you are just struggling with your own libtardism, aka nazism.

>>765205
I mean it speaks for itself but I guess I have to lay it out.

>an animal life is worth just as much as a human life!

So what humans will you sacrifice for animal welfare? The subhumans right? Maybe even subanimal since animals have purse souls free from sin. You guys are sick puppies.

And INB4:
>I am not an racist or racial supremacist! I am just an anti-human misanthrope!

Why should we give you any quarter? It's only in a liberal world where you can openly state your enemy is literally all of us, that all of us wouldn't go ok: no more brain stem for you.

I hope she the animals read this bruh.

>>761873
>Every animal except for the bourgoise develops
Yes, but the bourgoisie developed historically. They once played a revolutionary role in developing the productive forces despite being a barrier to human development now.
>"conciously" is irrelevant.
No, it isn't, consciousness was a qualitative leap that set the human species apart from other animals.
>Becoming a sophont just speeds up the process
Why are you using a sci-fi term? It's not a purely biological phenomenon, it was also shaped by human social relations.
>and is an inevitability for any animal in the right conditions.
Inevitably implies "fate", it was contingent on human labor. The unique relationship that humans have with their environment.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/labour.htm

>>765193
Micro organisms convert bodily waste into nutrients for plants

>>765193
At least Anlunya is laughing at Elm.

>>765688
Eat more plants.


Unique IPs: 23

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq / search ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM / ufo ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]