Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by timeofyourlife)
    there has to be a first time for everything.
    pity this wasnt the initial query and not the one i received then.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Homegrownkitten)
    I dont feel 25 though... more like 19 still. You are not as old as my bf tho...
    25 :eek: i'm only just 19, it's like being in a wetherspoons...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna)
    pity this wasnt the initial query and not the one i received then.
    the smilies have disappeared tonight, i see.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by timeofyourlife)
    the smilies have disappeared tonight, i see.
    Mine are fine :cool:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by timeofyourlife)
    the smilies have disappeared tonight, i see.
    this is d+d.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Homegrownkitten)
    I dont feel 25 though... more like 19 still. You are not as old as my bf tho...
    I feel about 20 myself (shame I don't still look it anymore..!).

    What age is your bf? :eek:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    See the main problem with the whole argument is in what way are we to declare our lives superior to those of animals (this is from a non-religious point of view). Merely because we are "smarter" than animals does that give us the right to kill them for reasons other than nutrition?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BloodyValentine)
    See the main problem with the whole argument is in what way are we to declare our lives superior to those of animals (this is from a non-religious point of view). Merely because we are "smarter" than animals does that give us the right to kill them for reasons other than nutrition?
    by the fact that we can kill them gives us the very basic and only right, in my book.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna)
    by the fact that we can kill them gives us the very basic and only right, in my book.
    but we are also smart enough to contemplate ethics, so maybe that's a fail-safe mechanism to make us question that right?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by timeofyourlife)
    but we are also smart enough to contemplate ethics, so maybe that's a fail-safe mechanism to make us question that right?
    it may or may not be ethical, but we still have the right.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna)
    by the fact that we can kill them gives us the very basic and only right, in my book.
    But most animals can kill most other animals, does this give then the right to kill. It is the same thing but animals do not have a concept of what rights are, or what is right or wrong. What seperates us is our capacity to knowingly make animals suffer.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna)
    it may or may not be ethical, but we still have the right.
    human minds invented 'rights', so why deem the two mutually exclusive?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna)
    by the fact that we can kill them gives us the very basic and only right, in my book.
    so you don't really care and you're saying that because we have the ability to kill them why shouldn't we?
    Well your point of view and you're entitled to it however to put it to your more selfish point of view nature (sounds lame but i shall continue) is actually much better at innovating materials than we are (a spider web for example the actual webbing that its made up of is 5 times stronger than nylon if i remember correctly) and there are many compounds which we simply cannot make which would probably serve us.
    Secondly we created the medical problems of today there have been numerous studies proving that the chemicals in the soil (as fertilisers/pest killers) are linked to the large number of cancers we suffer from. We created these problems (killing a large amount of animals on the way) why should we make other animals (since we are also a species of animal) suffer for our mistake. Because we can?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by timeofyourlife)
    25 :eek: i'm only just 19, it's like being in a wetherspoons...
    You should go to Reading. On one street they have one for old people (the Hope Tap) and one for younger people (The Monk's Retreat)!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BloodyValentine)
    We created these problems (killing a large amount of animals on the way) why should we make other animals (since we are also a species of animal) suffer for our mistake. Because we can?
    what about random gene mutations? please provide source that these chemicals are responsible for high enough percentage of cancers to deem their aetiology to be self-caused.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna)
    by the fact that we can kill them gives us the very basic and only right, in my book.
    In some countries certain animals are protected by law and the police have the right to shoot dead any human "caught in the act of poaching" such animals.

    Also, in some countries in the World a cat living in the UK will have more rights and freedoms than a human, does this mean it is ok for such people to be killed/experimented upon?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by timeofyourlife)
    what about random gene mutations? please provide source that these chemicals are responsible for high enough percentage of cancers to deem their aetiology to be self-caused.
    the book i took that information from is called rising tides by rory spowers and he does have an extensive list of sources at the back. However it is late and i have a suspicion i left the book at my dad's house in France so you might have to wait till tomorrow for me to get these sources.
    However a case which i am sure of is asbetos (in paint mainly) which has been conclusively linked to cancer
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by timeofyourlife)
    human minds invented 'rights', so why deem the two mutually exclusive?
    human minds invented our definition of, and linguistic orientation of the concept. a caveman with no form of communication, as did any predatory animal, still had the basic 'right', according to the animal kingdom, to kill another animal simply because he could. the ethical concepts dreamt up by mankind differs us from the rest of the animal kingdom and possibly restrains our actions in this respect, but we still have the ultimate to kill weaker animals for our own resource, if there are any rights at all.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BloodyValentine)
    so you don't really care and you're saying that because we have the ability to kill them why shouldn't we?
    i didnt say there wasnt any ethical considerations to be made.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna)
    human minds invented our definition of, and linguistic orientation of the concept. a caveman with no form of communication, as did any predatory animal, still had the basic 'right', according to the animal kingdom, to kill another animal simply because he could.
    yes but he killed animals mainly for their fur and their meat to eat it not for pleasure (fox hunting) or to test face cream etc... .
    Oh and according to the new scientist from a couple of weeks back early humans had a diet low on meat
 
 
 
Poll
Are you going to a festival?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.