• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

suncowiam

Well-Known Member
I will start off with something that hopefully won't get me banned, I already got banned on countless sites including facebook for my opinions I just hope you people aren't liberal pansies to report me for my question.

Creatures such as wolves (and coyotes) which are predators are needlessly killed by humans are done so in the claims of "population control" yet humans have such a high population compared to them and not only that, hunters claim they're invasive because they're Canadian wolves as opposed to US wolves which makes me shake my head. Humans wiped out the wolves in the US and it's not like they know about human boundaries, anyways they're killed for fur and that's about it. Killed to make a damn trophy. Killed for a predator killing contest...anything but food just so hunters can have more of "their" deer when they mature. What I don't understand is why can't those humans man up and accept that they need to share the world with creatures. They think of every creature but themselves as being lesser, heck lizards get treated worse. At least humans give a sure unfair yet humane death to wolves and coyotes as opposed to lizards which have been used as live bait where the hook goes through the middle of them leaving them to drown when thrown in along with the pain that comes when impaled when fish can be caught with literally anything else. I'm not a fan of using worms either because they're alive too. Humans share no regard to any other creature but they complain about the whole gender nonsense and equal rights because they're all "human"

The answer is simple. Humans are on the top of the food chain.

Do humans really need to share this world with other species? One can make an argument. I can make an argument but it won't be for all animals. You should make that argument first.

I don't personally believe in trophy killing, either. But I do eat a lot of animals. I especially enjoy protein based sustenance.
 

Tmac

Active Member
Fair enough but no one will debate me. People keep kicking me off their social media sites when I try to debate. I thought this would be good yet conservatives have been showing their distaste for differing opinions too not unlike their liberal social justice counterparts

Then I suggest you read "the art of war"
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
I will start off with something that hopefully won't get me banned, I already got banned on countless sites including facebook for my opinions I just hope you people aren't liberal pansies to report me for my question.

Creatures such as wolves (and coyotes) which are predators are needlessly killed by humans are done so in the claims of "population control" yet humans have such a high population compared to them and not only that, hunters claim they're invasive because they're Canadian wolves as opposed to US wolves which makes me shake my head. Humans wiped out the wolves in the US and it's not like they know about human boundaries, anyways they're killed for fur and that's about it. Killed to make a damn trophy. Killed for a predator killing contest...anything but food just so hunters can have more of "their" deer when they mature. What I don't understand is why can't those humans man up and accept that they need to share the world with creatures. They think of every creature but themselves as being lesser, heck lizards get treated worse. At least humans give a sure unfair yet humane death to wolves and coyotes as opposed to lizards which have been used as live bait where the hook goes through the middle of them leaving them to drown when thrown in along with the pain that comes when impaled when fish can be caught with literally anything else. I'm not a fan of using worms either because they're alive too. Humans share no regard to any other creature but they complain about the whole gender nonsense and equal rights because they're all "human"
upload_2017-11-3_8-19-47.png


How a Wolf Named Romeo Won Hearts in an Alaska Suburb
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
First Law of Nature: Survival of the fittest. in essence, those with the best affinity survive
I would argue the second Law is
Second Law of Nature: Power is everything. without any power, you die. more power. the better off you are.

May I ask where you learned that these were laws of nature? Are you using "law" colloquially and not to mean an actual law in the scientific sense? Neither of these statements are in keeping with what is known in the discipline of biology, so I'm a bit confused. Is this more like your personal philosophy?


The answer is simple. Humans are on the top of the food chain.

This simple answer is grounded in outdated information about organismal interactions. Kids used to be taught (and are probably still taught) that food chains are a thing, but it's been known for quite some time that organismal interactions are more complex than that. Contemporary ecologists talk about food webs, not food chains - meaning there is no "top" of these interactions. There are also countless other dependencies all organisms have on abiotic aspects of their environments, reinforcing the lack of a "top" to anything.


Do humans really need to share this world with other species? One can make an argument.

I don't think an argument needs to be made at all - to anyone who is marginally knowledgable in the discipline of ecology, it's readily apparent that humans are entirely dependent on the planet's biotic and abiotic systems to exist. Unfortunately, ecology is one of the sciences the general public is poorly appraised of.
 

suncowiam

Well-Known Member

May I ask where you learned that these were laws of nature? Are you using "law" colloquially and not to mean an actual law in the scientific sense? Neither of these statements are in keeping with what is known in the discipline of biology, so I'm a bit confused. Is this more like your personal philosophy?




This simple answer is grounded in outdated information about organismal interactions. Kids used to be taught (and are probably still taught) that food chains are a thing, but it's been known for quite some time that organismal interactions are more complex than that. Contemporary ecologists talk about food webs, not food chains - meaning there is no "top" of these interactions. There are also countless other dependencies all organisms have on abiotic aspects of their environments, reinforcing the lack of a "top" to anything.




I don't think an argument needs to be made at all - to anyone who is marginally knowledgable in the discipline of ecology, it's readily apparent that humans are entirely dependent on the planet's biotic and abiotic systems to exist. Unfortunately, ecology is one of the sciences the general public is poorly appraised of.

Admittedly, I am not knowledgeable in the discipline of ecology. I know we humans are dependent on other organisms not just on sustenance, but I wouldn't know where to begin.

The argument should be made to bolster the position. Assumptions can only go so far.

Now, if someone could actually define the survivability rate of humans in correlation to animals, I think this would help justify the more of OP.

I do believe in the rights of animals, but how "animals" define rights is much more primitive than how humans define rights.

It's not like I should give, say, an inanimate object the same rights as a human.

Should I give animals the same rights as humans? They obviously share many similar traits but higher consciousness is not one for a large variety of animals. I can accept that some animals do share this trait, but for the sake of argument, lets assume not. Or just focus on animals that do not.

What rights then do we give animals and on what basis outside of our own survival?

The other side of this is, IF I MAY, nature has decided the law among animals is survival of the fittest. Can I correctly assert that? If we observe animal populations among each other, they indiscriminately control other populations of animals through aggressive and forceful means. So given the lowest common denominator, humans are abiding by survival of the fittest naturally.

Not giving you a hard time but giving you or anyone a devil's advocate response.

Other stances should be able to overshadow this...
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
That is the mind of satan at work. It was not part of the reason why we were given care taking of the planet.
Satan prohibits killing animals for reasons other than food and defense. Look for some other boogeyman to blame.
You hunt for defense?
If I lived in Alaska, I'd probably carry around a "bear killer" myself.
Hunting for pleasure is sick but at least you don't get the hoo hah Henry's on horseback with a pack of trained hounds chasing a fox.

I see seven humans who need to be taught what fear is. Battered and roughed up, a lot. Perhaps dropped off on an island where the most dangerous game is hunted?
I'm not human, i'm a dragon, an advocate for native life which humans aren't of
Yes, you are a human. And it is humans who are correcting other humans and showing them the errors of their ways. After all, it was humans who had bull fighting in Catalonia banned, not the bulls. Even when it's the more directly engaged ALF, it is humans who have exposed and ended various inhumane and barbaric practices against other animals, and humans who are working to end those savage practices that still exist.
Do humans really need to share this world with other species?
Yes, we really do. Time and time again we have royally screwed up because he haven't, and our attempts to amend things have made things even worse. Ultimately, plans of expansion, building, and city planing must revolve around the fact we are not the only ones who inhabit this earth, and that we are not the only animal deserving of and entitled to our home.
 

suncowiam

Well-Known Member
Satan prohibits killing animals for reasons other than food and defense. Look for some other boogeyman to blame.

If I lived in Alaska, I'd probably carry around a "bear killer" myself.

I see seven humans who need to be taught what fear is. Battered and roughed up, a lot. Perhaps dropped off on an island where the most dangerous game is hunted?

Yes, you are a human. And it is humans who are correcting other humans and showing them the errors of their ways. After all, it was humans who had bull fighting in Catalonia banned, not the bulls. Even when it's the more directly engaged ALF, it is humans who have exposed and ended various inhumane and barbaric practices against other animals, and humans who are working to end those savage practices that still exist.

Yes, we really do. Time and time again we have royally screwed up because he haven't, and our attempts to amend things have made things even worse. Ultimately, plans of expansion, building, and city planing must revolve around the fact we are not the only ones who inhabit this earth, and that we are not the only animal deserving of and entitled to our home.

If you read my whole comment, the whole purpose of that question was to get a more definitive reason.

You're not exactly providing justifications but adding more opinions. :)
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
You're not exactly providing justifications but adding more opinions. :)
An ongoing mass extinction, devastated environments from introducing predators, and an over reliance on killing bacteria leading to treatment-resistant bacteria are not opinions.
 

suncowiam

Well-Known Member
An ongoing mass extinction, devastated environments from introducing predators, and an over reliance on killing bacteria leading to treatment-resistant bacteria are not opinions.

I think it's plausible what you're suggesting.

How about you add some links to support this? And also justify that this doesn't happen on its own without the correlation of humans.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
I think it's plausible what you're suggesting.

How about you add some links to support this? And also justify that this doesn't happen on its own without the correlation of humans.
Those should be common knowledge by know. We've eradicated many, many species and have brought many more to the verge of extinction (many are not optimistic about the survival of tigers, for example), a major health/medical concern is strains of treatment resistant tuberculosis (as well as others, an not even bacteria, but also pests like bedbugs becoming resistant and immune to chemical treatments - you really shouldn't need a link because it's called evolution), and you could fill volumes with all the efforts to introduce predators into a new environment as a solution only to find things getting worse, be in Australia, America, or even the Great Lakes.
It fits with Quintessence's post that it's really just a matter of very basic ecology, as well as keeping marginally informed about world and local events.
 

suncowiam

Well-Known Member
Those should be common knowledge by know. We've eradicated many, many species and have brought many more to the verge of extinction (many are not optimistic about the survival of tigers, for example), a major health/medical concern is strains of treatment resistant tuberculosis (as well as others, an not even bacteria, but also pests like bedbugs becoming resistant and immune to chemical treatments - you really shouldn't need a link because it's called evolution), and you could fill volumes with all the efforts to introduce predators into a new environment as a solution only to find things getting worse, be in Australia, America, or even the Great Lakes.
It fits with Quintessence's post that it's really just a matter of very basic ecology.

Your basis is a little different.

We actually jumped on to many different subjects.

Let's rebase. What is your assertion pertaining to animal rights?
 

Silverscale derg

Active Member
Satan prohibits killing animals for reasons other than food and defense. Look for some other boogeyman to blame.

If I lived in Alaska, I'd probably carry around a "bear killer" myself.

I see seven humans who need to be taught what fear is. Battered and roughed up, a lot. Perhaps dropped off on an island where the most dangerous game is hunted?

Yes, you are a human. And it is humans who are correcting other humans and showing them the errors of their ways. After all, it was humans who had bull fighting in Catalonia banned, not the bulls. Even when it's the more directly engaged ALF, it is humans who have exposed and ended various inhumane and barbaric practices against other animals, and humans who are working to end those savage practices that still exist.

Yes, we really do. Time and time again we have royally screwed up because he haven't, and our attempts to amend things have made things even worse. Ultimately, plans of expansion, building, and city planing must revolve around the fact we are not the only ones who inhabit this earth, and that we are not the only animal deserving of and entitled to our home.

I am not a human, how dare you call me that? You use the name "wolf" on your profile, are you a therian or know anything about therianthrophy?
 

Silverscale derg

Active Member
The answer is simple. Humans are on the top of the food chain.

Do humans really need to share this world with other species? One can make an argument. I can make an argument but it won't be for all animals. You should make that argument first.

I don't personally believe in trophy killing, either. But I do eat a lot of animals. I especially enjoy protein based sustenance.

"humans are on the top of the food chain" boy listen to yourself...humans aren't a part of the food chain. No creature kills another creature that killed their kind out of revenge as is the case with humans who kill bears who ate humans in the wild...Humans are on the "top" of the "food chain" just like an alien species would be if they came to earth with more than the capabilities of humans. Humans are unique in the fact that they have thumbs that they can use well but they are bashful towards species with different types of intellect. Lizards aren't stupid for standing still because they can hide and their body especially on the underside is quite delicate. My argument is that if humans are going to complain about "womens" rights or "black lives" because humans complain of creatures not of their area like happens for "canadian" wolves because that's a human made boundary. Another case is the brown anole stuff. So green anoles are seen as native, brown anoles, the same exact lizard save for it's scale color which green anoles can mimic anyways is seen as invasive and pests. I don't mean to be offensive but saying that is like saying in human terms that people of color shouldn't be allowed here and that they're invasive to the white ones because they were native. You'd be called a nazi for saying such stuff to humans. If humans preach equality within themselves they need to help with equality all over. I have no problem with eating other creatures but what I do have is needless slaughter of those in the name of "pest" or "population control" such as what happens to coyotes a lot.
 

Silverscale derg

Active Member
How does a dragon get an internet connection? What kind of keyboard does a dragon use to type posts on a message board?

This may be why you were banned from other forums, since some people are wary of posting on the same forum as a dragon. I would suggest in future that you just say that you're human. No one has to know that you're a dragon.

A dragon gets an internet connection by paying for it and I use my specter. Why do people have a problem with other species using human stuff? Equality am I right or am I right? I refuse to say i'm a human. Sure I can take the name of a group called therians but still that's slightly different
 
Top