You are viewing our Forum Archives. To view or take place in current topics click here.
#21. Posted:
-Joshua
  • Powerhouse
Status: Offline
Joined: Nov 09, 201311Year Member
Posts: 423
Reputation Power: 15
Status: Offline
Joined: Nov 09, 201311Year Member
Posts: 423
Reputation Power: 15
Lecter wrote There was that story not too long ago about two dogs mauling a 6 day old baby to death.
They put the dogs down, and, as far as I know, no charges have been pressed against the parents who left a 6 day old baby alone with 2 big dogs and expected nothing to go wrong.

I don't like humankind at all, I sincerely believe that we were an evolutionary mistake, and that we should simply stop breeding.
Some people might call that insane or rash but, can anyone really tell me that Earth is better off now than it was 200,000 years ago?
i live a mile and a half from where this happened and i remember reading the local paper and it was on about that after the baby died there was no blood on the dog that apparently killed it nor on the other dog.. so there was no proof that any of the dogs killed the baby but they still put them both down.. this is just uncalled for and just pathetic in my opinion
#22. Posted:
NBC
  • TTG Addict
Status: Offline
Joined: Dec 24, 201112Year Member
Posts: 2,859
Reputation Power: 99
Status: Offline
Joined: Dec 24, 201112Year Member
Posts: 2,859
Reputation Power: 99
I agree with you. I never forgave my parents, when I was little we had a black lab when we moved into our new house from a trailer park (My parents had a new house built) and they put the dog in the basement w/o anything to keep it company because they thought the dog would hurt me. I've never forgiven my parents...
#23. Posted:
-Pawn
  • Spooky Poster
Status: Offline
Joined: Jan 15, 201113Year Member
Posts: 2,316
Reputation Power: 119
Status: Offline
Joined: Jan 15, 201113Year Member
Posts: 2,316
Reputation Power: 119
Lecter wrote There was that story not too long ago about two dogs mauling a 6 day old baby to death.
They put the dogs down, and, as far as I know, no charges have been pressed against the parents who left a 6 day old baby alone with 2 big dogs and expected nothing to go wrong.

I don't like humankind at all, I sincerely believe that we were an evolutionary mistake, and that we should simply stop breeding.
Some people might call that insane or rash but, can anyone really tell me that Earth is better off now than it was 200,000 years ago?


I have always thought this exact same thing. Humans are a mistake. We're dumb, we DESTROY this Earth, we ruin other life, we fight each other and cause millions upon millions of deaths, and most of all: We repeat our mistakes. We don't just stop after one war and acknowledge that we're stupid; we decide to go start more problems and cause another huge pointless war. Beyond war, we mainly ruin environments.

200,000 years ago our Earth was beautiful and wasn't in a state where it was physically damaged. Now look at it. Animals do what animals do because that's instinct. If you're stupid and leave your little kids next to big - not necessarily trained dogs - then you're just a bad parent. It's not the animals faults ever. It's our own mistakes that cause us to put down innocent animals because we're blind and unbelievably stupid.
#24. Posted:
Jeeves
  • 1000 Thanks
Status: Offline
Joined: Aug 06, 201212Year Member
Posts: 6,360
Reputation Power: 374
Status: Offline
Joined: Aug 06, 201212Year Member
Posts: 6,360
Reputation Power: 374
DNF wrote
Lecter wrote
Silver wrote And I disagree with you Lecter. This earth was put here to be support life. We shouldn't stop breeding because it would make Earth better. Earth was made for living animals to enjoy life. Why waste that?


I'm getting the impression that you believe the Earth and humans were created by a deity, if I'm wrong about that please correct me, but you said 'made' as though the Earth has a purpose.
I don't believe that the Earth has a purpose, I think it formed at just the right point in space where it could support life. That's it.
I don't believe that there is anything special about that life, and there is an abundance of everything but enjoyment in the natural world.

fknvlink wrote Humans are better then every animal in every way. That is not to say we shouldn't punish people for the mistreating of animals tho. We are the top of the food chain and if a certain animal can't handle that then maybe it is better off not existing. If you think that we are a disgrace... [yadayadayada something about a bridge.]

ok, the earth wasn't put here it was created by chances. secondly how are we not better then animals. We are smarter. I am talking on a species level not a personal one.


Humans aren't better than every animal in every way.
Run faster than a Cheetah, see better than a Hawk, swim faster than a dolphin.
The only reason that we are 'better' is because we use technology, and right there, I think is the mistake.
When an animal develops the cognitive ability, and population size, needed for them to destroy the planet looking for resources how can that not be seen as a mistake?

Cokes wrote All evolution is by chance so whether it's a mistake or not I guess is a matter of opinion. But as far as humankind, I'd say we've come pretty far in terms of how we can in society. Back in ancient times we were not very nice people and we did some unthinkable acts that would not be acceptable in today's society.


Evolution isn't exactly by chance, it's species' ability to change to fit their environment over a large amount of time.
This is why I disagree with people [not you] when they say that, "Animals which can't survive are better off dying out" We are at the point now in which if that were true then every animal on Earth would be extinct because nobody can match us.

Humans are off the evolutionary scale, while it is still affecting us, we are more heavily influenced by the development of technology, but humans really aren't that smart.
It took us 90 Billion lives to work out that bacteria existed.
It took us 60 Billion lives to invent the wheel.
Over the past 500 years we've had a technological explosion of one obvious leap to the next, and we have the audacity to stand up on top of it and call ourselves better than everything else.

Humans aren't that civilized, in Western society we are mainly quelled by the laws imposed on us.
Like I've said though, if you take people out of society then our true nature shines through.
Just look at Ukraine, or any country in the Middle East.
If humans are so innately civilized then why is this happening?
It's because we aren't.

If the only reason that we can be nice to one another is because society says so then how can we act like we're so much better than every other animal on Earth?



If humans weren't civilised then god almighty why is the world not a anarchy ridden place. Society is what we conform to, radicalism and extreme cases suggest that we aren't nice to each other, the rest of the world gets along in harmony.

As for your Ukraine part; comes to cowardice, fear of a ruler. Not because the whole country is a bunch of beans who are war hungry.

As for the intelligence of humans, I completely disagree with your statement about our intelligence. We are the most intelligent species, until there is another species capable of what we are the point you made is nulled. Yes, cheetahs run faster than humans, that is evolution; "Survival of the fittest". This comes form the point that cheetahs evolved to be fast to catch their prey. Giraffes have long necks to reach food from a greater height. The list goes on and on.


Oh how I would love to live in your world.
It's all puppy dogs and rainbows isn't it?
Please look outside, the world is not a nice place, and that is even with an overarching morality, whether it be through society or religion, I would absolutely hate to see the world without either of them making people be nice to one another.

The Ukraine part was actually to show that there is conflict in our nature, not the reasons why it's happening, that's another topic entirely.

You can't say that we are intelligent because no other creature can tell you otherwise, intelligent is something that we have defined ourselves as.
Neil DeGrasse Tyson uses the example of the difference between a Chimp and a human being about 1 and a half percent, that's the difference in DNA between them and us, so all of our intelligence that goes beyond what they can do is in that 1.5%, a 1.5% difference takes us from stacking boxes on top of one another to building the Hubble telescope.
Imagine if an alien race came along and, back on their planet, they had a race of creatures with around the same intelligence as us, but the aliens were 1.5% more intelligent than they are.

We would be like Chimps to this race, of course we see ourselves as intelligent, we have nothing to compare ourselves to in terms of cognitive problem solving except a Chimp, and occasionally a Dolphin.

My point about the Cheetah was that animals can do things better than us, it would be nice if you read my posts in context with what I'm replying to.
Survival of the fittest doesn't work any more if the Cheetah is running after you, about to catch you, and you turn around and use a gun to shoot it.
Ever since we started sharpening sticks into spears, that is where evolution ended, and something else began, and for the past 200,000 years that something else has turned this planet into a nightmare, that is why I believe humankind was a mistake.
#25. Posted:
JmH
  • Wise One
Status: Offline
Joined: Apr 03, 201410Year Member
Posts: 558
Reputation Power: 27
Status: Offline
Joined: Apr 03, 201410Year Member
Posts: 558
Reputation Power: 27
Good point, Dog's shouldn't be put down, It's like the electric chair but that's banned, But every animal should be equal rather than putting down a dog for hurting someone there's dangerous people in this world, Just like there's dangerous Animals but we are not put down, So why should they, They should find some type of punishment for the dogs or animals just like human's have punishments.

TeamXole
#26. Posted:
Jeeves
  • 1000 Thanks
Status: Offline
Joined: Aug 06, 201212Year Member
Posts: 6,360
Reputation Power: 374
Status: Offline
Joined: Aug 06, 201212Year Member
Posts: 6,360
Reputation Power: 374
steffess92 wrote
Lecter wrote
steffess92 wrote I have to disagree, humans should be prioritized over animals because 1. They live a hell of a lot longer. and 2. They have the potential to make things happen and do good things for the world. Let's face it, animals are wild and don't know right from wrong.

But what I DO HATE to see is cruelty to animals, I would much rather see the human that's being cruel to animals die rather than the poor defenseless animal.


Galapagos tortoises can live for 170 years.
Should they be prioritized over us?

Potential doesn't make a difference.
I could have the potential to become brilliant at playing the piano, if I don't act on that potential then it might as well have not been there.
The fact that we don't act on our potential, and are still stuck fighting over silly things when we could put all of our energy into working for the future, is why we are not important, or different from animals.


LOL It seems to me that you just hate the world in general, please don't commit suicide and seek professional help.

ON topic: having the potential to be a brilliant piano player doesn't make the world a better place, if you read my post properly you would realize that; and as for tortoises being prioritized that's just silly, I meant animals and general; NOT one specific species...

God... People these days, you contradicted yourself by ranting on people "fighting over silly little things", that my friend is A SILLY LITTLE THING.


I don't hate the world in general, I hate what humans are doing to it.
To me, insanity is looking at a rainforest and thinking, 'What a beautiful wasteland this is going to be.'

The potential to be a piano player was something called an example.
I could have said the potential to be the world's best astrophysicist, chemist, the world's best economic company CEO, the world's best anti-animal cruelty activist, and my point would still be valid.
Humankind doesn't act on the potential that it has, just like if I didn't act on the potential that I had to become any one of those things ^ then the potential would matter.

Animal cruelty and humans destroying the planet is a silly little thing?
Sorry, I'll just go and invent interstellar space travel over a cup of coffee, bye.
#27. Posted:
-Pawn
  • Spooky Poster
Status: Offline
Joined: Jan 15, 201113Year Member
Posts: 2,316
Reputation Power: 119
Status: Offline
Joined: Jan 15, 201113Year Member
Posts: 2,316
Reputation Power: 119
Lecter: Everything you have pointed out is, to say the least, genius. So far everything you've said I can agree with right down to every word. I too believe humankind is a mistake, because we do not fit in this world. Humans simply do not evolve, we just solve problems. Oh you need a way to be warm? Fire. You need a way to do something a lot easier? Industrial Revolution. Of course those examples jump around through time quite a bit, but any semi-intelligent human being could get the jist of what I'm saying.

Humans, for as long as we have existed, have never TRULY evolved. Again as I said above, we just problem solve. Humans are related by 99 percent. If evolution and natural selection occurred to us like it did in animals, how could we all be 99 percent related? Sure, as time passed natural selection would ensue and eventually ensure that we are related on the DNA level by a substantial number, but simply put: We are a mistake.
#28. Posted:
steffess92
  • Powerhouse
Status: Offline
Joined: Nov 14, 201113Year Member
Posts: 481
Reputation Power: 22
Status: Offline
Joined: Nov 14, 201113Year Member
Posts: 481
Reputation Power: 22
Lecter wrote
steffess92 wrote
Lecter wrote
steffess92 wrote I have to disagree, humans should be prioritized over animals because 1. They live a hell of a lot longer. and 2. They have the potential to make things happen and do good things for the world. Let's face it, animals are wild and don't know right from wrong.

But what I DO HATE to see is cruelty to animals, I would much rather see the human that's being cruel to animals die rather than the poor defenseless animal.


Galapagos tortoises can live for 170 years.
Should they be prioritized over us?

Potential doesn't make a difference.
I could have the potential to become brilliant at playing the piano, if I don't act on that potential then it might as well have not been there.
The fact that we don't act on our potential, and are still stuck fighting over silly things when we could put all of our energy into working for the future, is why we are not important, or different from animals.


LOL It seems to me that you just hate the world in general, please don't commit suicide and seek professional help.

ON topic: having the potential to be a brilliant piano player doesn't make the world a better place, if you read my post properly you would realize that; and as for tortoises being prioritized that's just silly, I meant animals and general; NOT one specific species...

God... People these days, you contradicted yourself by ranting on people "fighting over silly little things", that my friend is A SILLY LITTLE THING.


I don't hate the world in general, I hate what humans are doing to it.
To me, insanity is looking at a rainforest and thinking, 'What a beautiful wasteland this is going to be.'

The potential to be a piano player was something called an example.
I could have said the potential to be the world's best astrophysicist, chemist, the world's best economic company CEO, the world's best anti-animal cruelty activist, and my point would still be valid.
Humankind doesn't act on the potential that it has, just like if I didn't act on the potential that I had to become any one of those things ^ then the potential would matter.

Animal cruelty and humans destroying the planet is a silly little thing?
Sorry, I'll just go and invent interstellar space travel over a cup of coffee, bye.


No... I didn't say animal cruelty or humans destroying the planet is "a silly little thing" your taking the whole argument out of context to make it look more in your favor.

I said your tortoise and piano player arguments where silly little things in comparison to what I said, 'two silly examples' is a better way to put it. You still massively contradicted yourself, there's no escaping that with your lengthy andf well written comebacks.

You should be an author
#29. Posted:
Mensch
  • V5 Launch
Status: Offline
Joined: Jan 03, 201113Year Member
Posts: 1,165
Reputation Power: 56
Status: Offline
Joined: Jan 03, 201113Year Member
Posts: 1,165
Reputation Power: 56
All life has value. Some things tend to be worth more than others.
#30. Posted:
-Pawn
  • Spooky Poster
Status: Offline
Joined: Jan 15, 201113Year Member
Posts: 2,316
Reputation Power: 119
Status: Offline
Joined: Jan 15, 201113Year Member
Posts: 2,316
Reputation Power: 119
Mensch wrote All life has value. Some things tend to be worth more than others.


Who has the right to say that one life form has more value than another? I value all life. Ants are life, theoretically they can have just as much value as us. Not all people can agree with that, but I sure believe it.
Jump to:
You are viewing our Forum Archives. To view or take place in current topics click here.