Girl Throws Puppies In River. About To Get Effed By 4Chan

[b._.o._.b]

I want a micropig.

My god, those pigs are cute!! If I was starving, I would definitely eat the cat...

 

[Nova]

I want a micropig.

My god, those pigs are cute!! If I was starving, I would definitely eat the cat...

I'm pretty sure they stay that size for their whole life. They're bred to be that small.

 

[___]

The viewing of certain animals as being more "important" than others is a little puzzling to me. Pigs are generally recognised as being more intelligent than dogs, yet a fair few dog lovers have no problem in tucking into a nice bacon sandwich. So what criteria are we using here? Little pigs are pretty cute too.

Arguments about methods of death being preferable over others strike me as odd... By the time you're in the position to comment, you're incapable of doing so In the case of livestock, the days (weeks or months?) before their deaths are far more cruel than that video in most cases.

Yes that is exactly my opinion, too.

I for one as a vegetarian will tell you this: murdering puppies is no worse than eating a steak.

A cow has much more fat than a puppy. Your argument is a failure.

Also, there's a difference between killing and consuming and animal and tossing it into a river. If she had been barbecuing the puppies over an open fire it would've been a different matter entirely. She's wasting food. I believe this also clears up the argument that we're not keeping people from starving. There's no way to justify throwing a puppy in a river, morally or economically.

I am not sure if you are being serious here. If you are then you must be a bit ignorant. It might make a difference to you how an animal dies but just because you are too weak to admit that there is no difference at all for the animal. I am sure you would not be more pleased being mauled by a bear because it will feed on your dead remains afterwards then being shot for fun by some retard hunter in the back of the woods to brag about how big your head is mounted on his cabin wall.

Anyway: You either eat meat or you don't. It's okay, I do not have a problem with meat eaters. My girlfriend is a meat eater and I will gladly cook up a piece of steak for her as long as I don't have to support the industry myself. It's a personal choice. What I have a problem with is the hypocracy. Don't give me that "but these animals are cuter/more intelligent/less endangered" bullshit because that is not an argument, it's weak. Stand by what you do and don't try to make excuses. And to everybody saying animal life is more precious than human life under whatever circumstances: You are apparently an idiot. how can you consciously say something like that? Animals don't care shit about wether you live or die, humans do. We must preserve the survival of our own species first as we are empathically bound to understand the suffering of our brethren. All pain and suffering we see in animals is measured by human standards. Use your head.

 

[WizardStan]

What I have a problem with is the hypocracy.

I have the exact same problem with vegetarians and their "guilt free grill". When I eat a steak, I freely admit that a cow has died to feed 100 people (or so).
How many rabbits, birds, and mice died in the thresher that collected the grain for that "guilt free" veggie burger?

 

[Orion4874]

People people people...... what does it say about a species knowing the fact that the rest of planet would benefit from their disappearence. If you can't respect all life then you don't respect any of it. Putting humanity on a pedestal is absurd considering our track record!

 

[Exophase]

People people people...... what does it say about a species knowing the fact that the rest of planet would benefit from their disappearence.

I dunno, probably the rest of the planet would benefit from the disappearance of mosquitoes too. Humans on the other hand are capable of and actually have done a lot to improve the planet for everything else on it, not just harm it.

If you can't respect all life then you don't respect any of it.

Please explain this. This sort of statement strikes me as not having any kind of real logical basis.

Putting humanity on a pedestal is absurd considering our track record!

Every species values itself over others. This is the natural order of things. If you can't accept or allow humans considering themselves more important than other lifeforms then what exactly can you accept? Is there any reason for a cat to be more valuable than an ant, or an ant to be more valuable than a blade of grass, or a blade of grass to be more valuable that an amoeba, or an amoeba to be more valuable than a deadly virus, or a deadly virus to be more valuable than a rock, or a rock to be more valuable than inert heat, or inert heat to be more valuable than the vast vacuum of space...

Value given is a statement of fact; humans (typically) value each other more than they do animals, and likewise value dogs and cats more than cows and pigs. That's a fact of life. Other than acknowledging that, I don't really see the basis in the argument for this being "wrong" or "immoral"; if you're going to make claims like this then at least come of with some axioms that can be used to defend it. If you want people to change their ways then you have to convince them that they're violating something that matters to them, that they didn't realize they were violating. Otherwise you're just saying things that are completely arbitrary.

 

[Tom`]

People people people...... what does it say about a species knowing the fact that the rest of planet would benefit from their disappearence.

I dunno, probably the rest of the planet would benefit from the disappearance of mosquitoes too. Humans on the other hand are capable of and actually have done a lot to improve the planet for everything else on it, not just harm it.

I don't know that it's possible to say that the rest of the planet would benefit from the disappearance of any particular species, since everything is connected - for example, there are some species of bats that (IIRC) live on primarily mosquitoes, so they'd have problems with that. I don't think you could say it for humans, either - maybe you could argue that the net impact of humanity has been negative, but that's a much more difficult argument, and runs into issues with how you define things.

Every species values itself over others. This is the natural order of things. If you can't accept or allow humans considering themselves more important than other lifeforms then what exactly can you accept? Is there any reason for a cat to be more valuable than an ant, or an ant to be more valuable than a blade of grass, or a blade of grass to be more valuable that an amoeba, or an amoeba to be more valuable than a deadly virus, or a deadly virus to be more valuable than a rock, or a rock to be more valuable than inert heat, or inert heat to be more valuable than the vast vacuum of space...

Most people accept that humans have a unique position due to things like metacognition, something I don't believe any other species is known to possess. Given that this is the case, then, it is possible to notice trends in nature and work to correct them: for example, other species don't seem to consciously work to preserve other species (even for food), or to remedy overpopulation (if a lion kills a gazelle, it's not because the lion has noticed that there are too many gazelles for the environment to safely support, it's because the lion is hungry).

Once you admit that humans have the responsibility to exercise this power, it logically follows that humans can legitimately make value-decisions regarding other species, whether you agree with them or not.

 

[Orion4874]

People people people...... what does it say about a species knowing the fact that the rest of planet would benefit from their disappearence.

I dunno, probably the rest of the planet would benefit from the disappearance of mosquitoes too. Humans on the other hand are capable of and actually have done a lot to improve the planet for everything else on it, not just harm it.

Actually you'd be wrong in thinking this. As much as we hate mosquitoes they do have their place in the environment. For example, they lay their eggs in rivers and ponds etc. which are eaten by fish, tadpoles, and others. They also pollinate plants in certain areas.
What are these things humans have done to improve the planet? Improve it for ourselves maybe, but that's about it.

If you can't respect all life then you don't respect any of it.

Please explain this. This sort of statement strikes me as not having any kind of real logical basis.

It's simple, life is a chain. You can't remove one link without damaging the entire thing. With the exception of us, every living thing counts on other living things to exist. Not including species and/or breeds that we've manipulated, no wild creatures or plants count on us to exist.

Putting humanity on a pedestal is absurd considering our track record!

Every species values itself over others. This is the natural order of things. If you can't accept or allow humans considering themselves more important than other lifeforms then what exactly can you accept? Is there any reason for a cat to be more valuable than an ant, or an ant to be more valuable than a blade of grass, or a blade of grass to be more valuable that an amoeba, or an amoeba to be more valuable than a deadly virus, or a deadly virus to be more valuable than a rock, or a rock to be more valuable than inert heat, or inert heat to be more valuable than the vast vacuum of space...

No, not every species values itself over others. Animals are instinctual, they don't have time for egomania. I never said I couldn't accept anything. If I couldn't I'd probably be insane by now. The fact that people think they're more important than other lifeforms is at the core of everything that is wrong with the world we live in(don't ask me to list everything).

Value given is a statement of fact; humans (typically) value each other more than they do animals, and likewise value dogs and cats more than cows and pigs. That's a fact of life. Other than acknowledging that, I don't really see the basis in the argument for this being "wrong" or "immoral"; if you're going to make claims like this then at least come of with some axioms that can be used to defend it. If you want people to change their ways then you have to convince them that they're violating something that matters to them, that they didn't realize they were violating. Otherwise you're just saying things that are completely arbitrary.

Yes it is a fact, doesn't mean it's right, and I don't see how you or anyone else would think it's not wrong? When society crumbles because we ran out of oil, or the ice caps melt from global warming and all coastal cities are destroyed, or the other thousand ways we can destroy ourselves and the rest of the planet all because we're of greater importance... you'll see what I mean!
I do wan't people to change, will it happen? I hope so but probably not. People can only cure themselves of ignorance!!!

I'm not trying to attack you Ex, or anyone else here for that matter. I'm kind of passionate about the environment. It pisses me off to see what is likely going to be in our future through no fault but our own, so nobody should take anything too personally!

 

[WizardStan]

It's simple, life is a chain. You can't remove one link without damaging the entire thing. With the exception of us, every living thing counts on other living things to exist. Not including species and/or breeds that we've manipulated, no wild creatures or plants count on us to exist.

Actually, they're already seeing declining fish populations due to increased seal populations due to decreased seal hunting up north. Humans have been hunting seals in that region for thousands of years and have become a part of the ecosystem. Removing the impact of humans there would be similar to removing wolves from the forest; the deer population escalates, plants become overeaten, deer population dies out. I played that simulation game dozens of times in grade school.
You could argue that if humans hadn't started hunting in the first place, we wouldn't have become part of the ecosystem and wouldn't need to keep doing so, to which I will counter that if wolves were vegetarian they wouldn't have to eat deer either and the ecosystem would have evolved without needing them, as well.
Everything is connected in some way, even humans. Remove the humans and there will most definitely be major effects, some for the better, and some for worse, just as there would be if you removed any other animal from the chain.

 

[Orion4874]

It's simple, life is a chain. You can't remove one link without damaging the entire thing. With the exception of us, every living thing counts on other living things to exist. Not including species and/or breeds that we've manipulated, no wild creatures or plants count on us to exist.

Actually, they're already seeing declining fish populations due to increased seal populations due to decreased seal hunting up north. Humans have been hunting seals in that region for thousands of years and have become a part of the ecosystem. Removing the impact of humans there would be similar to removing wolves from the forest; the deer population escalates, plants become overeaten, deer population dies out. I played that simulation game dozens of times in grade school.
You could argue that if humans hadn't started hunting in the first place, we wouldn't have become part of the ecosystem and wouldn't need to keep doing so, to which I will counter that if wolves were vegetarian they wouldn't have to eat deer either and the ecosystem would have evolved without needing them, as well.
Everything is connected in some way, even humans. Remove the humans and there will most definitely be major effects, some for the better, and some for worse, just as there would be if you removed any other animal from the chain.

Oh, I'm sure there will be some immediate impacts. Take rats for example, with no humans to make waste they lose their main food source. Rats wouldn't die out completely, just be regulated according to the environment around them. Same would happen to the seals. Less fish = less seals = normal balance.

 

[Tom`]

Oh, I'm sure there will be some immediate impacts. Take rats for example, with no humans to make waste they lose their main food source. Rats wouldn't die out completely, just be regulated according to the environment around them. Same would happen to the seals. Less fish = less seals = normal balance.

Or more seals = fish hunted to extinction, then seals go extinct from loss of food (I'm not a biologist, maybe they have other food sources, but when one species becomes extinct, more of them often do). Remember, nature doesn't favor some kind of "balance," unless you're speaking purely mathematically. "Nature" is not sentient - there have been many mass extinctions in the past, not caused by humans. That doesn't mean such a circumstance is "good" or "bad" - in the absence of humanity, arguably moral judgments like that are meaningless.

 

[b1ueskycomp1ex]

The viewing of certain animals as being more "important" than others is a little puzzling to me. Pigs are generally recognised as being more intelligent than dogs, yet a fair few dog lovers have no problem in tucking into a nice bacon sandwich. So what criteria are we using here? Little pigs are pretty cute too.

Arguments about methods of death being preferable over others strike me as odd... By the time you're in the position to comment, you're incapable of doing so In the case of livestock, the days (weeks or months?) before their deaths are far more cruel than that video in most cases.

Yes that is exactly my opinion, too.

I for one as a vegetarian will tell you this: murdering puppies is no worse than eating a steak.

A cow has much more fat than a puppy. Your argument is a failure.

Also, there's a difference between killing and consuming and animal and tossing it into a river. If she had been barbecuing the puppies over an open fire it would've been a different matter entirely. She's wasting food. I believe this also clears up the argument that we're not keeping people from starving. There's no way to justify throwing a puppy in a river, morally or economically.

I am not sure if you are being serious here. If you are then you must be a bit ignorant. It might make a difference to you how an animal dies but just because you are too weak to admit that there is no difference at all for the animal. I am sure you would not be more pleased being mauled by a bear because it will feed on your dead remains afterwards then being shot for fun by some retard hunter in the back of the woods to brag about how big your head is mounted on his cabin wall.

Anyway: You either eat meat or you don't. It's okay, I do not have a problem with meat eaters. My girlfriend is a meat eater and I will gladly cook up a piece of steak for her as long as I don't have to support the industry myself. It's a personal choice. What I have a problem with is the hypocracy. Don't give me that "but these animals are cuter/more intelligent/less endangered" bullshit because that is not an argument, it's weak. Stand by what you do and don't try to make excuses. And to everybody saying animal life is more precious than human life under whatever circumstances: You are apparently an idiot. how can you consciously say something like that? Animals don't care shit about wether you live or die, humans do. We must preserve the survival of our own species first as we are empathically bound to understand the suffering of our brethren. All pain and suffering we see in animals is measured by human standards. Use your head.

Did you even read what I wrote? From a moral standpoint to some people drowning a fucking bucket of puppies isn't exactly correct. There are other less painful methods of euthanization, and quite frankly drowning puppies is sort of a Faux pas (and illegal) in a large amount of civilized society. This is a fact. Barring the moral standpoint, it makes no sense economically as you could just as well have EATEN Those puppies. No where in there did I try to make the argument that the puppies would be more satisfied with their death if they had known prior that they were being eaten afterward. I'm not applying human emotions to animals. Only a very small portion of animal life Might have the capacity to understand the concept that they will someday cease to exist. And quite frankly, I'm not sure Human beings have managed to get that far, what with things such as religion that still exist today. But I digress. The point is that your arguments are all shit and the lack of nutrients in your system from malnourishment - due to ingesting nothing but plants - has driven you partially mad. Eat a delicious puppy sandwich and call me in the morning, I'm sure you'll feel better.

 

[WizardStan]

Oh, I'm sure there will be some immediate impacts. Take rats for example, with no humans to make waste they lose their main food source. Rats wouldn't die out completely, just be regulated according to the environment around them. Same would happen to the seals. Less fish = less seals = normal balance.

I propose you could argue the exact same thing for the removal of mosquitos, or wolves, or any other animal: there would be an immediate impact, but eventually a new order would be established that is radically different from the one before it. I don't understand how the immediate impact and ultimate change to the ecosystem from the removal of all humans is different than a similar change that would result from the removal of any other animal.

 

[Orion4874]

Oh, I'm sure there will be some immediate impacts. Take rats for example, with no humans to make waste they lose their main food source. Rats wouldn't die out completely, just be regulated according to the environment around them. Same would happen to the seals. Less fish = less seals = normal balance.

Or more seals = fish hunted to extinction, then seals go extinct from loss of food (I'm not a biologist, maybe they have other food sources, but when one species becomes extinct, more of them often do). Remember, nature doesn't favor some kind of "balance," unless you're speaking purely mathematically. "Nature" is not sentient - there have been many mass extinctions in the past, not caused by humans. That doesn't mean such a circumstance is "good" or "bad" - in the absence of humanity, arguably moral judgments like that are meaningless.

But you also have to take into consideration that there isn't one big area where all the seals and all the fish congregate. There's populations here and there. The fish in one area disappear, then the seals, fish from another area will move in since there's no predators, so-on and so-forth. So eventually a balance would be reached, granted not before a substantial dying off. The chain of life, even nature itself is a balance and a very fragile one at that. How many things have to be just right for this planet to even be able to support life?
True, natural disasters are not good or bad, it's just natural selection. But our hand has caused many extinctions and environmental disasters, these are most assuredly bad and could have been avoided.

 

[Orion4874]

Oh, I'm sure there will be some immediate impacts. Take rats for example, with no humans to make waste they lose their main food source. Rats wouldn't die out completely, just be regulated according to the environment around them. Same would happen to the seals. Less fish = less seals = normal balance.

I propose you could argue the exact same thing for the removal of mosquitos, or wolves, or any other animal: there would be an immediate impact, but eventually a new order would be established that is radically different from the one before it. I don't understand how the immediate impact and ultimate change to the ecosystem from the removal of all humans is different than a similar change that would result from the removal of any other animal.

This may be a fact or just my opinion but humanity has effectively removed themselves, for all intents and purposes, from said ecosystem through our technology and population size. If you kill humanity there will be some extinctions but only because we put those species in extinction's crosshairs prior to our own disappearance.

In the end I suppose all of this is conjecture since the only way for these things to be proven would be for all of us to die!

 

[Tom`]

But you also have to take into consideration that there isn't one big area where all the seals and all the fish congregate. There's populations here and there. The fish in one area disappear, then the seals, fish from another area will move in since there's no predators, so-on and so-forth. So eventually a balance would be reached, granted not before a substantial dying off. The chain of life, even nature itself is a balance and a very fragile one at that. How many things have to be just right for this planet to even be able to support life?
True, natural disasters are not good or bad, it's just natural selection. But our hand has caused many extinctions and environmental disasters, these are most assuredly bad and could have been avoided.

There is no "balance" until you look at an ecosystem that is viable, and say "it's viable, so a balance exists." You don't know how many species became extinct before one evolved that could take advantage of the conditions that existed when you looked at it. To say that an extinction caused by nature is morally neutral while one caused by humans is "bad" is to make an invalid comparison, since humans are part of nature just as anything else is. You can only say that a particular circumstance affects a certain species or ecosystem positively or negatively according to criteria you've previously established; it is futile to attempt to label anything as "bad" or "good."

 

[Orion4874]

But you also have to take into consideration that there isn't one big area where all the seals and all the fish congregate. There's populations here and there. The fish in one area disappear, then the seals, fish from another area will move in since there's no predators, so-on and so-forth. So eventually a balance would be reached, granted not before a substantial dying off. The chain of life, even nature itself is a balance and a very fragile one at that. How many things have to be just right for this planet to even be able to support life?
True, natural disasters are not good or bad, it's just natural selection. But our hand has caused many extinctions and environmental disasters, these are most assuredly bad and could have been avoided.

There is no "balance" until you look at an ecosystem that is viable, and say "it's viable, so a balance exists." You don't know how many species became extinct before one evolved that could take advantage of the conditions that existed when you looked at it. To say that an extinction caused by nature is morally neutral while one caused by humans is "bad" is to make an invalid comparison, since humans are part of nature just as anything else is. You can only say that a particular circumstance affects a certain species or ecosystem positively or negatively according to criteria you've previously established; it is futile to attempt to label anything as "bad" or "good."

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. IMO, an ecosystem is viable if there is life, period. How many prior species that have gone extinct is irrelevant since we don't know why they went extinct.
This may just be my belief but humans have detached themselves from nature based on the fact that we have the power to overcome natural selection. We can attempt and even succeed in stopping our own demise. No other form of life can say the same.

 

[Tom`]

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. IMO, an ecosystem is viable if there is life, period. How many prior species that have gone extinct is irrelevant since we don't know why they went extinct.
This may just be my belief but humans have detached themselves from nature based on the fact that we have the power to overcome natural selection. We can attempt and even succeed in stopping our own demise. No other form of life can say the same.

Er, what? Show me an immortal human and maybe I'll believe you.

Seriously, though, humans are certainly not immune to natural selection. Why do you think we are?

 

[Exophase]

I think he's saying that we've largely learned how to prevent ourselves from being mauled by lions. But we still become worm-food when we die. I doubt a lot of elephants were getting killed by other species either, what's the big deal?

 

[Orion4874]

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. IMO, an ecosystem is viable if there is life, period. How many prior species that have gone extinct is irrelevant since we don't know why they went extinct.
This may just be my belief but humans have detached themselves from nature based on the fact that we have the power to overcome natural selection. We can attempt and even succeed in stopping our own demise. No other form of life can say the same.

Er, what? Show me an immortal human and maybe I'll believe you.

Seriously, though, humans are certainly not immune to natural selection. Why do you think we are?

I meant that we can try to prevent our own extinction. We can come up with vaccines for disease, even shoot nukes at asteroids headed our way. Hell, if we make it long enough without destroying ourselves who knows where our technology can take us. Weather control, prevention of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, the possiblities boggle the mind. Granted, at the present time we are not fully immune to natural selection.... at least not yet!

I have read articles on the possibility of medical science granting people immortality in the future. Fascinating stuff actually.


I do believe that was the first time I've been ninja'd!