U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Philosophy
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-21-2016, 11:09 PM
 
Location: Pacific 🌉 N, 🌄W
11,040 posts, read 4,769,054 times
Reputation: 7060

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stymie13 View Post
On a personal note, tell your sister way to go. And get the boy a cat.
Why give a severely retarded kid an animal that it might harm, torture or abuse? That's a very bad suggestion...no cat deserves that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-21-2016, 11:59 PM
 
Location: louisville
4,754 posts, read 1,996,675 times
Reputation: 1713
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora View Post
Why give a severely retarded kid an animal that it might harm, torture or abuse? That's a very bad suggestion...no cat deserves that.
Animals can be very therapeutic. Some mentally challenged are extremely loving. He may have downs... I wouldn't ask a stranger. The parents and relatives will know the situation.

The 3 kids I know with downs i would trust them with my cat. Now other forms, not so much.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2016, 12:15 AM
 
Location: Pacific 🌉 N, 🌄W
11,040 posts, read 4,769,054 times
Reputation: 7060
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stymie13 View Post
Animals can be very therapeutic. Some mentally challenged are extremely loving. He may have downs... I wouldn't ask a stranger. The parents and relatives will know the situation.

The 3 kids I know with downs i would trust them with my cat. Now other forms, not so much.
I understand how therapeutic animals are. However to give a "severely retarded" kid an animal is wrong on many levels. Downs syndrome has a wide range of severity. I would shudder to see anyone give a kid with serious Downs syndrome a cat. Cat's don't thrive well in those types of environments. It's not all about how dispensable a cat or any animal is for the sake of a severely retarded kids therapy. There are other forms of therapy besides an innocent creature that can't escape the hell it's been placed in.

So many humans are just disappointing in the way the view animals.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2016, 12:29 AM
 
Location: louisville
4,754 posts, read 1,996,675 times
Reputation: 1713
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora View Post
I understand how therapeutic animals are. However to give a "severely retarded" kid an animal is wrong on many levels. Downs syndrome has a wide range of severity. I would shudder to see anyone give a kid with serious Downs syndrome a cat. Cat's don't thrive well in those types of environments. It's not all about how dispensable a cat or any animal is for the sake of a severely retarded kids therapy. There are other forms of therapy besides an innocent creature that can't escape the hell it's been placed in.

So many humans are just disappointing in the way the view animals.
On that last sentence, I couldn't agree more.

I'm very clinical with dx's. I actually didn't like hearing the word retarded. But it's not my family.

Maybe I should have said 'get him a service dog. A great big one.' That way the dog could fend for himself.

I do get your concern. Sorry if it was offensive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2016, 01:42 AM
 
Location: Pacific 🌉 N, 🌄W
11,040 posts, read 4,769,054 times
Reputation: 7060
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clintone View Post
They don't care about passing on their genes.
You are a very poor reader. I never once said animals "cared" about passing on their genes. No more than we do. All animals that are normally functioning go into heat and mate. There you have it...genes being passed on virtually by means of animals going into heat and mating. You have a lot of knowledge deficits. I don't know how you made it this far in life with so much lack of basic knowledge. Sure some plan to have a child and some plan it just so they can pass on their gene pool. But most are not thinking this specifically when the choose to bring a child into the world. I would be willing to bet more children are conceived during a moment of heat vs. planning for a child. Do you understand now how it works?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clintone View Post
They care about pain, and nervousness, and things they enjoy (like my dog Rosie used to love swimming). My dog didn't care about the survival of her genes. The very idea that the continuation of the species is a positive thing is a human concept.
Wrong again. It's only your misinformed concept. No human that I know has ever made this claim other than you. The end product of successful evolution for any surviving species is the passing on of genes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clintone View Post
Maybe it would have been better for society if I weren't born either.
Ya think?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clintone View Post
But...if it can be best if humans weren't born, what's wrong with ending the life cycles of nonhumans, necessarily, if we figure out their lives often aren't worth living?
I would seriously seek help if I were you. Your thoughts are disjointed and nonsensical.

If a human is not born then they are not born. This has NOTHING to do with ending the life of any living species, simply because you deem their life is not worth living, or simply because they are an animal that you despise, or for whatever bizarre reason you think they don't deserve to live. See how sick this thought process is? Who are you do deem that non-human carnivores deserve to be euthanized? There is something really wrong with you and I would seek a good psychiatrist if I were you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clintone View Post
If a wolf eats a rabbit...that's harming the rabbit. That you claim "There is nothing harming them or their ecosystems other than humans" makes you sound to me as about as trustworthy as a homeless person on the street corner warning everyone about the apocalypse.
My point, that you keep missing, is that the way animals exist in nature... is simply how life works. It's the product of evolution, and life. It's called survival of the fittest...it's what drives evolution. It's just the way the world turns in the animal kingdom. Humans have the same exact behaviors that they carry out on fellow humans and animals...so lets just euthanize them all according to your logic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clintone View Post
You think my posts scream "I have dangerous thoughts in thinking we have the right to control the animal kingdom"
They scream this and much much more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clintone View Post
How about when my sister went on a trip to save sea lion pups? She got bit a lot, and she fed them with bottles and her and a group of her friends saved a bunch of sea lion pups...hopefully. Isn't that a type of control, a type of interfering?
I would not call it control but feeding them might or might not help them. Same can be said for feeding starving humans who can't help themselves...is it really helping or propagating the issue...meaning prolonging their suffering by keeping them alive so they can continue suffering with no hope of ever being able to help themselves. It's a doggy dog world. When we let nature take it's course sometimes it's good sometimes it's bad. That's just life. How did you get to your age and not understand these basic concepts? Seriously something is wrong with you and I urge you to seek help.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clintone View Post
We already mess with nature. We can't help it.
Yes we can help it. We don't have to harm the environment or other animals and other humans. We can indeed help it. Again this is another example of serious knowledge deficits on your part.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clintone View Post
We live in nature.
No we don't live in nature. Most live in some type of housing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clintone View Post
We use nature for resources. We're already in charge.
Again more serious deficits. We are not in charge of nature. Where do you get this from?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clintone View Post
We can either ignore that or accept that, and if we ignore that...that's just inaction.
I will just ignore your bizarre comments that are nonsensical. No we are not in charge of nature.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clintone View Post
It's not removing the fact that we're largely in charge. I would say we have no choice but to control the animal kingdom.
I say you don't have a clue what you are talking about. We don't control the weather. We don't control most wild animals on land or in the ocean.

Good luck in your odd world of delusional control ideas.

No we don't control the Animal Kingdom no more than we control the Sun, Moon or weather. I am thankful I have never come across a another soul like yours. Your posts are truly disturbing.

I hope you seriously consider getting some sort of professional help. Show them your posts in this thread.

Last edited by Matadora; 06-22-2016 at 03:11 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2016, 01:45 AM
 
Location: Pacific 🌉 N, 🌄W
11,040 posts, read 4,769,054 times
Reputation: 7060
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stymie13 View Post
On that last sentence, I couldn't agree more.

I'm very clinical with dx's. I actually didn't like hearing the word retarded. But it's not my family.

Maybe I should have said 'get him a service dog. A great big one.' That way the dog could fend for himself.

I do get your concern. Sorry if it was offensive.
I say no animal for a "severely retarded" kid...think of the animals peace of mind.

I just wished humans would leave animals alone...if you can't provide a safe peaceful haven for them. We have no right to wrongfully impose our will on any sentient creature.

Last edited by Matadora; 06-22-2016 at 02:53 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2016, 05:05 AM
 
Location: Subconscious Syncope, USA (Northeastern US)
2,367 posts, read 1,624,949 times
Reputation: 3814
There is a lot to overcome and prepare for with bringing the idea to successful fruition. You need a self-renewing fuel source for the ship, that has to never fail for possibly decades. You need food and provisions for 1,000 people and a place to store it, or a biosphere to develop it in self-sufficiently. A renewable source of water. Waste processing. All the basic needs and services man has developed here on Earth.

I would think it would be difficult to find a human life supporting planet that has not evolved its own life forms. Does the ship keep going then? Do the inhabitants of the ship try for peaceful colonization anyway? If successful in co-habitation of the planet for a time, then eventually war to control that planet and it resources?

The whole thing is an extremely complex and ambitious idea.

Last edited by ConeyGirl52; 06-22-2016 at 05:45 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2016, 06:45 AM
 
Location: Southern Colorado
3,558 posts, read 1,746,168 times
Reputation: 4564
Of course I support this. Good chance this will be necessary someday in the future.


SJWs may scream bloody murder but I am sure the criteria for acceptance will be pretty high considering that only a very tiny fraction can be carried away.

The question then becomes, what will be the criteria for acceptance?

I will make a suggestion.....no politicians or lawyers. Or....no authoritarian psychopaths. No stalkers...real world or internet.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2016, 05:25 PM
 
Location: Missouri, USA
4,242 posts, read 2,941,380 times
Reputation: 1978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stymie13 View Post
Kids are more important than 42 year olds and cats are more important than me.

Don't quite get the euthanizing carnivores but sterilizing herbivores but that discussion is between you 2. On s personal note, tell your sister way to go. And get the boy a cat.
That's nice of you.

It's actually my sister's boyfriend's brother. He's about 30.

Regarding the part about euthanizing carnivores but sterilizing herbivores:

I had this idea that someday, far in the future, humans might leave Earth and live elsewhere. After that, our descendants might painlessly euthanize nonhuman carnivores on Earth and sterilize many herbivores. They'd euthanize the carnivores so that herbivores wouldn't suffer from being eaten. They'd sterilize many of the herbivores to avoid overpopulation and the resulting suffering from starvation and disease caused by overpopulation.

The whole goal would be to minimize suffering for nonhuman animals while keeping some of them still around.

I deleted that because it's a sloppy, disturbing idea. Matadora quoted it before it was deleted.

There's no point to even considering doing it now, and quite possibly never. I don't know what it's like to live as a nonhuman. I don't feel I'm knowledgeable enough to decide what animal species should go extinct, and even if I were, there would be a number of other factors that would make it a bad idea, such as the havoc wrought on the ecosystem, people enjoying wildlife and nature and not wanting it euthanized, etc.

It would be a terrible idea, and I've never said otherwise...but I mentioned thinking about it, which caused Matadora to perceive me as Satan.

So now, I'm defending the idea, not because I think it's a good one, but in the sense that I don't think anyone who mentions the idea on a forum intended for the discussion of ideas is Satan. Matadora evidently disagrees. But...feel no need to take sides.

I don't understand much of her thought process. Maybe she's irritated because I referred to her as a troll when she compared my thought process to Hitler's, and I tended to respond to respond to her insults and describing me as a "monster killer" with sarcasm. She also typed something that seemed to me like she wanted to feed me to her pet big cat. Maybe it was a puma or panther or something. I forget. I don't have much patience with her now

I'd have no problem being friends with her though...assuming she ceases thinking of me as Satan at some point. I also kind of enjoy the fact that everything I type seems to infuriate her. I find that extremely amusing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2016, 10:19 PM
 
Location: Missouri, USA
4,242 posts, read 2,941,380 times
Reputation: 1978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora View Post
You are a very poor reader. I never once said animals "cared" about passing on their genes.
I was not responding to something specific that you typed. I was responding to a type of perspective you seem to hold. It seems like, from the posts you've typed on this thread, you care about whether or not species go extinct. Am I wrong? I think most people do. I do too...but I'm wondering if we care about that for different reasons. I care about species going extinct because of its affect on the environment. I do, however, think that there are many organisms that don't care whether or not their the rest of their species goes extinct, and even the social organisms will often be aggressive to members of their own species outside their pack/group/whatever. That's why, if it doesn't affect the environment too negatively, I don't care much whether a species goes extinct, because the animals probably don't. The whole idea of a species/DNA/complex thoughts about the continuation of their legacy probably doesn't exist to them.

Now, if we're talking about the forceful breaking up of bonobo groups that may shatter the familial bonds of the group. All sorts of animals can suffer. Though I think there is good reason to assume many insects don't feel pain, I've heard of tests that hint at even bees being able to feel forms of stress. That's the sort of stuff I'm concerned about...although I do eat meat. I don't care a huge amount about species going extinct though, unless it affects the environment greatly negatively.

Quote:
No more than we do. All animals that are normally functioning go into heat and mate. There you have it...genes being passed on virtually by means of animals going into heat and mating. You have a lot of knowledge deficits. I don't know how you made it this far in life with so much lack of basic knowledge. Sure some plan to have a child and some plan it just so they can pass on their gene pool. But most are not thinking this specifically when the choose to bring a child into the world. I would be willing to bet more children are conceived during a moment of heat vs. planning for a child. Do you understand now how it works?
I don't know if that's correct or not, but I think that's getting less and less true all the time. In poor environments that are driven by tradition, where the people depend entirely on their children to care for them in old age, and many of their children will die, they'll be popping out children like crazy. However, once people gain access to contraception, and better standards of living, and the cost of raising children goes up because parents seriously consider college for their children, you'll see people having far fewer children. That's an advantage humans have. We can use our minds to plan that. I would say that oftentimes couples don't think "let's have sex to make a baby" but instead think "Oops! I'm pregnant, but we love each other, so this isn't a bad thing." However, those are still often couples doing that, and if not, they'd probably just get an abortion unless it's for religious reasons. That's another advantage humans have.

Quote:
Wrong again. It's only your misinformed concept. No human that I know has ever made this claim other than you. The end product of successful evolution for any surviving species is the passing on of genes.
I don't know what you mean when you claim I am wrong. My statement you responded to was this:

They care about pain, and nervousness, and things they enjoy (like my dog Rosie used to love swimming). My dog didn't care about the survival of her genes. The very idea that the continuation of the species is a positive thing is a human concept.

Are you saying you don't believe nonhuman animals suffer? Are you saying that I'm merely guessing about what they feel? If you're saying that I'm merely guessing about what nonhuman animals feel, I agree...but I see plenty of signs that they're happy or nervous or whatever.

Are you saying that they do care about the continuation of their species and the survival of their genes? If you're saying that, I would say that they care about procreation, finding a mate, and sometimes caring for their young, but that's not caring about their genes. That's caring about procreation.

Are you saying they care about the continuation of their species? Alright, that works,...in the sense that they are a part of their species and they would probably be averse to being eaten by someone or something, or in the sense that social organisms like dolphins will care for their pod. Some social organisms may even long for some others of their kind merely because they are members of their species...but many organisms will be hostile to other members of their species outside their group. I would think the continuation of the species being a positive thing is a very human concept, for the most part.

Quote:
Ya think?


I would seriously seek help if I were you. Your thoughts are disjointed and nonsensical.


If a human is not born then they are not born. This has NOTHING to do with ending the life of any living species, simply because you deem their life is not worth living, or simply because they are an animal that you despise, or for whatever bizarre reason you think they don't deserve to live. See how sick this thought process is? Who are you do deem that non-human carnivores deserve to be euthanized? There is something really wrong with you and I would seek a good psychiatrist if I were you.
I'm a thinker, and therefore I'm a lot smarter than unintelligent Darwinian evolution. It has no brain to reason with. I do. I'll often be the better decision maker than something without a brain. I'm also smarter than many of those carnivores. I have the ability to learn about them. That ability allows be to grow exponentially smarter than them.

Quote:
My point, that you keep missing, is that the way animals exist in nature... is simply how life works. It's the product of evolution, and life. It's called survival of the fittest...it's what drives evolution. It's just the way the world turns in the animal kingdom. Humans have the same exact behaviors that they carry out on fellow humans and animals...so lets just euthanize them all according to your logic.
I understand your point. I just see your point as flawed. Evolution is often not a good thing. I don't think humans do have the exact behaviors they carry out on their fellow humans, at least not as often. We've learned empathy for our fellow humans. Maybe it's just because westerners have more resources than their ancestors that was why we outlawed slavery, but still we've changed. That is an advantage we have over nonhumans, so far as I can see.

Winning the survival of the fittest is not a reason to see the winner as having positive traits. Humans tried that, and often still do. Social Darwinism. It resulted in little kids working in factories and losing limbs.

I think one reason we shouldn't euthanize humans is that, It seems like many nonhuman animals don't understand the concept of death to me. Therefore, do they fear death, or do they just dislike the suffering that tends to come with it? If they're not social organisms, they probably won't miss the members of their species that are gone either. If I go around euthanizing humans, first of all, I'll be put in jail or maybe given the death penalty. Second of all, that would spread terror throughout human society. That's also why I wouldn't want to forcefully separate a bonobo family, by the way. We'd lose our sense of relaxation and stability and be living in perpetual fear. Society might collapse/etc. Third, there aren't many humans I know of who wouldn't cause society some type of harm if they died. There are some slime balls out there, but even the slime balls, unless they are enormous slime balls will tend to have families/loved ones/etc.

Quote:
They scream this and much much more.
I would not call it control but feeding them might or might not help them. Same can be said for feeding starving humans who can't help themselves...is it really helping or propagating the issue...meaning prolonging their suffering by keeping them alive so they can continue suffering with no hope of ever being able to help themselves. It's a doggy dog world. When we let nature take it's course sometimes it's good sometimes it's bad. That's just life. How did you get to your age and not understand these basic concepts? Seriously something is wrong with you and I urge you to seek help.
Yes we can help it. We don't have to harm the environment or other animals and other humans. We can indeed help it. Again this is another example of serious knowledge deficits on your part.
No we don't live in nature. Most live in some type of housing.
Again more serious deficits. We are not in charge of nature. Where do you get this from?
I will just ignore your bizarre comments that are nonsensical. No we are not in charge of nature.
I say you don't have a clue what you are talking about. We don't control the weather. We don't control most wild animals on land or in the ocean.

Good luck in your odd world of delusional control ideas.

No we don't control the Animal Kingdom no more than we control the Sun, Moon or weather. I am thankful I have never come across a another soul like yours. Your posts are truly disturbing.

I hope you seriously consider getting some sort of professional help. Show them your posts in this thread.
We live in nature. You'll find grass and squirrels and insects even around apartment buildings. We rely on nature for medicine, food, and all sorts of resources, and we will tend to take those resources. We can create national parks and wildlife preserves, but I think we are tied to nature whether we like it or not. We strive to control the spread of destructive foreign insects, and fish (oftentimes that humans spread to the environment in the first place). We study nature to attempt to cure tree diseases and etc.

I think we control much of nature. Human beings made the dust bowl happen, in the U.S. in the 1930s and they learned to plant more trees at the edges of their fields to keep that from happening again, so far as I understand. It worked. I think we're interlocked with nature. We study it to learn about global warming. We have endangered species lists. We're caught in it. I think we could knock all the major forests down with little trouble, and the reason some of them are still around is because of restraint. I think we're therefore in control of much of it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Philosophy
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:16 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top