[Matt]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Prove it, the only basis we have to go on is our own sense of compassion, which depends on our own perspective, which for me involves enjoying a usually quick death rather than a shadow of an existence. That is, unless you read deer minds, in which case I'll cede the point and to their wishes.

So you are saying you would rather die then live with out balls (I'm assuming you are a guy)?

I can only prove it with common sense. Common sense=choice between dead or alive....choose alive. We know most of us would rather have a life missing balls, then death. We all know (hopefully) that life isn't all about sex and mating (though I'm sure some guys would argue that....).



Next time I see a deer, I'll be sure to ask him what he would like.

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary You'd rather have your bowels ripped out while you are still alive than take a bullet to the heart or lung and die within all likelyhood in a few minutes, wow, you're sommpassionate. I'd also like to point out that a deer probably doesn't see it that way, as it most likely would deny a wolf a meal any chance it got.

I don't think cougars have changed to that way of killing....or is that a new trend on the front page news? Cougars in places where they still exsist (they have basically be killed off in the east, by no other, but humans) are thee biggest predator of deer. Wolves do kill deer, but not to the same extent (they like going after elk). Wolves kill pretty fast in most cases (with deer)...probably on average equal to a hunters bullet. Also, alot of bullets aren't placed in the heart or lungs, and it can cause a very painful death if a bullet is misplaced.

Quote by: guitars_are_fly Surely, we're not debating that plants are entitled to civil rights? That would be completely stupid. Of course they don't. They don't think. They don't reason. They don't communicate. It seems like we should be debating whether or not killing animals for enjoyment is right or wrong. If that's the debate, I have to say that no animal-- not even an entire population of animals -- is equal to one of any of the least of the human species. It is a grim reflection on our human culture that we question the rights of animals to their life, but deny the rights of fellow men. I suppose my point is thus: What is the difference between a cow and a human? Let's explore that: A cow is not a human. It is not of the species Homo sapiens. It does not "think" or "reason" beyond a limited scope, and no amount of bovine physical or mental development will render a cow able to do think or reason. Cows were domesticated by humans. Cows have been consumed by humans for food for thousands of years. Humans are human. They are of the species Homo sapiens. They are able to think and reason -- to extreme degrees -- and from the womb, display faculties to develop mental capacities surpassing the smartest of lesser species. Humans domesticated cows. We have been eating them for food for thousands of years. There will never be a Great Cow Rebellion, where frustrated members of some factious Bovine Alliance will rise up against the tyrannical oppression of the "greater species." Animals serve a succint purpose: they create a food chain. At the bottom of the food chain, dirt is eaten by worms. At the top, everything palatable is eaten by humans. We are THE apex predator. Generally speaking, we always have been. No one can reasonably contend that your average human technology is threatened by your average primate technology. Look at it like this: predators are equipped with weapons by nature. All of our are. Lions have big, pointy teeth. Tigers have big, pointy claws. Sharks have a whole bunch of big, pointy teeth. Humans have intellects. Humans have the capacity to create weapons. That is our greatest weapon: our intellect. Our minds place us atop any food chain. Cows did not invent the wheel. Pigs did not harness fire. Deer did not invent automobiles. Rabbits did not build cities. Monkies did not put a man on the moon. Donkeys did not elect George W. Bush president. (Elephants did.)

Umm...and your point is? Lets use your 'a human is more important then a entire population' logic...see how it goes:

You have a choice...kill every cougar everywhere or a human. With what you said, you would choose to kill every cougar. Now what happens...let examine it...

Every cougar on the earth is killed, you create outrage among millions of people because of your choice. A few years later, people start noticing very high populations of deer, everywhere. The ecosystem is very out of balance, and theres not enough hunters to keep the populations down. The deer run everywhere, even on the highway it great numbers, more then before. A family of 5 is just heading to a relatives place for Christmas...a deer runs into the middle of the road...the car crashes into it...and the front page news story reads "2 Chlidren killed in deer accident". Just like that, you have taken one more human life then you saved, not the mention all the other crashes and deaths which have happened with the heightened population. I know alot of deer crashes happen now, but the numbers would be doubled if not tripled with out cougars and wolves.

Cows did not cause global warming.
Dogs didn't cause AIDs to sweep all over Africa.
Sharks didn't make polution a killer in big cities.
Cats were never part of the Halocaust.
Snakes never caused the slaughtering of Rwanda people.
Gorillas never throwed nuclear bombs on cities.
Goldfish never started the first World War.

And I could just go on and on...