IrresistibleB1tch said:

In their respective environments, yes. But I'm looking globally. We are the rulers, or more aptly, stewards of the world. We are the most evolved. We run things.

We decide what lives, what dies, and under what conditions.

Yes, we should value all beings.

Yes it is a choice to kill.

But let's guide our choice not just with sentimentality, but with practicality. It is practical to want a warm cloak that is also beautiful and of quality material.

It is practical to want protein and dairy as sources of vital nutrition.

Humans must put logic/practicality before emotion.

IrresistibleB1tch said:

If the animals feel no or very little pain, it's acceptable to me. I'll have to research the electrocution more. Gassing seems permissible. Just because it looks heinous to us doesn't mean the animal is feeling pain.

Plus, animals can withstand pain. We seek to be humane not really for them, but for us. They are used to being torn asunder in the wild. But if we lose our delicate feelings for Life then we become heathen and lowly, dispicable creatures.

Merciful is that which therefore allows us to be less brutal and less sadistic as a high species.
[Edited 9/5/05 9:48am]

SynthiaRose said:

Typical arrogant, holier-than-thou, backwards human thinking...
If it's OK to make a coat out of baby animals, traumatize the parents and then act as if nothing happened then it should be perfectly OK to make a coat out of human babies, traumatize the parents and if they start whining just bitch-slap them and tell them to just make a new one...

Neversin.[/quote]

I always think wearing fur is morally wrong (and have never worn any), but there will always be a demand for it regardless of how wrong we think it is, I think it's unrealistic to think that it would ever stop completely so I think there should be a heavier emphasis on 'merciful killing'. Which in itself sounds ridiculous...but probably more achievable

Neversin said:

Neversin, you can't equate the life of a lamb or mink, baby or not, with a human life.

We are the higher species. All life is valuable, but the value applied to life increases in direct relation to the greatness of the species.

Arrogant, perhaps. But that's the reality.

I feel for the animals that are traumatized, but Nature is, as I've said, vicious. Trauma is a part of all life.

SynthiaRose said:

What kind of retarded bullshit is this??
"We are higher species"?! We aren't even in tune with nature, how's that for higher??
Humans still are the weakest species on this planet (put a human in a jungle and see how long he'll last... Or better yet expose them to a virus and see how weak and low they are...)

Neversin.

doggonewalkies said:

I agree, I have issue with the needless use of animals, and in my opinion clothes do not constitute a good and productive use of animals. We can send probes to mars, so we all know there are fabrics that are much more suitable than any animal skin for clothes.
However, animals for food is a little more blurred to me I would find it difficult to avoid eating meat, and I am sure I have eaten meat where if I had seen how it was killed would cause me to feel ill.
There are other ways to survive, meatless ways, but my concerns would be mainly to do with my health.
If you had a link to a meatless, balanced diet, I sure would consider it.
But I don't like cheese, and some other dairy products, which has put me off a veggie diet before.
But please do not think I am happy to see an animal killed or tortured in a drastict way.
There seems to be a lil debate going on here, and like I said, at least we could all agree, pro fur, or no-pro fur that the animal in question should at least be dead before its skin is removed
[Edited 9/5/05 9:00am]

Neversin said:

But, put a human in the jungle with some training and knowledge, and he could survive quite happily anywhere.
I would love to live in the jungle as long as Ray Mears was with me

We are a higher species, and as such should use the knowledge and understanding of our world to ensure the planets survival, not just for us but for the planet as a whole. We could achive this, but are not at the present stage of human development. Maybe we will one day
[Edited 9/5/05 8:55am]

Neversin said:

We should be in tune with Nature.
We are truly out of tune, as Wordsworth has penned in The World is Too Much With Us (one of my favorite poems). That's a travesty.

Anyway .. back to the higher species argument.

Put man in the jungle with some tools -- or forget that ... he can make some -- a reasoning mind, some wood and other natural resources that are in the jungle. And he can strategize for his survival in a way that no other animal could.

Don't ever devalue the potential of the human species. People do every day and live horribly lowly, regrettable lives because they don't even understand their true capabilities.

The human creature is the greatest evolved thus far. I am in love with the species. I worship it. No matter the physical weakness, put the mental, psychological, spiritual, emotional, conceptual, artistic abilities together and we outrank everything.

We are defeating many viruses and in time the species will defeat more.
[Edited 9/5/05 9:07am]

SynthiaRose said:

Bold statement for someone who obviously is clueless about, for example, life miles below the sea's surface...


There are insects that are more original artistically than humans...
And what do you know about animal's spirituality or even psychology to make a statement like that? Did you study every single living organism in this world to come to that guess?


And those virii will keep evolving and exist to keep those humans on their toes...

Neversin.

AdamB said:

good news - there are plenty of great man-made fabrics, well beyond what we think of as polyester leisure suits! living cruelty-free has never been easier.



here are some great links - let me know if you want additional information! thanks for being open to a compassionate lifestyle!


http://www.vrg.org/

http://www.veganoutreach.org/index.html

http://www.vegsoc.org/cor...index.html

Neversin said:

Neversin, we're just going to be forever in opposition.

I am aware that there is life miles beneath the sea. I've watched science programs which suggest there are countless species in the sea we may never be able to discover until we can descend to greater depths.


There is evolution that is more efficient, but not greater in sum than humans' evolution.

When a species dethrones our rule, I'll change my mind. That's not going to happen with an earth species ... at least not in this eon.

Insects might be creative ... but art is the product of a conceptual mind. (at least before it was desecreted by pop artists). They are not more artistic.

SynthiaRose said:

Maybe true, but then again keep in mind that the concept of art was made up by humans to make themselves feel special and therefore is quite useless and unimportant...

Neversin.

As Violett would say - Fur Fucks Sake

IrresistibleB1tch said:

Thanks for helping out

I'll be honest and say I'm not certain I will change, but at least I have some good information to be able to make a considered choice.

Cheers IB

Neversin said:

I may be a lil ignorant here, so sorry in advance if this appears so, but is not all art mearly a representation of thoughts, however mankind may view it now, and however esteemed we may try to make it.
With that in mind, I struggle to find any representations of recorded thought in the animal world.
Recorded thought, be it art, or text for the use of passing on knowledge, does separate ourselves somewhat from the rest of the species in this world. This recorded thought is how we are able to make considered points and views, even on this thread.

And please, rip my statement to bits if there is something you could add. I'm just puzzlin a lil here, and am always open to learn stuff from other people.

AdamB said:

Read up on dolphins and whales...

Neversin.
[Edited 9/5/05 10:39am]

Neversin said:

I think I understand your point with Dolphin etc, however learned behaviour is different to recorded thoughts and behaviours.
There are plenty of creatures that are able to learn, and indeed have there own cultures, chimpanzees would be another example.
But still I am unaware of any recorded thoughts, external from the mind and body of an animal, other than that of humans.

AdamB said:

Aren't whale "songs" a form of recorded thoughts?

Neversin.

No, they are not I dont think. Whale song is a learnt behaviour. In the same way that a killer whale teaches its young offspring to semi beach itself to catch young seals on the beach.
Another example would be the culture surrounding some Chimpanzee troops. They use a variety of tools, twigs to pick out termites, or a hammer to break nuts to eat. Although these learnt behaviours are incredible to see, there is a clear difference between a person who decides to draw his hunting party chasing down an Elland, as cavemen used to do, and the passing down of knowledge by teaching another what you know, as is the case with the whales etc.

However, I would add that my point comes with a complete lack of understanding of the language used by whales etc, and there is no doubt in my mind that they are capable of a lot more than some would give them credit for. Just not recorded thought, as art is at heart.

Art is not just some human construct to make humans feel important, Neversin.
From the time that art emerged as markings and picture narratives on cave walls it denoted mankind's ability to have abstract thought. To use physical symbols to convey a idea or system of ideas. That's major.

And AdamB, it's so major, that I wouldn't call art merely thought (and I'm using art to include music,literature, sculpture, painting, etc). Because art is not just a single thought. It's a complex synthesis of different thoughts ... distilled to a rich representation that compares, contrasts, extend meaning, challenge meaning, etc.

Art is very complex (again, accept for so-called artists today who think anything pretty or that sounds good is art). Genuine art can be interpreted again and again on deeper levels and you never fully finish its analysis.


There is no animal on earth capable of such abstract currency, other than humans.

Other animals can think, but they can't go higher to abstract thoughts. They can perhaps even have language and create songs ... but again ...it's not conveying any thought-out profound, meaningful system of ideas.

SynthiaRose said:

I'm not trying to belittle art in any way, but in essence it is a recorded thought, a message between the artist, and whom ever is viewing/listening etc to the message.
Breaking down art to it essence, but not questioning it merits or trying to quantify it purpose made it easier to distinguish our abilities, to that of other intelligent species on the planet.
I'm sure the art debate could fill another thread
[Edited 9/5/05 11:20am]
[Edited 9/5/05 11:21am]

AdamB said:

OK. But when you say " but is not all art mearly a representation of thoughts ... however esteemed we may try to make it" it makes me sad. Art deserves all the esteem possible.

But you're right that's another debate all together.

SynthiaRose said:

For sure, and in my eyes you are right. Funnily enough I make music on my PC, so in a iclke tiny way consider myself to be an artist
I guess I was breaking it right down, for discussion sake, to bring out the theory of records.
No other creature anywhere in the known universe has ever recorded anything at all, let alone as beautifully as Prince makes music, as wacky as Dali paints, I could go on.
Art is one of the puzzles that mankind presents, to challange our view of the world, that moves us to question our existence here and in the future, and indeed is a tool by which an artist can in some way hope to extend those questions to others....in the hope of the answer.

Hey...Sall good

SynthiaRose said:

Sure art challenges people to think and form an opinion and see things that aren't there, but that's something a simple discussion does too...
And since animals converse too...
Art isn't of any significance to our survival, it's for mere entertainment and only humans are pretentious enough to make something important out of it...
Art is in the eye of the beholder...


Why does a fly fly the patern it flies?


Just because you can't understand their language doesn't mean they haven't got any thought-out profound, meaningful system of ideas or even abstract thoughts...

Neversin.

Make love, not fur

Neversin, I'm stunned. You minimize.

Do not equate art with discussion by saying the aim of art is to challenge people to think and form opinions. It does that, but the implicit aim is to codify an abstract concept. Animals do not think in abstract terms.

Art is not the same as entertainment.

Animals can think, yes. But they can't conceive abstractions like freedom, justice, truth, etc.

There's a difference between a thought and a concept.


Because you quote Nietzsche in your signature, I'm assuming you enjoy studying philosophy, right?

Well, I'd like have you consider reading The Romantic Manifesto by Ayn Rand. She discusses art and man's need for it far better than I can.

Perhaps you've already read it. But you had, I'm willing to bet you would not dismiss art as pretentious....

Neversin said:

Maybe in todays world we could view art as less significant.

However, the fact remains, that art in its orginal form was significant to life. I guess we can only suppose the original meanings of cave paintings, but I would suppose that it served to represent what was happening in that era.
Art does that today. For a caveman, we could possoble view it like this.

To organise and hunt down food at that time was a challange for a small, bipedal animal, who could not move as fast as some, was not as strong as some. Our intelligence, our ability to communicate ideas, and work within a culture for the better good of the group could highlight arts orginal purpose.
Art in the form of a headress, to separate a wise elder from the group, to help command respect for his knowledge (knowledge is power debate ) or art on walls to represent the spirit of lost souls, be they animal or human, as a way of recording information, to learn.
This recording of information increases our ability to learn, improves our evolution, and as a result has help us become the dominant species on the planet (microbes and bacteria to one side )
The development of art lead to jewellery, which would have helped with the trade of arrow point and resources, therefore bringing distant communities of humans closer together, and snowballing combined knowledge.

Todays world is very stange in comparison to the animal kingdom, and its hard sometimes to understand why we do the things we do.

Bringing the fur coat question back a lil, there is no need for it at all, and the acceptance of this is changing in some peoples minds.
The Brits have recently banned fox hunting....but still we have bull fights in Spain.
The world is ever evolving, so tomorrow should always give us hope

SynthiaRose said:

Yes I've read it, and no I was not impressed and actually the book is just her opinion on Art, and who is she to tell people what is valid as art and what not?

Neversin.

Neversin said:

OK.

I really like you by the way. You're a good opponent.

C ya.

SynthiaRose said:

I was just about to say, I'll leave you kids to it

AdamB said:

Defining cave paintings as Art is quite a stretch because we don't know if they were meant as Art or as a means of simple communication...
(It's as much Art as your everyday history book...)


Luckily we still have people out there who use bull-fighters for target practice...

Neversin.