Amen brother. Amen.

We dissected cats, and it was great. Dissecting was the only interesting part of science class.

And dogfighting is bad because it encourages violent behavior in an animal that could easily be mistaken as friendly.

I would not want to dissect a cat. I know that it's partly because I have had cats, but it is also because I am morally opposed to dissecting anything I think is cute. And, now that I think about it, partly because of a horrific law school admissions essay I read in 2004 about someone who saw a kitten being tortured. It is definitely not because I think an animal has the same rights as I do.

I would also not want to watch an animal fight, because I wouldn't want to watch any fight. Pointless violence makes me nauseous. A steak does not. For every steak that some tree-hugging hippie does not eat, I will eat two.

You are certainly entitled to your own opinion, so I won't bash you on it.

All I'm going to say is that I disagree with you one hundred percent on this matter. Just because we as humans see ourselves as higher than animals doesn't mean that we have the right to go cutting and slaughtering into anythig we see fit.

What gives us the right?

You say animals don't deserve to be elevated to the extent that some peple do, touche...but what exactly have humans done to be elevated to that point? Everything alive lives by nature and instinct.

I'm not a vegetarian but I love animals. Eating meat is instinctual for all animals, be it humans or anything else. And saying that humans can override most of their nsictual habits isn't always true. This is why we have so many rapists and kinappers and murders...becase they cannont control themselves.

First off, I think you're a new commenter on the blog, so welcome.

Second, I am entitled to my opinion, and my opinion, after reading your opinion, is that you are an idiot. Allow me to elaborate.

You asked me what gives us the right go cutting and slaughtering into anything we want. I have to admit that I think that's kind of an interesting question. I would answer that it's not so much that we have the right, but rather that it's not morally wrong to do so. It's not that we have the right to do it, it's that animals don't have the right to not have us do it. That doesn't mean that cruelty is acceptable, but it does mean that animals don't have rights that are analogous to, for example, the right a human has not to be raped.

As for what humans have done to deserve being considered elevated, we have free will and rational thought. The outward indications of the qualities that make us inherently more valuable than animals are things like math, logic, philosophy, and music. The fact that we have the capacity to be ruled not by instinct but by reason makes us superior to those that cannot reason. Period.

Also, you certainly do not mean that eating meat is instinctual for all animals. There is a whole class of animals--we call them herbivores--that don't eat meat at all.

Finally, I didn't say that all humans can override their instincts. I just said we have the capacity to do so. The fact that sex in public is a relatively rare occurrence demonstrates that humans are pretty damn good at restraining their instincts.

But the bigger point is that you've sort of proven what I had to say. Imagine a human being that cannot control himself and must murder. If that person is completely removed from making a choice, then we treat that person differently. We lock them up, but not to punish them. Rather, we do it to protect the rest of us. Contrast that with how we deal with the vast majority of murderers and rapists. In most cases, criminals are incarcerated at least partly because they deserve to be punished for making the choices they made. That notion makes sense where someone chose, but it makes no sense at all where, as with the insane murderer, there's no choice at all. We condemn those who can choose but merely choose incorrectly. We pity those who can't choose at all.

An animal is like an insane killer in the sense that it cannot control itself. It will kill you out of fear, for food, or to protect its territory, but it won't kill you out of malice. It reacts to stimuli based on instinct. Animals cannot do something wrong--that just doesn't make sense.

So, given that we can make the distinction between those who can choose and choose correctly, those who can choose and choose incorrectly, and those who cannot choose at all, it is incorrect to say that we are very much like animals simply because some small percentage of people lack the ability to control their actions. Rather, it seems to me that this is just another way in which we demonstrate the judgment and reason that makes us inherently superior to animals.

Fuck yeah!!!!

I would take it one step further, and say, "Animal cruelty" IS a contradiction, but whatever.

Animals are nothing more, and nothing less, than property.

Killing your own is fine, much like you have the right to destroy your own, for instance, chair or TV, but not your neighbors.

So fuck vegans, fuck PETA, fuck animal rights, and now I'm going to go protest "Animal Cruelty" laws or something.

what a bunch of narrow-minded fuckin' assholes you all are - stupid fucking blog bastard

I agree, fuck animal rights, but saying humans can override instinct is bullshit. We follow instinct as much as a dog does. Our instinct is just more "advanced."

Fuck animals, fuck humans, fuck all your rights and suck my dick.

Wow all I can say is that you are a great writer! Where can I contact you if I want to hire you?

Hehe the thing is that animals are much more visceral than human beings and I don't mean in the instinctive behavior, Ismael Tapia, you're really not understanding animal behavior, most of we humans haven't encountered a hostile behavior from an animal and don't even grasp the nature of animal behavior, you're basing your opinion heavily on social, moral and ethical structure, that is just not the case, were talking about psychology and physiology of humans and animals, you're saying "right and wrong", ok define, with your own words, both terms please.

"Animals cannot do something wrong--that just doesn't make sense."

Well that actually makes a lot of sense once you've learned, they DO and have always done what we consider morally wrong, "wrongness" is just completely unexsistent, it is a CONCEPT, and animals are totally capable of engaging on "morally incorrect" behavior at will.

"it won't kill you out of malice"

Ok, I ask you, what is "malice"? we may anthropomorphizise animal behavior similar to that of a human, and depict it under the same incentive of that a human. Most complex animals, especially wild ones, can attempt murder at will and not by instinct, and that doesn't mean they engage on such activity by general or specific hostile will, or more coloquially for being "evil".

Animals, individually and under society behave pretty much like the most primitive human individual and societies, you said an animal just will not behave aggresively unless instinctively incentivated, I tell you that is just plain wrong, the fact is that animals, especially mammals and discarding the most primitive, have developed a certain degree of environment understanding and, as evidence has proven, behave in the matter that ethical social agreenments will judge as abominal, for example, elephants have been documented of chasing to death and raping rinoceronts, dolphins have also been documented of hitting to death porpoises just to entertain themselves with their corpses, also reports have informed that Dingos hunt down coyotes simply to afterwards play some sort of "throw-and-catch" (well in this case bite) "game" with their bodies until they have dismembred them to the point of being useless to keep such activity.

That my friend is the reallity of animals, they're pretty much fucked up, more than us, they aren't, and haven't been since a lot of time, absolutely instinctive, some degree of private property concept has been developed by a number of mammals, culture is also in progress in the animal kingdom, they too have been observed to require certain entertainment and recreation and some, as some humans, will not hesitate to murder another animal or human if properly motivated, and not necessarily under the instinctive incentive.

And in contrast of your explicit and offensive opinion torwards the creator of the blog, I conclude you're simply ignorant and not an idiot, and for the blog's host, you've given me quite a laugh good job.

Oh and wanted to add something else, for the people who ask what gives us the "right" to kill an animal?
Well it isn't really the right, because rights are as well "humanae anthropomorphos percpetio", meaning the human concept of perception.

Maybe the right question is: why are we capable of killing other species? and the answer would be: because our biology and understanding allows us to do so.

Those coloquially asking what is that places humans above animals, it is simply evolution. Imagine this, domesticated animals, posses the physiology and the psychology we humans find ideal for the purpose they serve us, and we are and will work torwards the manipulation of them in general that will allow them serve us more efficiently, under an economical terminolgy, they're nothing more than resources and individual and social entertainment and recreation. Put it this place, we are absolute masters of the animals that we control, they only live to serve us and provide sustenaince, they will never dream of rebellion, actually they're quite compliant with their slavery, it a sort of perfect, unquestionable dictatorship we hold over domesticated animals and those which would happen to fall under our control.

Also, for those placing criminal behavior as of completely instictive cause, most criminal behavior itself gathers it's roots from natural necessities, antisocial and socially damaging behavior rises in our social structure mainly because of specific and general scarcity and cosmopolitic ignorance (as well as traditional and cultural values and social structure), where methods of data, material and economical aquisition are limited if not completely restricted, it isn't a matter of behavior control, it is simply impossible to supress natural necessities, ignorance only adding for the general incapabilitiness and low understanding of the affected, rendering a higher possiblity of antisocial behavior to emerge, thus ending in "immorallity".

Biggetry, aggressitivity, negligence, apathy and so forth are NOT a part of unchangable human behavior, the thing is that we have to fight eachother in order to survive.

For a small example, it is not even 2 centuries ago since the average person is capable of holding private property with relative security, and documented human history dates back as far as 6 thousand years.

FUCK YEAH!!
You are fucking awesome :D
xx

It seems that people who think like you and I are in the extreme minority. Humans ARE superior to animals, and that means I feel it fine to hunt them as I see fit. That doesn't mean that if you torture animals for fun you aren't a sick fuck, but everyone in PETA should go live in extreme poverty and then preach about how important it is to make sure goats don't suffer.

There’s nothing like the relief of fidnnig what you’re looking for.

8gVgHe yptqnnbwnajh