Are animals and plants equal to humans?

[dolly milk]

dh8d1

dolly milk

dh8d1

dolly milk

An artificial weapon is not a "unique attribute". We aren't born with guns and knives attached to our bodies.

Thanks.

The invention of them IS a unique attribute. Thanks.

You still are not superior. Never have been, and never will be. Thanks.

Every time you eat another living thing you're asserting through demonstration that you think you're superior to it. Thanks.
(I can play your game too.)

Regardless of whether you're eating something or not, you think that you are superior over everything else solely because you are human. There are plenty of other animals, not limited only to humans, that are superior to plants. Literally every single animal on this Earth eats plants. There is no such thing as something not being superior to a plant, because everything was meant to be eating them. Not everything was meant to be eating other animals. Your argument is invalid.

[dh8d1]

dolly milk

dh8d1

dolly milk

dh8d1

dolly milk

An artificial weapon is not a "unique attribute". We aren't born with guns and knives attached to our bodies.

Thanks.

The invention of them IS a unique attribute. Thanks.

You still are not superior. Never have been, and never will be. Thanks.

Every time you eat another living thing you're asserting through demonstration that you think you're superior to it. Thanks.
(I can play your game too.)

Regardless of whether you're eating something or not, you think that you are superior over everything else solely because you are human. There are plenty of other animals, not limited only to humans, that are superior to plants. Literally every single animal on this Earth eats plants. There is no such thing as something not being superior to a plant, because everything was meant to be eating them. Not everything was meant to be eating other animals. Your argument is invalid.

My argument was never a blanket "animals are superior to plants" or "humans are superior to animals" argument. So why don't you recheck my posts and actually read them?

My argument is, "If you're eating something that was killed so you can eat it, obviously you think you're superior to it."

Any objections to that one?

[dh8d1]

Suicidesoldier#1

dh8d1

Suicidesoldier#1

Obviously there is.

Since I'm alive n stuff and yet I don't think I'm superior. xp

This is like saying "Obviously I don't value air above water to breathe, because I'm alive but I don't think air is superior to breathe."

You're delusional. Please understand the words I type and you'll find them true.

wut...

So... because I breathe air... I think the water is inferior?


Not everything has a tie of superiority of inferiority to it.

I mean that doesn't even make any sense.

It makes perfect sense. You must by your own actions think that air is superior to breathe than water, or you'd go try to breathe water and drown. This is the same argument that you must think that your life is superior to the life of whatever you eat, because it died for you to have food.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

dh8d1

Suicidesoldier#1

dh8d1

Suicidesoldier#1

Obviously there is.

Since I'm alive n stuff and yet I don't think I'm superior. xp

This is like saying "Obviously I don't value air above water to breathe, because I'm alive but I don't think air is superior to breathe."

You're delusional. Please understand the words I type and you'll find them true.

wut...

So... because I breathe air... I think the water is inferior?


Not everything has a tie of superiority of inferiority to it.

I mean that doesn't even make any sense.

It makes perfect sense. You must by your own actions think that air is superior to breathe than water, or you'd go try to breathe water and drown. This is the same argument that you must think that your life is superior to the life of whatever you eat, because it died for you to have food.

No, that doesn't make any sense.

I don't have to believe anything.


Believing air has some quality to it that makes it favorable to breathe, in this condition, doesn't mean that I believe air is superior to water.

I mean maybe I want to breathe in water, like fish, but can't.


Maybe I think it's better.

Given the complexity of life I wouldn't say I eat dead things because I'm "superior", either. xp


I mean I can't fly.

That doesn't mean I think it's superior to walk or something.

[dolly milk]

dh8d1

dolly milk

dh8d1

dolly milk

dh8d1

dolly milk

An artificial weapon is not a "unique attribute". We aren't born with guns and knives attached to our bodies.

Thanks.

The invention of them IS a unique attribute. Thanks.

You still are not superior. Never have been, and never will be. Thanks.

Every time you eat another living thing you're asserting through demonstration that you think you're superior to it. Thanks.
(I can play your game too.)

Regardless of whether you're eating something or not, you think that you are superior over everything else solely because you are human. There are plenty of other animals, not limited only to humans, that are superior to plants. Literally every single animal on this Earth eats plants. There is no such thing as something not being superior to a plant, because everything was meant to be eating them. Not everything was meant to be eating other animals. Your argument is invalid.

My argument was never a blanket "animals are superior to plants" or "humans are superior to animals" argument. So why don't you recheck my posts and actually read them?

My argument is, "If you're eating something that was killed so you can eat it, obviously you think you're superior to it."

Any objections to that one?

You think you are superior to it, but that does not necessarily mean that you are.

Superiority is determined by what is challenged in a certain department of attributes. Let's use strength for example. Just because you've got a gun doesn't make you strong. Let's throw your stupid gun away, and pair you up with an angry bull. You are weak and defenseless. You are no longer superior compared to this bull that you supposedly think you're "above" of on the food chain and that you're meant to be eating, because if truly was meant to be your next meal, you wouldn't be having any issues tackling that bull down and eating its innards right then and there. Nope. That bull would've ******** you over.

So I'll repeat myself again. Being human does not automatically make you superior. Because what's supposed to be your "prey", can easily become your predator within a matter of seconds.

[Ask Jappleack]

tfwbtr

Queen Shining Heaven

Humans are above animals ans plants. Humans have built up the world, taken control of it, guided its history and even dominated other animals and plants. To say they are equal to us is a betrayal of humanity

To say that we're better than plants and animals is to bite the hand that feeds us.

we are animals, nothing is 'better' than another thing. Actually thats a lie. Im better then a limbless brainless human. I dont do much with my limbs though. But honestly, we hate viruses and cancer right, humans are slowly aproaching that pest status, if we arent pests already.

What is a pest, something that survives and is annoying and detrimental to other species for surviving.

I would say humans rats viruses crows and bugs can all be pests. But in actuality everything is a pest to another thing except for things like cleaner-fish argueably, but even they are a pest to the parasites they eat from the other fish.

Humans are simply a dominant pest. We are still animals, we are still biological organisms.

So, what gives viruses the right to damage us and make us sick. What gives rats and bugs the right to give us those viruses. What good are those plants that feed those things directly or indirectly.

We are a pest to the world, nothing else.

We change it, of course we do, just like an animals manure can kill us if we eat it, or help plants if they eat it. Our pollution is just something harder to grasp for life on earth. Its going to be damaging, as all pests are, but in the end, if we die off, if pollution stops, if we stop eating meat and milk with other animals as our slaves (which even ants do to aphids and fungi) then we will stop, but its natures turn to fit around us. Millions of years ago we needed to fit around a changing nature, we are changing the game now, simple as that.

Then, like how the dinosaurs went extinct, we will too. And something more complex and heinous will evolve to take our place. And be the biggest pest.

[dh8d1]

dolly milk

You think you are superior to it, but that does not necessarily mean that you are.

Thanks for conceeding my point.

[Phallic Wonderland]

Our brains are superior. We were able to hunt down giant Woolly Mammoths because of planning and tactic skills. Now, our brains are again, superior, because we pen and breed our own cattle and other animals used for meat and other materials so we don't have to bother wasting time catching them (and we don't have to cross our fingers and hope our prey is mature enough do give us what we want.)

However, BECAUSE we are mentally superior, we should be able and even obligated to treat our living resources with good accommodations, and kill them as painlessly as possible. That is why I eat meat but am against factory farming.

[dh8d1]

Suicidesoldier#1

I don't have to believe anything.

Delusion.

Plain, simple, delusion.

Your entire experience is based upon beliefs. You believe you will be able to walk when you put pressure on your legs a certain way. You believe the sun will shine tomorrow, you believe that specific words will have the same meaning on individuals you talk to on a daily basis.

Your entire existence is a myriad of beliefs upon beliefs. The fact that you think you're superior to what you eat is one of them, you just don't realize it.

I'm going to eat dinner now. TTYL.

[FickleWulf]

tfwbtr

I think so. I don't get why people believe we're better. We destroy the world while animals and plants give it balance. We take while they give. We're either equal to them, or inferior.

I completely agree with this statement. We are all equal and all God's creature, no one more better than the other. The way we treat animals disgusts and infuriates me.

[Je Nique vos Merdiers]

Suicidesoldier#1

Our planet could support WAY more food than it is now. Since ammonium nitrate is practically free and any land could potentially be turned into farmland, with 25% of arable land still unused, and rampant inefficiencies present across the farming industry, the concept we can't sustain it when we're presently at a surplus, so much so we're turning it into ethanol since gasoline seems to be more important than food, your information is basically coming from nowhere. Hell, there's all kinds of things we could do, like aquaponics gardening, that's way more efficient

You know what's even more efficient? Restoring the ecosystem to where it was before agriculture existed, because natural, diverse animal and plant polycultures are much more productive than any monoculture system.

Quote:

Again, multi vitamins take a source. It's not like you can make vitamins out of thin air. Usually, it's made from concentrated kale. When you grow 50 times the kale you need to survive and condense it down into a vitamin you essentially waste just as much if not more energy than just eating meat.

Even if you use exactly more energy in producing supplements as in meat production, the lack of methane and solid waste production by plants more than makes up for this. And B12, the only vitamin that can't be obtained from a plant-based diet, is produced industrially by bacterial fermentation.

Quote:

The difference is you are basing your assumptions off of what we are doing right now in general, when there is a better way. In my mind, there's not only a solution, but a way for surplus. And mostly, I'm right.

Yes, there is a better way, what an astute observation that I've been very vocal about on here for years. There's also a monstrous amount of inertia behind the status quo that is putting that better way further and further away, and existential crises to worry about. They are happening on very short timescales that require immediate response from individuals, and not just waiting around for institutional change, when the institutions are the cause of the problem.

[Pipebracket]

tfwbtr

I think so. I don't get why people believe we're better. We destroy the world while animals and plants give it balance. We take while they give. We're either equal to them, or inferior.

Ah, more self-flagellating irrational guilt.

Delicious.

[MegaTurkey]

DaWulf20

tfwbtr

I think so. I don't get why people believe we're better. We destroy the world while animals and plants give it balance. We take while they give. We're either equal to them, or inferior.

I completely agree with this statement. We are all equal and all God's creature, no one more better than the other. The way we treat animals disgusts and infuriates me.

If you're bringing religion into this; don't all Abrahamic religions (I'm making this assumption from your use of the singular possessive) in particular showcase the difference and superiority of man over beast? Even right at the start, weren't animals and men made on different days in Genesis? And wasn't man made in "God's image"? That hardly denotes equality.

[Fermionic]

dh8d1

I made your strawman more prominent in hopes you'll see it and admit that you actually built it.

You mistake my concentration on a point you don't consider as main for making a strawman. I've already explained this, so you can read it again if you wish.

dh8d1

Fermionic

we aren't at the top of a food chain

Oh yes we are... unless you fear being eaten often. You don't, do you?

What do you think our bodies provide sustenance for? What eats us? Micro-organisms.

dh8d1

Fermionic

food chains are not a way to assign superiority to humanity

I never said "humans are superior because we're at the top of the food chain." What I said was "being at the top of the food chain, we eat other living things to survive, and therefore we MUST value their life below ours, and ours superior to theirs.

Which is why I said "absolute or perceived superiority", in consideration of your bad habit of ascribing ourselves the top of the food-chain.

dh8d1

Fermionic

You said that no other organism on the planet has the potential to kill every other organism on the planet.

I did, and I stand by it. We have nukes. We have a-bombs. We have Radiation. We have control of fire, steel, and antibacterial methods. We can kill off every other living thing on the planet if we choose to as a species. It would take time. It would take resources. It would change the dynamic of our ecosystem. We probably wouldn't survive long after we did it. Which is why we won't do it, but we could.

You cut off the point that was important, the "This is unsourced". I have explicitly stated that humans are capable of this, probably. That isn't what interests me. What interests me is the fact that you haven't deigned demonstrate how we are the only beings capable of this, on the entire planet. Until such a time you decide to actually read what I'm writing, you won't be proving anything.

dh8d1

Fermionic

I can also say that I care little for your manner.

I care little for your weak attempts at proving we're not at the top of the food chain, and I care little for your weak attempts at refuting that whenever you eat something, you're eating something that was alive, and therefore by doing so you're claiming superiority over it by it dying so you can survive.

I'm not refuting the latter. Even after explicitly stating that I'm not trying to do so, you still seem to think that I am. It would be best if you got over that problem.

As for my "weak attempts", that's entertaining. So far, in reference to being at the top of the food chain, all you've said is that humans can pose mortal threat to most anything we choose. That isn't what a food chain is, as I've already said. A food chain shows what eats what. We are eaten by decay bacteria.

To sum up; Learn what a food chain is, realise that that is the only point I am addressing, learn to read what I type.