Intelligence-As a basis for deciding who lives and dies

[Vegan Dogs]

Intelligence...as a basis for deciding who lives and dies....Some like Peter Singer philosopher deal with this issue.

Peter Singer...a philosopher dealing with animal rights...infuriated ...shocked people...when he suggested...that if based on intelligence...a human toddler of age 2...had less cognitive abilities and intelligence than a 2 month old puppy chimp or chick

On that basis...the value of the human child life was worth less than a 2 month old chick life.


Now in the past...humans had hierachies for saying...save women and children first...if a disaster or sinking ship...

So is it valid...to have hierachies in which species of animal deserve to live or die ?

Here are categories of animals...

1. Wild animals
2.Farm animals
3. Pet animals


now...are we to suggest...endangered urang utang monkeys for palm oil in the far east are worth saving more than untrendy monkeys going extinct due to soy farm animal feed production in the amazon ?

If as is the case...MORE species go exctinct due to amazon forest destruction to grow soy for farm animal feed exported ...then surely...the amazon soy issue is more important to avoid than the less animals destroyed palm oil issue ?

Likewise...

is the intelligence of an animal what determines its value to not kill them ?

People often claim DOGS are more intellgent than other animals so useful pets...but that is actually untrue...a pigeon has actually a higher intellgence level than a dog...as does a pig....but neither are useful waggy tails useful to our ego needs adulating pets

What hierachy do people think applies...to deciding who lives and dies ? if we have the choice ?

Is it not based on NUMERS involved ? that is my view...minimal harm...means how many lives involved.

eg

also...

if people want to give others orders....to kill rabbits to feed a pet cat....then i say they have no right to give me orders like that and that is my reply.

i am vegan...i do not feed bred and killed by humans rabbits or any other animals to my pet cat...she is like thousands of others fed legal species appropriate vegan cat food.

I am not interested in which animals make the more entertaining useful pets...for sure that is the main reason people get easy to keep easy entertainment for them animals to keep as pets hey...thinking some species are more intelligent than others so more worthy of keeping alive as pets or generally is also as this person wrote a reason people give as to who lives and dies...that is not my view.

If i order someone to kill an animal...the least i should do is mention why that animal deserves to die...STUPID would be one reason this person thinks appropriate hey. I do not choose who lives and dies based on my petting needs of them or assessment of their intelligence level.

 

[Vegan Dogs]

I will try kicking off with my personal views...

i think...WILD animals matter the most.

Why ?

They are the most natural living animals.

Farm animal species like our pet dog and cat species are not suited to live as part of any natural ecosystem out there ...their species need to go extinct in fact by us humans not breeding them anymore eventually would achieve that easily.

I had in the past cattle of my own...cows and goats...i was told by the vet...there is no way they would survive well alone through a winter alone if just let loose....they are not like their wild ancestors who survive much easier living wild.

That is logical and true.

They are frankenstein designed by humans animals. Pathetic shadows of their ancestors. The same goes for our pet dogs and cats.


That domestic breeds of animla have no place in a natural ecosystem is obvious...if pet cats were not introduced and fed by humans they would not be alive in such numbers killing what is left of fragile wild life out there everywhere.


Feeding our pets and farm animals...both domestic breed unnatural animals...food provided by humans...destroys rain forests etc so destroys WILD LIFE even more.


80 percent...of the amazon deforestation ...is due to growing farm animal feed soy.

30 percent...of farm animal meat is fed to pets.


So in reality...PETS and FARM ANIMALS are destroying real wild life massively


200 million pet dogs and cats in the usa...for a human population of not even 400 million people.

it is ridiculous...no wonder the econsystem is messed up


Back in 1950....the tons of pet dog pooh in the usa exceeded the human treated pooh ....and curretnly...85% of raw faeces in teh waters of this world are farm animal and domestic pet run offs...no domestic animals pooh and pee is treated but ends up as untreated waste pollution.


Do we fund feeding the starving and going extinct WILD ANIMALS ? do we get vets to treat them ?

no.

so why are we spending billions on our unnatural PET ones we keep ?

Because we want pets...the vet treatements to farm animals are few ...they get antibiotics pumped into their feed simply to keep them alive a few weeks or months before killed...if sick they are killed or die....we do not rescue them do we ?

How many people...set up farm animal rescues compared to the pet dog and cat ones ?

Let us be truthful...FAR easier to get donations for the cuddly pet species than some ugly considreed stupid chicken ones...and hey...the pet owners pay for billions of bred and killed age 3 months old rabbits to feed their superfluous to ecosytem amazon forests destroying non vegan fed preferred pet animal species.


Which species of animals people prefer...or even LIKE...affects who lives and dies is the clear to me point.

Vegans pretend to claim all animals lives matter equally....but in many actions...actually reinforce to everyone who is not even partly vegan...that no...only what USE a species of animal has matters when evaluating who deserves to live or die.


WILD ANIMALS and FARM ANIMALS do not get vet treatments...only the PET ones do.

Yet the pet ones...destroy the lvies of thousands of farm and wild animals per year....all done for them...by humans who breed the unfortunate farm animals whose feeding cause the deaths of so many wild life animals in deforested areas.


One day...all that money spent on treating fleas and exzemas in designed by humans prisoner pets...could go to provide fresh clean water to starving wild animals driven by pet food production into deserts dying of thirst hunger and diseaes

 

[Vegan Dogs]

Anyway....excuse me if i digressed ...maybe not...

But back to the question..

what criteria....do people think are valid...for deciding ...which animals live or die ???

options are ?

1. Intelligence levels ? really ? please tell us which ones then matter more than others...

2. Species we personally prefer as entertaining to us as pets ? really...so please tell us why chickens should not be kept as pets and their species bred and killed for pet food for pet cats ?

3. any other criteria ?

i am struggling clearly...to understand this issue and i am sure others are too.


Sometimes people say...."I own these animals as PETS so i am responsible for them"

ok...so ..does that mean...the animals they pay to be bred and killed and then own the dead bodies of...are not their responsbility ?

If so...why not eat such animals ?

is it only if EMOTIONALLY attached to an animal because WE OWN the animal ...that the life of an animal matters ?

Do farm animals lives not matter ? because they are dead by the time we buy them having paid for their deaths ?


Why ? do people not think all wild life should be allowed to go extinct as not OWNED by them ?

It is the same issue...not owned by someone ...so their lives do not matter surely ?


Why ? would the life of a not owned by an individual pig or baby chicken not matter...but that of a wild baby giraffe matter ?


What is the "emotional bond" between a not owned wild animal and a human ? since it is the same non existant bond as the not owned by individual causing their death human for a farm animal ?


I seriously find the philosophical...or ethical issues about ...whose life matters...a matter of confusion and lack of clarify in the alleged vegan community.

Explain please if anyone can.....whose life matters more ? based on what criteria ? when it comes to breeding and killing animals ?

or views on any of these "whose life matters more" thread topic.

 

[Vegan Dogs]

Everyone recalls the saga hype over..."Cecil the Lion" ...and btw..the usa dentist like any rich wants entertainment person has gone and shot more such wild life.

Lions are being bred for MEAT and TROPHY HUNTING in the thousands now in South Africa ..fact.

14 thousand per year in fact i read

Do some people think this is ok ? i mean there are bred and killed thousands of chickens etc of course as farmed animals to feed those bred by humans lions ...

Just like "pets" in fact those lions would people not agree ?

Kept alive for human entertainment.

Why ? should a single chicken be bred and fed to any captive prisoner lion kept by a human anywhere ?

I struggle to justify this matter

Why ? would people be upset that some zoos due to coronavirus now...are destroying lions etc as unable to get fees of zoo visitors to pay for their upkeep ?

One dead lion in a zoo...is thousands of chickens lives bred by humans saved surely is my view...sad for the individual captive lion but...the farm chicken is also a captive so why is her life not worth anything ?


Once humans interfere and start keeping animals s captives and feeding them...be they zoo animals or pets...and there is not much difference really....if they cause other animals deaths.. all they are doing is showing preferences interfering with nature


Vegans generally are anti zoos of course...well quite frankly i would not be surprised if many are pro zoos like many are pro breeding farm chickens and rabbits and feeding them to zoo lions or pets....

However..the issues involved...are ethical and philosophical surely.

So i mention them...giving my views.

 

[Vegan Dogs]

Here is a Peter Singer Philosopher video talk.

HE wrote the book in 1990 called "animal liberation" published first in 1975

"can they feel ?" was the main arguement Peter Singer uses to say....non human animals...in fact...are likely to "feel pain" more acutely than humans do...as their senses are much more developped than us humans...smell the one we know the easiest.

It is therefore "immoral" to kill sentient beings

Painlessly killing animals issue is raised...a theoretical issue as that is a myth.

99.9 percent of animals humans breed and kill know and fear the death coming to them.

They also live unnatural restricted lives no matter how kept.

Singer focuses in this video on the farm animals humans create of course.

In other talks...he suggests PRIMATES with high cognitive similar to humans mental skills...may have more "life value" than a baby human with less cognitive mental skills level.


However...i was interested recently in another thread to see someone saying the level of "intelligence" of a rabbit as a PET was underestimated and that criteria...intelligence as is reactions learned or trained towards humans...is a criteria for deciding who should live or die at the hands of humans in control of those life and death decisions.


The bit as i said i got confused about...was that this same person on about rabbits being purring at humans if contented intelligent therefore beings...deserved LIFE ...but at the same time...not mentioning that rabbits are bred and killed for CAT FOOD that the person was saying was not only ok but NECESSARY for humans owning animals to do...to feed pet cats...but as i say...the argument ...criteria presented...for "who should humanss breed and kill" for pet cats...was unclear and contradictory in fact.

whoops excuse me...wrong video link...that was a turkey hen of mine i did not feed to my vegan fed cat and dogs who died in suffering young age 2 years old...my vegan fed cat is currently 4 years old...has never suffered like this...

This is the peter singer philosopher

 

[Vegan Dogs]

seriously....it is surely relevant...with so many people "confused" about who to kill to feed their killing wild life and farm animals pets who are unnaturally owned by humans just like farm animals are so dependent on humans for their lives or deaths...it is relevant...to question...what are the criteria...people use...for deciding how many animals and which ones they kill ?


Besides the PETS eating farm animals destroy also WILD LIFE animals issue as explained due to farm animal feed estroying amazon forests etc to grow mostly farm animal feed...


Who thinks...that saving an Urang Utang by not using PALM OIL due to urang utangs being trendy human looking ape type animals going extinct...is more important...that saving many more other not so "trendy" monkey species and other not so liked by humans species of going extinct animals due to the MORE SOY needed to produce SOY OIL destroying rain forests ?

Even COCONUT oil abuses not going extinct chained monkeys in thailand and uses more land to produce than palm oil ...


Who thinks...stopping already nearly extinct TIGERS of which only 4 thousand left in the wild...matters ? more than saving 1000 thickens lives by not feeding a pet cat chickens bred by humans ?

These are all ETHICAL decisions and judgements

Based on "what criteria " ?? is what i ask


If anyone other than myself would like to give their criteria and hierachy of which animals lives matter most and why...

This would be helpful

ps i do post this issue about PALM OIL and urang utang preferences on non vegan posts...as many animal eaters...are into "save the urang utangs" due to going extinct issue to keep entertaining to watch on videos and wild life documentaries and in zoos urang utangs....by ranting about "avoid buying palm oil" which actully is in so many products nad the most efficient oil for "vegetable oil" to use compared to SOY or COCONUT oils which use more land and destroy more wild life species therefore if alternative oils are produced from them...

People are more easily motivated...to avoid PALM OIL allegedly saving urang utangs or funding rescues of them...than saving farm chickens lives by not eating them...because ugly not entertaining considred stupid and easy to produce millions of chickens...are less important lives to respect than a single urang utang pretty intelligent animal

Actually ...i see great similaries not differences towards attitdues to different species of animals in animal eaters and alleged vegans is the truth i admit here...

i find..."speciesism" based on selfish human views of "who is more cuddly" or "who is more intelligent" or "who is more at risk of extinction if an entertaining species animal" are criteria used to justfy who lies and who dies in the animal world.

Now i do addd..i am not the kind of vegan who would avoid swatting a mosquito...or fly...or kill a bear if threatend by one. I am not into...avoid killing ants in my home.

Not making them SUFFER when killed is something i do care about not convinced poisons for them do not cause great suffering ...but to me...self preservation is my primary interest to justify anything like that.

I see no need to kill animals to feed my pet dogs or cat as they are not sick or dead on their healthy vegan pet foods. I consider...their lives pretty superflous in the great scheme of things as not part of any ecosystem ...and since farm animals are equally captive animals that suffer in captivity even worse than my pet animals do...i see no need to inflict DEATH on thousands of poor baby farm animals. Their lives...exceed by far the life of 1 pet cat...who is not going to die from eating vegan cat food...so no justification to not feed her that for me....i would call myself a hypocrite if i thought a baby chicken life was not as important to me as a dog or cat life if i were the one in charge of deciding if they are to be killed or not.

I certainly see no reason why i should maintain a pet cat who would have starved to death or got run over by a car or died of a disease if not vaccinated at a vet by me...to allow all that support i provide to a pet cat...to go out an dkill loads of extra birds etc wild life...using the to me lame argument of...it is "natural" for her enjoyment of life to do so...rubbish...do i not value the right to a "natural" life of a bird ? no need to enjoy the support of killing birds by a pet cat that is alive simply due to my keeping her alive due to my unnatural interference with lives of animals under my control.


Anyway.

Food for thought.

I am sure...others have had animals eaters say things like...

ooh must donate to the cat rescue ...
ooh save the whale stranded in the river Thames ....

whilst chomping on the leg of a 6 week old roast chicken...or baby lamb


So what is the criteria ? for those people...compared to some vegans who have the same "hierachy" of values accorded to different species lives ? is what i would like to know...and how is...having that "speciesist" unfair imho judgement about whose lives matter more than others...justified by such people ?

Well ? how is that attitude justified ? is the same question actually as the original one in the title of this thread...what criteria ....do people use...to justfy ...who lives and who dies in the animal world ?

 

[Vegan Dogs]

no reactions still ?

either that is....because..

1. People afraid to admit which species of animals they prefer and would on that basis save the lives of above other spcies of animals....

2. People are not interested in saving animals lives...and are "vegan" for health and or environmental rasons not AR Animal Rights reasons...

3. It is too difficult a topic ...people are unsure which animals they think have a priority to live and die

4. Any other reasons !

So ... let me try and help if possible...i offer simple options if people cannot explain the species and preferences in freehand replies.....

1. Non animal lovers...non pet owners...are not likely to value PETS highly but if any...respect and admire WILD ANIMALS the most and be funders of WWF type organisations ...not PET RESCUES of pet dogs and cats dumped rescues.

Non pet owners...are...imho...more "true vegans" than many vegans..they recognise that animals...non human ones...deserve to live FREE and do their own thing have their own families feed themselves etc without humans owning them and forcing castrations food homes leads etc on them

Non pet owners...recognise...that non human animals are just "toys" to entertain their human owners

Non pet owners...will respect wild life...then secondly farm animals...and place PET animals at the bottom of the list of importance as they would actually like to see the END of pet ownership and the ridiculous in their view of animals on leashes and in cages living unnatural prisoners of humans lives.

Many non pet owners dislike zoos for those same reasons.


So...the hierachy for

1. a non pet owner would be...

1. Wild animals
2. Farm animals
3. PETS not even a priority to them.


2. The PET OWNERS...will of course not be interested in WILD animals but spend all their funds on PET species animals they own...bllions are spent on toys food vet care for PET animals and none to the same degree offered to help WILD animals or FARM animals by PET owners.

The hierachy of pet owners would be...
1. PET animals
2. Wild Animals
3. Farm Animals.

Farm animals come lower down on the list of respect by pet owners....FArm animals to PET owners as well as WILD animals are just "fodder" to "use" for their pets meaning take the lives of forced to be bred and killed as babies farm animals...and any going extinct wild birds etc are irrelevant to pet owners who think walkies for their pet cats instead of living like farm animals they kill to feed their pet cats are essential for a pet cat but not the 19 adult size chickens in 1m2 wire cages killed age 6 weeks old.

3. The Farm Animal Owners....

will prioritise animals according to the financial value they have to them...so

1. Farm animals for a few weeks or months age for 98 percent of all farm animals when killed...are the first priority to shove antibiotics in them using 70 percent of the world antibiotics just to keep most alive until a few weeks old or few months old when killed.

20 percent of those who die before the 6 weeks old for chickens or a few months old for lambs and pigs...are still profitable as they end up in pet foods and earn billions of money from the most suffered farm animals.

2. PETS...if they keep any

3. Wild life...and actually animal farmers are responsible for the extinction of many wild animal species...the USA alone has the government kill 1 million wild animals like lynx and wolves to protect the only 1 percent of farm animals in the USA that are pasture raised.

So in fact...the caged indoor farm animals farmers keep cause LESS wild life killings than the pasture raised ones.

4. ZOOS and HUNTERS for sport.

These will prioritise the breeding even of lions and big cats for hunting sport.

Currently South Africa breeds 14 thousand lion species they force reproduce selectively and then earn money from having hunters come and shoot them.

This is half of ALL lions living in the wild ! there are only 23 thousand wild lions and 4 thousand wild tigers left in the world...in fact...let them go extinct as they nearly are is possible ...why not ? those who need them to hunt them or eat them....as some of those are sold as eating meat...are bred in captivity by lion animal farmers. They actually breed various wild life species for meat consumption and hunting entertainment. No need for zoos anywhere else is the reality when one accepts these farms produce far more lions etc than all the zoos in the world that do not release zoo animals to the wild again anyway as they are earners for the zoo business.

Zoos and hunters...are not interested in PETS or FARM ANIMALS except...that farm animals are bred to feed other farm animals so the priority hierachy is...

1. WILD FARMED ANIMALS
2. Farm Animals
3. PETS

Now for the SPECIES ....

PETS...although any species can be in reality a PET...some wild life species are banned from being legally owned pets...like ? lions tigers ...as too dangerous and large animals...some protectd nearly extinct species like Eagles also maybe. I am not sure of how many wild life species are protected against being OWNED by humans...

Dogd and Cats...to pet owners generally seem to be seen as not edible meat for humans or other animals...by some...but in reality there is no difference ...all are just animals...and many do eat dogs and cats faised on farms for meat just like pigs or chickens are.

If a PET owner lists their prefered animals...they would go....dogs, cats,....then the wild life fancy entertaining animals like...urang utangs...monkeys...elephants...lions...and last of all...farm animals...like rabbits...pigs...chickens...lambs....turkeys.

A pet owner tends to think the PET species dogs and cats are "more intelligent" and "useful" to humans as toys to keep for entertainment than other species of animals who actually per scientists are MORe intelligent than pet dogs and cats like pigs and even pigeons.


A Non Pet owner...would place...the "not dangerous" to humans wild life species top in their list ...leaving wolves and lions at the bottm of their list as not wanted near where they live....and PET dogs and cat species right at the bottom of the list.

Elephants...Urang Utangs...Monkeys...Whales....would come top of the Wild Life list...followed IF abroad by...maybe lions wolves but actually non pet owners recognise those species no longer have a place in any ecosystem and not suited to have living wild near humans in our 8 billion human populated planet.

Farm animals...would be listed according to which TASTE the best ...and PIGS and CHICKENS are those non pet lovers value the most ...but ..not their LIVES of course...non pet lovers...know farm species animals are frankenstein unnatural freaks just like pet species dogs and cats are...and so not really deserving a life unless of "use" for something to humans...like food.

ZOOS and HUNTERS would classify animals into what "use" they have to them to earn money...just like animal farmers would...

so ..?

ALL FARMED animals...lions...dogs...cats...elephants...chickens...have the same importance if they can be sold for FOOD use when killed or SPORT use when hunted.

PETS ? have no values except to businesses that breed animals for profit like PET BREEDERS so i just add them into the ZOOS HUNTERS ANIMAL FARMERS category.


In fact...one could say...looking at that analysis...that NO animal has ANY value to people unless they "get" something from the animal.

That "use" can be...companionship petting toy use for PET owners...or INCOME if an animal farmer or zoo or animal breeder of pets....or ENTERTAINMENT if a hunter or PET owner

In reality...HUNTERS of farmed animals bred to be killed for entertainment sport...are not so different to PET OWNERS...they see animals they own as entertainment ...use them to entertain themselves.

FARMERS simply produce what those wanting animals for either FOOD or ENTERTAINMENT and value the animals accoridng to profit.

The non pet owner...the "leave wild life alone" people...are actually imho the most ethical of all ...there is the most hope in the world if more people were anti animal ownership and "use" of animals for all those purposes...than in a mass of "pet lovers" and "zoo lovers" and "hunting lovers"

What would animals wish for if they could talk ?

1. to LIVE firstly ...all of them would choose that option

2. To live FREE of human controls over them

3. To have families of their own species


well...we are not going to consider all that are we lol...when we humans think and show that animals are things to "use" for various pleasures and uses we humans find for them !

All we humans seem to spend out time arguing about when talking of animals...is what "uses" people think others use animals for are in our personal opinions more or less right or wrong !

Do doggies get walkies enough ? if pets...but never mind about any walkies for the 19 adult size broiler chicken caged standards.

is that a white or golden lion for me to shoot and kill ? colour and size matters so produce what is needed.

Should urang utangs be saved more than the monkeys in the amazon going extinct and species not so trendy as not so "cute" looking for PR uses ?


What is MY view of those lists hey ?

well...i will give my view...

I do not think...saving a species from extinction like urang utangs or lions or tigers is as important as saving chickens lives.

i have very little patience or interest in the "save the whale" emotive hypes that people sinking their teeth into the leg of a roasted baby lamb whilst talking about this whale to save go on about.

Why bother about spending millions to save 1 stranded whale that people hunt and kill to eat anyway just like people kill and eat baby lambs or feed them to their preferred pet cat or dog ?

It makes no sense to me.

It is as Gary L Francione the creator of the 6 Principles of Abolitionist Veganism calls it..."moral schizophrenia"

To get emotive about a whale being killed or dying wanting to spend millions on saving one...or an urang utang...but killing a dozen fish to feed a pet cat or yourself...same difference....just more lives killed in the fish for pet food or human food action.

How many...animals per year...does the average animal eating human kill ? 100 approximately...if not counting the hundreds of sealife aimals like prawns and sardines etc

CHICKENS are the most bred and killed and eaten farm animal generally in the world.

So...a pet cat...outpeforms the number of animals bred and killed per year than 1 human in fact...if fed unhealthy for cats anyway frull of mercury plastics toxins open water fish...a cat will consume 1000s in 1 year...if a rabbit bred specifically for pet foods farm animal..240 per year.

So in reality...1 pet cat...causes the deaths of more animals per year than 1 meat eating human !

So what is the point ? of keeping pet cats if not fed vegan one should realise hey ! none at all.

A FLEXITARIAN saves more lives than a person keeping a pet cat and feeding them farm animals.

Intersting relevant points to consider.

USE of animals...is what determines their "value" to us is the conclusion...which has nothing to do with ETHICS of course as "use" of animals is not actually VEGAN of course ..."minimal harm" is what vegan is supposed to aim for...well i struggle to understand what is "vegan" meaning "minimal harm" when looking at "numbers of deaths deliberately caused by humans" in this sorry affair of "animals are ours to use" we just argue about our different views on what uses we all have different opinions about.

i mean put this hypothetical but possible scenario forwards...

A dentist from the USA who is a FLEXITARIAN so eats actually only say 50 animals the size of a rabbit or chicken per year...goes to hunt and shoot a LION ...whose skin then adorns his lounge...and the meat of the dead lion is sold as "lion meat" and eaten ...yes there are people who eat lions meat...in the USA as well as Africa.

So how many LIVES has this hunter dentist taken ? 51. in 1 year.

Compare that...to the number of LIVES a cat per owner takes....240 in 1 year of bred and killed by humans on rabbit farms rabbits...plus about 50 wild birds as roaming round wild with plenty energy to kill due to fed by human owner. We get to ? over 300 animals lives taken.

So who is morally more or less VEGAN ? the hunter flexitarian dentist who killed 51 animals in 1 year...or the alleged calling themselves a vegan cat owner...causing the deliberate due to human choices deaths of 300 animals in 1 year ?

Well if talking ETHICS...philosophy of veganism...ethical considerations...what is ethical about those 2 scenarios ? i judge...based on numbers of lives...the animals killed would also judge on that basis...so who wants to argue differently ?

Never mind Cecil the Lion rants ...that case shows...he is more ethical than people give credit for !

Here i show...that being "judgemental" and accusing others of "cruelty" and being more or less morally good than someone else ...is based on very unstable grounds hey...

I as a vegan cat owner...get a huge number of people who call themselves morally superior to me ranting that i am "cruel" for not killing 240 bunny rabbits a year to feed my vegan cat.

Yet i see those people...as animal abusers of course as i am vegan and do not believe or practise the "animals are ours to use by killing" ideas...i believe..."animals are NOT ours to use and kill"

I do not think too badly of the Cecil the Lion hunter either...based on the numbers of lives he took per year...he is no mass murderer at all...compared to a pet owner who feeds bred by humans baby chickens to their preferred superflous to wild life and any ecosystem pet cat.

It is dangerous...imho...to go around...accusing others of "cruelty" in fact...it is a far too easily bandied around personal accusation based on absolute twaddle and no bassis quantified or defined to do so.

One could accuse all those who themselves eat animals daily or weekly of "cruelty" but then they could say...ah but i groom my pet dog well and take her walkies often and she lives a life of luxury in my home so i am NOT cruel

Clean up your act is my suggestion...before ranting at others about them being "cruel" and i certainly do not jump on bandwagons to rant about the "cruelty" of killing 1 lion for sport when the people ranting are killing 1 chicken a week at least themselves !

That is all lol.

The Man Who Murdered Cecil the Lion Has Just Slaughtered Another Irreplaceable Animal

What if...this person..is a flexitarian...who eats only 50 chicken size animals per year...1 per week...and kills 1 lion or other animal. 51 animals lives taken per 1 year.

Compared to ? someone who eats on average 100 chickens per year plus hundreds of prawns and marine small animals..and feeds a pet cat 240 bred and killed by humans rabbits per year ? well ? my cat btw is vegan fed...

Cecil the Lion hunter strikes again...1 life taken....pet cat fed 240 rabbits a year...no outrage.


Walter Palmer murdered Cecil the lion, wounding the poor thing with an arrow and allowing him to suffer for 12 hours before authorities eventually found him and mercifully put him down. In doing this, he earned the title 'the most hated man on Earth.' He tried to step back from the public eye to save face and his business, a dentistry practice in Bloomington, Minnesota. But what he didn't do was stop killing animals. His most recent slaughter was that of a Mongolian argali, the largest sheep in the world that is not only treasured in its country, but dangerously close to extinction.

Sign the petition to demand that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service bar Palmer from bringing his gruesome trophy, the body of the poor sheep, into the United States!

In this case, the damage is done and the poor argali's life is lost. But by stopping this bloodthirsty hunter from being able to keep the spoils of his murder, the United States will send a strong message that Palmer's violence for sport will not be tolerated.

Palmer traveled almost 6,000 miles and paid more than 100,000 USD in order to play out his fantasy of killing. Once he got there, he used an arrow to bring down the huge, beautiful argali from only 30 yards away -- the same way he brought down poor Cecil. Afterwards, he posed with the animal's corpse and another hunter. Palmer and his hunting buddies knew how horrifying the murder was, and that the world would react in anguish and anger, which is why they tried to crop his face out of the shot.

According to friends, Palmer has a macabre list of his dream hunts, and this trip to Mongolia was one of them. Some kills that he has already crossed off his list are that of an elephant, a rhino, a leopard, and an illegally slaughtered black bear.

Walter Palmer does not regret his cruel actions, but he doesn't like the backlash he receives for them, which is why he tried to keep this argali murder out of the public eye. It is obviously not enough for the public to condemn his actions -- the U.S. government needs to tell Palmer, and all trophy hunters, that their disgusting pay-to-play killing is unacceptable.

Under Donald Trump, trophy hunters in the U.S. have only become more emboldened and enabled. After all, his own son, Donald Trump Jr., killed the exact same type of sheep in Mongolia just last year. This needs to end. Sign the petition and demand that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service deny Walter Palmer's request to import the corpse of a murdered argali, what he would call a trophy, into the country!

Photo from Facebook. Walter Palmer is on the left.




Cecil the lion hunter strikes again news doing the rounds...

What if...this person..is a flexitarian...who eats only 50 chicken size animals per year...1 per week...and kills 1 lion or other animal. 51 animals lives taken per 1 year.

Compared to ? someone who eats on average 100 chickens per year plus hundreds of prawns and marine small animals..and feeds a pet cat 240 bred and killed by humans rabbits per year ? well ? my cat btw is vegan fed...

Cecil the Lion hunter strikes again...1 life taken....pet cat fed 240 rabbits a year...no outrage.

Are we missing the point ? speciesm ?

I am vegan...i believe "animals are not ours to use" by breeding and killing them as our prisoners.

My prisoner pet cat of mine is fed vegan as are my prisoner pet dogs.


more

 

[Vegan Dogs]

no reactions still ?

either that is....because..

1. People afraid to admit which species of animals they prefer and would on that basis save the lives of above other spcies of animals....

2. People are not interested in saving animals lives...and are "vegan" for health and or environmental rasons not AR Animal Rights reasons...

3. It is too difficult a topic ...people are unsure which animals they think have a priority to live and die

4. Any other reasons !

So ... let me try and help if possible...i offer simple options if people cannot explain the species and preferences in freehand replies.....

1. Non animal lovers...non pet owners...are not likely to value PETS highly but if any...respect and admire WILD ANIMALS the most and be funders of WWF type organisations ...not PET RESCUES of pet dogs and cats dumped rescues.

Non pet owners...are...imho...more "true vegans" than many vegans..they recognise that animals...non human ones...deserve to live FREE and do their own thing have their own families feed themselves etc without humans owning them and forcing castrations food homes leads etc on them

Non pet owners...recognise...that non human animals are just "toys" to entertain their human owners

Non pet owners...will respect wild life...then secondly farm animals...and place PET animals at the bottom of the list of importance as they would actually like to see the END of pet ownership and the ridiculous in their view of animals on leashes and in cages living unnatural prisoners of humans lives.

Many non pet owners dislike zoos for those same reasons.


So...the hierachy for

1. a non pet owner would be...

1. Wild animals
2. Farm animals
3. PETS not even a priority to them.


2. The PET OWNERS...will of course not be interested in WILD animals but spend all their funds on PET species animals they own...bllions are spent on toys food vet care for PET animals and none to the same degree offered to help WILD animals or FARM animals by PET owners.

The hierachy of pet owners would be...
1. PET animals
2. Wild Animals
3. Farm Animals.

Farm animals come lower down on the list of respect by pet owners....FArm animals to PET owners as well as WILD animals are just "fodder" to "use" for their pets meaning take the lives of forced to be bred and killed as babies farm animals...and any going extinct wild birds etc are irrelevant to pet owners who think walkies for their pet cats instead of living like farm animals they kill to feed their pet cats are essential for a pet cat but not the 19 adult size chickens in 1m2 wire cages killed age 6 weeks old.

3. The Farm Animal Owners....

will prioritise animals according to the financial value they have to them...so

1. Farm animals for a few weeks or months age for 98 percent of all farm animals when killed...are the first priority to shove antibiotics in them using 70 percent of the world antibiotics just to keep most alive until a few weeks old or few months old when killed.

20 percent of those who die before the 6 weeks old for chickens or a few months old for lambs and pigs...are still profitable as they end up in pet foods and earn billions of money from the most suffered farm animals.

2. PETS...if they keep any

3. Wild life...and actually animal farmers are responsible for the extinction of many wild animal species...the USA alone has the government kill 1 million wild animals like lynx and wolves to protect the only 1 percent of farm animals in the USA that are pasture raised.

So in fact...the caged indoor farm animals farmers keep cause LESS wild life killings than the pasture raised ones.

4. ZOOS and HUNTERS for sport.

These will prioritise the breeding even of lions and big cats for hunting sport.

Currently South Africa breeds 14 thousand lion species they force reproduce selectively and then earn money from having hunters come and shoot them.

This is half of ALL lions living in the wild ! there are only 23 thousand wild lions and 4 thousand wild tigers left in the world...in fact...let them go extinct as they nearly are is possible ...why not ? those who need them to hunt them or eat them....as some of those are sold as eating meat...are bred in captivity by lion animal farmers. They actually breed various wild life species for meat consumption and hunting entertainment. No need for zoos anywhere else is the reality when one accepts these farms produce far more lions etc than all the zoos in the world that do not release zoo animals to the wild again anyway as they are earners for the zoo business.

Zoos and hunters...are not interested in PETS or FARM ANIMALS except...that farm animals are bred to feed other farm animals so the priority hierachy is...

1. WILD FARMED ANIMALS
2. Farm Animals
3. PETS

Now for the SPECIES ....

PETS...although any species can be in reality a PET...some wild life species are banned from being legally owned pets...like ? lions tigers ...as too dangerous and large animals...some protectd nearly extinct species like Eagles also maybe. I am not sure of how many wild life species are protected against being OWNED by humans...

Dogd and Cats...to pet owners generally seem to be seen as not edible meat for humans or other animals...by some...but in reality there is no difference ...all are just animals...and many do eat dogs and cats faised on farms for meat just like pigs or chickens are.

If a PET owner lists their prefered animals...they would go....dogs, cats,....then the wild life fancy entertaining animals like...urang utangs...monkeys...elephants...lions...and last of all...farm animals...like rabbits...pigs...chickens...lambs....turkeys.

A pet owner tends to think the PET species dogs and cats are "more intelligent" and "useful" to humans as toys to keep for entertainment than other species of animals who actually per scientists are MORe intelligent than pet dogs and cats like pigs and even pigeons.


A Non Pet owner...would place...the "not dangerous" to humans wild life species top in their list ...leaving wolves and lions at the bottm of their list as not wanted near where they live....and PET dogs and cat species right at the bottom of the list.

Elephants...Urang Utangs...Monkeys...Whales....would come top of the Wild Life list...followed IF abroad by...maybe lions wolves but actually non pet owners recognise those species no longer have a place in any ecosystem and not suited to have living wild near humans in our 8 billion human populated planet.

Farm animals...would be listed according to which TASTE the best ...and PIGS and CHICKENS are those non pet lovers value the most ...but ..not their LIVES of course...non pet lovers...know farm species animals are frankenstein unnatural freaks just like pet species dogs and cats are...and so not really deserving a life unless of "use" for something to humans...like food.

ZOOS and HUNTERS would classify animals into what "use" they have to them to earn money...just like animal farmers would...

so ..?

ALL FARMED animals...lions...dogs...cats...elephants...chickens...have the same importance if they can be sold for FOOD use when killed or SPORT use when hunted.

PETS ? have no values except to businesses that breed animals for profit like PET BREEDERS so i just add them into the ZOOS HUNTERS ANIMAL FARMERS category.


In fact...one could say...looking at that analysis...that NO animal has ANY value to people unless they "get" something from the animal.

That "use" can be...companionship petting toy use for PET owners...or INCOME if an animal farmer or zoo or animal breeder of pets....or ENTERTAINMENT if a hunter or PET owner

In reality...HUNTERS of farmed animals bred to be killed for entertainment sport...are not so different to PET OWNERS...they see animals they own as entertainment ...use them to entertain themselves.

FARMERS simply produce what those wanting animals for either FOOD or ENTERTAINMENT and value the animals accoridng to profit.

The non pet owner...the "leave wild life alone" people...are actually imho the most ethical of all ...there is the most hope in the world if more people were anti animal ownership and "use" of animals for all those purposes...than in a mass of "pet lovers" and "zoo lovers" and "hunting lovers"

What would animals wish for if they could talk ?

1. to LIVE firstly ...all of them would choose that option

2. To live FREE of human controls over them

3. To have families of their own species


well...we are not going to consider all that are we lol...when we humans think and show that animals are things to "use" for various pleasures and uses we humans find for them !

All we humans seem to spend out time arguing about when talking of animals...is what "uses" people think others use animals for are in our personal opinions more or less right or wrong !

Do doggies get walkies enough ? if pets...but never mind about any walkies for the 19 adult size broiler chicken caged standards.

is that a white or golden lion for me to shoot and kill ? colour and size matters so produce what is needed.

Should urang utangs be saved more than the monkeys in the amazon going extinct and species not so trendy as not so "cute" looking for PR uses ?


What is MY view of those lists hey ?

well...i will give my view...

I do not think...saving a species from extinction like urang utangs or lions or tigers is as important as saving chickens lives.

i have very little patience or interest in the "save the whale" emotive hypes that people sinking their teeth into the leg of a roasted baby lamb whilst talking about this whale to save go on about.

Why bother about spending millions to save 1 stranded whale that people hunt and kill to eat anyway just like people kill and eat baby lambs or feed them to their preferred pet cat or dog ?

It makes no sense to me.

It is as Gary L Francione the creator of the 6 Principles of Abolitionist Veganism calls it..."moral schizophrenia"

To get emotive about a whale being killed or dying wanting to spend millions on saving one...or an urang utang...but killing a dozen fish to feed a pet cat or yourself...same difference....just more lives killed in the fish for pet food or human food action.

How many...animals per year...does the average animal eating human kill ? 100 approximately...if not counting the hundreds of sealife aimals like prawns and sardines etc

CHICKENS are the most bred and killed and eaten farm animal generally in the world.

So...a pet cat...outpeforms the number of animals bred and killed per year than 1 human in fact...if fed unhealthy for cats anyway frull of mercury plastics toxins open water fish...a cat will consume 1000s in 1 year...if a rabbit bred specifically for pet foods farm animal..240 per year.

So in reality...1 pet cat...causes the deaths of more animals per year than 1 meat eating human !

So what is the point ? of keeping pet cats if not fed vegan one should realise hey ! none at all.

A FLEXITARIAN saves more lives than a person keeping a pet cat and feeding them farm animals.

Intersting relevant points to consider.

USE of animals...is what determines their "value" to us is the conclusion...which has nothing to do with ETHICS of course as "use" of animals is not actually VEGAN of course ..."minimal harm" is what vegan is supposed to aim for...well i struggle to understand what is "vegan" meaning "minimal harm" when looking at "numbers of deaths deliberately caused by humans" in this sorry affair of "animals are ours to use" we just argue about our different views on what uses we all have different opinions about.

i mean put this hypothetical but possible scenario forwards...

A dentist from the USA who is a FLEXITARIAN so eats actually only say 50 animals the size of a rabbit or chicken per year...goes to hunt and shoot a LION ...whose skin then adorns his lounge...and the meat of the dead lion is sold as "lion meat" and eaten ...yes there are people who eat lions meat...in the USA as well as Africa.

So how many LIVES has this hunter dentist taken ? 51. in 1 year.

Compare that...to the number of LIVES a cat per owner takes....240 in 1 year of bred and killed by humans on rabbit farms rabbits...plus about 50 wild birds as roaming round wild with plenty energy to kill due to fed by human owner. We get to ? over 300 animals lives taken.

So who is morally more or less VEGAN ? the hunter flexitarian dentist who killed 51 animals in 1 year...or the alleged calling themselves a vegan cat owner...causing the deliberate due to human choices deaths of 300 animals in 1 year ?

Well if talking ETHICS...philosophy of veganism...ethical considerations...what is ethical about those 2 scenarios ? i judge...based on numbers of lives...the animals killed would also judge on that basis...so who wants to argue differently ?

Never mind Cecil the Lion rants ...that case shows...he is more ethical than people give credit for !

Here i show...that being "judgemental" and accusing others of "cruelty" and being more or less morally good than someone else ...is based on very unstable grounds hey...

I as a vegan cat owner...get a huge number of people who call themselves morally superior to me ranting that i am "cruel" for not killing 240 bunny rabbits a year to feed my vegan cat.

Yet i see those people...as animal abusers of course as i am vegan and do not believe or practise the "animals are ours to use by killing" ideas...i believe..."animals are NOT ours to use and kill"

I do not think too badly of the Cecil the Lion hunter either...based on the numbers of lives he took per year...he is no mass murderer at all...compared to a pet owner who feeds bred by humans baby chickens to their preferred superflous to wild life and any ecosystem pet cat.

It is dangerous...imho...to go around...accusing others of "cruelty" in fact...it is a far too easily bandied around personal accusation based on absolute twaddle and no bassis quantified or defined to do so.

One could accuse all those who themselves eat animals daily or weekly of "cruelty" but then they could say...ah but i groom my pet dog well and take her walkies often and she lives a life of luxury in my home so i am NOT cruel

Clean up your act is my suggestion...before ranting at others about them being "cruel" and i certainly do not jump on bandwagons to rant about the "cruelty" of killing 1 lion for sport when the people ranting are killing 1 chicken a week at least themselves !

That is all lol.

The Man Who Murdered Cecil the Lion Has Just Slaughtered Another Irreplaceable Animal

What if...this person..is a flexitarian...who eats only 50 chicken size animals per year...1 per week...and kills 1 lion or other animal. 51 animals lives taken per 1 year.

Compared to ? someone who eats on average 100 chickens per year plus hundreds of prawns and marine small animals..and feeds a pet cat 240 bred and killed by humans rabbits per year ? well ? my cat btw is vegan fed...

Cecil the Lion hunter strikes again...1 life taken....pet cat fed 240 rabbits a year...no outrage.


Walter Palmer murdered Cecil the lion, wounding the poor thing with an arrow and allowing him to suffer for 12 hours before authorities eventually found him and mercifully put him down. In doing this, he earned the title 'the most hated man on Earth.' He tried to step back from the public eye to save face and his business, a dentistry practice in Bloomington, Minnesota. But what he didn't do was stop killing animals. His most recent slaughter was that of a Mongolian argali, the largest sheep in the world that is not only treasured in its country, but dangerously close to extinction.

Sign the petition to demand that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service bar Palmer from bringing his gruesome trophy, the body of the poor sheep, into the United States!

In this case, the damage is done and the poor argali's life is lost. But by stopping this bloodthirsty hunter from being able to keep the spoils of his murder, the United States will send a strong message that Palmer's violence for sport will not be tolerated.

Palmer traveled almost 6,000 miles and paid more than 100,000 USD in order to play out his fantasy of killing. Once he got there, he used an arrow to bring down the huge, beautiful argali from only 30 yards away -- the same way he brought down poor Cecil. Afterwards, he posed with the animal's corpse and another hunter. Palmer and his hunting buddies knew how horrifying the murder was, and that the world would react in anguish and anger, which is why they tried to crop his face out of the shot.

According to friends, Palmer has a macabre list of his dream hunts, and this trip to Mongolia was one of them. Some kills that he has already crossed off his list are that of an elephant, a rhino, a leopard, and an illegally slaughtered black bear.

Walter Palmer does not regret his cruel actions, but he doesn't like the backlash he receives for them, which is why he tried to keep this argali murder out of the public eye. It is obviously not enough for the public to condemn his actions -- the U.S. government needs to tell Palmer, and all trophy hunters, that their disgusting pay-to-play killing is unacceptable.

Under Donald Trump, trophy hunters in the U.S. have only become more emboldened and enabled. After all, his own son, Donald Trump Jr., killed the exact same type of sheep in Mongolia just last year. This needs to end. Sign the petition and demand that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service deny Walter Palmer's request to import the corpse of a murdered argali, what he would call a trophy, into the country!

Photo from Facebook. Walter Palmer is on the left.

View attachment 22073


Cecil the lion hunter strikes again news doing the rounds...

What if...this person..is a flexitarian...who eats only 50 chicken size animals per year...1 per week...and kills 1 lion or other animal. 51 animals lives taken per 1 year.

Compared to ? someone who eats on average 100 chickens per year plus hundreds of prawns and marine small animals..and feeds a pet cat 240 bred and killed by humans rabbits per year ? well ? my cat btw is vegan fed...

Cecil the Lion hunter strikes again...1 life taken....pet cat fed 240 rabbits a year...no outrage.

Are we missing the point ? speciesm ?

I am vegan...i believe "animals are not ours to use" by breeding and killing them as our prisoners.

My prisoner pet cat of mine is fed vegan as are my prisoner pet dogs.


more

• #2

I mean...he has only killed 1 animal.

For which he paid a great deal of money.

Maybe the meat of the animal weill be sold to be eaten.

Does it matter that the species is going extinct ? well ? so many species are gone extinct...gong extinct...due to animal agriculture...we do not kick up a fuss about every non trendy monkey or animal that is killed of a going extinct species....

We know...or should know...animal agriculture is the leading cause of species extinction as deforestation taking of habitats of wild life is driven 80 percent by animal agriculture uses of land.

We know or should know...pet food constitutes 30 percent of all animal protein consumed so contributes hugely as scientists have reported to environmental destruction wild life exctinction and climate change besides causing the deaths per year of at last specially bred for pet food 300 million bunny rabbits just to mention one species of farm animal that goes into non vegan cat food....

So ? who is the ethically worse ? the dentist killing 1 animal or the superfluous pet cat owner feeding 240 bunny rabbits bred and killed by humans to the 1 pet cat ?

 

[thinman]

I have no use for pets, a couple of buddies wanted to rent a camper (just before covid struck) and go camping but they wanted to bring their dogs, this just spoils the whole thing for me. I don't think I would ever want to go.

Farm animals are bred to eat. Some here in Canada hunt and fish.

 

[Vegan Dogs]

I have no use for pets, a couple of buddies wanted to rent a camper (just before covid struck) and go camping but they wanted to bring their dogs, this just spoils the whole thing for me. I don't think I would ever want to go.

Farm animals are bred to eat. Some here in Canada hunt and fish.

ah an honest reply ...welcome !

i am so pleased...so see a non pet owner and not adulator of the pet species person in this group at last.

Some other newbie to veganism member in the group once posted he thought vegans only liked FARM animals...how wrong that idea is hey lol

i actually...am of the opinion...that PET owernship is the major barrier to mind blocks about use of animals generally.

If...as people mowadays do...see animals as "things" people should own ...for entertainment use or any use...then it is harder to persuade people that it is unnatural to own animals...unethical..and the PETA slogan that the Principles of Veganism set out by Gary Francione are more ignored ...the easy principle of..."animals are not ours to use"

If people could learn "respect" rather than boasting about "love" of some pet animals ...all animals lives would improve...once people realised 2 things...

1. We do not NEED to eat or wear animals today...so we should cease as wild life is now only 4 percent of animals on earth...humans are 36 percent and farm animals humans create that destroy the wild life are 60 percent.

2. Animals...should live FREE so creating frankenstein domestic breed spcecies as pets who are not part of but destroy ecosystems...should end.

Actualy as Gary L Francione explains well...nding pet ownership is a goal of veganism

It is totally unnatural for any animal to keep and maintain by feeding housing taking to vets..any adult other species animal.

All species....bring up their own species young...who then are free to leave and make lives of their own find their own food when adults.

What we humans have done...is due to mental problems ...we have turned to using some animals aas emotional crutches ...adulting them as PETS ...refusing to see...their lives are unnatural and pathetic in reality.

My pet dogs...have absolutely no shared understsanding of 99 percent of my activities...they just learn to tolerate my online or talking to people or driving a car or going out shopping etc...none of those activities can they understsand or share part of.

PETS are pests in reality...to other people whose pets they are not...there is already need to tolerate other peoples own kids...but adding dumb meaning not communicating or sharing human activities non humans is forcing them on other people and unfair.

 

[thinman]

I read projects to back breed the cow to introduce back into the wild, last wild cow was in Poland 1627.

Aurochs - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Vegan Dogs]

I read projects to back breed the cow to introduce back into the wild, last wild cow was in Poland 1627.

Aurochs - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

a minor imho trivial focus on one species as a hobby ...i do not think the centuries ago real wild horse breeds bear any similarly to horses bred by humans now...

sure cows...goats...sheep...pigs ...bear no similarity to wild boarr or their ancestors.

and so when extinct...as they are...leave them be is my view

the wild buffalo that used to roam the usa could not be re introduced lol...i mean wild small herds of wild mustangs are destroyed is the reality

in africa...elephants are massively down from millions just 100 years ago to only 100 thousand is it now left ? they cannot march over human crops grown free to wander thousands of miles anymore

Wolves same issue...dangerous if close to humans.

So other than in some pristine areas like the amazon...that actually is being destroyed to grow farm animal feed to feed pets and humans...reservatons of limited wild life species is the best we can hope for now

recognising...domestic breed pet and farm animals are just travesties of nature and have no place in the ecosystem

anyway

70 percent of wild fish and land animals in the wild have gone in the past 50 years.

The idea 8 billion human population and their unnatural millions of unnatural pets can continue to eat wild or farmed animals is destroying the planet. We were 2 billion people only 50 years ago...meat consumption has quadrupled in the past 50 years. Same as the population increase factor...but will increase more as more get wealthy in the far east as currently China eat 3 times LESS animals than a westerner does...20 percent of the human population are eating 80 percent of the animals

ps on the subject of gone extinct horse breeds...the "shire horse" a huge bulky human designed horse breed to pull heavy loads is now just a kind of "zoo animal" a few enthusiasts keep breeding ...what use is that really hey ?

Sure massively impressive beasts...but they wre designed by humans for a purpose that no longer exists today...a "use" that no longer exists anymore than horses ulling carriages before cars took over.

Same for most dog breeds ...most are human designed creations for "uses" historically turned now into "pet entertainment" items.

We really have created species designed out of "uses" that are now stupid and have no place anyway then or now in the ecosystem and should be let to go extinct.

ppss i actually think...the Urang utang should be left to go extinct as palm oil is less land greedy for palm oil as a vegetable oil of many uses...than other oil alternatives...that would mean more different animals species going extinct

 

[Hog]

I am a simple redneck Hog. So I got a few questions:

What is intelligence?
Who gets to decide the meaning of intelligence?
How could we measure it?
Why is intelligence important in the first place?

 

[Vegan Dogs]

well of course those scientists who measure human and non human intelligence have their methods.

I am not one of them lol.

Intelligence for humans means better able to deal with particular skills or tasks.

Experts are obviously able to measure how fast different individuals learn different things and therefore accord them a measure of intelligence.


If you look up this philosopher...very well know...Peter Singer...on youtube etc...you will see he accords importance of LIFE meaning deserving to live priority based on the intelligence...cognitive skills ...of different individuals.


He does not like many list the species of animals by intelligence...but clearly humans would come top of the list for having produced technological things like cars etc using tools and brain abilities

However his point...which i mentioned...is that a human baby...age a few months old....or even 2 years old...has very little comparative cognitive skills compared to a 2 year old chimp or dog.

Therefore based on cognitive skills the life of the dog or chimp at those ages would be worth more than the life of the baby human.

Ordinary people...often use also this notion of "so intelligent" about their pets...to say...which species to them have the most "worth" the fact that pigs have measured by independant scientists faster learning skills and more cogitive ability than dogs as a species...as do pigeons...is not something pet dog owners would like to recognise of course.

anyway. explained.

the question is...

should intelligence...be a criteria...for deciding whose lives are worth more than others ?

eg...a mentally in a coma human being...has very little cognitive ability..compared to a 6 month old chicken...so whose life is worth more if a choice between them had to be made to save them ?

That is the question

To some...human lives no matter what level of mental capacity...are worth more than any non human life

To some...dog lives are worth more than a pigeon life

it seems...people decide arbitrarily which animals are more intelligent than others...and use that often as an argument to say..."their lives matter"

Very often...we see promotions of animals usiing the argument..."intelligent animals" meaning they deserve to live

All of us must have noticed that.

I am saying...i find it uncomfortable...that people decide arbitrarily usually which species are more intelligent so more appealing to them

 

[Tom L.]

I was going to write a long reply about how I tend to think "intelligence" and "sentience" might be related, that I have some sort of scale of "intelligence" (which is a work in progress), that I make more effort to avoid harming an animal if I see more evidence of "intelligence"/"sentience", and that I also consider whether the animal itself poses a threat to other animals or not (herbivores generally get more consideration from me than predators). I decided to keep it short.

I do try to avoid harming even insects and snails. But I would surely go stark raving mad if I made as much effort to avoid harming them as I do to avoid harming rodents.

And about "intelligence"... in my experience, some animals (such as rabbits) aren't given the opportunity to show how responsive, intelligent, and affectionate they can be. One of my rabbits in particular (Hans, a mini-Rex) was quite affectionate to me, and used to hop i circles around my feet when he knew I was preparing a vegetable or fruit he liked. But none of them would have been at all responsive to me if I had kept them in a cage and only paid attention to them when I was giving them food or water, or cleaning their cage. I know rabbits can be destructive with their tendency to gnaw, so you have to watch them when they're out in the house- it's part of being a rabbit caretaker.

 

[Vegan Dogs]

I was going to write a long reply about how I tend to think "intelligence" and "sentience" might be related, that I have some sort of scale of "intelligence" (which is a work in progress), that I make more effort to avoid harming an animal if I see more evidence of "intelligence"/"sentience", and that I also consider whether the animal itself poses a threat to other animals or not (herbivores generally get more consideration from me than predators). I decided to keep it short.

I do try to avoid harming even insects and snails. But I would surely go stark raving mad if I made as much effort to avoid harming them as I do to avoid harming rodents.

And about "intelligence"... in my experience, some animals (such as rabbits) aren't given the opportunity to show how responsive, intelligent, and affectionate they can be. One of my rabbits in particular (Hans, a mini-Rex) was quite affectionate to me, and used to hop i circles around my feet when he knew I was preparing a vegetable or fruit he liked. But none of them would have been at all responsive to me if I had kept them in a cage and only paid attention to them when I was giving them food or water, or cleaning their cage. I know rabbits can be destructive with their tendency to gnaw, so you have to watch them when they're out in the house- it's part of being a rabbit caretaker.

actually in the depth of your thinking....is a clear indication of what most people do...

Other than the "scientists" with methods of evaluating intelligence based on speed to learn things...which of course is dependant on the "methods" to "teach" the required reactions to assess...

Other than those scientifically measured intelligence lists...where pigeons come higher as faster learners than dogs...

Most people assess how intelligent an animal is based on the reaction of the animal to them.

If as you say...a "wild" animal then "affection" is not given to the human...so a "wild rabbit" is not as "intelligent" as a "tamed domesticated rabbit" in the perception of humans.

Which as you recognise is incorrect...but...you feel more affinity with the "tamed" rabbit than the "wild" rabbit

The real reason...people prefer dogs is not because they are more intelligent than pigs...but because they are easy to "get" things from in a practical easy to keep as a captive pet animal.

Pigs are in fact far more "intelligent" than dogs all scientists know.

That however...does not address the capacity to feel "pain" of an animal....which is actually the same in all animals if sentient beings. Pain and the wish to live are common factors nothing to do with intelligence of sentient beings...and it is this criteria which is the most important one regarding the right to live.

 

[Tom L.]

........The real reason...people prefer dogs is not because they are more intelligent than pigs...but because they are easy to "get" things from in a practical easy to keep as a captive pet animal.

Pigs are in fact far more "intelligent" than dogs all scientists know.

That however...does not address the capacity to feel "pain" of an animal....which is actually the same in all animals if sentient beings. Pain and the wish to live are common factors nothing to do with intelligence of sentient beings...and it is this criteria which is the most important one regarding the right to live.

(bold/italic emphasis mine) And even the question of sentience can be hard to answer definitively. Mammal and bird brains all have a "cortex"; as far as I know, neural activity in this area has been thought by scientists to be indicative of "awareness", "consciousness", "sentience", "feeling", or whatever. No cerebral cortex = no "consciousness". Maybe all neurologists or animal behaviorists don't believe this, but many do.

From the beginning of the Wikipedia article titled "Cerebral cortex" (note the last sentence):

The cerebral cortex (plural cortices), also known as the cerebral mantle,[1] is the outer layer of neural tissue of the cerebrum of the brain in humans and other mammals. The cerebral cortex mostly consists of the six-layered neocortex, with just ten per cent consisting of allocortex.[2] It is separated into two cortices, by the longitudinal fissure that divides the cerebrum into the left and right cerebral hemispheres. The two hemispheres are joined beneath the cortex by the corpus callosum. The cerebral cortex is the largest site of neural integration in the central nervous system.[3] It plays a key role in attention, perception, awareness, thought, memory, language, and consciousness.

................................... But the following section occurs toward the end of the article (again, note the last sentence):

Other animals
The cerebral cortex is derived from the pallium, a layered structure found in the forebrain of all vertebrates. The basic form of the pallium is a cylindrical layer enclosing fluid-filled ventricles. Around the circumference of the cylinder are four zones, the dorsal pallium, medial pallium, ventral pallium, and lateral pallium, which are thought respectively to give rise to the neocortex, hippocampus, amygdala, and olfactory cortex.

Until recently no counterpart to the cerebral cortex had been recognized in invertebrates. However, a study published in the journal Cell in 2010, based on gene expression profiles, reported strong affinities between the cerebral cortex and the mushroom bodies of the ragworm Platynereis dumerilii.[80] Mushroom bodies are structures in the brains of many types of worms and arthropods that are known to play important roles in learning and memory; the genetic evidence indicates a common evolutionary origin, and therefore indicates that the origins of the earliest precursors of the cerebral cortex date back to the early Precambrian era.

Here's the thing: I've spent a lot of time observing insects, as they've interested me since I was a child- although I never had a collection of dead insects I had caught. I've also kept aquarium fishes- most recently, 5 goldfish (out of about 30 that turned up in two of my co-workers' koi pond about 14 years ago- I couldn't take all of them because they would have needed about 150 gallons aquarium capacity- bare minimum- preferably 300 gallons!- if I couldn't find them all homes.) Insects and fish don't have a cerebral cortex as mammals do- but from the way they behave, I just can't deny the possibility that many other animals besides mammals and birds are aware... and sentient.

 

[Forest Nymph]

I think animals should die based on how destructive they are to the big picture. That includes humans. For example, I had no issue with the woman who made a statement publicly she wouldn't donate her organs to a non-vegan. People were so shocked and called her Karen, but if you actually understand what's going on in the world, I think she's a coldly logical person. Giving her organs to a non-vegan ...a meat eater in particular, especially a random person who might be on the SAD...would mean her actual body, her actual person would be used to abuse animals, destroy the planet, and potentially even be misused to eventually kill the person.

Not suggesting genocide or anything weird and crazy like that. Just to be clear.

But if I have a choice to save Elon Musk or Greta Thunberg, I'm gonna save Greta Thuberg. If I have a choice to save Mitch McConnell and a cow, I'm going to save a cow.

As for pets and farm animals, I think euthanasia is ethical when the animal is "so far gone" that it's actually crueler to keep them alive to suffer for the human "owner" or companion's attachment.

In terms of ecology, I definitely rate wildlife over domestic animals, just because wildlife has been endangered and even driven extinct by domestic animal husbandry. That doesn't mean I want an wanton murder of cattle, but if I choose who gets feed or water in Point Reyes, I will choose the elk.

 

[Vegan Dogs]

I think animals should die based on how destructive they are to the big picture. That includes humans. For example, I had no issue with the woman who made a statement publicly she wouldn't donate her organs to a non-vegan. People were so shocked and called her Karen, but if you actually understand what's going on in the world, I think she's a coldly logical person. Giving her organs to a non-vegan ...a meat eater in particular, especially a random person who might be on the SAD...would mean her actual body, her actual person would be used to abuse animals, destroy the planet, and potentially even be misused to eventually kill the person.

Not suggesting genocide or anything weird and crazy like that. Just to be clear.

But if I have a choice to save Elon Musk or Greta Thunberg, I'm gonna save Greta Thuberg. If I have a choice to save Mitch McConnell and a cow, I'm going to save a cow.

As for pets and farm animals, I think euthanasia is ethical when the animal is "so far gone" that it's actually crueler to keep them alive to suffer for the human "owner" or companion's attachment.

In terms of ecology, I definitely rate wildlife over domestic animals, just because wildlife has been endangered and even driven extinct by domestic animal husbandry. That doesn't mean I want an wanton murder of cattle, but if I choose who gets feed or water in Point Reyes, I will choose the elk.

interesting points...the term "minimal harm" of the vegan principles comes to mind.

The 1 category of animals you failed to mention...ignored...was ? PETS (i include zoo animals in that category for this issue) ....you mentioned all the others ...wild life...domesticated farm animals....humans...but failed to mention PETS....but taking your stated view of "minimal harm" or as y ou put it "most destructive" then your choice of who has to die would be the PETS as not part of any natural ecosystem .... and in all your scenarios...it is clear it is a matter of when there is a decision forced on us humans rather than intervention....i am sure you do not mean that humans should seek out dying or sick wild life and euthanise them ... you only mean us humans for that issue and our PETS.

 

[Brian W]

Q: Why do we have the right to kill animals?
A: Because they are not as intelligent as us.
Q: Do I have the right to kill you then?