register for free
View our sister sites
Our sister sites
Our sister sites
Our sister sites
Hewey
Dogsey Senior
Hewey is offline  
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 536
Female 
 
13-05-2007, 10:49 PM
I don't know about arrogant, isn't it quite normal to refer to humans and animals? Wouldn't it be rather pedantic to always say humans and other animals, my dear girl :smt002 ?
And as to playing God don't we all do that when we euthanase an animal to end suffering or slaughter an animal for Waitrose, if it comes to it. Mother nature can be very cruel when left to her own devices, culling is often to do with limiting that as well as looking after the interests of our fellow human beings. Although some communities may want these animals I think we should respect that others don't, would we still want bears and wolves in the Home Counties? If these other communities wanted the wolves I'm sure nobody would have objected if they had come and got them as I understand happens sometimes with these things.
Reply With Quote
Borderdawn
Dogsey Veteran
Borderdawn is offline  
Location: uk
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 18,552
Female 
 
14-05-2007, 09:00 AM
Originally Posted by Gnasher View Post
Borderdawn: You said:

"Humans do have more right to live in an area than an animal they have families to keep. (dont give me fluffy stories about Wolf families! )"

In another posting you also said:

"Humans are higher than animals".

By making these statements, am I to understand that you consider the human species - homo sapiens - to be non-animal?

If the answer to this question is affirmative, would you care to enlighten me as to what category you consider humans fall into? Plants?

No, definitely not plants.

Well then, let's take something a bit more ... well, animal. Let's say ... ooh, I know, mammals. Are humans mammals? Yes, they certainly are, they suckle their young, so therefore they are definitely mammals. Well, are mammals animals? Yes, they are animals.

Then my dear girl, I am afraid that means that you are an animal. So am I, so are all humans. We are animals who are fortunate enough to be top of the heap due mainly to the fact that we can talk, we have the power of speech, which has enabled us to develop into the magnificent and intelligent species known as homo sapiens.

However, this does NOT give us the right to play God over every other species, to kill for fun, to pollute and ultimately destroy the planet, and ...

... to decide that it is best to cull another species. This cannot be right, it is not natural. As omnivores we kill for food and this is completely acceptable and natural. To kill for other reasons is not natural, and neither is it right.

I am no bunny hugger, before you accuse me of that. I used to go fox hunting, I have used a gun. The fact that I no longer go or approve of fox hunting, neither do I shoot any more, is another, much longer, story. I am more than capable of shooting a fluffy bunny for my stew pot, were I not able to go to Waitrose and fill it with farmed animals.

I just find you arrogant and quite frankly ignorant. You are of course entitled to your views and opinions, as I am to argue with them, but please do not insult our intelligence by implying that humans are not animals.
Dont be so simplistic Gnasher, your patronising attitude amuses me but doesnt help your cause, (we all know it has nothing to do with this thread either!) and this post of course which you havent even mentioned the topic! However please feel free to entertain me. Oh and while you are at it, contribute to the topic in hand!
Reply With Quote
Gnasher
Dogsey Veteran
Gnasher is offline  
Location: East Midlands, UK
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 8,775
Female 
 
14-05-2007, 11:22 AM
Hewey:

In general terms, yes, it would be pedantic and nit picky to always say humans and animals, but in the context of Borderdawn's arrogance, no not at all. BD thinks that because homo sapiens is the most intelligent (although i sometimes wonder) animal on the planet, that somehow gives us the right to play God over absolutely every living thing on that planet, to mould every aspect of life to suit ourselves. We do indeed play God when we euthanase animals, both our own pets and those that are suffering in the wild. We do this for good reasons, to put a fellow creature out of its misery, something that doctors should be legally allowed to do with us humans IMO. However, what I do not believe we have the right to do is to play God with animals just for our convenience, on a whim. How arrogant can we be to cull the wolves we are talking about just because they are interfering with the PLEASURE of men who want to hunt and kill them - not for food, but for the thrill of the hunt and/or the kill, and/or for a trophy to display on their wall to show what A Big Man they are. Playing God in this context, is absolutely not right. As part of the animal world, we are unique in displaying this very undesirable lust for killing for the sake of it, not to achieve a moral purpose, such as stocking up the larder for the winter (metaphorically speaking).

Although extremely stressful to the wolves, as a last resort I see no harm in man playing God and transferring these wolves to an area where there are more intelligent representatives of our species who will appreciate their beauty, their skill as magnificent hunters who kill for food, not for empty trophies.

You mention wolves and bears in the Home Counties. I for one would immeasurably prefer to have a pack of wolves as my neighbours, rather than an ignorant pack of humans who went out hunting and shooting for pleasure every moment they could. Although bears are considerably more unreliable and dangerous than wolves, I would still rejoice in seeing them living wild in GB, although there are precious few if any suitable places left for such magnificent creatures.

Regrettably, particularly in the case of bears, this could never happen simply because of man - they would be hunted and persecuted to extinction before you could say boo.
Reply With Quote
Gnasher
Dogsey Veteran
Gnasher is offline  
Location: East Midlands, UK
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 8,775
Female 
 
14-05-2007, 11:30 AM
Nothing patronising at all about my attitude - see my above posting to Hewey.

I know exactly what you are referring to, and it has EVERYTHING to do with my passionate beliefs. I will say it yet again - by persecuting wolves, we are persecuting dogs, because they are exactly the same species. (Oh God, WW3 will now break out, shut up Gnasher for goodness sake!)

What on earth do you mean - stick to the topic in hand? I am doing just that. I adore wolves - both wild and tame - and think it absolutely appalling that man continues to persecute these magnificent creatures from whom our wonderful dogs are descended just because they compete with us and spoil our so-called fun.

Glad I amuse you, I'm not trying to, I find this whole topic of man abusing his fellow animals intensely distasteful.
Reply With Quote
Hewey
Dogsey Senior
Hewey is offline  
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 536
Female 
 
14-05-2007, 11:30 AM
I'm of the same view as Borderdawn. I think animals, particularly preditors at the top of the chain do need control. That is very often in their interest and the other creatures in the chain as well as the humans right to protect their own livelyhood. We have no space for these animals now and if other communities decide, to protect their own interests, they don't either I think that is up to them.
Reply With Quote
Gnasher
Dogsey Veteran
Gnasher is offline  
Location: East Midlands, UK
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 8,775
Female 
 
14-05-2007, 11:55 AM
And who's fault is it that there is not enough space for every animal ?

Well whaddya know - Good Old Homo Sapiens.
Reply With Quote
pod
Dogsey Veteran
pod is offline  
Location: UK
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,558
Female 
 
14-05-2007, 12:19 PM
To take a slightly more detached view on this, the human species is no different to any other in its efforts to survive and perpetuate. We kill what we perceive to be a threat and preserve what we feel is of benefit to us. This may not necessarily be for food. It includes out pets, and other recreation and anything we believe to be beneficial to the environment that can maintain our species in its present form. Some of us view wolves as a threat and some of us view them as recreationally beneficial. That's just down to personal experience, education etc.

But a wolf is no more or less a species than a rat or a cockroach or an anthrax bacterium or an HIV virus (if you do include virus as species). I don't think anyone would be too upset about killing anthrax but where do we draw the line. We're all playing God all the time.
Reply With Quote
Hewey
Dogsey Senior
Hewey is offline  
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 536
Female 
 
14-05-2007, 12:26 PM
I think that is a very good way of putting it Pod. I hope there is always a place for wolves in this world but if it is acceptable to say it is arrogant to suggest not everyone will want to share an immediate environment with them perhaps it is acceptable to say it is naive to believe it can be possible.
Reply With Quote
Borderdawn
Dogsey Veteran
Borderdawn is offline  
Location: uk
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 18,552
Female 
 
14-05-2007, 03:28 PM
Originally Posted by Gnasher View Post
Nothing patronising at all about my attitude - see my above posting to Hewey.

I know exactly what you are referring to, and it has EVERYTHING to do with my passionate beliefs. I will say it yet again - by persecuting wolves, we are persecuting dogs, because they are exactly the same species. (Oh God, WW3 will now break out, shut up Gnasher for goodness sake!)

What on earth do you mean - stick to the topic in hand? I am doing just that. I adore wolves - both wild and tame - and think it absolutely appalling that man continues to persecute these magnificent creatures from whom our wonderful dogs are descended just because they compete with us and spoil our so-called fun.

Glad I amuse you, I'm not trying to, I find this whole topic of man abusing his fellow animals intensely distasteful.
I can only gather from that posting that you do not have much understanding of wild animals in the countryside and those countries that some species reside. The contol of such species is necessary and while their numbers (of any species) continue to rise, there will be need for control.

Firstly TAME Wolves? that in itself is an utter disgrace and the ultimate degredation of a mejestic species!

by persecuting wolves, we are persecuting dogs, because they are exactly the same species
Dont be ridiculous, thats plain stupid to say that. We dont have a wild Wolf in our living room do we, or at least most of us dont!! The differences are immense, take a Terrier that kills its prey, then watch a pack of Wolves, completely different!

If you prefer Wolves to people, Canada is a nice place!!!!
Dawn.
Reply With Quote
zero
Dogsey Veteran
zero is offline  
Location: UK
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,369
Female 
 
14-05-2007, 03:34 PM
Originally Posted by Borderdawn View Post
Doesnt matter to me what you say, I dont buy the holier than thou attitude. Predator species need to be culled and rightly so, Humans are higher than animals and obviously are the decision making, higher ranking being here!
As you seem to know that these wolves NEED to be culled and that it is the best thing for them, tell me how many wolves there are worldwide and tell me if you don't think that it's sad to kill any great number of them, do you mind seeing certain species disappear altogether so that we can spread our concrete a little further?

Wolfie = no we didn't have guns thousands of years ago I was just pointing out to Dawn that the mortgages and lives we live is far from what make us higher up the food chain than wolves.

To mention pods example of are we bothered if anthrax is killed? it being a virus and a form of a species if you like - honestly I don't give a **** about any similar example because all it boils down to is that it will be a shame to see such a beautifull animal disappear and that seeing as Alaska is one of the main habitats we have left - which are few and far between then it would be nice for something to be done that took a bit more brain work than simply killing them.

Hewey, the fact that the officials are wanting to cull more wolves in Alaska doesn't neccesary repressent the thoughts and feelings of the entire Alaskan population - just a thought.

Hell it don't matter, let people go ahead the way they do the next ice age will wipe us all out - people probably the first to go...

You know what I'm not wishy washy in my beliefs I just happen to have a hell of alot more time for and interest in animals, than I do people seeing as there are perhaps two maybe three people I honestly give a toss about in the entire world.

So some people might think people / themselves and their own needs are more important but I can honestly say I don't...So don't take my opinions as some childish ideal...I'm not saying save animals like wolves without thought of it being at your own expense - I'm saying I don't care about your expense and think more people should enjoy the experiance of hunting without a weapon / playing in traffic - what ever tickles your fancy. If I had to save anyone here or the wolf, most all of you would come last - ya really.

Dawn, your obviously just more of a people person than I am although I do think I do such a great job at showing how much I like people

Out of interest Dawn, we are predators ourselves and you say every predators numbers need controlling yet humans have let themselves spiral out of control so the sentiment is somewhat hypocritical.

Like Gnasher I'm not anti hunting - if you can call what people in the UK do 'hunting'
Reply With Quote
Reply
Page 4 of 11 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 > Last »


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools


© Copyright 2016, Dogsey   Contact Us - Dogsey - Top Contact us | Archive | Privacy | Terms of use | Top