Moving this video to arvana's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 3 days.

I think this one needs to get out there... *beg

Sending this video to Beggar's Corner to plea for a little attention - beg requested by original submitter arvana.

I disagree with this video. But I'll upvote to promote discussion.

Exploitation is a very natural drive. Since when did animals treated their rivals and prey as their equals and share their abundance?

Seeing all creatures on earth as 'equals' is a uniquely exclusively human and extremely philosophical, which is, man made. But yet, exploiting one's environment and designing them to aid one's self isn't a strictly human thing. Lots of species out there exploit other animals or their surroundings to do their bidding.

Scissor ants harvest leaves, against that tree's will, to grow a fungal farm. Hyenas steal cheetah's food when they're exhausted from chasing the prey. And they don't give a gazelle's ass whether the cheetah dies of hunger or exhaustion.

And when it comes to cruelty, mammals like lions kill off all cubs when newly taken control of a pride in order to wipe out the previous leader's seeds and to lessen competition by them near future. Birds kill the competitor's young by replacing the competition's egg with their own egg.

So what this video argues has nothing to do with how the actual nature runs things.

Do whatever you wanna do with these animals as you please. Feed'em, help'em, sleep with'em do whatever you want. You might even have an awed sense of respect towards the way nature works. But coming up with a 'rule' that somehow harming animals are wrong, that's just absurd.

Yes, humans are still co-dependent with several other domesticated animals, and still heavily dependent on nature itself. That's all good. But because of this, now we have to treat every animals differently? No. We aid animals that give us benefit. We get rid of animals that do us harm. That's the basic principle, and what the heck is so wrong with that? This seems to be the main focus point. And I say there's nothing wrong with aiding ourselves and exploiting what's around us.

But people may say that sometimes we go too far. I believe torturing animals is wrong, but not because of what this video is suggesting. I believe it's because we shouldn't promote things that allows entertainment from pain and suffering of of others (another reason why I don't like gory movies).

So what if we're torturing the animal to do our bidding, such as moving heavy things and etc, and there's no other means to do it? Well then that's fine by me. Because if it is truly too much for the animal to bear, it would die out or be severely disobedient. But obviously the animal doesn't mind it too much, as long as it's being fed regularly and groomed once in awhile, the good side of being domesticated and sticking with humans. So there's always a give and take. My argument is that the animal, in ecologic terms, wanted to be exploited in return for human protection.

So overall I would say that this video is made with good intentions to achieve a certain goal. It tries to promote as what I believe are the right things, but the reason they give are just plain wrong.

>> ^legacy0100:
I disagree with this video. But I'll upvote to promote discussion.
Exploitation is a very natural drive. Since when did animals treated their rivals and prey as their equals and share their abundance?
Seeing all creatures on earth as 'equals' is a uniquely exclusively human and extremely philosophical, which is, man made. But yet, exploiting one's environment and designing them to aid one's self isn't a strictly human thing. Lots of species out there exploit other animals or their surroundings to do their bidding.
Scissor ants harvest leaves, against that tree's will, to grow a fungal farm. Hyenas steal cheetah's food when they're exhausted from chasing the prey. And they don't give a gazelle's ass whether the cheetah dies of hunger or exhaustion.
And when it comes to cruelty, mammals like lions kill off all cubs when newly taken control of a pride in order to wipe out the previous leader's seeds and to lessen competition by them near future. Birds kill the competitor's young by replacing the competition's egg with their own egg.
So what this video argues has nothing to do with how the actual nature runs things.


Here is what's wrong with this entire point: It is the textbook example of a logical fallacy, aptly named an "Appeal To Nature"
Just because something is a certain way in nature does not suggest anything regarding how things should be.
I should remind you of how slippery of a slope this argument stands on, as you appear not to have thought this one all of the way through, with all due respect.
hypothetically, say we were to look at the way things are at any given moment, and remark "well this world is just fine! because this is the way things are in nature and have been for a long time. therefore, nothing needs be changed or revised, because we base what SHOULD be on what is OBSERVED IN NATURE"..

ultimately, how can you justify the accepting of any human-made laws as morally sound?
surely you can't be suggesting that for human-human affairs, the man-made consensus decides what is right and what is wrong, while then back-flipping to say that these same good/bad judgements are utterly NULL and VOID when it comes to animals?
i would like to know where you stand on slavery issues?
capital punishment?

this argument could not be more misguided, in my opinion.

Additionally, I am not ignoring your other points, but rather don't have the time right now. Let's take the arguments one at a time for now.

Hoping you can clarify some things,
tcash

Slavery being right or wrong, capital punishment being right or wrong, animals don't comprehend such things. You're taking this matter in a strictly human point of view.

"Just because something is a certain way in nature does not suggest anything regarding how things should be."

Who decides what how things 'should' be? That's strictly your (human) opinion. There's no representative from nature that comes down to sign a treaty or something. How can you argue against this??

And human morals don't have anything to do with how nature works. Does earthquakes have anything to do with morals? natural selection have anything to do with morals?

Again, the above points were heavily hominine. We can say or label whatever we want about how the nature works, but it's still a man-made definition that is designed severely parochial and exclusively dependent on human's whim.

"Who decides what how things 'should' be? That's strictly your (human) opinion. There's no representative from nature that comes down to sign a treaty or something. How can you argue against this??"
Well there is no morally objective code that we can check to see if something objectively should or shouldn't be, i can grant that.
It is required that we use our own reasoned judgments to determine matters of right and wrong.
This is not an error-free process, but it is evidently the best possible way to derive what we should or shouldn't do.
The problem arises when you point at nature IN ORDER to exclaim that because X-action does or does not occur in nature- either that "THIS is why X-action is right", or "THIS is why X-action is wrong" ..

"And human morals don't have anything to do with how nature works. Does earthquakes have anything to do with morals? natural selection have anything to do with morals?"
human morals don't have anything to do with how nature works, indeed.
Your previous point was that "There's nothing wrong with exploiting animals because it occurs in nature"
This is a human moral derived from nature^^^
it is a human moral with respect to non-humans, but a human moral nonetheless.

Am I to presume you are trying to separate human-human affairs from human-animal affairs, and claiming an ENTIRELY different moral paradigm in each?

So "Inflicting pain should be avoided, when reasonably possible" is an ethic that only applies to humans, but not non-human animals?
May i ask why?
Because you don't understand each other?

I am still wondering, based on your supposed disregard for the well-being of non-human animals, how you justify the abolition of slavery?

*dead

This published video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by eric3579.

rasch187 has fixed this video's dead embed code - no Power Points awarded because rasch187's points are already fully charged.

Couldn't even watch this, man.. got to about 15 minutes in. I know I probably should, though.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by ctrlaltbleach.

*findthumb *length=1:35:28

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - findthumb requested by eric3579.


The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 1:35:28 - length declared by eric3579.