# Worst creature earth



## feathery (Oct 12, 2009)

*Worst creature on earth*

It's safe for me to say that in my strong opinion Humans are by far the worst creatures to ever grace this planet.
your opinion may differ however mines rather fixed and wont ever change in this regard.


----------



## Azure (Oct 12, 2009)

feathery said:


> It's safe for me to say that in my strong opinion Humans are by far the worst creatures to ever grace this planet.
> your opinion may differ however mines rather fixed and wont ever change in this regard.


Actually, were the best, most successful creature to ever grace this planet.


----------



## Kommodore (Oct 12, 2009)

You know, if you truly believed that Humans are the worst species ever, and that we are a blight on this Earth and everything in it, then you would kill yourself. I am not being sarcastic. If you think humans are that bad then you are just being a hypocrite adding to the troubles we are causing.


----------



## feathery (Oct 12, 2009)

CommodoreKitty said:


> You know, if you truly believed that Humans are the worst species ever, and that we are a blight on this Earth and everything in it, then you would kill yourself. I am not being sarcastic. If you think humans are that bad then you are just being a hypocrite adding to the troubles we are causing.



Well i cause allot of problems just as much as the rest, im not really happy with the fact that i do, though as a species humans no longer have a choice. Litter, polluting, killing ecetera, not to say all are bad of course that is highly obvious.


----------



## Kommodore (Oct 12, 2009)

It's actually pretty simple. If you think humans are the "worst species ever" because they are fucking up the planet, and you yourself are a human, then it stands to reason you are adding to this problem. 

Now, either you care enough about the problem to try to fix it (and no, lowing your carbon emissions or some shit like that is not going to "help" the earth, just hurt it less. To actually help the earth you need to remove yourself from the picture.) or you don't. If you do then I gave you the answer, if you don't then what is the point of complaining in the first place? You hate yourself for "killing the earth" okay I get it cool story.

But this is all moot anyway because you are making the mistake of assuming there are "best" and "worst" species, which is silly. When you say "Earth" you mean the biosphere because noone gives a shit about rocks. The ecosystems in the biosphere all have their little plants and animals and over time they all _die._ Extinction is very natural and happens as the time. There is no way you can say natural events are "bad." They just are. Humans speed up the process of extinction but that isn't a bad or good thing. It is simply one species outcompeting another species. You know, _natural selection_ and all that, or is evolution evil too? 

My point is, you probably think that Humans are bad because we "kill" things, but that is a terrible position to take. All successful species kill things and drive other, less successful ones to extinction. It isn't bad or good, it is the nature of the world. I don't understand where people get the idea that we are "killing" the Earth or other nonsense like that; we are doing exactly what every other species does, just better.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 12, 2009)

Stop making threads.


----------



## Duality Jack (Oct 12, 2009)

feathery said:


> It's safe for me to say that in my strong opinion Humans are by far the worst creatures to ever grace this planet.
> your opinion may differ however mines rather fixed and wont ever change in this regard.


_*I BLAME HITLER*_


----------



## feathery (Oct 12, 2009)

CommodoreKitty said:


> It's actually pretty simple. If you think humans are the "worst species ever" because they are fucking up the planet, and you yourself are a human, then it stands to reason you are adding to this problem.
> 
> Now, either you care enough about the problem to try to fix it (and no, lowing your carbon emissions or some shit like that is not going to "help" the earth, just hurt it less. To actually help the earth you need to remove yourself from the picture.) or you don't. If you do then I gave you the answer, if you don't then what is the point of complaining in the first place? You hate yourself for "killing the earth" okay I get it cool story.
> 
> ...



Well you do bring up quite the valid point. There has always been the fight for life and the survival of the fittest has seemed to have gone on since the beginning of time here as we can remember it to be so. In the end it may be safe to say most creatures will die with humans being on of the last things left as they are sentient beings that continue the desire to become better and more civilized which is what humans naturally do a species. other animals and creatures are bad as us in some regard however i wont go into the deep details of listing them all. 

Humans will go extinct at one point and no one knows how or why it will happen, however something else could replace humans and continue to do the same thing which is co-currently occurring at this very moment. perhaps we are not the worst, perhaps the most interesting creature of them all for sure and a guess that about the most i can say in this regard.


----------



## SanguisArcangel (Oct 12, 2009)

I wouldn't say humans are the worst species to walk to the Earth in fact no species is bad, but we definitely don't have as many friendlies.


----------



## Azure (Oct 12, 2009)

feathery said:


> Well you do bring up quite the valid point. There has always been the fight for life and the survival of the fittest has seemed to have gone on since the beginning of time here as we can remember it to be so. In the end it may be safe to say most creatures will die with humans being on of the last things left as they are sentient beings that continue the desire to become better and more civilized which is what humans naturally do a species. other animals and creatures are bad as us in some regard however i wont go into the deep details of listing them all.
> 
> Humans will go extinct at one point and no one knows how or why it will happen, however something else could replace humans and continue to do the same thing which is co-currently occurring at this very moment. perhaps we are not the worst, perhaps the most interesting creature of them all for sure and a guess that about the most i can say in this regard.


If we go extinct, there damn sure ain't gonna be an earth left for something else to rise to prominence on.  It would take no less than complete irradiation of the surface of the bloody planet to kill us in a meaningful way.


----------



## feathery (Oct 12, 2009)

AzurePhoenix said:


> If we go extinct, there damn sure ain't gonna be an earth left for something else to rise to prominence on.  It would take no less than complete irradiation of the surface of the bloody planet to kill us in a meaningful way.



That's true, however im thinking maybe a virus could kill us, however it would not get us all, so very much so your point is valid.


----------



## Kaamos (Oct 12, 2009)

feathery said:


> That's true, however im thinking maybe a virus could kill us, however it would not get us all, so very much so your point is valid.



Madagascar would survive.


----------



## Whitenoise (Oct 12, 2009)

This conversation is stupid, everyone talk about how awful these are :V .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_giant_hornet


----------



## feathery (Oct 12, 2009)

Whitenoise said:


> This conversation is stupid, everyone talk about how awful these are :V .
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_giant_hornet



They sting people and make honey. They look dumb and are yellow and yellow sucks? This is what i get for making a topic when i been up for 38 hours. Damn i need to sleep more XD.


----------



## Duality Jack (Oct 12, 2009)

Hmm I think humans are swell.


----------



## Whitenoise (Oct 12, 2009)

feathery said:


> They sting people and make honey. They look dumb and are yellow and yellow sucks?



They don't make honey, they wipe out whole honey bee colonies. That's just one more reason why they suck :[ .


----------



## feathery (Oct 12, 2009)

Whitenoise said:


> They don't make honey, they wipe out whole honey bee colonies. That's just one more reason why they suck :[ .



The bastards yeah they do suck. D: * falls asleep*


----------



## Kaamos (Oct 12, 2009)

Whitenoise said:


> This conversation is stupid, everyone talk about how awful these are :V .
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_giant_hornet



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fTrSOFyfxs


----------



## feathery (Oct 12, 2009)

Kaamos said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fTrSOFyfxs



Wow....that's scary to think about.. i never knew bees were such bastards.


----------



## lilEmber (Oct 12, 2009)

*Nothing* we do to this planet will harm it. It will fix anything we've done long after we're no longer here.


----------



## feathery (Oct 12, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> *Nothing* we do to this planet will harm it. It will fix anything we've done long after we're no longer here.



That your right, but it wont stop the Japanese killer bees. Now there scary.


----------



## LizardKing (Oct 12, 2009)

feathery said:


> Litter, polluting, killing ecetera, not to say all are bad of course that is highly obvious.



As you sit there with cans of mountain dew and doritos littering your desk, recovering from the cheeseburger you had for lunch.


----------



## Attaman (Oct 12, 2009)

Whitenoise said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_giant_hornet


Ah yes, I remember these buggers.  Lead to some good laughs a few months back for me.

Humans are, in my humanist opinion, the best thing this planet has produced.  The only difference between what we do and what animals do is scale (Practically everything murders, rape has been observed naturally, infanticide has been observed, ecosystem destruction, etc).  Some people argue "It's their instinct they can't help themselves," but then it's funny when in turn they kick humanity because... it's their instinct and they can't help themselves from being competitive.  

Reason I think we're best is not how we behave or anything like that (as said above, practically everything yadda yadda yadda's), but what we've turned up in the years _while_ doing so.  Disease curing, harnessing the power of the atom, space travel, replacing lost limbs, allowing people to nigh-instantaneously to talk with people a continent away, etc.  All we need to do is jack-up our space programs and master nuclear fusion, and then ours will be the drill species to pierce the heavens.


----------



## foxmusk (Oct 12, 2009)

and weasels are the best~


----------



## twelvestring (Oct 12, 2009)

Well we are the species with the highest evolved mind. All creatures deplete resources, kill and over populate, but we have the evolved mind. We have a choice to follow basic instinct like the lower evolved or be the shepherds of the planet that we have the reasoning for. We have the potential to be the greatest creature on the planet or the worst.


----------



## capthavoc123 (Oct 12, 2009)

CommodoreKitty said:


> Humans speed up the process of extinction but that isn't a bad or good thing. It is simply one species outcompeting another species. You know, _natural selection_ and all that, or is evolution evil too?



You made an otherwise sensible argument which was completely fucked up by this complete misunderstanding of natural selection.

Natural selection is about the competition for reproductive suitability among a single species. It has nothing to do with competition between species.


----------



## the_donut_master (Oct 12, 2009)

*Re: Worst creature on earth*



feathery said:


> It's safe for me to say that in my strong opinion Humans are by far the worst creatures to ever grace this planet.
> your opinion may differ however mines rather fixed and wont ever change in this regard.


  Actually, I completely agree; I DO add to the problem; and technically I don't really care because I'm not doing anything about it.


----------



## Ibuuyk (Oct 12, 2009)

*Re: Worst creature on earth*



feathery said:


> It's safe for me to say that in my strong opinion Humans are by far the worst creatures to ever grace this planet.
> your opinion may differ however mines rather fixed and wont ever change in this regard.



Totally this


----------



## Kommodore (Oct 12, 2009)

capthavoc said:
			
		

> Natural selection is about the competition for reproductive suitability among a single species. It has nothing to do with competition between species.



Well fuck you're right. 

And in light of that I gladly replace "natural selection" with "natural processes" in which case the point is the same but doesn't make biologists cry. :\


----------



## Shino (Oct 12, 2009)

"Human beings are a disease... a cancer of this planet. And we... are the cure."
_-Agent Smith, The Matrix_

Yeah, somewhere, Darwin is spinning in his grave...


----------



## Mulefa Zalif (Oct 12, 2009)

CommodoreKitty said:


> You know, if you truly believed that Humans are the worst species ever, and that we are a blight on this Earth and everything in it, then you would kill yourself. I am not being sarcastic.


It doesn't have to be suicide. People could simply choose not to procreate, leading to the voluntary extinction of our race.
I personally find this idea very appealing, because there's no violence or lack of consent involved.


----------



## Sinjo (Oct 12, 2009)

*Re: Worst creature on earth*



feathery said:


> It's safe for me to say that in my strong opinion Humans are by far the worst creatures to ever grace this planet.
> your opinion may differ however mines rather fixed and wont ever change in this regard.


How Philosophical of you. Not.


----------



## 8-bit (Oct 12, 2009)

Cordyceps. (might have misspelled that)


----------



## Icarus (Oct 12, 2009)

Ecologically speaking, we do what every other creature does.
We strive for species survival, no matter the costs.  Unfortunately, we're kinda over-succeeding in certain areas.  But, imo, if we move to the seas we really have no real means of saying anything -near- overpopulation just yet.  (except you, China and Japan.)
However, being that we have become self-aware through evolution of intelligence and stuff we actually -acknowledge- what we're doing might be harming the environment.  But, all in all, it's a matter being fixed.

But if you want to know really a really nasty creature just look at the Koala, infants eat their parent's feces in order to gain cellulose-digesting bacteria in their intestinal tracts.
Also amoebas can enter your brain through your nose if you swim in contaminated water and feed on your brain until you die.
Plus the Japanese Giant Hornet can take it's small swarm of 300 and destroy a bee's hive of 30,000~ without loosing a single hornet.
And, as well, the Peacock Mantis Shrimp can smash 4" thick aquarium glass with a smashing attack.
Not to mention gorillas sometimes hunt and mercilessly kill small primates and eat them.
Oh, and dolphins sometimes kill for shitz n gigglez.
edit-
Forgot to say, the tick can consume 400 times it's body weight in animal blood and give you all sorts of nice blood-transmitted diseases.


----------



## Hir (Oct 12, 2009)

*Re: Worst creature on earth*



feathery said:


> It's safe for me to say that in my strong opinion Humans are by far the worst creatures to ever grace this planet.
> your opinion may differ however mines rather fixed and wont ever change in this regard.


Why?


----------



## Duality Jack (Oct 12, 2009)

hey I am human and I know I am awesome so hey why not assume the rest of the race at least comes close?


----------



## Telnac (Oct 12, 2009)

AzurePhoenix said:


> Actually, were the best, most successful creature to ever grace this planet.


QFT

Just like history is written by the victors, evolution is all about those who survive... not those that perish.  Mammals dominate because we survived the K-T boundary... not the dinosaurs (well, the non-avian ones anyway.)  

In recent times (geologically speaking), the Earth has undergone ice age after ice age, punctuated by periods of interglacial warmth.  Long before Man appeared on the scene, species that survived were ones that could adapt to rapid climate change.  Most animals did that by being small and mobile; they could migrate to new habitats and have populations large enough that even a loss of 80% of them wouldn't result in extinction.

Hominids took a different approach: we grew big brains and adapted by using skills learned from past generations, and eventually tools, writing and even technology.  It's an evolutionary gamble: our ancestors almost went extinct many times.

But the gamble worked and now no creature on Earth can come even close to challenging us.  Even in the face of events that could sterilize the planet, such as a nearby gamma ray burst, human ingenuity could potentially keep us (and likely many other species along with us) alive when all other creatures would otherwise perish.  No other creature has the potential to migrate from this planet to other worlds, and possibly even transform those worlds into ones with a vibrant biosphere.  Who knows?  In time, humanity may even spread this world's proverbial seed to other star systems.

Yeah, we slash and burn, kill entire species, murder each other in very inventive and downright cruel ways.  But for all that, we are the ultimate evolutionary masterpiece.

It almost makes you think there was a divine hand at work.  Oops, did I just say that?  (Insert religious debate and much bloodletting.  :twisted: )


----------



## Tycho (Oct 12, 2009)

Stupid statement is stupid.  You might as well say that the atom is the worst thing to ever happen to mankind.  (Which would actually be more stupid, now that I think about it)

And saying "a divine hand created us and molded us" is patently absurd, and is simply a half-assed way for people to avoid confronting the fact that we're ultimately just another eating, breathing, shitting and fucking animal.


----------



## Jashwa (Oct 12, 2009)

This thread amuses me.

Especially the title.


----------



## Wreth (Oct 12, 2009)

CommodoreKitty said:


> It's actually pretty simple. If you think humans are the "worst species ever" because they are fucking up the planet, and you yourself are a human, then it stands to reason you are adding to this problem.
> 
> Now, either you care enough about the problem to try to fix it (and no, lowing your carbon emissions or some shit like that is not going to "help" the earth, just hurt it less. To actually help the earth you need to remove yourself from the picture.) or you don't. If you do then I gave you the answer, if you don't then what is the point of complaining in the first place? You hate yourself for "killing the earth" okay I get it cool story.
> 
> ...




I never understood the ''It's natural and therefore ok'' arguement.


----------



## Benny the Horned Rabbit (Oct 12, 2009)

*Re: Worst creature on earth*



feathery said:


> It's safe for me to say that in my strong opinion Humans are by far the worst creatures to ever grace this planet.
> your opinion may differ however mines rather fixed and wont ever change in this regard.


 
I know someone who would run up to you and hug you right now.

...Unfortunately, that guy's a psyco.

Personally, Humans are the most boring to look at creatures, but they are very advanced, and have at least tried to change their ways and right some wrongs. ...Even though I feel that people are caring less and less about Nature as the years go by.

In my opinion, the worst creatures on earth are... or at least my least favorite, are dogs. No offense to dog lovers, but I have always disliked dogs.


----------



## feathery (Oct 12, 2009)

*Re: Worst creature on earth*

Well humans are kind of awesome, being them most intelegent creature to ever grace this planet to our own physical knowledge of course. 

Well aside from humans another choice would be, mosquitoes, i really dont think they do anything except give illness and suck blood and make more mosquito. .Also they itch like a bitch and a half.


----------



## Hir (Oct 12, 2009)

*Re: Worst creature on earth*



feathery said:


> Well humans are kind of awesome, being them most intelegent creature to ever grace this planet to our own physical knowledge of course.
> 
> Well aside from humans another choice would be, mosquitoes, i really dont think they do anything except give illness and suck blood and make more mosquito. .Also they itch like a bitch and a half.


It's ironic that the worlds biggest killer is a really small insect.


----------



## feathery (Oct 12, 2009)

*Re: Worst creature on earth*



DarkNoctus said:


> It's ironic that the worlds biggest killer is a really small insect.



Strangely yeah, worse then us perhaps. However virus's are the ultimate killers of them all, putting humans and probably any creature in the universe or on this planet possibly to shame.


----------



## DarkChaos (Oct 12, 2009)

Well look at that, your very-strong opinion that could never be changed...has changed.


----------



## Slade (Oct 12, 2009)

BOT FLIES.


----------



## Attaman (Oct 12, 2009)

Zoopedia said:


> I never understood the ''It's natural and therefore ok'' arguement.


  Because half the people who argue against humanity argue that Humans are the only one to kill / they're completely unnatural / it's okay for animals to do [x] because it's natural for them.  

Or were you speaking about those who support multiple generations of infanticide because the squirrel / lion was horny?


----------



## Sparticle (Oct 12, 2009)

This

http://www.itsnature.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/vu013105.jpg

End of thread.


----------



## Takun (Oct 12, 2009)

There is a fish that swims up your DICK.  Fuck that shit.  Motherfucker gets my vote.  What an asshole.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 12, 2009)

Actually, I think roaches are a little gross...


----------



## virus (Oct 12, 2009)

Humans aren't the worst creatures on this planet. You realize how long we've been around? We've survived through events other species couldn't get through. I still don't buy the hunter gather thing however it just doesn't add up a couple spears can't take down large animals but anyways.

We've created a synthetic world whom which we feel that our species is completely unique from everything else. But in fact we our just an organic evolved ape that took millions of years to get this way. Human beings are living fossils all some 6-7 billion of us. 

The worst creature on this planet are god damn canadian geese. They just land on someones property, usually a park. Shit all over the place eat whatever they can find and leave without cleaning up. God damn hippies!


----------



## Ikrit (Oct 12, 2009)

Thomas Hobbs agrees


----------



## Gonebatty (Oct 12, 2009)

I dont like what we do, but I agree with the others, thats stupid. Sorry for being ignorant, but do mosquitos even fill a role? Them.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Oct 12, 2009)

We went to the fuckin' moon, motherf***er. We be da best. Although Space Bat gave us a run for our money.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 12, 2009)

Any sort of parasite. Aside from adding a little bitty step to the food chain for other creatures that prey on them, parasites do absolutely nothing but harm others for the benefit of themselves =/


----------



## Gonebatty (Oct 12, 2009)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> We went to the fuckin' moon, motherf***er. We be da best. Although Space Bat gave us a run for our money.



Ok, oddest thing I've seen... this week.


----------



## 8-bit (Oct 12, 2009)

Nargle said:


> Any sort of parasite. Aside from adding a little bitty step to the food chain for other creatures that prey on them, parasites do absolutely nothing but harm others for the benefit of themselves =/



Like Cordyceps. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordyceps


----------



## feathery (Oct 12, 2009)

Nargle said:


> Any sort of parasite. Aside from adding a little bitty step to the food chain for other creatures that prey on them, parasites do absolutely nothing but harm others for the benefit of themselves =/



Well they even out the numbers of living creatures and make immune systems stronger, however we would not need the immune system if they did not exist. Damn parasites!


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Oct 12, 2009)

Gonebatty said:


> Ok, oddest thing I've seen... this week.


 
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Space_Bat


----------



## Nargle (Oct 12, 2009)

feathery said:


> Well they even out the numbers of living creatures and make immune systems stronger, however we would not need the immune system if they did not exist. Damn parasites!



Immune systems deal with diseases, no? I'm talking about parasites, like worms. immune systems can't exactly fight off a tapeworm.

Also, there are plenty of other ways to die. And not all parasites will kill, for instance, fleas just irritate (unless they are REALLY severe, then the dog might die of anemia)


----------



## Gonebatty (Oct 12, 2009)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Space_Bat



I know. I looked it up... Still odd.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 12, 2009)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Space_Bat



That's pretty cool, did that really happen? =D


----------



## feathery (Oct 12, 2009)

Nargle said:


> That's pretty cool, did that really happen? =D



Seems unlikely it could but weirder things have happened.


----------



## Gonebatty (Oct 12, 2009)

Nargle said:


> That's pretty cool, did that really happen? =D



Yes.
Edit: I found news reports.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Oct 12, 2009)

Nargle said:


> That's pretty cool, did that really happen? =D


 
Indeed it did. I like to think he made it.


----------



## Whitenoise (Oct 12, 2009)

HarleyParanoia said:


> and weasels are the best~



What are you talking about weasels are terrible. They smell really bad and they steal all your pills and they feel you up when they think you're asleep >:[ .


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Oct 12, 2009)

I am the best creature, because everything exists in my mind. 
Yay, solipsism.


----------



## Darkwolfy502 (Oct 12, 2009)

Kaamos said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fTrSOFyfxs


 
All that for some honey lmfao.


----------



## Telnac (Oct 12, 2009)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> Indeed it did. I like to think he made it.


It'd be nice to think he could hold on all the way into space.  But the fact is, wind currents would rip him off long before he could reach the upper atmosphere.  Even if he could hold on until the solid rocket boosters separated, once that happened the jolt would have knocked him free.  He'd have certainly climbed far higher than any bat in history, but not to 100km into space itself.

Once dislodged, he'd be roasted alive by the exhaust in a heartbeat.


----------



## lupineshadow (Oct 13, 2009)

The only thing that irritates me about the human species is the hypocrisy. You can't both be the biggest commiter of "crimes" _and _say you're different and better than everything else. As long as people admit they are simply just another link in the chain, it doesn't bother me nearly as much. It's when some bastard comes up and says "humans are soooo much better and soooo much more moral that other species, those damn animals were given to us by God to abuse...". That's bullshit. Just admit it; you're furthering your own greed and the evolution of your species. Don't dress it up by giving people moral superiority that they, as a species, don't deserve.


----------



## Jashwa (Oct 13, 2009)

lupineshadow said:


> The only thing that irritates me about the human species is the hypocrisy. You can't both be the biggest commiter of "crimes" _and _say you're different and better than everything else. As long as people admit they are simply just another link in the chain, it doesn't bother me nearly as much. It's when some bastard comes up and says "humans are soooo much better and soooo much more moral that other species, those damn animals were given to us by God to abuse...". That's bullshit. Just admit it; you're furthering your own greed and the evolution of your species. Don't dress it up by giving people moral superiority that they, as a species, don't deserve.


Just because we commit crimes "against nature" doesn't mean we're not better than everything else.  That's not hypocrisy.  Us being the biggest commiter of crimes and being different is actually the opposite of hypocrisy.  We are different because we commit crimes (among many other things).  As much as we are animals, we're different from them because of the technology that we have invented and the level of intelligence that we operate at (for the most part.). 

I can agree with your morality statement, however.


----------



## Takun (Oct 13, 2009)

FLY ON SPACE BAT.  I LOVE YOU.

NEVER FORGET.


Seriously though, Space Bat is bad ass. And yes it happened.  =)


----------



## lupineshadow (Oct 13, 2009)

Well, the morality statement was the main point I suppose- i know about it because i've heard countless people, mostly religious, espouse how wonderfully morally superior humans were... and then opened the newspaper without changing their opinion.


----------



## Jashwa (Oct 13, 2009)

Takumi_L said:


> FLY ON SPACE BAT.  I LOVE YOU.
> 
> NEVER FORGET.
> 
> ...


Space bat is awesome.  I feel ashamed for not knowing of his greatness before.


----------



## Xerox2 (Oct 13, 2009)

Are you people really arguing about a subjective comparative term? Couldn't you argue semantics about something entertaining?


----------



## Kommodore (Oct 13, 2009)

lupine said:
			
		

> Just admit it; you're furthering... the evolution of your species.



And this is a bad thing... _because?_ There is no issue of hypocrisy because there are no "crimes" committed against nature in the first place. Aand as far as morality is concerned, seeing as how humans are the only animals that can even _understand_ the concept of morality, I do no think it is an unfair assumption to say that we are more "moral" than other animals, even if we are schitsophrenic about it, because we are the only moral animals to start with.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 13, 2009)

CommodoreKitty said:


> Aand as far as morality is concerned, seeing as how humans are the only animals that can even _understand_ the concept of morality, I do no think it is an unfair assumption to say that we are more "moral" than other animals, even if we are schitsophrenic about it, because we are the only moral animals to start with.



Actually, today my mom was telling me about a movie she saw called The Natural History of the Chicken. In the movie, a hen jumped on top of her chicks to save them from an advancing hawk, essentially sacrificing herself. She made the ultimate sacrifice for her offspring, and had to fight against her instincts which were telling her to run away. So instead of doing the immoral thing and saving her own hide, she went ahead and did what she knew was best for her chicks. That's a hell of a lot more moral than many humans.


----------



## Gonebatty (Oct 13, 2009)

Wrong actually. We are the potential worst. We already pollute and destroy forests, but ticking time-bombs (literal and otherwise) such as nukes and poweplants, garbage fills, ozone, chemicals, and incendiary devices can ravage the world many times over. BUT we have managed to barely stop disasters. As for current worst- mosquito.


----------



## Kommodore (Oct 13, 2009)

The problem with that is it assumes that the chicken made a conscious, analytical judgment of saving her own life or that of her chicks. Far more likely from what we understand of animal behavior is that her motherly instinct was stronger than her self preservation instinct: and this is not uncommon. Lots of animals "sacrifice" themselves to save their young, it is hardwired into the. Morality necessitates a conscious judgment, and chickens simply are not capable of this.

In addition to this, I have never heard a good explanation as to why our factories and pollution and deforestation is such a bad or even "evil" thing beyond an emotionally based "it is mean" statement. Surely there must be some _other_ reason why the activities of humans are somehow bad or evil?


----------



## lupineshadow (Oct 13, 2009)

CommodoreKitty said:


> And this is a bad thing... _because?_ There is no issue of hypocrisy because there are no "crimes" committed against nature in the first place. Aand as far as morality is concerned, seeing as how humans are the only animals that can even _understand_ the concept of morality, I do no think it is an unfair assumption to say that we are more "moral" than other animals, even if we are schitsophrenic about it, because we are the only moral animals to start with.



All morality amounts to is a large construct based on altruism. Altruism is present in "nature" amongst higher species, dolphins gorillas wolves foxes to name a few. Yes they also kill each other, but they help each other at times as well. Just like humans. All the other things about morality, such as its own nature or "the unanswerable questions" are just useless crap which the advanced primate brain created.

EDIT: to above post: People do not deviate from their own natures, except to invent (which is why humans are so successful). The "descision making" may seem like alot of though but it does come down to self-interest or group interest the majority of the time. The fact that something thinks about it doesn't mean anything if the action is the same, as it often is.


----------



## twelvestring (Oct 13, 2009)

The Drunken Ace said:


> hey I am human and I know I am awesome so hey why not assume the rest of the race at least comes close?


Sorry man, you hogged up all the awesomeness and now the rest of us can't even compete with lower evolved life forms. dick.


----------



## Kommodore (Oct 13, 2009)

You are making the assumption that "morality" is restricted to helping people and doing good things, which is quite simply not the case. Morality and altruism are independent traits. People's "morals" tell them that gays are bad and as well as helping people is good. Morals can encompass opinions that we would call "good" or "bad" depending on the culture and the time; but it by no means is restricted to doing nice things. 

And once again, morality is not simply a behavioral trait; it _requires_ conscious thought and value judgment in order to truly be a moral. Animals are simply not able to make those kinds of value judgments.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 13, 2009)

CommodoreKitty said:


> The problem with that is it assumes that the chicken made a conscious, analytical judgment of saving her own life or that of her chicks. Far more likely from what we understand of animal behavior is that her motherly instinct was stronger than her self preservation instinct: and this is not uncommon. Lots of animals "sacrifice" themselves to save their young, it is hardwired into the. Morality necessitates a conscious judgment, and chickens simply are not capable of this.



Most women don't think twice about making split second decisions in order to save their own children. You could say humans have the same mothering instincts that the chicken was displaying. However, there are also immoral mothers who would rather drink themselves to death than take care of their children, much less sacrifice their own lives for them. Just because instinct plays a role doesn't mean the chicken didn't have to decide between the wrong instinct and the right one.


----------



## Kommodore (Oct 13, 2009)

Nargle, the difference here is the _capacity_ for value judgment. Humans are not without instinct and it does influence our behavior, but we can also analytically look at a situation and make value assessment on what is the most moral or "right" thing to do, whether or not instincts help with that. 

A chicken, on the other hand, does not make such value judgments. There is no evidence to assume that chickens behave far beyond their instincts, and none to suggest they they are physiologically capable of weighing the relative "value" of her life or her chick's lives.

It is the ability to look at a situation and judge the value of one action over another, and the implications of the actions, that makes morals possible. Essentially it requires a level of consciousness or self awareness that animals do not have. How can an animal come to a conclusion on the value of a life if it doesn't even "know" it is alive itself?


----------



## lupineshadow (Oct 13, 2009)

CommodoreKitty said:


> You are making the assumption that "morality" is restricted to helping people and doing good things, which is quite simply not the case. Morality and altruism are independent traits. People's "morals" tell them that gays are bad and as well as helping people is good. Morals can encompass opinions that we would call "good" or "bad" depending on the culture and the time; but it by no means is restricted to doing nice things.
> 
> And once again, morality is not simply a behavioral trait; it _requires_ conscious thought and value judgment in order to truly be a moral. Animals are simply not able to make those kinds of value judgments.



If cultural rights and wrongs, other than those referring to basic altruism such as murder/rape being not permitted and protection of some others being permitted, than it could be said that I am not "moral", because I choose either not to follow or to adaptively change my social behaviour depending on where I am and who I am with. If morality ultimately just amounts to a social construct based on made-up rights on wrongs such as (like you mentioned) gays are EVIL!!! or a religious text etc, than I want nothing to do with it and I don't think it's that much of a good thing.


----------



## Kommodore (Oct 13, 2009)

I have no clue what you mean by "want nothing to do with it" but the fact of the matter is that all morals are subjective and apt to change. The only way you can be immoral is if you accept a behavior as moral but act against it anyway. What that moral is doesn't really matter. Assuming that there is no absolute truth, there is no way you can hold one moral to be "better" or more "correct" than another moral. By the same token, it is hard to say that deforestation is "wrong" because there is no relative or absolute reference point to gauge its rightness or wrongness to. 

So I see no reason why deforestation or pollution is "bad" or "wrong", or how any of this makes humans evil, because there is nothing to base such assumptions off of in the first place. You can say it is _irresponsible_ or _destructive_, which is true and actually has some meaning as to what to do about it. But not "wrong" or "bad."


----------



## Nargle (Oct 13, 2009)

CommodoreKitty said:


> Nargle, the difference here is the _capacity_ for value judgment. Humans are not without instinct and it does influence our behavior, but we can also analytically look at a situation and make value assessment on what is the most moral or "right" thing to do, whether or not instincts help with that.
> 
> A chicken, on the other hand, does not make such value judgments. There is no evidence to assume that chickens behave far beyond their instincts, and none to suggest they they are physiologically capable of weighing the relative "value" of her life or her chick's lives.
> 
> It is the ability to look at a situation and judge the value of one action over another, and the implications of the actions, that makes morals possible. Essentially it requires a level of consciousness or self awareness that animals do not have. How can an animal come to a conclusion on the value of a life if it doesn't even "know" it is alive itself?



Your argument is that chickens just can't weigh their options and decide to sacrifice their own lives for the greater good of their chicks? Well, honestly I think I have a bit more evidence then you do. Honestly tell me, what evidence is there that suggests that chickens don't even know they're alive? How do you know chickens can't understand value? Lots of animals get the concept of value. For instance, dogs will go to greater lengths to earn a high value reward, such as chicken or cheese, and might not care to much about a low-value treat like a carrot. The chicks are high-value to the chicken, and she two different instincts telling her to do two opposite things. In order to survive, one must have the capability to make choices. Decide what is right, and what is wrong. If not, this chicken's head would have exploded or something. She couldn't have reacted if she hadn't weighed her options, went with the option that she decided was the _right_ option, whilst simultaneously fighting against her instincts to flee, which she decided was the _wrong_ option. It's not like she can satisfy BOTH of her instincts at once. So how do you figure she came to the conclusion that she should go rescue her chicks if she hadn't thought about right and wrong?


----------



## CryoScales (Oct 13, 2009)

virus said:


> Humans aren't the worst creatures on this planet. You realize how long we've been around? We've survived through events other species couldn't get through. I still don't buy the hunter gather thing however it just doesn't add up a couple spears can't take down large animals but anyways.



Human beings are the only species ever created, that has killed off another species "for the lulz". As they killed off the Do-Do just for sport. Look at it, its a dumb bird that tastes like rancid shit. People just blew their heads off just to laugh at it.

Anyway human beings continuously prove how well they are adaptable to extremes. But the only reason we are around now is because the previous dominant species around, a cro magnon race that our primitive ancestors competed with. Died out during an extinction that almost wiped us out. Of course we fucked ourselves into inheriting the Earth.

Look at it this way. While your bitching about Canadian Geese. They are bitching about us chasing them around on beaches and throwing shit at them.


----------



## feathery (Oct 13, 2009)

CryoScales said:


> Human beings are the only species ever created, that has killed off another species "for the lulz". As they killed off the Do-Do just for sport. Look at it, its a dumb bird that tastes like rancid shit. People just blew their heads off just to laugh at it.
> 
> Anyway human beings continuously prove how well they are adaptable to extremes. But the only reason we are around now is because the previous dominant species around, a cro magnon race that our primitive ancestors competed with. Died out during an extinction that almost wiped us out. Of course we fucked ourselves into inheriting the Earth.
> 
> Look at it this way. While your bitching about Canadian Geese. They are bitching about us chasing them around on beaches and throwing shit at them.



I can guess humans will be the few things left here i 100 years if we live that long, im just very pessimistic as far as civilizations go. I think we will, just what will life be like, none can fathom.  
Also wasps suck.


----------



## Kommodore (Oct 13, 2009)

When I say that the chicken does not know it is "alive" I mean that it does not understand the concept of _self_. It is not sapient and so is not consciously aware of its existence. As for how we know this, it is done experimentally. Now, these experiments are naturally biased towards when we would recognize as intelligence, so there is that. I know of one test in which the animal is marked and shown its reflection and it researchers observe if it recognizes that the reflection on the mirror is "itself" and not another animal. This is of course a very rudimentary test (which, AFAIK, chickens actually fail. It may be insufficient to tell if an animal is actually sapient if it picks up on the mark, but it can sure as hell eliminate certain animals that fail) and I confess that I am not familiar with the more sophisticated and accurate tests for consciousness. Because of this, I rely on the second hand information that lists only a handful of animals as actually being consciously aware that they are alive. 

As far as value is concerned, I mean value as in understanding the abstract and relative importance of actions or ideas. This is easier to test as we merely need to see if the animal is physiologically capable of looking at things in an abstract sense. Math is great for this, as at a certain level it forces you to _understand_ its abstract concepts rather than know that a certain order of colored blocks gets me food.  

In any event, if an animal cannot understand abstract concepts, then it cannot make "value" judgments in the context that I use here. A hen would not know the value of her chicks lives in the first place because that would require an abstract understanding of the nature of existence and a host of other stuff that they -just- can't- understand. Their brains just are not wired to be capable of understanding worth as we do and make conscious judgments on it. I don't know how else to put it, but as a result of not being able to grasp abstract concepts, "right" and "wrong," "moral" and "immoral" have no meaning to her. Experiments, whatever the specifics of them may be, show that most all animals are not consciously aware of their existence and that they are incapable of abstract thought; both of which are necessary to make moral judgments. 

Whatever the actions of the hen may be, they are not a result of morality. 

Also any zoologists/biologists here please feel free to correct and expand on this POS I just posted.


----------



## Mikael Grizzly (Oct 13, 2009)

Any attempt to objectively assess an animal's intelligence fails, since it's geared towards recognizing hairless ape intelligence.


----------



## Telnac (Oct 13, 2009)

lupineshadow said:


> The only thing that irritates me about the human species is the hypocrisy. You can't both be the biggest commiter of "crimes" _and _say you're different and better than everything else. As long as people admit they are simply just another link in the chain, it doesn't bother me nearly as much. It's when some bastard comes up and says "humans are soooo much better and soooo much more moral that other species, those damn animals were given to us by God to abuse...". That's bullshit. Just admit it; you're furthering your own greed and the evolution of your species. Don't dress it up by giving people moral superiority that they, as a species, don't deserve.


The fact that we have morals at all and that some people can consider anything we do to other species or the planet as a whole a "crime" (something I disagree with, btw) is just another way we stand apart from the rest of the animal kingdom.

Of course we're an animal.  No one in this thread said anything to the contrary of that fact.  But we ARE very different than other animals in a wide variety of ways.  Human civilization is quite young but look how far we've come in that short amount of time.  From the time we started to settle down and farm (long before most societies had writing) til now is just 12,000 years.  Yet in that 12,000 years we went from being hunter/gatherers (effectively an exotic animal with the ability to use  language and tools) to walking on the Moon and building a planet-wide communication network that makes this forum possible.

It that's not an evolutionary masterpiece, I beg you to show me how it's not.  You may consider it a "crime" that we've changed the entire world to adapt to our needs, but the fact we did that shows exactly how powerful the human mind really is.


----------



## Attaman (Oct 13, 2009)

Question:  How many chickens will throw themselves on their chicks to save them?  100%?  If not, why bring up how humans don't sacrifice themselves for their children 100% of the time?  

@Telnac:  Because we're mean and we hurt other animals >(  Going into space, harnessing the power of atoms and curing diseases is nothing compared to the small population of people that hunt deer / bears / wolves / etc. for shits and giggles.  In fact, it comes no-where near to making up for it.


----------



## Os (Oct 13, 2009)

Whitenoise said:


> This conversation is stupid, everyone talk about how awful these are :V .
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_giant_hornet



Goddammit! Why does everything from japan have to be so much more efficient than what we have!!


----------



## Steel_Wolf (Oct 13, 2009)

Well you see we are really bad for nature, you know the advancements of technology and stuff is messing up nature. But we are on the top of most food chains (except for the so-fat-that-they-canâ€™t-move ones) so we are both the worst and best animals.


----------



## feathery (Oct 13, 2009)

Steel_Wolf said:


> Well you see we are really bad for nature, you know the advancements of technology and stuff is messing up nature. But we are on the top of most food chains (except for the so-fat-that-they-canâ€™t-move ones) so we are both the worst and best animals.



Best of the worst, well that sounds about right in a odd way.


----------



## 8-bit (Oct 13, 2009)

Whoah, Nargle and CommodoreKitty are stressin me out with all their seriousness. @__@


----------



## Nargle (Oct 14, 2009)

CommodoreKitty said:


> When I say that the chicken does not know it is "alive" I mean that it does not understand the concept of _self_. It is not sapient and so is not consciously aware of its existence. As for how we know this, it is done experimentally. Now, these experiments are naturally biased towards when we would recognize as intelligence, so there is that. I know of one test in which the animal is marked and shown its reflection and it researchers observe if it recognizes that the reflection on the mirror is "itself" and not another animal. This is of course a very rudimentary test (which, AFAIK, chickens actually fail. It may be insufficient to tell if an animal is actually sapient if it picks up on the mark, but it can sure as hell eliminate certain animals that fail) and I confess that I am not familiar with the more sophisticated and accurate tests for consciousness. Because of this, I rely on the second hand information that lists only a handful of animals as actually being consciously aware that they are alive.
> 
> As far as value is concerned, I mean value as in understanding the abstract and relative importance of actions or ideas. This is easier to test as we merely need to see if the animal is physiologically capable of looking at things in an abstract sense. Math is great for this, as at a certain level it forces you to _understand_ its abstract concepts rather than know that a certain order of colored blocks gets me food.
> 
> ...



Okay, so first of all, your original statement was that "_humans are the only animals that can even understand the concept of morality,_" so then why do you bring up a self awareness test that SEVERAL animals have passed? Does self awareness = ability to have morality? If so, your statement that only humans can understand morality is false. 

You've yet to present anything to me that connects intelligence/self-awareness to the ability to have morality. You're basically telling me "Chickens are stupid [missing link] Chickens cannot understand morality."

Finally, what makes you think chickens and animals in general cannot understand abstract concepts? What experiments have led you to believe this? It seems like a big assumption. Or, are you saying SOME animals can understand abstract concepts but chickens can't? That's a contradiction, because if you go back to your original statement, you said that only humans can understand the concept of morality. 

BTW, children fail to pass the "Self Awareness" test up until a certain age, but they have been known to express a certain level or morality at a much younger age. For instance, if you drop something and it looks like an accident, young babies will pick it up and give it to you, but if you throw it down like you don't want it, the baby will take it and keep it. So it seems as if the baby can understand the abstract concept of other people wanting/not wanting things.



Attaman said:


> Question: How many chickens will throw themselves on their chicks to save them? 100%? If not, why bring up how humans don't sacrifice themselves for their children 100% of the time?



Because both chickens and humans have the choice to protect their offspring or neglect them. This ability to choose suggests that both chickens and humans make a conscious decision, therefore have morality/ability to think abstractly.



8-bit said:


> Whoah, Nargle and CommodoreKitty are stressin me out with all their seriousness. @__@



Sorry =3


----------



## Patton89 (Oct 14, 2009)

Human babies need to age inorder to achieve their full potential. That doesnt somehow however mean that animals have morality.  

You really need to be rather foolish to think that chicken have morality same way humans have. They dont. Acting based on pure instincts isnt morality, a hen saving its chicks isnt a sign of morality, its a mechanism that exists to enable chickens offspring to survive.  There is no evidence supporting that animals like chicken have morality in the same way humans have. Sure, some animals do show signs of primitive forms of "morality", but you cant even compare it to human morality. 
Animal "morality" is merely survival mechanisms and tendecies and even capabilities older than our species. 
This doesnt mean animals have sense of right and wrong, it just means we share some of the old mechanisms from mammals in us. Animals arent "moral", they dont get bothered from killing prey.


----------



## Tewin Follow (Oct 14, 2009)

Never mind. Question was already answered.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 14, 2009)

Patton89 said:


> Human babies need to age inorder to achieve their full potential. That doesnt somehow however mean that animals have morality.
> 
> You really need to be rather foolish to think that chicken have morality same way humans have. They dont. Acting based on pure instincts isnt morality, a hen saving its chicks isnt a sign of morality, its a mechanism that exists to enable chickens offspring to survive.  There is no evidence supporting that animals like chicken have morality in the same way humans have. Sure, some animals do show signs of very primitive forms of "morality", but you cant even compare it to human morality.
> Animal "morality" is merely survival mechanism and tendecies older than our species.
> ...




I'm not saying animals have the same sense of morality as humans. Of course there aren't chickens donating the charity and rescuing stray animals and the like. I know not all animals have the kind of advanced sense of morality that humans do. All I'm saying is that the chicken did exhibit a form of primitive morality by choosing her chicks' lives over her own. Yes, animals have a mothering instinct, but that's not the only instinct they have. The chicken had to make a choice between her instinct to protect her chicks and her instinct to survive, and he made the decision that her chicks' lives were more valuable than her own. And humans also have that maternal instinct, but you wouldn't say a human woman is just reacting to instinct by protecting her child. A human would know it's morally right to protect children and not just leave them to die.


----------



## Patton89 (Oct 14, 2009)

DONT POST WHEN TIRED.
I think i misread your post.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 14, 2009)

Patton89 said:


> You are comparing a chicken saving its offspring to human.
> That is simply moronic. It isnt the same thing,not by a long shot , humans have far, far more "advanced" morality and are actually selfaware and intelligent, chickens arent selfaware. Chicken isnt making a choice the same way a human does.  It doesnt have "me" like a human has. It cannot comprehend the risk the same way human does. It is a chicken. If it saves its offpring, its not doing a  moral deed. Its merely following instincts, unlike a human being.



Did you even read what I said?


----------



## Patton89 (Oct 14, 2009)

Yeah, i misread and misunderstood it somehow. 
I blame the lack of sleep and ethylmorphine running in my body.


----------



## Telnac (Oct 14, 2009)

Attaman said:


> @Telnac:  Because we're mean and we hurt other animals >(  Going into space, harnessing the power of atoms and curing diseases is nothing compared to the small population of people that hunt deer / bears / wolves / etc. for shits and giggles.  In fact, it comes no-where near to making up for it.


Hey, I'm not going to disagree with you about the immorality of hunting for any reason other than necessity.  (And no, killing a deer for the fun of it isn't OK just because you eat its remains unless you really need that meat to feed your family.)  But that's my judgment call, and for that reason I don't go hunting.  But I'm no vegetarian, and some might see killing any animal for any reason as an immoral action.  The fact is, morality is subjective.  And even if it weren't, is the entire human race guilty of killing animals for the lulz just because some people are?

Nature doesn't care about morality.  If we pave the entire surface of the Earth (including the oceans), kill off all plants & animals not directly necessary for our survival, and drive around in jet powered cars going faster than the speed of sound... Nature could care less.  If we covered the entire surface of the Moon in chrome just for the lulz... Nature could care less.  If we somehow made 2.4 trillion tonnes of antimatter and used it to blow the Earth into a new asteroid belt... Nature could care less too.

The Universe will go along its merry way no matter what we do or to which creatures we do it.


----------



## Wreth (Oct 14, 2009)

Telnac said:


> Hey, I'm not going to disagree with you about the immorality of hunting for any reason other than necessity.  (And no, killing a deer for the fun of it isn't OK just because you eat its remains unless you really need that meat to feed your family.)  But that's my judgment call, and for that reason I don't go hunting.  But I'm no vegetarian, and some might see killing any animal for any reason as an immoral action.  The fact is, morality is subjective.  And even if it weren't, is the entire human race guilty of killing animals for the lulz just because some people are?
> 
> Nature doesn't care about morality.  If we pave the entire surface of the Earth (including the oceans), kill off all plants & animals not directly necessary for our survival, and drive around in jet powered cars going faster than the speed of sound... Nature could care less.  If we covered the entire surface of the Moon in chrome just for the lulz... Nature could care less.  If we somehow made 2.4 trillion tonnes of antimatter and used it to blow the Earth into a new asteroid belt... Nature could care less too.
> 
> The Universe will go along its merry way no matter what we do or to which creatures we do it.



Which is why us, the humans with the intelligence to have morality have to make things right, because nature doesn't care, because it's not a sentient thing.


----------



## Attaman (Oct 14, 2009)

Telnac said:


> [snip]


Thanks, now I don't need to spend time making a reply when someone earnestly responds that way


----------



## Ibuuyk (Oct 14, 2009)

Attaman said:


> Thanks, now I don't need to spend time making a reply when someone earnestly responds that way



Why did you reply then ^^?


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Oct 14, 2009)

Most Vile Creatures on Earth:
- Hicks and their foreign equivalents (Al Qaeda,etc.)
- Hypo-allergenic ankle-gnawing kick-me "dogs"
- Boston Dynamics Big Dog


----------



## Benny the Horned Rabbit (Oct 14, 2009)

Telnac said:


> Nature doesn't care about morality. If we pave the entire surface of the Earth (including the oceans), kill off all plants & animals not directly necessary for our survival, and drive around in jet powered cars going faster than the speed of sound... Nature could care less. If we covered the entire surface of the Moon in chrome just for the lulz... Nature could care less. If we somehow made 2.4 trillion tonnes of antimatter and used it to blow the Earth into a new asteroid belt... Nature could care less too.


 
Okay, I have a problem with this post. You're acting like Nature is not important and doesn't need to exsist. Without plants, there would be no breathable air. Without cows, there would be no hamburgers. Without animals in general, the psyco I mentioned earlier would try to blow up this planet(Yeah, he said that). So don't just think Nature is their for no reason.


----------



## Attaman (Oct 14, 2009)

Ibuuyk said:


> Why did you reply then ^^?


Because I wanted to get that response (the one about hunting being more evil than space travel is amazing) out of the way sarcastically before someone posted it earnestly.  Now with Telnac's response, I can save the quote and copy-paste it when / if someone posts it earnestly at a later time.


----------



## Telnac (Oct 14, 2009)

Benny the Horned Rabbit said:


> Okay, I have a problem with this post. You're acting like Nature is not important and doesn't need to exsist. Without plants, there would be no breathable air. Without cows, there would be no hamburgers. Without animals in general, the psyco I mentioned earlier would try to blow up this planet(Yeah, he said that). So don't just think Nature is their for no reason.


I never said that.  I was merely pointing out that humanity isn't inherently immoral because of our treatment of the planet or the creatures on it, because Nature doesn't give a rat's ass about morality.

Of course Nature is important for our continued existence.  And yes, we should be good stewards of the resources which we have control over... but not because it's a moral thing.  We should do this because it directly benefits us in the long run.  Just because we can fly off and colonize Mars doesn't mean a healthy ecosystem at home isn't also important.

But to make it a moral issue is to place an unhealthy emphasis on it.  Saying it's immoral to pollute is the same thing as saying we should get rid of industrial society, because it's impossible to have industry w/ some level of pollution.  Yeah, we can cut our pollution rate by recycling, using biodegradable packaging and whatnot... but we'll never be able to take the pollution rate to zero as long as we have industry.  We shouldn't just dismantle industrial society so that we could live close to Nature again.  Rather, we need to find ways to make our industrial society more efficient, to better protect species that exist so that we don't have idiots blowing away entire species "for the lulz" and to generally continue to advance economically and technologically in a sustainable way.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 14, 2009)

Nargle said:


> Your argument is that chickens just can't weigh their options and decide to sacrifice their own lives for the greater good of their chicks? Well, honestly I think I have a bit more evidence then you do. Honestly tell me, what evidence is there that suggests that chickens don't even know they're alive? How do you know chickens can't understand value? Lots of animals get the concept of value. For instance, dogs will go to greater lengths to earn a high value reward, such as chicken or cheese, and might not care to much about a low-value treat like a carrot. The chicks are high-value to the chicken, and she two different instincts telling her to do two opposite things. In order to survive, one must have the capability to make choices. Decide what is right, and what is wrong. If not, this chicken's head would have exploded or something. She couldn't have reacted if she hadn't weighed her options, went with the option that she decided was the _right_ option, whilst simultaneously fighting against her instincts to flee, which she decided was the _wrong_ option. It's not like she can satisfy BOTH of her instincts at once. So how do you figure she came to the conclusion that she should go rescue her chicks if she hadn't thought about right and wrong?



Because a chicken can survive with its head cut off, and it will even continue in its pecking behavior, even though it no longer has a beak... not to mention a mouth.

http://www.miketheheadlesschicken.org/story.php


----------



## Nargle (Oct 14, 2009)

Telnac said:


> Hey, I'm not going to disagree with you about the immorality of hunting for any reason other than necessity.  (And no, killing a deer for the fun of it isn't OK just because you eat its remains unless you really need that meat to feed your family.)



Wait, you think hunting is cruel, but you're okay with funding cow farms that keep cows in pens so small they can't turn around, make them stand on several feet of feces, and pump them full of steroids and hormones that cause then to grow super fast and huge then slaughter them when they've barely reached (an early) maturity? You think it's okay that chickens are kept in wire cages the size of shoe boxes with their beaks cut off? Hunting is the ultimate form of free-range meat. The deer gets to spend its whole life living happily as nature intended, and dies a quick death with a shot to the heart. Do you know how they slaughter cows??

It's not necessary that I hunt, I could easily buy meat at the supermarket. But as soon as I'm able, I'd love to hunt for deer, pheasant, elk and doves, and avoid all supermarket meat. Hunting is WAY less cruel then how meat companies treat domestic farm animals. The only reason I don't hunt is because I don't have enough money to, and I have to eat supermarket meat.



Roose Hurro said:


> Because a chicken can survive with its head cut off, and it will even continue in its pecking behavior, even though it no longer has a beak... not to mention a mouth.
> 
> http://www.miketheheadlesschicken.org/story.php



This thread is saturated with logical fallacies.


----------



## twelvestring (Oct 14, 2009)

Nargle said:


> Wait, you think hunting is cruel, but you're okay with funding cow farms that keep cows in pens so small they can't turn around, make them stand on several feet of feces, and pump them full of steroids and hormones that cause then to grow super fast and huge then slaughter them when they've barely reached (an early) maturity? You think it's okay that chickens are kept in wire cages the size of shoe boxes with their beaks cut off? Hunting is the ultimate form of free-range meat. The deer gets to spend its whole life living happily as nature intended, and dies a quick death with a shot to the heart. Do you know how they slaughter cows??
> 
> It's not necessary that I hunt, I could easily buy meat at the supermarket. But as soon as I'm able, I'd love to hunt for deer, pheasant, elk and doves, and avoid all supermarket meat. Hunting is WAY less cruel then how meat companies treat domestic farm animals. The only reason I don't hunt is because I don't have enough money to, and I have to eat supermarket meat.
> 
> ...


I see your point in this and you seem to have a caring nature. I agree with your morals. But meat in mass quantities is a must in an overpopulated world. You will save no cows from slaughter with unnecessary hunting, just adding one more corpes. No matter how quick a death it's still an unnecessary one when there is plenty of meat at the market. Just a thought.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 14, 2009)

Nargle said:


> This thread is saturated with logical fallacies.



Aaand... what does that have to do with my post and my link?  Fact:  Mike the Chicken survived for 18 months with his head cut off.  You try that, and see how well you fare...


----------



## Nargle (Oct 14, 2009)

twelvestring said:


> I see your point in this and you seem to have a caring nature. I agree with your morals. But meat in mass quantities is a must in an overpopulated world. You will save no cows from slaughter with unnecessary hunting, just adding one more corpes. No matter how quick a death it's still an unnecessary one when there is plenty of meat at the market. Just a thought.



Of course we need farms like the ones we have to keep up with the world's population, and if they treated the animals any better the cost of meat would make it a luxury for the rich. That doesn't mean you can't still do your part, though. It's like saying "Why bother to rescue a dog from a shelter if millions are still going to die?" Because that one dog was saved and you've contributed by the greater good by not funding a puppy mill.

And I think "unnecessary" hunting isn't as cruel as you think. I don't agree with it, and I wouldn't take part in it, but honestly, if someone shoots a deer and throws away the meat and just stuffs it, I don't really have a problem with that. It's a much better way to go then to die of disease, famine, or slowly bleeding to death after getting mauled by a bear. Plus, some animals such as deer are overpopulated, and need to be thinned out in order to keep their food source plentiful. However, when it comes to hunting animals that will disturb the ecosystem, for instance, hunting wolves that need to be around to keep the deer population under control, then that's where I think it's wrong.

Also, hunting with a bow is pretty cruel. Most of the time you don't kill the animal right away, and you end up having to slit its throat with a knife.



Roose Hurro said:


> Aaand... what does that have to do with my post and my link? Fact: Mike the Chicken survived for 18 months with his head cut off. You try that, and see how well you fare...



What did your post have to do with my post that you quoted? X3


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 14, 2009)

Nargle said:


> What did your post have to do with my post that you quoted? X3



Simple, you claimed to have more evidence that chickens weigh their options and decide their actions.  You claimed that a chicken can decide between a "right" and a "wrong"... that she couldn't have reacted without making a conscious decision to act one way or another:  Save herself?  Save her chicks?  I simply pointed out that a chicken can have its head removed, and still behave like a chicken, without apparent CONSCIOUS awarness that its head is missing.  I think you can do the math from there...


----------



## Nargle (Oct 14, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> Simple, you claimed to have more evidence that chickens weigh their options and decide their actions.  You claimed that a chicken can decide between a "right" and a "wrong"... that she couldn't have reacted without making a conscious decision to act one way or another:  Save herself?  Save her chicks?  I simply pointed out that a chicken can have its head removed, and still behave like a chicken, without apparent CONSCIOUS awarness that its head is missing.  I think you can do the math from there...



So what does a chicken being able to peck with it's head cut off have anything to do with whether or not they can be moral? X3 

It seems as if you're saying chickens are just as smart with their heads as they are without. Chances are, that chicken lost some of it's mental capacity. So your link has nothing to do with what I was talking about. But anyways, saying a chicken isn't intelligent/self aware therefore it cannot understand morality is a logical fallacy. There is no evidence that connects the two.


----------



## Patton89 (Oct 14, 2009)

Chickens dont understand morality. They dont have the mental capability for it. 
There isnt any evidence to suggest that chickens understand morality. 

Why does this thread even exist now ?


----------



## Nargle (Oct 14, 2009)

Patton89 said:


> Chickens dont understand morality. They dont have the capability for it.
> There isnt any evidence to suggest that chickens understand morality.
> 
> Why does this thread even exist now ?



You see, it's assumptions like that based on no proof that might as well keep people in the dark ages.


----------



## Patton89 (Oct 14, 2009)

I demand evidence and you call me ignorant ? 
Its stupid, outright idiotic to claim that chickens can make moral decisions. 
Hell, even primates have trouble doing that, and you claim that CHICKENS, animals that have less evolved brains can do that ?
Please, show some evidence to support your rather absurd claim. Otherwise its nothing but a belief.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 14, 2009)

Patton89 said:


> I demand evidence and you call me ignorant ?
> Its stupid, outright idiotic to claim that chickens can make moral decisions.
> Hell, even primates have trouble doing that, and you claim that CHICKENS, animals that have less evolved brains can do that ?
> Please, show some evidence to support your rather absurd claim. Otherwise its nothing but a belief.



1, You have no evidence to support your claims and
2, Read a few pages back.


----------



## Ibuuyk (Oct 14, 2009)

Urm.. why're you two talking about chickens on a "The worst creature on Earth" thread?  They're inoffensive.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 14, 2009)

Ibuuyk said:


> Urm.. why're you two talking about chickens on a "The worst creature on Earth" thread?  They're inoffensive.



Because we got off topic.


----------



## Patton89 (Oct 14, 2009)

So...i say that chickens dont have capability to make moral decisions. 
And YOU, YOU demand evidence ?  Because i dont accept your claim head on ? And stick with science ? You know, chickens dont even have the capability to understand that a mirror image is "it" or me . 

Your so called evidence ? Doesnt prove that chickens can make moral choices, you are just twisting the story to try to prove a weird theory of yours. You arent considering which is more likely. That the chicken just acted on its instincts, and made no real concious choice. Or that the chicken made a moral, councious choice to sacrifice itself.

Oh, and the primitive morals ? Only observed on mammals. And social ones at that.


----------



## Ibuuyk (Oct 14, 2009)

Nargle said:


> Because we got off topic.



Oh, a'ight then, have fun ^^


----------



## Sinister Exaggerator (Oct 14, 2009)

I am stealing this thread title because I think it would make a perfect album title.

Okay? Okay.

edit: YEAH MAN FUCK PEOPLE.


----------



## Patton89 (Oct 14, 2009)

EVUL HUYMANS
BURN EM ALL
Yeah, this thread was almost certain to be derailed.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 14, 2009)

Patton89 said:


> So...i say that chickens dont have capability to make moral decisions.
> And YOU, YOU demand evidence ?  Because i dont accept your claim head on ? And stick with science ? You know, chickens dont even have the capability to understand that a mirror image is "it" or me .
> 
> Your so called evidence ? Doesnt prove that chickens can make moral choices, you are just twisting the story to try to prove a weird theory of yours. You arent considering which is more likely. That the chicken just acted on its instincts, and made no real concious choice. Or that the chicken made a moral, councious choice to sacrifice itself.



I know I didn't provide concrete evidence that chickens have morals. There is none, because we don't yet have the technology to read a chicken's mind. However, I presented a likely theory, because the chicken was obviously doing more than just reacting to instinct. It had to choose between two strong conflicting instincts, and end up denying an instinct. You have to consciously make the decision to deny an instinct, you don't instinctually deny your instincts, that makes no flippin' sense. Especially if that instinct is to SURVIVE, that strongest instinct of all. Also, self-awareness tests have nothing to do with morality. You're just trying to argue that chickens are stupid, when in reality, the two concepts aren't even linked. It's a logical fallacy to assume that because an animal doesn't have the ability to self recognize, then it for some reason doesn't have any morals. I have yet to be given any evidence that the two are related.

However, all you're saying is "Blah blah blah, chickens are stupid, I don't need to prove anything, shut up! La la la la!!"


----------



## Attaman (Oct 14, 2009)

Patton89 said:


> EVUL HUYMANS
> BURN EM ALL


  Don't make me report you for thread derailment.  This thread is about the worst creature on Earth, ergo it's _obviously_ talking about dolphins.  Or maybe, arguably, horses.


----------



## Patton89 (Oct 14, 2009)

Look, i am not claiming that certain animals dont or cant have some, primitive, PRIMITIVE, forms of morals, that have been the roots for our far more advanced sense of morals in the course of evolution. They have been found in  mammals up to now, in certain studies. That doesnt mean they have the same morality as we have, that doesnt mean that they make COUNCIOUS MORAL decisions like US.  
But you are claiming that CHICKENS make MORAL DECISIONS COUNCIOUSLY. You jump into conclusion like that quite fast. I say that they cant make real moral decisions,because there is no evidence to support it. I say that because what you are saying is just insane.


----------



## Gonebatty (Oct 14, 2009)

I still say mosquitos.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 14, 2009)

Patton89 said:


> Look, i am not claiming that certain animals dont or cant have some, primitive, PRIMITIVE, forms of morals, that we humans share our roots of our morality with. They have been found in  mammals up to now, in certain studies. That doesnt mean they have the same morality as we have, that doesnt mean, they make COUNCIOUS MORAL decisions like US.
> But you are claiming that CHICKEN make MORAL DECISIONS COUNCIOUSLY. You jump into conclusion like that quite fast. I say that they cant make real moral decisions,because there is no evidence to support it. I say that because what you are saying is just insane.



Whoa now, didn't I already tell you I wasn't saying they were on the same moral level as humans? Didn't I already say it was a primitive, basic level of morals? 

Also, why are you acting like making decisions is exclusive to humans?  Since when did making choices become such a high-level thing?


----------



## Patton89 (Oct 14, 2009)

Can you really call it a moral choice, when a chicken saves its offspring ?  
You call it a moral choice. Fine. 
I call it natural instincts. The instinct of flee lost. I wouldnt call that a choice. 
Animals protect their nests. Its instinctual.
Even if something like a chicken has morality, its going to be VERY, VERY primitive. 

I cant believe i am arguing about chicken and their possible very primitive, theoretical morality. On the internet.

EDIT: Just hit 36 hour mark. Need to get some sleep soon.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 15, 2009)

Nargle said:


> So what does a chicken being able to peck with it's head cut off have anything to do with whether or not they can be moral? X3
> 
> It seems as if you're saying chickens are just as smart with their heads as they are without. Chances are, that chicken lost some of it's mental capacity. So your link has nothing to do with what I was talking about. *But anyways, saying a chicken isn't intelligent/self aware therefore it cannot understand morality is a logical fallacy. There is no evidence that connects the two.*



Head.  Cut.  Off.

Chicken.  Still.  Acts.  Like.  Chicken.

(and most likely still tastes like chicken...)


----------



## lupineshadow (Oct 15, 2009)

I'm staying out of the big conflict, but first of all: 

Chickens are simple. If they can live with their heads off, it's because they don't really do much. However, it is not a good argument against "conciousness" because instincts are in the brain as well, or at least processed by it, so though they may be impossible to resist they still have the brain as a passageway. 

And I want to ask what is so wrong with primitive morality? I would much rather have simply "I won't kill you, and don't take my shit. Deal?" than all the complicated crap humans have dreamed up. The only reason we have such complex morality is to solve  problems we ourselves created. Example: we only have politeness because someone got offended, if no one was offended politeness and it's complexity would not exist in humans.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 15, 2009)

lupineshadow said:


> I'm staying out of the big conflict, but first of all:
> 
> Chickens are simple. If they can live with their heads off, it's because they don't really do much. However, it is not a good argument against "conciousness" because instincts are in the brain as well, or at least processed by it, so though they may be impossible to resist they still have the brain as a passageway.
> 
> And I want to ask what is so wrong with primitive morality? I would much rather have simply "I won't kill you, and don't take my shit. Deal?" than all the complicated crap humans have dreamed up. The only reason we have such complex morality is to solve  problems we ourselves created. Example: we only have politeness because someone got offended, if no one was offended politeness and it's complexity would not exist in humans.



All this talk of chickens just makes me hungry... I'm gonna go fix some supper!


----------



## CAThulu (Oct 15, 2009)

If we're talking about creatures, lets look at parasites.

How about the Gunnea-worm, people?  You know how you get this f**ker out of your body?  You have to _pull the worm out!_ (not for faint of heart)

http://www.cartercenter.org/resources/images/health/guinea_worm/GW-life-cycle-8-09.JPG


----------



## Xerox2 (Oct 15, 2009)

CAThulu said:


> If we're talking about creatures, lets look at parasites.
> 
> How about the Gunnea-worm, people?  You know how you get this f**ker out of your body?  You have to _pull the worm out!_ (not for faint of heart)
> 
> http://www.cartercenter.org/resources/images/health/guinea_worm/GW-life-cycle-8-09.JPG


mmm, blister pus water!


----------



## Uro (Oct 15, 2009)

Lobar said:


> Stop making threads.



This needed to be reiterated.


----------



## Attaman (Oct 15, 2009)

lupineshadow said:


> I would much rather have simply "I won't kill you, and don't take my shit. Deal?"





lupineshadow said:


> we only have politeness


  You you're saying we should go back to basics... but that we shouldn't go back to basics?  Because the very first thing you say there wouldn't happen if we went back to basics.  Person speaking would kill person being spoken to, and add their possessions to their collection.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 15, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> Head.  Cut.  Off.
> 
> Chicken.  Still.  Acts.  Like.  Chicken.
> 
> (and most likely still tastes like chicken...)



You can remove part of a human's brain, and they will still live. And if you were an alien and saw a human laying on a couch and a human laying on a hospital bed in a vegetative state, you'd probably think they were both just acting like humans!

That's just a terrible argument Roose, I'm disappointed.


----------



## Jashwa (Oct 15, 2009)

Nargle said:


> You can remove part of a human's brain, and they will still live. And if you were an alien and saw a human laying on a couch and a human laying on a hospital bed in a vegetative state, you'd probably think they were both just acting like humans!
> 
> That's just a terrible argument Roose, I'm disappointed.


No.  A person laying on a couch isn't functioning.  A chicken walking around and flapping its wings is functioning.

Plus, part of a brain =\= the whole brain.

Face it, Nargle.  Chickens aren't intelligent enough to grasp the concept of morals.  They only do things because instinct tells them to.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 15, 2009)

Jashwa said:


> No.  A person laying on a couch isn't functioning.  A chicken walking around and flapping its wings is functioning.
> 
> Plus, part of a brain =\= the whole brain.
> 
> Face it, Nargle.  Chickens aren't intelligent enough to grasp the concept of morals.  They only do things because instinct tells them to.



1, Mike the Chicken still had a lot of his brain. It was pretty much mostly his face that got cut off, and he still had the back of his head.

2, Behaving like a chicken is very subjective. Just because it can walk and flap doesn't mean it's functioning at it's full potential. It's like you're assuming chickens don't have any brains at all, or they function just as well without brains as they do with. That's just absolutely retarded logic.

3, I still fail to see what connection there is between chickens being able to move without parts of their brains, and chickens' ability to have morals. I've been talking about chickens with WHOLE brains, btw.


----------



## LotsOfNothing (Oct 15, 2009)

OP trolled you guys good.


----------



## 8-bit (Oct 15, 2009)

Gonebatty said:


> I still say mosquitos.


 
Cordyceps.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Oct 15, 2009)

*Re: Worst creature on earth*



feathery said:


> It's safe for me to say that in my strong opinion Humans are by far the worst creatures to ever grace this planet.
> your opinion may differ however mines rather fixed and wont ever change in this regard.



This is rather narrow-minded in my opinion, you are painting every human on the planet as being bad, YOU do not know every human on the planet to make such an opinion, you only know of the bad that people do and you are totally ignoring the good out there.

Hence, you are being VERY narrow minded.


----------



## Jashwa (Oct 15, 2009)

Nargle said:


> 1, Mike the Chicken still had a lot of his brain. It was pretty much mostly his face that got cut off, and he still had the back of his head.
> 
> 2, Behaving like a chicken is very subjective. Just because it can walk and flap doesn't mean it's functioning at it's full potential. It's like you're assuming chickens don't have any brains at all, or they function just as well without brains as they do with. That's just absolutely retarded logic.
> 
> 3, I still fail to see what connection there is between chickens being able to move without parts of their brains, and chickens' ability to have morals. I've been talking about chickens with WHOLE brains, btw.


1.  That still doesn't change the fact that people not moving is a horrible comparison.  The chicken still functions without the brain, the people weren't.  

2.  Everything is subjective, Nargle.  I'm not saying that a chicken's brain is useless, that WOULD be retarded.  I was just pointing out your bad analogy.  

3. It was a general statement, not related to the missing the head comment.  

Chickens protect their chicks because the instinct of saving the species is greater than that of self preservation.  The chicken doesn't have the capacity to think "Oh, my babies!  I love them, I must sacrifice myself to save them!"  It just acts upon its instinct to be a mother and protect them.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Oct 15, 2009)

Jashwa said:


> 1.  That still doesn't change the fact that people not moving is a horrible comparison.  The chicken still functions without the brain, the people weren't.
> 
> 2.  Everything is subjective, Nargle.  I'm not saying that a chicken's brain is useless, that WOULD be retarded.  I was just pointing out your bad analogy.
> 
> ...



Humans ALSO protect their offspring because of genetic programming. Any other reason is just extra stuff that grew on top later.


----------



## Tycho (Oct 15, 2009)

Nargle said:


> 1, Mike the Chicken still had a lot of his brain. It was pretty much mostly his face that got cut off, and he still had the back of his head.



I was under the impression that what was left was little more than a brainstem.


----------



## ChrisPanda (Oct 15, 2009)

I would think the jabberwocky is worse than people


----------



## Tycho (Oct 15, 2009)

ChrisPanda said:


> I would think the jabberwocky is worse than people



No, because a jabberwocky can be killed by:

1. Closing the book.
2. Genociding "J".

Easy-peasy.


----------



## ChrisPanda (Oct 15, 2009)

Tycho said:


> No, because a jabberwocky can be killed by:
> 
> 1. Closing the book.
> 2. Genociding "J".
> ...


 
The jabberwock is like freddy crouger within your mind, also I would imagine it would get angry if it was renamed the abberwocky everyone hates abba


----------



## Tycho (Oct 15, 2009)

ChrisPanda said:


> The jabberwock is like freddy crouger within your mind



Not in my mind, it ain't.



ChrisPanda said:


> also I would imagine it would get angry if it was renamed the abberwocky everyone hates abba



http://nethack.wikia.com/wiki/Jabberwock

Should have known you wouldn't get the reference, but oh well.


----------



## ChrisPanda (Oct 15, 2009)

Tycho said:


> Not in my mind, it ain't.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

lol internet retardation from me there. yeah T-rexes were pretty awesome


----------



## MBlueWolf (Oct 15, 2009)

Tycho said:


> No, because a jabberwocky can be killed by:
> 
> 1. Closing the book.
> 2. Genociding "J".
> ...



Or using the Jabberywocky's Eye Staff. Two points to whoever can get which game that is from. 

With the topic, eh... Nothing to really add other than that. It's been mostly covered by other people already, and I don't feel like beating that dead horse until it is just pulpy meat.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Oct 15, 2009)

MBlueWolf said:


> Or using the Jabberywocky's Eye Staff. Two points to whoever can get which game that is from.
> 
> With the topic, eh... Nothing to really add other than that. It's been mostly covered by other people already, and I don't feel like beating that dead horse until it is just pulpy meat.


American McGee's Alice?


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 15, 2009)

Nargle said:


> 1, Mike the Chicken still had a lot of his brain. It was pretty much mostly his face that got cut off, and he still had the back of his head.
> 
> 2, Behaving like a chicken is very subjective. Just because it can walk and flap doesn't mean it's functioning at it's full potential. *It's like you're assuming chickens don't have any brains at all, or they function just as well without brains as they do with.* That's just absolutely retarded logic.
> 
> 3, I still fail to see what connection there is between chickens being able to move without parts of their brains, and chickens' ability to have morals. I've been talking about chickens with WHOLE brains, btw.



A human who has had their face cut off will not still peck at the ground in an effort to eat.  If they have enough brain to realize what has happened to them, they will behave accordingly, not as if all is normal.  I've lived on a farm and raised chicken, observed them.  Mike, even after he had his "face" chopped off, still acted like a normal chicken, his behavior unaffected by his lack of a head/face.  This would imply that a chicken is a purely instinctual creature, not a creature capable of CONSCIOUS decision-making.  Not capable of making any decisions, let alone moral ones.  Whole brain or half, it doesn't matter.  Chickens are chickens, not people.  And morality is a human construct, above all considerations.  So, morals can't be applied to animal behavior, since animals are amoral creatures.  Just because they do things we humans consider moral doesn't mean they do what they do for moral reasons.  Understand?


----------



## Nargle (Oct 15, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> A human who has had their face cut off will not still peck at the ground in an effort to eat.  If they have enough brain to realize what has happened to them, they will behave accordingly, not as if all is normal.  I've lived on a farm and raised chicken, observed them.  Mike, even after he had his "face" chopped off, still acted like a normal chicken, his behavior unaffected by his lack of a head/face.  This would imply that a chicken is a purely instinctual creature, not a creature capable of CONSCIOUS decision-making.  Not capable of making any decisions, let alone moral ones.  Whole brain or half, it doesn't matter.  Chickens are chickens, not people.  And morality is a human construct, above all considerations.  So, morals can't be applied to animal behavior, since animals are amoral creatures.  Just because they do things we humans consider moral doesn't mean they do what they do for moral reasons.  Understand?



Pecking could just be a subconscious tick, like biting your nails, or scratching your head. Just because a chicken is still pecking after missing part of its brain does NOT mean it's still functioning to its full potential. Unless you are a chicken psychologist, or you can read chicken minds, you can not tell me they function just as well while missing part of their brain. You're simply observing one or two actions you believe are normal for a chicken, and pulling the rest out of your ass.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 16, 2009)

Nargle said:


> Pecking could just be a subconscious tick, like biting your nails, or scratching your head. Just because a chicken is still pecking after missing part of its brain does NOT mean it's still functioning to its full potential. Unless you are a chicken psychologist, or you can read chicken minds, you can not tell me they function just as well while missing part of their brain. You're simply observing one or two actions you believe are normal for a chicken, and pulling the rest out of your ass.



Would you be satisfied if I sent you a Kentucky Fried coupon...?


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Oct 16, 2009)

HUMAN morals are human constructs. We have no way of knowing if other species have developed morals. No SECULAR authority has an answer to that.


----------



## Jelethorim (Oct 16, 2009)

AzurePhoenix said:


> If we go extinct, there damn sure ain't gonna be an earth left for something else to rise to prominence on.  It would take no less than complete irradiation of the surface of the bloody planet to kill us in a meaningful way.



I'm not sure that'd work.  Ever see a bed-bug infestation?

They put a giant tent over a house, seal it down, and fill the place with lethal gas that you need a hazard-suit to be around.  Then they go inside and hit every corner, crevice, and hidey-hole that a bug can get to.  This effect kills a LOT of bugs.

Sometimes, it kills all the bed-bugs.  Normally, it just takes care of the problem for a little while.

Now imagine if the bed-bug was sentient, self-aware, tool using, and so forth.

Do you really think it'd work, hon?


----------



## Attaman (Oct 16, 2009)

Jelethorim said:


> Do you really think it'd work, hon?


You see, that has only the effect of normal toxins.  Irradiation of the Earth to the point that not even "protected" humans or those in fallout shelters are secure means we can probably expect other critters to drop left and right.


----------



## Furygan (Oct 16, 2009)

T3h Hyo0mans clearly lulz.

Dey destroui our plenet becaz dey are stupid.

*cough*

On a more serious note: Celebrities,Al-Qaeda Members,And Chav's.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Oct 16, 2009)

And the WBC, a terrorist organization currently hiding in the mountains of Pigfuckistan.


----------



## Furygan (Oct 16, 2009)

Also,North-Koreans.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Oct 16, 2009)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> HUMAN morals are human constructs. We have no way of knowing if other species have developed morals. No SECULAR authority has an answer to that.



animals don't have morals, if they did they would think twice before killing for food.

EDIT: Or they would not just "take" food, like the chickens in another thread. imo we humans are the only ones with morlas, who know the difference between right and wrong blah blah blah.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Oct 16, 2009)

So says the Cosmic Fuhrer. HEIL JESUS! So you are saying we are some kind of Uberrasse that can pass judgement on all other living things. All species do what they do mostly because they are genetically PREDISPOSED to such behavior. There is no good or evil species.  Including ours.


----------



## Furygan (Oct 16, 2009)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> So says the Cosmic Fuhrer. HEIL JESUS! So you are saying we are some kind of Uberrasse that can pass judgement on all other living things. All species do what they do mostly because they are genetically PREDISPOSED to such behavior. There is no good or evil species. Including ours.


 
Yes,we were all evolved and born into nazi's.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Oct 16, 2009)

Furygan said:


> Yes,we were all evolved and born into nazi's.


Well, at least they had a realistic basis for their behavior (we'll be executed if we don't do as we are told!)


----------



## Furygan (Oct 16, 2009)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> Well, at least they had a realistic basis for their behavior (we'll be executed if we don't do as we are told!)


 
Mhm,And life's cool...so.

Sieg Heil?


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Oct 16, 2009)

Furygan said:


> Mhm,And life's cool...so.
> 
> Sieg Heil?


Not my point....but whatever.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Oct 16, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> animals don't have morals, if they did they would think twice before killing for food.
> 
> EDIT: Or they would not just "take" food, like the chickens in another thread. imo we humans are the only ones with morlas, who know the difference between right and wrong blah blah blah.


..and next you'll say they can't love (never had a dog, eh?). And then with the soul argument. And THEN with the flinging of names like "PETAfag", "tree-hugger", etc. That is the meaning of "blah blah blah".


----------



## Furygan (Oct 16, 2009)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> ..and next you'll say they can't love (never had a dog, eh?). And then with the soul argument. And THEN with the flinging of names like "PETAfag", "tree-hugger", etc. That is the meaning of "blah blah blah".


 
Lol Three Huggers.

Watch out firfags.
Surprise barksex.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Oct 16, 2009)

Furygan said:


> Lol Three Huggers.
> 
> Watch out firfags.
> Surprise barksex.


Most impressive.


----------



## Attaman (Oct 16, 2009)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> (never had a dog, eh?).


  They love you so much, when you die they'll come back for seconds of that one thigh. 

And then comes the "How can you say you love someone if you won't eat them" argument. And THEN comes the "bow chicka bow wow" response.  And then the one post who posts the "How can you say you love someone if you won't eat their poop," picture. 



> That is the meaning of "blah blah blah".


No, the _above_ is the meaning of "blah blah blah".



> And then with the soul argument.


  Come on, we all know the only soulless beings on this planet are Atheists, Communists, and Lawyers.

And Randy, a better example for the lack of morals would be all the animals that participate in infanticide, attempted rape across species barriers because of sexual frustration, etc.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Oct 16, 2009)

I heartily agree with you about lawyers. They have neither souls NOR morals.


----------



## Furygan (Oct 16, 2009)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> I heartily agree with you about lawyers. They have neither souls NOR morals.


 
I do have to credit them for determination to get money anyway out of anything,and their ability to summon Satan at age three.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 16, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> Would you be satisfied if I sent you a Kentucky Fried coupon...?



It would be kinda pointless, because I don't eat coupons. Why don't you just send it unaltered? XD


----------



## Furygan (Oct 16, 2009)

What do you mean you don't eat coupons?! Blasphemy!


----------



## Nargle (Oct 16, 2009)

Furygan said:


> What do you mean you don't eat coupons?! Blasphemy!



Do you like them Kentucky fried? Or just grilled? They're not very tasty either way if you ask my opinion.


----------



## Furygan (Oct 16, 2009)

Nargle said:


> Do you like them Kentucky fried? Or just grilled? They're not very tasty either way if you ask my opinion.


 
In these times,some greenpeace faggot might just stand up and say: ''Hey,i'm eating paper,because it's recycling and it will contribute to a better enviroment!'' At Any time.
And enough crazy people will follow.


----------



## Leostale (Oct 17, 2009)

Mosquitoes... i wish the all die and get extinct


----------



## Furygan (Oct 17, 2009)

^This


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 17, 2009)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> HUMAN morals are human constructs. We have no way of knowing if other species have developed morals. No SECULAR authority has an answer to that.



Thank you...




Nargle said:


> It would be kinda pointless, because I don't eat coupons. Why don't you just send it unaltered? XD



It would be difficult to ship a bucket of Kentucky Fried even through UPS... more expensive than mailing a coupon, and your chicken wouldn't arrive fresh and hot.




Nargle said:


> Do you like them Kentucky fried? Or just grilled? They're not very tasty either way if you ask my opinion.



I like my coupons raw...


----------



## Furygan (Oct 17, 2009)

Worst creature on earth: Chav's.


----------



## Tewin Follow (Oct 17, 2009)

Leostale said:


> Mosquitoes... i wish the all die and get extinct


 
Not even kidding: I once left a hard-back book on top of a mozzie on the floor all night, and when lifting it off in the morning-- it flew up fine and ready to pass around disease another day!

Their only downfall is that distinct whine they make while flying. If I hear that in my room, I won't go to sleep until I eliminate it.


----------



## SnowFox (Oct 17, 2009)

Spiders and chavs.

I suppose daddy long-legs too, they just seem so pathetic and pointless. Little stringy pieces of shit floating about aimlessly and bumping into things.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Oct 17, 2009)

SnowFox said:


> Spiders and chavs.
> 
> I suppose daddy long-legs too, they just seem so pathetic and pointless. Little stringy pieces of shit floating about aimlessly and bumping into things.



Chavs are also pointless pieces of shit that walk around in herds annoying people, thinking they look tough but they are not.


----------



## SnowFox (Oct 17, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Chavs are also pointless pieces of shit that walk around in herds annoying people, thinking they look tough but they are not.



Yes they do need to be wiped out, but they can occasionally be used as forms of entertainment.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Oct 17, 2009)

SnowFox said:


> Yes they do need to be wiped out, but they can occasionally be used as forms of entertainment.



Especially when ya know ways to scare a group of them off.


----------



## SnowFox (Oct 17, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Especially when ya know ways to scare a group of them off.



Devvo is my favorite.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Oct 17, 2009)

SnowFox said:


> Devvo is my favorite.



I know a guy bigger than him.


----------



## Furygan (Oct 17, 2009)

Chav's are awesome when it comes to soccer matches.

They turn a sport into a battlefield.

HOOLIGANS UNITE.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Oct 17, 2009)

Furygan said:


> Chav's are awesome when it comes to soccer matches.
> 
> They turn a sport into a battlefield.
> 
> HOOLIGANS UNITE.



Chavs are stupid immature litle dicks.

End of.


----------



## Furygan (Oct 17, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Chavs are stupid immature litle dicks.
> 
> End of.


 
No sh-


----------



## Nargle (Oct 17, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> Thank you...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Now you like fried BUCKETS?  What are you, some sort of goat with a taste for a secret blend of herbs and spices?


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 17, 2009)

Nargle said:


> Now you like fried BUCKETS?  What are you, some sort of goat with a taste for a secret blend of herbs and spices?



Perhaps I can just send you some raw chicken, and you can fry it, yourself...?


----------



## Azure (Oct 17, 2009)

Jelethorim said:


> I'm not sure that'd work.  Ever see a bed-bug infestation?
> 
> They put a giant tent over a house, seal it down, and fill the place with lethal gas that you need a hazard-suit to be around.  Then they go inside and hit every corner, crevice, and hidey-hole that a bug can get to.  This effect kills a LOT of bugs.
> 
> ...


I mean irradiated as in we basically tossed nukes over the entire surface of the planet. No clean water, no clean air, no manufacturing complex, no surviving infrastructure of any kind.  Do you really think the average human could survive that?  Even the ones that do will be sparse, ill equipped medically to handle any sort of situation, and soon on their way to being the dust from whence they came.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 17, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> Perhaps I can just send you some raw chicken, and you can fry it, yourself...?



How are you not getting this? X3


----------



## Attaman (Oct 17, 2009)

AzurePhoenix said:


> I mean irradiated as in we basically tossed nukes over the entire surface of the planet. No clean water, no clean air, no manufacturing complex, no surviving infrastructure of any kind.  Do you really think the average human could survive that?  Even the ones that do will be sparse, ill equipped medically to handle any sort of situation, and soon on their way to being the dust from whence they came.



I believe he was talking about the bed-bugs.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 17, 2009)

Nargle said:


> How are you not getting this? X3



Oh, I'm getting this just fine... having fun with it now is more important than arguing over moot points.  So, smile, take a picture of yourself, and post it, so I can see you're having fun.........


----------



## Nargle (Oct 17, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> Oh, I'm getting this just fine... having fun with it now is more important than arguing over moot points.  So, smile, take a picture of yourself, and post it, so I can see you're having fun.........



No, I still want to argue that fried paper products are no good >=3


----------



## Jashwa (Oct 17, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> Oh, I'm getting this just fine... having fun with it now is more important than arguing over moot points.  So, smile, take a picture of yourself, and post it, so I can see you're having fun.........


And Roose manages to pull off the "creepy old guy" perfectly.  *golf claps*


----------



## TDK (Oct 17, 2009)

Jashwa said:


> And Roose manages to pull off the "creepy old guy" perfectly.  *golf claps*



Second that. Pedophile status just upgraded.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 17, 2009)

Jashwa said:


> And Roose manages to pull off the "creepy old guy" perfectly.  *golf claps*



**Ruffles feathers.**


----------



## Morroke (Oct 17, 2009)

Kaamos said:


> Madagascar would survive.



SHUT

DOWN

EVERYTHING


----------



## Jashwa (Oct 17, 2009)

Nargle said:


> **Ruffles feathers.**


I don't understand bird body language, what does that mean?


----------



## Nargle (Oct 17, 2009)

Jashwa said:


> I don't understand bird body language, what does that mean?



That statement made me uncomfortable XD


----------



## Azure (Oct 17, 2009)

Attaman said:


> I believe he was talking about the bed-bugs.


I'm talking about splitting the atom. Bedbugs don't stand a chance in hell.

EDIT- Boy, sure is Jacko up in this thread.


----------



## FHFJIGSAW (Oct 17, 2009)

That is such a furry thing to say.


----------



## Hir (Oct 17, 2009)

FHFJIGSAW said:


> That is such a fur*fag* thing to say.


Thats better.


----------



## Attaman (Oct 17, 2009)

AzurePhoenix said:


> I'm talking about splitting the atom. Bedbugs don't stand a chance in hell.


Haven't you played Fallout?  After the radioactive "apocalypse", bugs will be one of the main predators remaining.  At 2000% their original size.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 17, 2009)

Attaman said:


> Haven't you played Fallout?  After the radioactive "apocalypse", bugs will be one of the main predators remaining.  At 2000% their original size.



And there are dogs =3

Though I wouldn't use a video game as scientific evidence.


----------



## Hir (Oct 17, 2009)

Nargle said:


> And there are dogs =3


You and your dogs :3


----------



## Jashwa (Oct 17, 2009)

Attaman said:


> Haven't you played Fallout?  After the radioactive "apocalypse", bugs will be one of the main predators remaining.  At 2000% their original size.


I think it's a little more than 2000%.  That's only 20x.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 17, 2009)

Nargle said:


> No, I still want to argue that fried paper products are no good >=3



Depends on what sauce you dip them in...


----------



## D3vinSahwog (Oct 17, 2009)

There are two types of furries (or atleast I have noticed):
-Ones that become furries because they hate humanity so much and want to distance themselves from the human species
-Ones that don't apply to the above statement


----------



## Azure (Oct 17, 2009)

Attaman said:


> Haven't you played Fallout?  After the radioactive "apocalypse", bugs will be one of the main predators remaining.  At 2000% their original size.


I am the Fallout master.


----------



## Attaman (Oct 17, 2009)

AzurePhoenix said:


> I am the Fallout master.


You've got a problem with your master plan.


----------



## Azure (Oct 17, 2009)

Attaman said:


> You've got a problem with your master plan.


Incorrect.


----------



## Attaman (Oct 17, 2009)

AzurePhoenix said:


> Incorrect.


I happen to know that your mutants are sterile.


----------



## Azure (Oct 17, 2009)

Attaman said:


> I happen to know that your mutants are sterile.


I'll just kidnap the humans in the area and turn them.  Though I wonder, how did the Super Mutants turn people in the DC Wasteland when the original tank was so far away in California?  There wasn't anywhere to dip em?


----------



## Attaman (Oct 17, 2009)

AzurePhoenix said:


> I'll just kidnap the humans in the area and turn them.  Though I wonder, how did the Super Mutants turn people in the DC Wasteland when the original tank was so far away in California?  There wasn't anywhere to dip em?


FEV Gas, apparently.  Turns out it produced much, _much_ dumber mutants.  Go figure.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Oct 18, 2009)

Telnac said:


> It'd be nice to think he could hold on all the way into space. But the fact is, wind currents would rip him off long before he could reach the upper atmosphere. Even if he could hold on until the solid rocket boosters separated, once that happened the jolt would have knocked him free. He'd have certainly climbed far higher than any bat in history, but not to 100km into space itself.
> 
> Once dislodged, he'd be roasted alive by the exhaust in a heartbeat.


 
Why won't you let me have my happy thoughts? Why must you tear them down?


----------



## Attaman (Oct 18, 2009)

Does this help Crackers?  Keep this image in your mind.


----------



## Azure (Oct 18, 2009)

Attaman said:


> FEV Gas, apparently.  Turns out it produced much, _much_ dumber mutants.  Go figure.


And yet, the Master was incredibly intelligent.  What a shame.  I wanted mutants with Stealth Boys and crazy weapons.


----------



## Attaman (Oct 18, 2009)

AzurePhoenix said:


> And yet, the Master was incredibly intelligent.  What a shame.  I wanted mutants with Stealth Boys and crazy weapons.



Oh no, Master Super Mutants were smart.  It was the East Coast ones that were child-smarts berserkers.  The Master's plan _did_ have merits beyond the sterility bit.  I'd as soon make a world of EC Mutants as I'd make a world of retards - same thing, without the rotting skin.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Oct 18, 2009)

Attaman said:


> Does this help Crackers? Keep this image in your mind.


 
*sigh* A man can dream.


----------



## Yarknaut (Oct 18, 2009)

*Re: Worst creature on earth*



feathery said:


> It's safe for me to say that in my strong opinion Humans are by far the worst creatures to ever grace this planet.
> your opinion may differ however mines rather fixed and wont ever change in this regard.



Sounds like someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed.


----------



## LotsOfNothing (Oct 18, 2009)

Attaman said:


> Does this help Crackers? Keep this image in your mind.


 


Ffffffffffffffff...    ;^;


----------



## 8-bit (Oct 19, 2009)

Nargle said:


> Sorry =3




Its ok. 0_~


----------



## feathery (Oct 20, 2009)

Barney.


----------

