Dwalin2010

I agree.....If under Clinton somebody who is responsible and knowledgeable about this had been appointed, in this aspect it would have been better if Trump had lost....There are other things though, that are equally bad, like (if I remember correctly) she said she was willing to start new wars, rather than resolve with diplomacy (although I am not sure anymore which country she was referring to, and whether it was really worded like that, so don't quote me on that), wars are a big disaster too.....That's one the reasons I have a hard time to decide who can bring more trouble..... Thanks for the link, I will read the thread now and maybe re-post some parts of this post there, if here it was the wrong topic...

While I am not good in understanding most of things about politics and have never made really a "choice" for myself to form an opinion which one of the 2 was a lesser evil, Clinton or Trump, right now there is one thing in particular that bothers me very much. Already more than once Trump has expressed his support for characters who are by no means interested in maintaining the natural environment clean, as long as the pollution brings them money. Like that Scott Pruitt character who has been put in the Environmental Protection Agency, just to make a random example. Then, all those speeches about global warming and climate changes danger being a "hoax". I am not surprised that Trump himself or the big financial tycoons say so, after all, they have everything to gain if they can spend less money on protecting nature. What amazes me (in a negative way) is that a number of "normal" common people (not politicians or big "moneybags"/financial tycoons) actually believe the statement that global warming and other dangers for the environment are "hoaxes" (invented by "communists", if you listen to them), to the point they insult the scientists who warn people about those things and insult those politicians who actually paid at least some attention to the issue, whatever the country they are from. The weird thing is that, as I said, it's not just the "people at the top" who have everything to gain, who say so. It's the "normal" people who gain absolutely nothing from reducing the money used to save the environment. Why Trump and the others on the same level as him say so, I understand, even though I despise the reason behind it. But why normal people can say so with so much passion, that I cannot understand. There is so much hatred in their posts, towards the ones who spend much money on protecting natural environment, that they sound like crazy zombies, honestly. And the last thing about Trump's attitude towards the issue that imo is really upsetting: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/all-references-to-climate-change-have-been-deleted-from-the-white-house-website To avoid misunderstandings: I don't live in the USA, I live in Italy, therefore I haven't voted in these elections, and even if I lived in the USA, I am not a supporter of Trump or Clinton and opposed to one in favor of the other. I still think that Hillary Clinton would have been a bad alternative either, for very different reasons. When I read Trump had won I thought "well, whatever, maybe hopefully he is the lesser evil of the 2 of them....". Shortly after that I was already convinced he was not. That doesn't make me sympathize with Clinton though, there are many other points in both their political programs that I probably don't even know about (I haven't read about the subject in details enough), maybe there are both good and bad things. To sum it up, I still have a hard time to decide which of the 2 of them is the lesser evil. But the point is, I am really upset about what is going to happen to the environment, in the USA at least. You have beautiful landscapes, animals, at least there still is something to save. Usually, countries start caring about nature protection only when it's almost destroyed. In the USA it's not yet reduced to the extinction and complete destruction, it would be sad if they only realized the mistake too late, when everything is already in ruins and polluted. Here the talk was mostly about climate change, but from what I read, Trump's position towards the rest of the environment isn't more responsible either. He doesn't care, that's for sure. It depends on points of view, how much this issue is actually important, but to me it is one of the priorities. I would really like please to hear your opinions about this specific issue, since I am quite upset by where things are going

I would improve and increase a quality like empathy or altruism, things like that, in a way such a quality takes absolute priority no matter what, so that violent conflicts simply don't take place or die down. I mean, just to make an example, if a terrorist wants to blow up a theater or a marketplace for religious or political reasons, he is unable to force himself to activate the bomb, being overcome by emotions and thoughts about what his would-be-victims feel.

Possible big political changes in Russia http://europe.newsweek.com/russias-most-famous-cat-politician-announces-presidential-bid-532642?rm=eu https://latestnewsresource.com/en/news/breaking-news-barnaulskij-kot-barsik-zajavil-o-svoih-prezidentskih-ambitsijah It started last year as a mock "campaign" to make this cat mayor of Barnaul after people got really tired of all local corruption scandals and all new candidates presented after the previous ones resigned, were equally corrupt, so people formed this kind of movement to call a local cat for mayor (at least he won't take bribes, extort, etc) that was supposed to be a joke initially, although due to the serious corruption situation there, it seems even a piece of wood or a stone would make a better mayor than any of the local politicians. Anyway, it seems the idea has become so popular that now they want him to become president, not just a provincial mayor, and I see newspapers write about this cat not just in Russia, but as you see, in English speaklng countries too, then I also saw in Italian, Spanish, German, haven't yet checked other languages It would be great if he kicked out Putin and gave dignity to my homeland! I live in Italy now, but am from Russia (moved to Italy years ago). Hopefully, the Russian nationalists won't harass Barsik with their idiotic slogans like "Russia for Slavs only! Go back to Scotland!" etc (Barsik is a Scottish Fold cat after all) :D: By the way, the writing on the photo at the beginning of the article from the 2nd link says "Only a mouse doesn't vote for Barsik!"

I am really sorry about your mom and dad.... About the war on drugs, I agree it isn't having much success, and imo other approaches are needed, not just police arrests, but maybe different cultural education, making it in such a way that people start perceiving drugs as something they wouldn't even want to try, then helping the users to get off and not consider then criminals (unless they get completely "bonkers", like when in advanced stages of addiction, if an addict doesn't have enough money for a dose, they would steal or rob, even kill to get it, unfortunately, that's another reason I think "hard" drugs are dangerous). Something like that, I don't really know..... About alcohol: indeed it does more harm than "light" drugs like marijuana, so does smoking, yet both are, legal, it's ironic somehow. And, while making alcohol illegal didn't work and only made organized crime rich during the Prohibition years, even though it became legal again, today there isn't such a desperate national alcohol problem in the USA as there was in the pre-Prohibition years. If people were as relatively moderate in drinking back then, prohibition would likely never have been suggested to be introduced as a law. I mean, this shows that people can be stopped from mass drinking themselves to uncosciousness or death without resorting to law pressure, but with cultural education instead, imo it would be good if the same could be done with drugs (at least with "hard" ones). Well, it says "Portugal decided to treat possession and use of small quantities of these drugs as a public health issue, not a criminal one. The drugs were still illegal, of course. But now getting caught with them meant a small fine and maybe a referral to a treatment program -- not jail time and a criminal record.". That makes sense, meaning that it helps the user treatment program; if they treated these people as criminals, it wouldn't certainly harm the big drug trade, it would be punishment for the sake of it. So it's not like they declared everything legal and buyable in whatever quantity people want, but separated the cases when it's obvious rehabilitation is a better solution. If a person is an addict who has not yet turned violent, it makes no sense putting him/her in jail. If it's a dealer, theoretically they could go to prison, but serious organized crime figures don't get caught with small doses in their pocket, they are smarter than that. So, if they try this another approach and if it has worked, it's good then. If they legalized the big capitals made by the top drug lords, almost all of whom are murderers too (not meaning overdoses, but contract killings) then THAT would be a bitter irony, but it's not like anyone is doing that yet.

If we put it that way, it did no good, but then you can the same about a successfully carried out premeditated murder as well. Murder being illegal hasn't prevented the individual from killing another individual, but nobody says we should legalize murder. Also another thing about a potential legalization of the "heaviest" and deadliest drugs: if they are legalized, there will probably be an initial massive buying "boom", and the consequent enormous growing number of addictions and therefore, of lethal overdoses. Some time later, the situation will probably become more stabilized, but will it be really worth it, considering the quantity of dead bodies left during the "initial wave"?

Mi sincere condolences for all the deaths and I hope your cousin gets better... But especially considering these tragedies, it's even harder for me to understand that your are saying that even heroin should be allowed. Life is more important that freedom imo, because the word "freedom" can be used as a very extensive concept. Theoretically, somebody could say that complete anarchy and chaos is freedom too, even more, it's the epitome of complete freedom if we interpret it literally. I think the concept of resposibility is more important that those kinds of freedom that are based on temporary impulsve decisions. On the other hand, you have mentioned depression; I don't know what was the case exactly, I don't want to invade anybody's privacy, but cases involving depression or worse are completely different: if people are depressed and tired of life, and in some other cases even take drugs and drink themselves to death on purpose, because they actually WANT to die, or at least the REALIZE they will die and still continue with this because they don't care, not being able to bear with the hard life, depression, tragedies etc, this is completely different in my view. I don't "condemn" such people in any way and feel genuinely sorry for them. I myself suffer from depression (not to this point yet, but still) and can imagine how it can hurt. What I was talking about in the previous post, weren't cases like these, but cases when people become heroin addicts for fun or for being curious without realizing what they are doing, later they would be happy to get off the drug themselves, but it's too late in the advanced stages of addiction. It's not just about "morality" because if we talk about that, somebody will surely start to derail the discussion about the non-existance of such thing or about it being different from person to person. I am talking about the concept of "responsibility" and respect for the feelings of family members and friends first of all. But again. it's very important to me that you understand that I draw a clear line between people who sink into alcohol and drugs or kill themselves because of depression, hardships of life, or psychological problems, I don't know etc, and it's a competely different thing when somebody does it just for fun or curiosity or to "make a point" that they want to spend their money on whatever they like, just because they think this will show their alleged "independence". But in reality, what's worse, being dependent on strict parents (for example) or being dependent on heroin? Strict parents at least don't kill you quickly....

Even heroin? I understand about "light" things like marijuana etc, but heroin is deadly, lethal; just because people inject it into themselves without being physically forced by the dealers, it doesn't mean they actually want to die. They might be simply naive, overconfident, in some cases stupid, they might think "I will try what it feels like just to have more knowledge", whatever, but once they understand it's time to get off, it's too late, they can't and die. I know a person who is a former heroin addict and managed to get off it (as far as I know, these are are exceptions, people can get off cocaine, maybe ecstasy, I am not really sure, but heroin is one of the deadliest and quickest to kill). Is there even one person in the world who, after going through the state of nearly dying from heroin, but managing to get off and saving themselves and is still thinking it was worth it and willing to try again? Last but not least, I think the feelings of the relatives and friends who don't want to see their dear ones die of drugs, they should also be considered and respected. I once said this on another forum and was simply told "it's not their choice to make" or "it's not their business", something like that. If people dismiss the concern of their family members, where will the world be going? Apart from the fact they are wasting great sums of money on heroin, stealing from the family too....

Concering Mussolini's fascism in Italy, just on observation: from what I read (I studied in Milan, high school and university, although I am Russian), Fascism is considered slightly different from Hitler's Nazional Socialism and Stalin's most extreme form of Communsim (with his death it was still an oppressive regime compared to democracy, but anyway I suppose it could be said that before Stalin's death things were definitely different that after he was out of the picture). I mean, Fascism is different because Mussolini's control over all aspects of Italian society wasn't as complete as Hitler's and Stalin's in their countries. There were some parts where his power was limited and he knew it. He couldn't throw the king in jail, to make the most oblvious example (actually, it happened the other way around on a certain point), the army was more loyal to the king than Mussolini if I remember correctly what I read. This is just an observation, I mean, it's not like Mussolini was a better person that other dictators or whatever, it's just that he was weaker in his own country. Stalin, Hitler, Mao etc were way more powerful. Although to be honest, in my opinion the worst dictator of all was Pol Pot. He killed less people than Stalin and Hitler only because his country was smaller and therefore with a smaller population. Usually dictators kill many people to achieve something, like for example Stalin thought that with his terror, executions, gulags and over-working people to death, the country would become stronger. Theoretically, under him the country was a military power etc, although the end certainly doesn't justfy the means, and I have nothing positive say about the concept of military and "war" in general etc, but that would be off-topic....What I mean is that most dictators want to achieve something they could use to their advantage or to the advantage of the country as a political entity, although completely disregarding the value of human life and committing genocide. Their motives are clear, although they don't constitute justification in any way. Pol Pot's massacres, on the other hand, were completely pointless. They didn't bring any order, not even the "order of a graveyard", they didn't make one social class stronger by making the other suffer, they didn't help to make the country stronger in any way, nothing, he didn't even manage to have any real benefit for himself and his "friends" at expense of the Cambodian people. At the end he was overthrown by his own regime accomplices, which doesn't happen to totalitarian dictators that often. Usually, they die a natural death while still in power and people in their country can start criticizing them openly only after that. Or maybe, rather than "worst" (since after all it's the number of victims that is the most important factor I think), I shoud say he was the most stupid and incapable of them all.

I agree, but here it was business with gangsters, not legal international companies. And the ones caught in Cuba after the revolution didn't become Castro's loyalists, they were just kicked out. Since he was brutal with the political opposition, why being merciful with gangsters? If Pablo Escobar and the Colombian cartels helped him to make money later, that would be an explanation, since none of the 2 sides during the Cold War had scruples about the sources of income, as long as it helped to harm the other side. But the ones briefly imprisoned following the revolution, they were mostly Cosa Nostra, they were anti-Castro and, according to some historians. were even used by the CIA in a later abandoned plot aimed to kill Castro. So why didn't he just kill them when he could, considering that he had no scruples with killing political oppostion? That's what I don't get.....

There is one question, would be interesting to hear your opinions: When Castro came to power and the organized crime syndicates active under Battista lost their "strongholds" in Cuba, why didn't he put away for life or shoot the ones he managed to catch? He even had Santo Trafficante in jail, yet chose to release him, while he could have changed the mafia history instead. I thought, mob bosses weren't considered as a "socially friendly element" by the Communists? On the other hand, if they really did business with Pablo Escobar, it's said especially Raul Castro was involved in drug trafficking....I don't know. But in this case, they weren't "Communists by ideology", but just pretended to be that. A Communist leader letting go or even doing business with financial tycoons (criminal ones in this case), makes as much sense as an African American becoming a Ku Klux Klan leader, or a Nazi concentration camp executioner being of Jewish origins, imo. What did he exactly hope to accomplish by sending the crime bosses abroad free? That they would return to the USA and disrupt its economy?

What's the point of freezing somebody dead already? Theoretically there may be a cure for cancer in the future, but not a technique to resurrect the dead...

I disagree with some points here. Killing for vengeance isn't the same as killing for fun (at least, in many cases it isn't). Whoever kills for fun is by default a sadist, a manifestation of pure evil. Killing for vengeance is a wide concept. It may be vengeance over an insignificant thing, like when a street gangster feels "disrespected" because a passerby gave him a "wrong" glance or something like that. It's another thing when, for example, a powerful gangster killed many people and always got acquitted due to his connections, then some grieving relative whose family was slaughtered by him goes and kills him, since he hasn't anything to lose anymore and doesn't care about going to prison. With that action, he might have saved somebody else's life by the way. In my opinion, in REAL LIFE situations in which not only does the victim definitively deserve to die, but the murderers make feel bad for them and deserve compassion, such situations are quite rare, but theoretically they are possible. For example, I don't know if anyone here has watched the Japanese detective anime series like "Detective Conan" and "Kindaichi shounen no Jikenbo". In those ones (for some reason which I would like myself to know) the victims are almost always presented as ultimate scumbags, while the murderers are originally good people who turned to private vengeance only after seeing the law enforcement wouldn't do anything to punish the original perpetrators (who later become "the victims" during the plot), so the only way to stop the crimes committed by those individuals and to make them answer for the deaths of their victims is to kill them, since the law is either inept or corrupt. I understand that those situations are 95% not realistic and made up just to create an entertaining murder mystery with an element of drama. I quoted these examples just to say that, in my opinion, it would be too simplistic to classify all murders as equally "bad". There are different cases, I think it's impossible to feel equally bad for a whacked gangster and a child killed by a serial killer; or, it would be strange to feel the same disdain for a robber who killed an elderly person for 2 dollars and a ruined businessman who killed a mafia boss responsible for the slaughter of his family and protected by the corrupt police. As for my position towards the death penalty, I would say I am against it. Mostly because there can always be wrongful convictions, but also because, even if the criminal is 100% guilty, somebody has to be the executioner. How would the family of this person feel if it's his/her regular job? I mean, they come to dinner after work in the evening, their family asks them "how is it going today?". He answers "oh, nothing, just electrocuted 2 gangsters, had a lethal injection for a serial killer and hanged 3 robbers who shot shop owners". I mean, it would be a quite creepy atmosphere to live in, when you know your family member has to be surrounded by death everyday and actively participate in it. It's as if the convicted criminals extended their malefic influence on somebody's families, condemning them to live a life where they are continuosly reminded of death, death and death again etc, and can't even be sure that their family members who work as executioners, won't turn violent themselves sooner or later. After all, if they have to kill convicted criminals every day, it's very much likely they become either cynical and stop appreciating human lives, even those of innocents; or they can simply go crazy after seeing so much death, if they aren't psychologically strong enough.

I am not saying it's ok, but I don't want to die of starvation, so I "sometimes" allow that to myself. But hopefully no more than necessary, and surely not for fun. I blame myself only up to a certain point for that, because I can't blame wolves or lions for hunting to fill their stomachs. It would be 1000 better if I were able not to eat any living being at all, not even plants, but not everybody can force themselves to commit a slow suicide by starvation, you can consider this a negative quality of mine, one of the manifestations of human imperfection. I am not saying I am "good", I just try to be the "lesser evil", in we put it that way.

Immagining yourself to be the object of hunting would answer your question. But you don't want to think about that, do you? It's not that you "can't", you DON'T WANT TO. "An action is only unethical as long as it's to the detriment of the human race". Really? Says who? You, a human yourself? That's hardly an impartial opinion. If some animals were more intelligent, they could have assumed the same self-important position. The very fact that some humans boast about being in the center of the universe and being superior to other species (not just in terms of intelligence, but in terms of priority of who has to live and who has to die), this is by itself the proof that they still have a long way to go to become really "superior". A superior being has humility, not a haughty attitude towards the less developed fellow beings. Hypothetically speaking, if an alien civilization more advanced than humanity started treating humans in the same way you suggest to treat animals, you wouldn't like that at all, would you? And before you say what I suspect you might say, please, don't derail the discussion by picking on words with observations about aliens most likely not existing. You understand perfectly what I mean anyway, this was just a hypothetical example positioning you as prey, not the hunter, just to make you think about what you would feel or say, if you were treated in the same way as you suggest to treat others. If you think that reflecting about such things is below your dignity, since animals are inferior etc etc then, well, I just keep reading. Phoenix Wright will provide better arguments I think (in this thread I completely agree with him). All this talk about everything being focused on usefulness to humans.....According to you, even the whole eco-system (not just individual animals) should be maintained without damaging it too much, NOT because it has the right to exist and makes the planet more interesting and sometimes (in some places) even more beautiful, but ONLY because it's USEFUL to humans. So, if the eco-system was just a nice decoration and wasn't crucial for humans, then we would have the right to destroy it just because we feel like it? That's an awful position. But again, here every misunderstanding could be solved if you at least tried to immagine YOURSELF to be the "object to be eliminated", but nobody among people who share your opinion ever want to do so.......

Very convenient for you, eh? People who have scruples should annihilate themselves by getting out of their houses and starving to death, because that would be the only "coherent" way to follow their principles to the full? So, once they all starve to death, people like you, who not only condone, but enjoy violence, can wreak havoc and have no boundaries or obstacles any more? That will remain just a dream of yours, there still are and will be people who will get into your way when you are trying to get violent and boast your alleged "rights" to be violent. I realize that people on internet like me or Cykes-dono can't do anything about you, it's just internet talk. But maybe somebody who you lives near you and who can physically meet you in real life, will sometimes stop you when you are getting violent or at least create problems for your thirst for blood, I don't know. "Thirst for blood" may be a harsh and extreme expression, but you said it yourself, that you enjoy hunting for sports (therefore, for fun). Wild animal predators are often dangerous for humans. At the same time, humans who enjoy killing for sport are dangerous for other humans too. It's one thing to talk without actually seeing death or causing it. Many people can dismiss the pain and suffering of animals as insignificant but, after actually facing it in real life, they often start taking this more seriously and don't like it very much anymore, to put it mildly. Others, who actually have killed and liked it, are a different kind. As it's dangerous to go into a forest full of hungry wolves, it's equally dangerous to interact in real life with people who enjoy killing. Even if they killed only animals, they have already crossed a certain line and the only thing that keeps them from killing humans (if they feel like it) is them keeping in mind the fact they belong to the same species and that humans are more intelligent and capable than animals, therefore giving them "priority". Once a person stops thinking about that, there is no visible difference between killing an animal and killing a human anymore, since the process of dying and agony look exactly the same. I mean, I have no problems with reading your posts on a forum, since here we can just use words. But in real life, it would be seriously dangerous to interact with you in my opinion, if you have really done what you said. If you have killed animals and enjoyed it, then, if I made you seriously angry about something, you would have far less problems with killing me (or any other person who has offended you) than people who have never killed would have. I perceive talking to you online like seeing a predator through a glass wall or a grate. May be boring or interesting, but not dangerous. Interacting with people who enjoy killing for fun in real life, on the other hand, is like removing this wall. If you are really serious and act in real life in conformance with what you just said online, then imho you may be a potential danger (in real life at least), not simply somebody who has a different opinion. You act, not just talk, that's the difference... Again, here I realize that I am talking in a belligerent manner again, but that is not out of egoism, I simply respect living beings. I don't like to be rude to anyone, I don't know you personally at all and maybe therefore I shouldn't express a judgment about you as a person, but that specific aspect and actions (killing animals for fun and enjoying it) isn't something I can talk with respect or neutrality about, that wouldn't make sense. I can ignore such posts and keep silent, if this post of mine will be considered too rude by the moderators, but pretending respect towards the act of killing would be disrespectful towards the victims on my part. Well, no animal hunts for fun and the concept of "profit" is a concept produced by human society. Hunting when you don't need it is a product of luxury created by advanced societies that can allow themselves many things that are later often recognized as useless even by its own members. If, in your opinion, this is part of nature too, then I guess your concept of "natural" is more extended than mine, I don't know how to put it....

No, I wouldn't, although I feel pity for the prey, I understand the predator has to eat. I don't wish death on hunters either, if they don't really have a choice and hunt to survive; in this case they are just a part of the food chain, like the animals. The hunters I despise are the ones who hunt without being forced by the circumstances, but for pleasure or gain.

I repeat it to you, the ideal would be not hurting anything at all, but if the only way to do so is to die of starvation, I choose to stay alive. This doesn't mean however, that it's acceptable to kill whatever and whenever you like. Putting at least some limits to the killing is a lesser evil than killing at will, whenever you feel like that. And, as said earlier, I don't blame people who hunt because they struggle to survive. But are you one of them? If not, how does that concern you? I don't blame them, I blame people like you who say they don't give a damn about suffering. Many people justify animal killing for one reason or another, but they don't boast their superiority, they usually put forward some good (or not so good) reasons and/or justification. You, on the other and, just state clearly, even though with somehow different words: "if I want to kill, I kill. If they suffer, it doesn't matter to me. I don't need justifications and I don't have to put to my violence any limits if I feel like being violent". If you don't understand the difference between what the other posters who justified animal killing said and what you said, if you don't understand why saying "I don't give two shits about their feeling and suffering" is a horrible thing to say, it's useless to talk to you. The last thing I think I should say to you is that, if you are saying those things not out of impulse, but after having actually seen something or somebody die and not feeling anything about it, if that's your position on deaths of animals (including all those details like bleeding, agonizing, crying) and you don't feel the least uncomfortable about it, then I can't know your next step wouldn't be to extend this point of view to humans too. After all, it's easier to go from killing animals to killing humans than it was before you killed anything at all. I personally would never leave my back exposed to a person who has no problem with killing. Animals may be less intelligent than humans, but the outlook of the process of dying is more or less the same: agonizing, bleeding, crying, having an expression of suffering in the eyes etc. If you have seen this (or at least are able to imagine those things clearly) and that doesn't disturb you a bit, only because they don't belong to your species, it's hard to buy the assumption that the "exception" you make for your own species will last forever. And even if it did, not having problems with suffering and death is creepy. Some people simply try not to think about it when they are eating meat or other situations. That may be called hypocritical by someone and, as I said earlier, I myself am sometimes a hypocrite, but to openly boast about "not giving a damn" while fully realizing what you are talking about, that's a disturbing sign. Almost nobody else put it in that way. They may say some "good reasons" may "outweigh" or "justify" the killing, but to openly state it doesn't matter at all, that's very different. It's like openly saying "i am an egoist and am proud of it". I see what you are saying and, while I disagree with some things, you at least put it in a more moderate position. Of course we can't think about every single being's sufferings, there are just too many of them. In Congo for example, they are still cutting children's hands off during that civil war or whatever happens there now, in some places cannibalism still exists, in North Korea there is a ferocious dictatorship (don't know which examples would be better) but we can't think about every single victim. What I meant is that there are different ways to approach the matter. Openly saying "I don't give a damn, they may well suffer because I want their products" is a kind of statement that illustrates a very different position from all the other points of view here, even the ones who accept the killing of animals. EDIT: Pride, while I understand I am being rude in this post (although I later edited some of it), and will probably regret the tone later, but I simply can't be so cruel to animals, consider them as expendable resources as if they didn't have feelings, or concentrate all the attention only on my own species; neither can I show understanding to it. Death is death, whether it's an animal to die or a human. Openly saying about not caring and not feeling not only ashamed, but not even a little uncomfortable for the way this world works concering this aspect, this doesn't paint people in a good light.

What can I say....If somebody ripped off your arms or slit your throat or whatever, while proudly stating "I don't give two shits about his suffering", I guess you wouldn't exactly agree with that. By what right do you place yourself in a position of a judge of who can be killed and who can't? And don't answer this with sending back questions and avoiding a direct answer, that would be childish. Anyway, it's one thing to hunt for survival, it's another to do so for fun. And even those people who do so to survive don't "enjoy" it and especially they don't play high and mighty with words like your "I don't give two shits about their suffering". Animals may not have a sense of morality, but at least they are not arrogant, they aren't able to feel or express such a spiteful thing. Animals exist for some natural reason. They all have their roles in the natural system and balance, even though it can be broken by humans. People like you, on the other hand, why do they exist? To boast about belonging to a "superior" species and not giving a damn about what other living beings feel? Of course the ideal would be not to kill plants either, but here it becomes a question of survival and choice between our life and the plant's life. In such cases everybody chooses their own life, but at least the killing may be kept to the minimum, at least by excluding more developed beings like animals who have feelings closer to ours. You, on the other hand, simply state that you have no regards whatsoever and no limits.

So you mean that animals shouldn't be mistreated only if that backfires to ourselves? It's only a question of "interest" and "convenience"? The fact the they can suffer, feel pain etc doesn't matter to you at all?

If hunters die, they knew what they were getting into. Using firearms which (as you yourself just said) cause more painful deaths to animals is a cowardly action. I don't want to get into discussion about people who hunt to survive because they can't get other sources of income, I don't know myself what I would do in their places, so it wouldn't be correct on my part to "condemn" just like that. But if somebody hunts for fun, excitement, profit, things like that, then I am always rooting for the animal who defends itself. A dead hunter? Death is always a bad thing, but I wouldn't shed more tears or feel more grief than I do when I hear on TV about a gangster killed in an underworld war. Those people knew what they were getting into. Although the most cowardly and more morally reprehensible hunters would never be killed during hunting, because they always take caution measures, like for example shooting from big distances with sniper rifles.

Spinal, concerning "morality", I understand that this is a somehow controversial concept that may be understood differently by different people, and maybe, as you say, we could discuss this without applying it, but in one of the previous post the point made was that humans are superior to animals because they have morality and animals don't. So, in order to reply to the post, I couldn't discard the concept of morality. I wasn't talking about providing bad care. I was just making a hypothetical example where I think it would be right to choose an animal over a human. In that specific situation I made up, however unlikely, those cats aren't strangers to me, I care about them and they show affection towards me. If I had to choose between one of them and some random murderous godfather who may have ordered hits on innocent witnesses, how could I not choose the cat? They are like family already, since my own house cat is dead already for almost 3 years. Belonging to a certain species isn't by itself a factor important enough to overcome everything and make a choice in favor of this individual. There are plenty of examples where I would have chosen the human, but I wanted to make one of the opposite kind. Here it's not so much about "human vs animal" as it is "stranger vs personal friend"

I understand what you are saying, then people living in rural territories who live by hunting and breeding animals for meat as a source of income to survive, it's not like when some billionaire decides to go hunting rare animals in a national park to feel "excited". There are different cases and circumstances. About Harambe and the child, I don't remember the circumstances well anymore; if he wasn't going to attack the child, in my opinion it was wrong then to kill him "just to be sure he wouldn't make a move". But I disagree that humans take precedence over animals in every case. If we choose between a baby and a shark for example, I would surely choose the baby; but if I had to choose between the stray cats I am feeding everyday near my house and the life of a mafia godfather or a corrupt politician (even realizing the impossibility of a situation where making such a choice would be imposed), then I would surely choose the cats; sacrificing innocents to save criminals would be wrong, especially if these weren't random animals, but specific ones that I personally know and care about.

Listen, could you please try to make a point without insulting with words like "delirious"? I try to talk in a neutral manner (without personal attacks at least). As for "selfishness", here I don't get you at all. Isn't the concept of selfishness just the opposite? Criticizing my own species and acknowledging its faults, how is this selfish? Then what, if I said we should exploit the planet and the nature 100% whenever we want, just because we are "the owners" of the planet, and can abuse nature even for ridiculous reasons like in cases of banal fighting between different countries that dry out natural resources in the process of trying to "kick each others' butts", wouldn't THAT be a selfish reasoning? But I completely agree with your statement that humans are not the last step on this planet's ladder, things will come after us. If more people realized that and didn't think they are the perfect culmination of the evolution and the best result nature could ever achieve, things would definitely get better.

I understand, yet the human population is so big that it has done more harm to the planet than the population of any animal species. Still, nobody says the human population should be reduced by simply shooing random people down. That would be a horrible crime, it would be wrong. So who gave humans the right to decide that animals can be killed just like that, not only in exceptional cases like self-defence or lack of food? Unless you think that the most important principle in the world is the "rule of the strongest" and the winner is always right because of having won and climbed to the top of the "natural hierarchy". Still, Blah the Prussian talks about morality, that humans have it and animals don't. Yet his next statement is that this would give humans right to do to animals whatever they want. Is this a moral approach to the matter? Again, unless you think that morality is an outdated concept that isn't to be taken seriously, I don't completely get the position of people who justify animal killing. That's a little different from the cases I was thinking about, like hunting for fun or for profit (like selling tiger pelts etc). If no other solution is physically possible, we kill the animal, just like a criminal who wouldn't surrender and started shooting at the police would be killed. The thing I objected to is the idea that a human and an animal should get different treatments in the same situations, only because an animal is a less intellectually developed being. That would be possible only in an ideal world. Everybody has to eat at least SOMETHING, so the best people can do is not to kill (or reduce it to the minimum) the living beings that can feel and express pain. Theoretically maybe even plants have some kind of "feelings", but there is no choice, unfortunately. Limiting the diet is one thing, but starving ourselves to death would be another.