HOME | DD
NewtonianNocturn — You can't
Published: 2010-12-07 22:03:54 +0000 UTC; Views: 4247; Favourites: 105; Downloads: 20
Redirect to original
Description
[mur-der]–noun
1.
Law . the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).
This may seem like a small thing, but it isn’t. Using the word murder to classify the unlawful killing of animals is just another way to blur the crucial distinction between us and animals. Animals can be abused, but killing them isn't murder.
Related content
Comments: 149
Pretty sure legally it is destruction of property. Just like if one is stolen it's theft and not kidnapping.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
You can kill, slay, slaughter, euthanize, exterminate, neutralize, or do away with them but officially they can't be murdered. If so we have to start arresting or imprisoning various animals for murdering other animals. It won't be just limited to just predators either. It will be beyond silly and totally impractical.
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
Oh boy...
I know this stamp is old, but...
I have opinions and I gotta say them.
Why do so many people think we're better than animals?
Because we're "more intelligent"?
Alright, fair enough.
Now, who decided that the worth of a living thing was based on intelligence?
Oh, wait, humans did.
And that's not to say being intelligent is worthless.
But why should that be the only way of determining the value of the life of another?
Earlier I saw you commenting on how humans "change/ revolutionizes/help" everything while cows do not.
First off, it seems the human race has done a lot more harm than good to our planet.
We destroy entire ecosystems, pollute and poison the air, the earth, and the water.
We are currently living in the sixth major mass extinction event.
We build houses and roads and skyscrapers, sure.
But that improves our lives.
It is true that several species of animals and plants have indeed adapted to urbanization.
Some even live sheltered and comfortable lives in gardens or as pets.
But millions more suffer because of global climate change, habitat loss, and our use of polluting materials and chemicals (pesticides, fossil fuels, etc).
I'm not arguing against what you said about how we can't murder animals.
I'm not even saying you shouldn't kill animals.
We can eat them if we want.
We can defend ourselves from them if we want.
But, if you ask me, we should make sure we protect them.
We are not alone on this planet.
Just because we can form more advanced tools, homes, and communities than those who are not human does not make us better.
We shouldn't live in comfort at the expense of a million other lives.
Because all these plants, all these animals, even all bacterium, LIVE.
And besides, our intelligence can only take us so far.
As filthy and unintelligent and loathsome as they seem to so many of us, the roach has survived since the time of the dinosaurs.
They've been around for about 300,000,000 years, while we've lived for only about 200,000.
For anyone wondering why this is important, well...
I see all living beings as equal, but if we really want to determine what is superior and what is inferior, we should look at the only scale that truly matters to nature itself.
We could very well be long dead by the time roaches finally kick the bucket.
Nature favors those who adapt to change.
The ability to make weapons and make homes out of more than mud and twigs may only take us so far.
If anyone decides that there absolutely must be a scale to rank living things, then base it on success.
Don't judge based on the ability to write essays or create laws.
Base it on how long a species has survived; how little it has needed to change; how stable its population has remained; and how well it has been able to survive disasters that wiped out so many other species.
I'd like to point out that I myself do not agree with the idea of determining which organisms have more worth than others.
However, I feel this method is far more sensible than "oh but WE can build super tall shiny things to live in".
If you wish to discuss this, I'd be happy to talk about it more.
If you wish to insult me, knock yourself out.
It will be nothing more than a waste of your time.
-Slithus
EDIT: I made a slight correction in the first bit. I'd also like to add that I am neither a vegetarian nor a vegan. I know that might not seem necessary, but I'm pointing it out just in case someone decides to accuse me of being one. You can love animals AND eat animals. After all, we're not herbivores.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
^ this x1000, thank you, you put it way more eloquently than I could have
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I'd like to point out that I myself do not agree with the idea of determining which organisms have more worth than others.
So, you're a pussy that is incapable or unwilling to partake of critical reasoning. Good to know. Now I can dismiss you and your emotionally driven word vomit without investing any effort.
The point of an argument is to articulate your message in such a way that it reaches a conclusion. That conclusion should be well reasoned, clear, and concise; all three criteria you have failed to meet. That doesn't even begin to touch on the embarrassment that is your wall of text. Like, have you ever heard of organization in writing? Fuck, Napoleon had an easier route getting to Russia than I did getting through your first (what wants to be a) paragraph.
I'm not arguing against what you said about how we can't murder animals.
No, you just felt the need to spout off a bunch of empty rhetoric because god forbid the internet not be blessed with a mountain of evidence towards your inability to make an actual fucking point.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
better a pussy, than a selfish, ignorant idiot
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Is that all you've got? Please, I'm more insulted by your lack of proper capitalization. You do know that the shift-key will do that, right? It's right there next to the enter-key. Go ahead, try it out; you only can look less stupid at this point.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Because I wrote the first letter small?
Would we be human at all, if we´d turn off our emotions?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh, so you're lacking in more than just competence.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
*Sigh*
You know, I was kinda hoping you might be able to, I dunno, not hurl pointless insults at me?
I shouldn't have, come to think of it.
Your prior comments clearly exemplified that.
Oh well.
I will admit, this is mostly my fault.
I shoulda just said nothing and moved on.
And hey, you're not wrong about that last part, either.
I don't have the energy or motivation for this.
Call me a crybaby or a loser or whatever.
Say I'm weak.
It doesn't matter.
I'm not gonna bother responding.
It was stupid of me to comment.
I probably shouldn't even be responding to this.
But eh.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Oh no, I have to be careful with this comment or I might cut myself on all its edge.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hidden by Commenter
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
My brain handles real information of which this "one of the reasons why in the Universe humans are put lower, because they haven't gotten ridden their egos" does not qualify. If you would like to leave a comment that contains something of actual value (actual facts, well written/organized commentary); I may be more willing to treat it as though it were worth my time. Otherwise, you can take your poorly written 2nd grade writing assignment and go draw more shitty anime.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
I'm going to leave the bellow comment because It really illustrates the demographic to which DA now caters.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Hidden by Commenter
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm sorry, but after reading your comment all I can taste is
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
anything that is living can be killed....therefor anything that is living can be murdered
as far as i see it killing helpless animal is just as bad as killing an innocent human....and just so we're clear on what im speaking of,i am not talking about people who kill for food or those that do it for protection and have no other alternative. just i speak of those that kill animals just for the sake of killing it.
while its true from a legal prospective the term "murder" cannot be used to describe the unlawful killing of an animal...at the same time,that does not make it any less wrong.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It doesn't bother you that your first and last sentences contradict one another?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Well, if its meaning changed then you would be correct. It hasn't; obtusely refusing to acknowledge implications doesn't change that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Aww, baby's first semantics argument.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
i'm not arguing...looks like you're trying to start one, i just wanted to say what i thought is true
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You just tried to invalidate my stamp with your opinion. Last time I checked, doing that is called presenting an argument. That doesn't mean we are arguing, genius.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
you said i was. no need to bash me for making an opinion of my own that i would like to share with others.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Then make your own stamp, fucktard.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Exactly! The only time murder applies to animals if you're talking about crows. www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episod…
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
That humans have the capacity to change/help/revolutionize/ just about anything; a cow does not.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
and how crucial is it?
since biology proved we are animals
what make this ability we have crucial?
Is the ability of a cow to produce a huge amount of milk is a crucial distinction between the cows and animals?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I have to agree with you. But only this once.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
See, was that so difficult?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I felt like I was being stabbed.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
What is "the crucial distinction between us and animals"?
Why is a human life worth more than that of a spider?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Please explain the potential benefit of the spider versus that of the human.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Nothing, and it works both ways.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
What works both ways?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Our nonexistent worth. Which makes the spider and I equals.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Nonexistent worth? Yeah right, go be a stupid misanthrope elsewhere.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
The human will pollute more than the spider.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The human will also clean more than the spider.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
But the spider won't make a mess, and will kill the pests that do (flies, cockroaches, etc.)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You're forgetting that if the spiders' population grows too large for the carrying capacity of its habitat, the entire thing goes belly up. Humans don't have a set carrying capacity, and can alter the carrying capacity of other species.
Also, the fact that we can create and fix a mess is more than any other species on earth claim.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Again, I agree somewhat. Here's a cookie:
Also, why should we aim to create messes?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
We don't, but they happen anyways. Being able to fix them is wonderful.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
| Next =>