HOME | DD
wwwarea — Wolves Are Equal
Published: 2014-07-19 04:12:29 +0000 UTC; Views: 1802; Favourites: 21; Downloads: 1
Redirect to original
Description
UPDATE AGAIN: If you don't have anything nice to say at all, then be a good person and keep it to yourself, and leave.If you want to argue, please actually I don't know.. argue with an open mind.. Please don't turn into that one guy that failed to argue on here all the time.
ANOTHER UPDATE: I disabled the comments. I can't handle the spam of bias comments that fail to further argue, ignore all the links (Including some studies), etc.
Not all comments were bad though.
Don't worry, that goes for every other animal on the planet. I just make this (Involving wolves for now) because of something stupid going around and the fact that I like wolves.
Honestly, if treating wolves equally makes me a "wolfaboo" (A stupid troll term), then maybe I'm proud to be one! >_>
Though, from the term, I heard that it's about treating wolves "over humans" instead, which can be a problem.. Sometimes I heard it's treating them equally.. Hmm..
This stamp is something I am proud of because Speciesism is screwed up. Period.
So if the idea of "revenge" is OK when someone else kills another human without consent, then in the same moral sense under "Equal rights", it kind of makes sense to say "He probably deserves it". Why? Because if humans deserves to be punished for killing another human without consent, then the same must apply to killing a different animal because that non-human animal got killed without consent too.
But if someone says the same thing for simply "not liking wolves", but never killed the life of one, then that can probably be a problem. Haha!
Anyway, every animal (Including homo sapiens) has a life. Science proves this too.
Update: You know what? It disgust me to see people go against this. You type of people suck! How do you like it if aliens come down and hunt us all down because we may not be as smart as them? If "Intelligent" count, then maybe it's "OK" to kill people who are consider "mentally retarded" according to the offensive theory!
Speciesism and Anthropocentric is pathetic, bigoted, messed up, etc..
As for other things, lot's of study proves that a lot of the bad environment to other animals and even plants has been linked with "humans" (I.e. Homo Sapiens).
Every animal has a life, every animal is equal. Get over it bigots!
Another thing:
Good - Treating wolves as equal to a human life - as any other creature too
Nothing Wrong, can be good if you want - Loving wolves - You don't have to, but nothing wrong with it
Good - Stopping people from hunting
Good - Letting them have there land back
Bad - Thinking humans are "better" than wolves
Bad - Thinking wolves are "better" than humans I think - Though, currently in our time, a lot more humans did caused more trouble
Bad - Attacking those who loves wolves
Bad - Violating there right to live
Bad - Taking over there natural land
Generally Bad - Speciesism and Anthropocentric
I'm not taking this stamp down. Period.
Update done
_____________________________________
Credit of stamp template:
kencho.deviantart.com/art/Stam…
_____________________________________
Spread the truth guys!
Also, here is a article. I don't think I remember the whole thing, but it was something I remember by the title mainly though:
www2.webster.edu/~corbetre/phi…
blog.burningman.com/wp-content…
speciesismthemovie.com/
lesswrong.com/lw/i63/arguments…
"Those who think "Intelligent matter":
www.adelaide.edu.au/news/news6… "
www.ted.com/conversations/1520…
Look at the first comment
www.livescience.com/41601-spec…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesi…
_______________________________________
Other arguments - Free Will and Possibly Consenting
io9.com/5714341/even-animals-a…
www.psychologytoday.com/blog/a…
Related content
Comments: 113
20.
All wolves attack people....
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Wow to be honest, that's very sad to be 20, and still fail to prove your point, and repetitively say "nope, all wolfz bad", and that's it.
I'm 20 too, and I actually know how to debate, I link stuff, I bring out history, I compare.
You: Nope. Not true. Why? Because I said so.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That's because it's true. All wolves are the same. That's no different.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I think it is you that is becoming the center of a laughing stock..
You are really embarrassing yourself here for your delusional crap.
You actually made me grin in a LOL way.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Is that so?
Lol okay, if you say so.
lol ok
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Because I have gave you actual study reports, concrete evidence of some wolves being nice around humans (There is even a screenshot on one of those articles!), sent a bunch of links here and there (Like on the main stamp post), etc, etc..
You: "Those facts are not true, all wolfz arez dangerious and we must destroy them... -Failing the idea of forgiveness too of something SOME (not all) can't help.
____
Over, and over, and over, and over, and over again. No mater what I argue, you failed to do the following:
Further argue back,
no sources,
no science,
nothing except for the same type of words coming from your "same beliefs".
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Because I don't see any proof....
So I have no logic huh? Oh okay then.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Even if the articles were not *Concrete* fact, that doesn't make it dumb because it's still a study, a report of past, etc, etc.. to help make a theory stronger. Honestly though, that picture looks like concrete proof that wolves can be nice around humans, and not always deadly. I wonder if you even went to the links?
Also, you need to further argue your point instead of repetitively saying "nope" even though, I already disproved your theory with pictures, past, etc, etc.. I think.
Your turn.
_____
Comment underneath:
Even if your stupid theory was true (Already strongly debunked I think), that never makes it "OK" to kill them. Wolves gens are different and you need to learn to forgive.
Remember, humans has also caused trouble too.. So letz killz all humanz!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Animals do deserve the same amount of respect as humans do, but...Animals can't give consent to anything. They don't have the reasoning capabilities to do so.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I don't know about that, I heard studies about consent once.
They already consent to life, killing them would interrupt there process of living. It may also depend on which animal you are talking about..
If you mean consent to be killed, then you are kind of right, since it's very hard to see another animal besides humans to be brave enough for something like that. It's even hard to humans too. xD
Though, however, I've heard studies about suicide..
answers.yahoo.com/question/ind…
I know, it's not the best URL but from what I could gather, there must of been at least one.
Animals do have choices in ways, there has been a lot of studies about a lot of other animals of that.
Sometimes I question if Humans really do have "Free Will" though.
Edit: I think "consent" is about process, so no matter what direction a creature (Include human animals) goes, I think it's already consent.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Nobody consents to life...Not even animals; we don't give permission to be born.
And Yahoo! Answers and Wikipedia...? Really? You need to learn how to find much more credible sources, hun.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That's way too loose and just a theory, that doesn't mean we should abandon the whole "consent" thing.. I think a process is enough to be consider "consent"..
Also, that doesn't make something bad.. Wikipedia isn't the source it's self, no I think, but Wikipedia often has good answers, and links to actual sources.. (References)
Wikipedia is sort of like a quoting website and should be against false quotes.
I also posted a link to an article (On the main info) that isn't wikipedia, though, wikipedia talks about him and again, wikipedia can be a good source as long if what they quote is true maybe.
Yahoo answers? You know, looking at it again, the answer seems to be very interesting, and there are links.
It's STILL a better arguments than what anthropocentric makes.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's not a theory, it's using common sense. Did you give permission to be born in this era? Did you give your parents permission to conceive you or give birth to you? Of course not. Thus, you don't give consent to live.
Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, just like Yahoo! Answers. They're great for doing some personal research, or giving a brief explanation on something, and finding more reliable sources, but you don't want to rely on those to debate or make arguments.
And just because someone's answer looks "interesting" and has links does not mean that person is accurate. I just recently learned for myself that out one of my master-lists of sources for a topic is actually not very reliable at all, despite all the links it has on it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
There is a another theory suggesting that people could somehow choose from there high consciousness that they chose too. So it's not 100% proven.
Besides, that doesn't mean people don't consent to living after being birthed.. If your "main point" is true, then that means it's also OK to kill another human without the consent of the guy.. Anyway, I think consent also applies to process.. If you are not killing yourself while living, then you are consenting to live.. That's the main point I'm saying I think. xD
Yes, but wikipedia has rules and that page I saw makes very good points and it was up there for a while and it shows interesting links.
Yahoo answers is a little different, all I see is a comment, describing something possibly good. Even if it was edited, it doesn't change the debate, no matter what..
And sure not all the time links can be right but sometimes they are and on the page, it seems to be linking to news and studies.. Not sure if the studies are 100% proven but you know what? That's kind of how a lot of things on the Internet goes.. Theories can still be really good to follow (If somehow suicide "wasn't" proven too)..
If I had to join a good argument and pick which side to join (Anti-anthropocentric and anthropocentric), I would choose the Anti-anthropocentric type of side because the bad side as I call it are nothing but abusive and low arguments and that the people who goes against equally posts nothing but biased crap while people who argue against them (Against the bad side) has more argument content (Theory and reporting facts) while the trolls have nothing much at all.
For using as an argument, using a theory for it doesn't make it a bad thing.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
How? We have no awareness of anything and no consciousness until we're born.
And no shit.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
According to the theory, we "do" on our "higher self", we just forget.. It's like the theory of "past life" and there was people who claimed that remember there "past life".
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The "past life" I get...But the part of "choosing to be born by our 'higher self'" is where I'm confused. What is this 'higher self'?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's a theory of "oneness", higher conciseness I think.
I learned it from reading about oneness, and finding a link to a simple page describing it could be hard but it's "everywhere"..
www.globalonenessproject.org/l…
Like "Multiple dimensions", awareness, etc..
Like part of the theory (sort of) states something like: When you die, you are in a higher dimension, but while in the higher dimension, you could be choosing what "reality you create", then after, you are born, but you forget what happened so fast because "higher consciousness" can perhaps be forgotten easily after being born. Or before you die, your beliefs are send higher, and then you create the next reality..
It's kind of hard to explain because we still probably don't know for sure and might be complicated though, isn't that confusing to me.
The "consciousness" theory may connect to the idea that this world "is a delusional" or a "creation by beliefs".
It's kind of a long reply, but that's just me trying to explain it. xD
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, the only "oneness" feeling I've ever experienced happens when I'm in a natural environment, where my senses are heightened and feeling like everything is connected. But not from being born...I'm sure as hell that I never decided or consented to being born. I just was. Although, I'm still trying to figure out why I was born in this era, in this body, into this particular family, and in this location in the world...And why I wasn't born as an ant or some other creature. :/
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah part of the theory states that you can forget your past experience outside of your body. xD It's an interesting question to ask "Why am I born?", and one (or more) of the theory states that we "did" know, but we forgot or something. Or we are unaware that we created the reality in the first place somehow.
Another thing states that if one were complete oneness, the person would be "all", I.e. The universe, and beyond, every person, etc, etc.. It's not to only one individual.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I get all of that, but I'm just still confused on how we consented to being born...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Like during the times outside our body, the one from the higher levels of dimensions choose or creates a belief (Or something) to be born again. Like we know what's going to happen next, but after the person is born, the person most likely forgot what happened before.. Which can make people think of "how did I choose to be born in this reality?"
Sorry if your still confused. xD
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I've never had an out-of-body experience, so I don't really have much belief in that part until I actually experience it...
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
In what sense are Humans and Wolves equal?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That they have a value of life like us and such.. Not mattering the intelligence of each animal and other.. Though, I heard every creature has different abilities from each other too.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesi…
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Ohhhhhhh okay I see. Just don't get carried away.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I don't really get what you mean though, if you also mean in terms of other treating as equal, I don't think that's a bad thing too. Considering people sometimes do this to there cats and dogs. xD
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
As in don't start thinking Animals can give consent like human beings can because animals cannot consent in the same fashion as human beings. I can understand treating animals and humans as equals as far as both of them are living creatures that deserve respect but anything more than that is what I mean by "being carried away".
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Actually I do believe they can give consent just like humans.. There has been a lot of studies proving this.. Example: If they are living, that's already consent.. Killing them would violate the process.. For other things, like say, letting your dog take a walk, there are signs and behaviors that can show consent.. Just differently.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Animals can actually say "Yes!"? I don't think so and if one actually did it would've gone viral so nope. Living /=/ consent because you being alive does not mean you consent to me violating you anyway I please. >.> So because women are alive it's okay for men to violate them, right? Riiight. 
Now you're getting carried away.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Animals don't need to say "Yes!" in English.. It's about the behavior of them.. What if someone was saying "Yes!" to have sex but the person was force to have 'sex'? I.e. The person doesn't really want to, the behavior, the actions, etc shows that he/she isn't really wanting to, thus, no consent. Why? Because the behavior shows no, which is the source.. (But the guy forced her to say yes as if "English" is the source of "consent".
Actually living is consenting to live because if not, the person would probably killed him/her self. It still violates the process of living (If killed unexpected or by force), and it's obvious that "animals" don't consent to being killed by a bullet, a machine, or any other act.. Even from other non-human animals.
And wha? I don't think I said that.. I'm saying that people consent to living by, living.. It's bad to kill anyone/animal because it violates there natural process to live. Humans have this, and so do other animals.. And the dog thing, I was talking about that the dog "barks" as a sign to take a walk, which is somewhat consent.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes they do need to be able to because anyone can misinterpret their behavior.
When the hell did I ever say "Yes, I want to be born" to my Parents? At what stage does this actually come out of my mouth physically for my Parents to have heard that when I wasn't alive or even speaking? Oh Animals can consent to sex because "hurrhurr body language" but can't consent to being killed? The hell are you smoking brah. "Non-human animals"? 
Pretty sure you did. Uh, no they don't...no one consents to being born. Yeah, you're a hobknocker alright!
Your Bestiality slip is showing.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I don't think they don't.. Behavior is key, and non-human animals on this planet can't speak English but that doesn't mean they "can't" consent.. Sure some people can probably mistreat there behavior but that doesn't mean it's going to be wrong all the time. If a dog said barks outside the door, and carrys a leash, that should be consider enough to show what the dog is saying, and consenting for.. If "we don't know still" then I don't think we can really know if a human can consent to anything because there mind could be really thinking something else, and possibly lie.. As for sex, no that's not true.. A rapist can come and say "You better say yes or else I will kill you!" and the person has no other choice but the person didn't really want to.. The person didn't really consent.
I don't know if I said anything about born to you but you can still show "consent" that you are living after being born.
And I was just talking about sex in general by humans, as an example? And NO, they can't consent to being killed, no non-human animal can mostly.. Nor they can say yes by a bullet, a factory, etc.
...No I didn't...
OK so murder is fine then? Because no-one consents to living... No rights to live..
"Your Bestiality slip is showing."
What a interesting term, I been reading this by some guy who made shocking points.. Why the hell should I care about that when there is worse things out there? I.e. Killing, meat, etc, etc.. Though, I read from some scientist, and other guys that there can be consent by behavior for that too. >_>
Sadly, I don't want to argue this subject on here because of the bias crap you might pull out.
But if it makes you feel better, I don't think I'm into that. >_>
__________
Edit: Maybe I am using the wrong word here, I kind of forgot where we started..
I believe animals have choices, like humans. Non-human-animals can show consent/choice/accept like what dogs do with walking, eating, etc.
No animal consents to dying, and there "process" of living is a real thing.. When they are "trying to live", they are showing that they are "living there lives" like humans..
They do have rights, science shows they have lives like us, etc, etc..
That's kind of my point I think. lol
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The day an animal can vote, drive a car, speak in a human language, think abstract, and earn an income is the day an animal will have "rights" until then they're animals that cannot consent so fucking them is out of the question.
Stop being a silly hob knocker.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Dude wtf? Just because they can't much (or at all) do that doesn't mean they don't have rights.
They have a right to live, science proves that they have lives, just like us, and many other things..
And they do consent to life, they are processing to live, like us. They do choices, like us. And science has studies that they have choices.
io9.com/5714341/even-animals-a…
www.psychologytoday.com/blog/a…
Sometimes there is a theory stating that humans don't have free will, which would be even more similar under some other belief.. Just that non-human animals may have less abilities. Which is still enough to be rights.. Like if non-human-animals don't have Free Will, then humans don't either.. Under that one theory.
Seriously if you think that "being born" is the only way to have "consent" to living (When you can consent by showing you are living after) then your basically saying that humans don't consent to living either. And they don't have rights to live either.
But if humans have rights, (consider the right to live) then so do other animals because science already fairly compared this to humans.. Not just those links I sent you.
__________________
Honestly if you want to argue, I highly suggest not saying stuff like "bullshit", pretending I'm wrong, etc.. without actually proving your point..
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Humans and animals are not the same therefore they do not share the same kind of rights. >.> I never said animals don't have the right to live but they do not share the same kind of "rights" as us Humans do nor can they consent to anything.
Are you reading what you post because it's obvious you're not, you're far more loopy than I originally thought you were. Consent = to say "yes"! No one can consent to being born just because they are alive and it's the same with animals! And stop with the retarded "Nonhuman Animals" crap! Animals /=/ Human because a bird, cat, dog, fish, frog are not and never will be human and vice versa!
Free will is not a theory and everyone here has free will! I have the free will to type this to you! Again, what Human is a cat or dog or some other species of animal? It's either Human or Animal and not "NonHuman Animal". >.> 
Being born /=/ consent to living because nobody asked you if you wanted to be born and it's the same with any species of animals! No dog asked it's pup if it wanted to be born! No goat asked it's kid if it wanted to be born, no shark asked it's pup if it wanted to be born and so on! How the fuck can an infant tell it's Mother "Yes, I wanna be born"? That doesn't happen and just because you are alive doesn't mean you consented to being born or give consent to anything to anyone!
You did not have my permission or I did not agree for you to have the right to take my cupcake!
See the difference between these 2 words ( probably not seeing as how loony you are )? There's a difference in having rights ( freedom/entitlement to do whatever you want ) and consent ( needing permission/needing agreement ). Before you are born or even while living as an infant you cannot consent to anything to anyone nor can you have any rights because infants don't even know what the fuck rights even are to begin with and it's the same with animals! An animal cannot give you it's permission or agree with you over anything and it's entirely different from training because it's something you're getting it confused with.
I can go vote to have Kendall Jones banned from owning any firearms/weapons and entering my home? Where do I vote?
I didn't know animals could do that. Man I need to get with the times. So when did that happen?
You are wrong and it is bullshit! XD I asked my Neighbor's cat how the weather was and all it did was "Meow" ( what the fuck am I supposed to gather from that answer? ) and I never gave my permission or agreed with my Parents for them to fuck so I could pop out of my Mom's vagina but here I am anyway ( there's your proof )!
Come back to reality, Wwwarea!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Your repeating things more than me honestly.
_____________
Actually consent doesn't have to apply to saying "yes!" only. There can possibly be other types of ways of consent.
And your kind of right about one thing I think, some animals can't do what human animals can do, but I think the point is that, if Nature allows a possibility for a non-human animal, then it's a right.. The idea of "rights" is also base of man-made terms, and "consent" sounds like a possibility. If a dog is "running" then the dog is consenting to run.. The "consent" your using is kind of casual.
"It's either Human or Animal and not "NonHuman Animal"."
Science laughs at this. Humans ARE animals. That's why I say "non-human animal".. It's very anthropocentric to separate it.
Actually it kind of is.. Think for a second, why are you typing it? What made your mind generate to making you type, and what makes your memory generate? It sounds very automatic, and all species have this.
www.psychologytoday.com/blog/p…
The idea of free will, the brain..?
Honestly the reason why I argue that you didn't argue is that all you do is claim things but no links or evidence comes in your way. You even said "humans and animals" are different.
Actually who said that you are "not" consenting to living? If you are "not killing your self" then you are consenting to stay alive.. What you claim is just an opinion, that doesn't exactly have links, and I'm trying to compare "consenting" as an action. ---Edit, you know what? Consenting seems to be an allowing things but there is a ton of scientific evidence that pretty much at least most animals "do allow things". Saying "yes!" is sort of a way to allow something but you do know that you can allow without moving a lip. English, or any other language isn't the only way to "consent".
"( freedom/entitlement to do whatever you want )" "because infants don't even know what the fuck rights even are to begin with and it's the same with animals!"
You do not need to know rights in order to have them. And honestly, it's proven by science that nature allows every non-human animal to live, eat, freely explore, etc.. Just like humans.. Those are rights, your idea that you must "know rights" is completely made up by man-made thoughts.
And it's very made up thoughts to believe that "humans own there living", wtf.. Yet, do whatever you want? Animals deserve to do whatever they want, not be killed, hunted, used for meat, etc.
Just because animals don't know how to "vote" doesn't mean they can't consent or have rights to everything nature offers. We don't own the planet, Nature does.
"You are wrong and it is bullshit! XD I asked my Neighbor's cat how the weather was and all it did was "Meow" ( what the fuck am I supposed to gather from that answer? ) and I never gave my permission or agreed with my Parents for them to fuck so I could pop out of my Mom's vagina but here I am anyway ( there's your proof )!"
Give me your links, proving that somehow, dogs, cats, etc cannot consent to anything.. Them not being able to "speak" English isn't enough proof that they "don't"..
Want to know a fact? Nature is always consenting because Nature isn't stopping anyone from doing anything that's possible. Nature is allowing, all the damn time.
Even though I might of miss use consent and rights a little I think, but I will still argue that non-human animals can consent by allowing without the need of "words", and that "rights" are still there because nature offers it. We don't have a right by nature to be shooting down there natural rights to live. What is natural rights? The simple rights that every life form has, "Living", "Growing", "Eating or absorbing", etc. I argue that because nature shows this to us, just like Homo Sapiens.
Seriously, if non-human animals don't have rights to live, then humans don't have rights to live either..
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"Human Animals". "Non Human Animals".
Still using a crackpot term to be allowed to fuck your Neighbor's dog I see. *sighs* Poor animals.
When a person says "yes" it means "yes". When a person says "no" it means "no".
I don't know what you're on but damn...it's damaging your brain that badly!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Human Animals means that "humans are animals" and "non human animals" is meant to make sure that "we are still animals too".
Humans are animals and if I say things like: "Humans and Animals" then I'm claiming that humans are "not" animals.. Which is unscientific.
When someone behaves and looks like they want to do something, then it means something in terms of "yes".
You didn't even prove that it must apply to only "English"... If I were to look at the evidence for other things, all I find is that there is more than just "yes" or "no".
I don't know what you are on, oh wait.. I kind of do. You are trapped into delusional, casual definitions that has been challenge a lot by new studies, evidence, signs, etc.
You also seem to ignore the science that humans can't have rights based off your definition.
You really need to get out of "speciesism" or "anthropocentric".
You are not even opening your mind, your honestly, closed minded.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You said the same thing twice in your first sentence. >.>
Human Language! Do you know what that is?
No, I just realize that I'm a Human being who can think in abstract terms, has opposable thumbs and can walk on 2 legs which there are no other species that can do all 3 and of course speak in a Human Language. XD So no, I'm not delusional and certainly not to the point to where you're a closet HobKnocker. 
Humans have rights. >.> I have the right to piss in your cereal should I want to but you consenting to that is another matter ( differences )! Not much of a science behind Human Rights when it's that obvious that every Human as the right to piss in your cereal. Nah, you really need to stop wanting to fuck your Neighbor's dog already. Can't be close minded when you fail to make any sense.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Not exactly.. I said "human animals" means that humans are animals, and "non-human-animals" is there to make sure that we don't separate the term too...
Human language is a way to give signs to each other. Science has proved once more that non-human-animals can give signs differently.
Birds: I just realize that I can fly, and do certain things that humans can't.
You do not have to speak in a "human language" to make your point.. As I said, each animal comes more "differently" (I.e. Shape, possibilities, etc) and they have different ways to speak. Human language is just a possibility that humans have, but other animals share alternatives of the same thing (Language) it's self.. English is just one of them.
If humans have rights then so do other animals. You are closed minded.. Trapped by delusional man-made ideas that only "humans" get to have rights (Just because of what we do) but not other animals. I suggest taking a look at the "speciesism" link.
Nature rights is by Nature, not man-made opinions.
eyler.freeservers.com/JeffPers…
Even though, I don't think I agree with the "non equal" thing but maybe the guy means something else.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Human: "I'm going to take a walk!"
Dog: *Bark!*, *Holds Leash!*, then *Stares at door to outside*
Dog or Wolf:
*Breathing*, *Eating* *Farting...*
SHOT
-The process of nature destroyed.-
Human:
*Breathing*, *Eating* *Farting...*
SHOT
-The process of nature destroyed.-
No rights to dog or wolf?
No rights to humans either.
Both were animals, star dust, and animals that lived.
Saying humans have special rights but not to the other after this is highly hypocritical and exposes "anthropocentric".
-Science
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I asked you a question in Dog and you didn't answer it. I said something in Cat and you completely ignored it. >.>
Animals cannot do what Humans are able to do so no Animals do not get the same kind of rights as us Humans do!
Science has gone down the shitter I see.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That's made up.. Look at my comment, it shows that a dog can show signs/language like humans, but differently.
"Human rights" is a emotional belief for us. Since we are animals, then all other animals deserve it too. It doesn't matter if they can't speak English or not. You failed to prove that it does..
Also, there are humans who CAN'T speak words, does that mean they don't have rights now? Think about this pal.
Ever heard of "finger signs", "body signs"? etc? That's what non-human-animals have.
I think I'm going to disable the comments, this is going nowhere. You are just one of those guys who post bias, and casuals "reasoning" and fail to argue why it must only apply to English or other "words".
Hell, you even ignore my link (That talked about Natural Rights, by the fact that it's nature that judges us or something), and such..
Not surprised when I'm on DA, the source of the stupid anti-animals-rights crap sort of.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Despite what your grade school teacher lead you to believe, Wikipedia isn't that bad. If you see anything questionable, just click the little citation link at the end of the sentence/paragraph to verify that the source provided supports the article. That's what they're there for!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
That doesn't make it wrong. Yet, Wikipedia isn't even close to bad.
From this page, it's filled with some interesting scientific people that are filled with interesting arguments...
Besides, it's a very strong thing.. Unlike the anthropocentric jerks who are very biased against this.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Thinking humans = wolves does not mean wolfaboo at all. People get the term mixed up, they have to be super hardcore wolf fans to be a wolfaboo.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>