[Dragonman]

I decided to continue this as a debate since it was an interesting debate topic that many had different views on. Like I said in the original thread though, no more insulting or bad behavior will be tolerated at all since it just ruins the debate.

The debate was about the value of animals' lives and why human lives are valued more than the other animals. I'll start of this debate and use a quote from the original thread.

But if they don't speed up and they hit an animal it doesn't matter, though if they hit a human, it's a huge tragedy?

We as humans knew the human that was killed well which triggers emotions because they lost someone they know and love, so we have to honor their life. No one knows the animals killed by cars so it doesn’t have the same affect on the community. I’m sure pets that are hit by cars are fairly big things for the family only, because they’re the only ones who knew about it. When a human dies, it’s likely others outside the family knew them so it’s made a big deal in order for those outside the family to be informed of the death. Making the deaths of animals a big deal also isn’t as important because the other animals can’t understand us and there isn’t much of a way we could tell them, and telling ourselves doesn’t do much because no one knew them. Many animals die of car accidents everyday, and many humans do, and we have only enough time for the humans than the animals. It is sad, and people out their do keep a toll of animals deaths in certain situations which allows them to create a way for it be safer in each situation. So if getting in by cars is the most common cause of animals’ deaths, then we figure out a way for it to be safer near roads for animals.

I agree that killing animals is a wrong thing to do except for when we need food. It’s the way of life, we need to survive. We other animals for food and when a species’ population is had a dangerously low level we back off from them and help their existence to remain on Earth. I see that animals don’t kill us for food, but we have a lot of chances to die ourselves. Unfortunately there is something in the world called “population control”. A city near me has something in the water that isn’t good for you, but they won’t take it out because of “population control”. I’m guessing why that why smoking is outlawed along with drinking and everything, so we have something to balance off the population…It does sound horrible, but I’m sure it’s not as horrible as the Earth becoming overpopulated by humans.

[Daryl C]

I agree with a lot of what you said there dragonman

I also remember from before someone saying something to the effect of they will not dodge an animal because it could cause an accident. I will dodge an animal to the best of my ability with out causeing an accident which is very easy to do if you are on the ball....Slam on the brakes and move to the side. I do not see what could be so difficult about doing this. If you will dodge for a person there is no reason why you couldn't dodge for an animal.

Second....I believe that an animal can be killed for a few reasons, one being population control, another being for food and a third for the safety of humans. Still the way that the animal is killed must be in a humane way. I live in ranching country so coyotes are very bad. The will eat the calves if they get the chance...there fore the towns in that area put bounties on the heads of these animals. Once again...as long as they are killed as quickly and painlessly as possible I see no problem with this. I do know people who jest run over these animals with their ski-doos...then then lie and suffer as they die....THIS IS WRONG...no one should be left to suffer...whether it be a human or an animal. I wont even kill an ant in my house unless I know that it is dead once I try to kill it....I will not leave it to suffer.

Third, Although I agree with hunting and that I would never kill an animal myself bigger than a bee unless it was absolutly necessary. If I was stuck in the wild, and it was for my safety, or for food, I would then consider it. But once again I would do it as quickly and humanely as possible with what I had.


Geez....I think that is quite possibly the longest post that I have ever written...anywhere. Probably even longer than some of the assignments I do at school.

[Aaron]

I agree with you both. Trying to keep an animal's life going is one thing I strive to do. I love my dog especially as I've had her since I was four and we are very attached (she's pushing 10 ). I also agree in the fact that some animals should be killed for different reasons. I view killing of domestic animals unless they pose an immediate threat to someone or something as very wrong. Killing of "harmless" animals is also wrong in my eyes. There is one exception, and that is hunting. I see no problem in hunting deer, squirrel, rabbit, turkey, etc. It is a very common pastime here, and it is very important that we keep the populations of these animals down, as they thrive in this area.

This post has been edited by Nighthawk551: 26 April 2005 - 12:44 AM

[Traver]

"Population control" is the most silly thing I have ever heard of. You know what the animal that needs "population control" the most is? Humans. We do "population controls" to ensure they don't cause an imbalance to the nature. Yep, that's us. We do "population controls" to make sure they won't cause the extinction of other species. Humans, anyone?

If people like "population control", let's start doing it on humans.

[Red Sentinel]

agree with traver

[Aaron]

"Population control" is the most silly thing I have ever heard of. You know what the animal that needs "population control" the most is? Humans. We do "population controls" to ensure they don't cause an imbalance to the nature. Yep, that's us. We do "population controls" to make sure they won't cause the extinction of other species. Humans, anyone?

If people like "population control", let's start doing it on humans.

I've thought of that many times before. But no one would agree with such a thing. Actually, population control is very important (at least for this area). As I mentioned before, small mammals and deer thrive here, and the population is often centered in the wooded areas. Without proper and regulated hunting, deer and small mammals become a nuisance. They eat saplings, troupe through residential areas, and cause even more accidents than they already do.

[Sproogle]

Slam on the brakes and move to the side.

It is definitely not that easy. On a regular street going 25, sure, but where do accidents involving animals happen the most? Highways, freeways, whatever you call them. So if you are doing 55+ down a highway with someone behind you, especially a tailgater, slamming on the brakes could get you killed. If no one is around, sure, but your stopping distance will be pretty big going that fast. And if you have a car with a high center of gravity, you could roll a bit, which is nasty.

"Population control" is the most silly thing I have ever heard of.

Not so much. It is quite necessary in many places. If too many deer pop up, and the ecosystem cannot handle that, it throws all the species out of whack. Now I don't know about you, but I would rather a deer be shot as accurately as possible than starve to death.

This post has been edited by Sproogle: 27 April 2005 - 12:21 AM

[Dragonman]

Traver I was saying that's what population control was used on....humans! Not animals, silling misunderstanders. It's over course not talked about because if it was made offical than there might be rebellions or something. Instead we just let people do certain things like smoking, alcohol, and other causes of human deaths.

As for population control with animals, humans would probably do this when a species' population reaches a point at which it's dangerous for other animals in the area and even themselves. They probably move them to another area (if not then they should).

[Crescens]

Animals don't kill us for food? Clearly you've never been eaten by a shark. Sharks eat people.

Survival of the fittest.

[Daryl C]

Slam on the brakes and move to the side.

It is definitely not that easy. On a regular street going 25, sure, but where do accidents involving animals happen the most? Highways, freeways, whatever you call them. So if you are doing 55+ down a highway with someone behind you, especially a tailgater, slamming on the brakes could get you killed. If no one is around, sure, but your stopping distance will be pretty big going that fast. And if you have a car with a high center of gravity, you could roll a bit, which is nasty.

Its very easy to do....it also helps if you have common sense though. Obviously if you have an 18 wheeler on your tail, slamming on the breaks would not be a good thing to do. If on the otherhand the vechical is the same size as you, there should be no problem with this situation. If you get hit from behind, and the vechical is the same size as you this should not be a deadly crash. Defensive driving teaches you things like this for in worst case secenerio. Also the person who hits you from behind is at 90% fault for the accident, they should never have been following so close behind you in the first place.

[Traver]

Slam on the brakes and move to the side.

It is definitely not that easy. On a regular street going 25, sure, but where do accidents involving animals happen the most? Highways, freeways, whatever you call them. So if you are doing 55+ down a highway with someone behind you, especially a tailgater, slamming on the brakes could get you killed. If no one is around, sure, but your stopping distance will be pretty big going that fast. And if you have a car with a high center of gravity, you could roll a bit, which is nasty.

"Population control" is the most silly thing I have ever heard of.

Not so much. It is quite necessary in many places. If too many deer pop up, and the ecosystem cannot handle that, it throws all the species out of whack. Now I don't know about you, but I would rather a deer be shot as accurately as possible than starve to death.

You seem to have missed that WAY too many people "pop up", and there's no way the ecosystem can handle us unless we change something. We are responsible for the extinction of thousands of species. Sometimes I get the thought that wars probably are necessary to keep the population under control.

But if the human race really wants to become extinct, sure, go ahead, build more cities, pollute more, make sure animals won't have anywhere to live. Who needs the rainforest?

[x t o n]

nuke lame countrys like iraq and usa

[Crescens]

Animals (and people) die every day. Many species went extinct before humans came into play; why is it our obligation to protect those unfit to survive? By interfering with natural selection we only postpone the inevitable.

Honestly, if you're worried about hitting squirrels in the street and don't want to kill the poor racoons, you should also boycott eating altogether. Squirrels and other small mammals are killed all the time by combines that harvest wheat and other crops, which are fed to animals and humans; in essence, the killing of animals is inevitable if we want to survive ourselves.

  nuke lame countrys like iraq and usa

It's people like this that increase my overall contempt for all of Europe, associating the United States with the totalitarian states it always has and always will oppose. I hope you get cancer. Now back to animals.

Given the opportunity, animals will kill us as necessary for their own survival and convenience; should we avoid doing the same?

[Daryl C]

nuke lame countrys like iraq and usa

I think thats a whole different debate topic your looking for there buddy.

Just wanted to add to Traver that cutting down the rain forest is bad and purposely going out to kill animals is also bad. But like regulas said, if we go out of our way (beyond a certain point) to save creatures than we are just postponing what eventaully will happen.

[Traver]

Okay, this debate is getting an unpleasant tone. I have no more to say as long as it stays this way.