So you want 9/10ths of the world population to be wiped out because you're a sociopath who puts animals above his own kind? Good to know.

In all honesty, yes.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is where Leftism officially jumps off the deep end. The Horseshoe theory is right, if you become extreme enough in liberalism you'll start to resemble far-right Nazis in your thinking and methods.

So you want 9/10ths of the world population to be wiped out because you're a sociopath who puts animals above his own kind? Good to know.

Remplace every time you say "animal" with "Jew", then try not to be a nazi.

Seriously, what's better (likably neither, but oh well), 6k million deaths (but human) for one time, or 60k million+ deaths each year?

Seriously, what's better (likably neither, but oh well), 6k million deaths (but human) for one time, or 60k million+ deaths each year?

Don't forget to factor in the humans that Tristan wants dead.

Remplace every time you say "animal" with "Jew", then try not to be a nazi.

False equivelancy and obvious straw-man on top of it. Jews are the same as any other human in terms of intelligence, sentience, ability, etc. Meanwhile there's a definable difference between humans and other species by the same measurements.

I believe in protecting my fellow humans first, if that makes me a Nazi by your twisted definition, that so be it. Hit me with that human supremacist label, because I'll embrace it.

Seriously, what's better (likably neither, but oh well), 6k million deaths (but human) for one time, or 60k million+ deaths each year?

Neither is better, and we should all work to cut down on the number of animal deaths. However, if you think that killing millions of humans in order to achieve that is the way to do it then you are certifiably sociopathic and a danger to society.

@Prussian

>thinks animals are worth more than humans
You're a satanist.

My personal belief system generally fits in with Satanism, (and I mean genuine Satanism, not the stereotypical Devil-worshippers) though for all intents and purposes I'm an atheist.

@Eklipse

Neither is better, and we should all work to cut down on the number of animal deaths. However, if you think that killing millions of humans in order to achieve that is the way to do it then you are certifiably sociopathic and a danger to society.

Stopping the consumption and wearing of animals is the obvious way to cut down on animal deaths.

Personally, I wouldn't step outside and start randomly killing humans just because I believe that most of them deserve death. I generally don't voice my opinions but they were asked for. ;)

I wasn't born this high on the food chain to not eat meat. But the unnecessary wearing of fur and hunting for sport is truly wasteful.

Remplace every time you say "animal" with "Jew", then try not to be a nazi.

This only works if you consider animals to be equal to humans, which they obviously aren't. And even if you do consider animals equals with humans, there are still several disanalogies to be offered here.

Humans killing animals are rarely done simply to rid the world of these inferior animals. Rather quite the contrary, they are done for one of three reasons:

1. To make food for humans to eat
2. To make a trophy out of and display your wicked skills at hunting
3. To get enjoyment out of killing the animal, such as I used to do with ants

None of these are actually comparable with the holocaust.

The nazis were obviously not eating jews, and this is a completely ridiculous and unsupportable claim.

For the longest time, the scale of the holocaust was kept a secret, so obviously another no on this one.

It's hard to argue that the nazi leadership got enjoyment out of killing jews since they didn't do it personally. While your run of the mill ss agent of whatever may be some phsycho bastard who did enjoy it, I doubt a majority of the 8 million nazis actually enjoyed the experience they got from personally killing jews. In fact, some, like Schindler, even tried to help Jews.

And this is all considering animals equal with humans, which again they obviously aren't. In fact, even though there aren't any people killing animals simply because they are inferior, I would argue that this is a perfectly fine thing to do. Why shouldn't you be able to kill members of races that are inferior to you simply on principle?

And just for reference no, I don't believe that jews are inferior to germans, I'm not condoning nazism here.

False equivelancy and obvious straw-man on top of it. Jews are the same as any other human in terms of intelligence, sentience, ability, etc. Meanwhile there's a definable difference between humans and other species by the same measurements.

Ok, then here's an equivalence that is right: killing all retards and their children, in short, extreme eugeny.

I believe in protecting my fellow humans first, if that makes me a Nazi by your twisted definition, that so be it. Hit me with that human supremacist label, because I'll embrace it.

There's nothing too bad about that, and I strongly agree that violence can not be counted on to cancel out more violence, but with your argument you can justify killing retards or those who are lower in brains and knacks.

I wasn't born this high on the food chain to not eat meat.

Why not?

1. To make food for humans to eat
2. To make a trophy out of and display your wicked skills at hunting
3. To get enjoyment out of killing the animal, such as I used to do with ants

None of these are actually comparable with the holocaust.

You're right - it's far more bloodier, far more filthy, and far more of a crime.

And this is all considering animals equal with humans, which again they obviously aren't.

remplace "animals" with "Jews". Nobody, human or not, earns a quick end to their life like that, imagine if that happened to you. You've just as much luck to be born as a dog than to be born as a human, so what if you were born as a dog and experimented on to test drugs and unethic crap like that?

there aren't any people killing animals simply because they are inferior

Folk who think of wildlife as life to be dealed with fairly wouldn't eat their corpses or throw their babies in boiling water, or do other barbaric things since they don't care about them.

Why shouldn't you be able to kill members of races that are inferior to you simply on principle?

Since everybody has a right to live - the grounds why you're not dead. Coming from someone against-abortion, this is odd to hear.

Humans are not animals. Humans are descendants of Adam and Eve peace be upon both of them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens

Kingdom: Animalia

Since everybody has a right to live - the grounds why you're not dead. Coming from someone against-abortion, this is odd to hear.

"Everybody" do indeed have a right to live, but get this: "Everybody" implies that you are talking about Humans:

Every person

(http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/everybody)

Every Animal, Every plant, and every dust mite in the air do not have a right to live. They have a right to serve Humans, the superior race, and if that means something arbitrary like being cut in half to make our lawns look nicer, then so be it. If that means being slaughtered for us to eat you, then so be it.

remplace "animals" with "Jews". Nobody, human or not, earns a quick end to their life like that, imagine if that happened to you. You've just as much luck to be born as a dog than to be born as a human, so what if you were born as a dog and experimented on to test drugs and unethic crap like that?

I don't have any "luck" to be born as a Dog. It is literally impossible for me to be born as a Dog, since I'm a human and not a Dog. If I were a Dog, I would not be "me", I would be a damn dog.

And in service to superior beings, you earn whatever we give you. I will not replace "animals" with "jews" because animals are here to serve humans, whereas jews are not. It is an irrelevant comparison.

Gremmer nazi ain't 2 real to spel

@Imperator
I disagree with eveything you've just said, but I'm glad that you posted it without hurling insults left, right and centre or getting really cross.

+1 for a sensible, intelligent debate.

Finally, humans are making progress with intelligence.

Edited 6/17/2016 16:49:32

"Everybody" implies that you are talking about Humans:

Ok, just for the posteriority, I'm not talking about man only.

I don't have any "luck" to be born as a Dog. It is literally impossible for me to be born as a Dog, since I'm a human and not a Dog. If I were a Dog, I would not be "me", I would be a damn dog.

Before you were born, you got slotted into some life. You might have been a germ, or a dog, or a human, and it just so happens that you were human.

And in service to superior beings, you earn whatever we give you. I will not replace "animals" with "jews" because animals are here to serve humans, whereas jews are not. It is an irrelevant comparison.

Wildlife is here for the same grounds we are here: to live, to thrive. Just since they're weaker doesn't mean that we deal with them as if they don't have wills of their own, that they don't have life. I've never heard a more offensive and filthy thing that you have said. Jews aren't relevant you say, but what you're supporting is at base, extreme eugeny.

Every Animal, Every plant, and every dust mite in the air do not have a right to live. They have a right to serve Humans, the superior race, and if that means something arbitrary like being cut in half to make our lawns look nicer, then so be it. If that means being slaughtered for us to eat you, then so be it.

And in service to superior beings, you earn whatever we give you

Every Jew does not have a right to live. They have a right to serve Nazis, the superior race, and if that means something arbitrary like being killed to make our country cleaner, then so be it. If that means being slaughtered for us to make Nazi Germany superior, then so be it.

And in service to Nazis, you earn whatever we give you.

The core of your speech can be applied to several things, Imperator, and as the above adjustment shows, your message could even be approved of by Hitler. The same underlined meaning, the same message of hate.
And Eklipse said I'm the sociopath.


@Prussian

Life isn't lived for its own sake.

Then why is it lived?

@Imperator
I disagree with eveything you've just said, but I'm glad that you posted it without hurling insults left, right and centre or getting really cross.

+1 for a sensible, intelligent debate.

Finally, humans are making progress with intelligence.

Thanks, I try to remain as civilized as possible, and I think most people on OT do as well. There are some trolls on the forums here who just flame and flame arbitrarily, but for the most part people here I've found are just looking for a debate.

Ok, just for the posteriority, I'm not talking about man only.

The word to use is "Everything" then, and this is also pretty problematic. Case in point, not everything is alive in the first place, and I wouldn't say that for example buildings have a right to live.

Before you were born, you got slotted into some life. You might have been a germ, or a dog, or a human, and it just so happens that you were human.

This is a highly theological debate, and if you'd like to get into it we can, but It probably won't go too far given that we have different theological positions.

Personally, I don't believe that anything has a soul besides humans, and that's what makes humans superior, but again this is highly theological.

Wildlife is here for the same grounds we are here: to live, to thrive. Just since they're weaker doesn't mean that we deal with them as if they don't have wills of their own, that they don't have life.

Plants and animals seem perfectly okay living and thriving in an environment that includes serving us. If there were 700,000 humans being killed a year, you can bet your ass that somebody would be complaining about it and that you would hear about it. And sure enough, you do:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_pro-life_movement

There are no cows protesting the killing of their own like you see for humans.

I've never heard a more offensive and filthy thing that you have said. Jews aren't relevant you say, but what you're supporting is at base, extreme eugeny.

Jews are not relevant here because nobody is claiming that jews are inferior to other humans. I am only claiming that animals are inferior to humans, and unless you think that jews are animals, there is no reason to equate the claims.

Just to be clear, these claims do not conflict:

1. Animals are inferior to humans

2. Jews are not inferior to other humans

It is not unreasonable to hold both of these claims as truths, as they do not conflict at all.

In fact, I would argue that you are displaying extreme antisemitism by equating jews with animals by saying that statements about animals can be applied to jewish folk. Take a few examples:

Most animals are covered in hair and have huge noses
Most jews are covered in hair and have huge noses

The latter statement is extremely antisemitic, whereas the former is an unoffensive observation. You cannot equate jews (or other humans) with animals in any sense.

The core of your speech can be applied to several things, Imperator, and as the above adjustment shows, your message could even be approved of by Hitler. The same underlined meaning, the same message of hate.

The logic itself is not hateful. You can use it in innocent ways, for example to claim that it is not morally wrong to mow your lawn. Or, in my case, that killing and eating animals is not morally wrong.

You can also apply it in hateful ways, such as saying that all jews deserve to die. This does not make the logic itself hateful, it makes hateful applications of the logic hateful. This is practically true of all logic, and is nothing special with this particular piece of logic. Take for example this one:

"Horses are not intelligent enough to get human jobs"

Well will you look at that, this observation becomes an extremely antisemitic nazi propoganda statement if you replace "horses" with "jews":

"Jews are not intelligent enough to get human jobs"

Edited 6/17/2016 18:08:27

Jews aren't human. They are animals, they don't have souls.

You should be IP-banned for that sentence. Your views are disgusting and caused a world war.

The word to use is "Everything" then, and this is also pretty problematic. Case in point, not everything is alive in the first place, and I wouldn't say that for example buildings have a right to live.

Do you think of yourself as a "thing" then? Anyhow, this is just semant.

This is a highly theological debate, and if you'd like to get into it we can, but It probably won't go too far given that we have different theological positions.

I don't think this has anything to do with gods, but it's just like random spreading mode in a Warlight game. To think that the land you got is the only land you could have gotten is silly to me.

I don't believe that anything has a soul besides humans, and that's what makes humans superior, but again this is highly theological.

What is "soul"?

Plants and animals seem perfectly okay living and thriving in an environment that includes serving us.

Shrubs don't have feelings, they can't be cross nor happy, literally. I'm not really against killing them, nor anybody else that doesn't even have a brain of any kind. Perhaps what you mean by "soul" is feelings.

There are no cows protesting the killing of their own like you see for humans.

There were no Holocaust protestors until the Holocaust was revealed, what's your point? Cows don't know that they're being bred to die.

Jews are not relevant here because nobody is claiming that jews are inferior to other humans.

Your stance is the same irrational one, just remplacing Jews with somebody else.

It is not unreasonable to hold both of these claims as truths, as they do not conflict at all.]

They don't conflit, but your arguments for why wildlife is to be genocided are the same irrational ones wielded to genocide the Jews.

I would argue that you are displaying extreme antisemitism by equating jews with animals by saying that statements about animals can be applied to jewish folk.

It's called equality, that all men and beings are equal.

Well will you look at that, this observation becomes an extremely antisemitic nazi propoganda statement if you replace "horses" with "jews"

The differnce is, you're not talking about any truths, you're just trying to wield these totally irrational arguments to justify your killings.

I don't think this has anything to do with gods, but it's just like random spreading mode in a Warlight game. To think that the land you got is the only land you could have gotten is silly to me.

Yes, it is theological, because if you believe that there is something immaterial about you that could have existed as something else, it is a religious position, as this is not backed up by science.

There were no Holocaust protestors until the Holocaust was revealed, what's your point? Cows don't know that they're being bred to die.

Go ahead and let the cow know then, I'm sure it'd still wander around eating grass and be perfectly fine with it.

They don't conflit, but your arguments for why wildlife is to be genocided are the same irrational ones wielded to genocide the Jews

Using this argument as a justification for the holocaust is only irrational because one of the premises is wrong. You can think of it as essentially a deductive argument. If all of the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. So, here are the premises and conclusions for both:

1. Animals are inferior to humans
2. If something is inferior to you then it is acceptable to kill it
3. I am a human

Therefore, It is okay for me to kill animals

---

Contrast this with:

1. Jews are inferior to germans
2. If something is inferior to you then it is acceptable for you to kill it
3. I am a german

Therefore, It is acceptable for me to kill Jews

---

They both follow the same format, but only the latter is irrational since one of the premises is wrong. In the former, all of the premises are correct, so the argument is not irrational.

Now if you want to debate whether my premises are true or not then do so, but please don't continue saying "You're a nazi so whatever you're saying is invalid".

It's called equality, that all men and beings are equal.

I'd like to hear why exactly you think this, as humans are obviously superior to animals in basically every respect.

Edited 6/17/2016 18:40:29

And Eklipse said I'm the sociopath.

You're the one who stated that you want hundreds of millions to die for your personal utopia, not Imperator.

I might have gotten more heated than I should have, but I still stand by every word I said. If you honestly believe that everyone who eats cheeseburgers needs to die, just for that reason alone, than you are indeed a Sociopath.


It's called equality, that all men and beings are equal.

Equal how? In what way? Are men and trees also equal? Trees are alive just like animals. What right have we to kill the innocent plants? And what about the insects we squash on a regular basis?

No. Not every living organism is equal.

In addition, even if animals WERE equal somehow, it doesn't matter. Lions look after other lions, Zebras look after other Zebras. Humans should look after other humans first, and worry about other species second.

If we can help nature without sacrificing ourselves, than we should do all we can. But to turn on each other for the sake of that cause is just paradoxical.