Animal protection is the most noble cause

[KAICHEN1988]

I have got empathy for animals since I was a child. When I was growing up, my faith and values changed several times, but my love and empathy for animals never changed. Now I already know that animal protection is the most noble cause.

Below is a brief summary of my animal protection principles.

We must protect animals.

Like human beings, animals have consciousness and feeling, and can experience suffering and happiness.

No one wants suffering, and neither do animals. This is a sufficient reason to protect animals.

We do not advocate "protecting plants".

Plants do not have brain or nerve, so they never have any consciousness or feeling at all.

Therefore, in terms of morality, it is not necessary to protect plants.

We do not advocate "protecting mosquitoes".

Vertebrate animals, especially mammals and birds, have developed advanced nervous systems, therefore having strong feeling and consciousness.

However, most invertebrates, such as insects, only have a very simple nervous system, which means that their feeling and consciousness are very weak.

We must not kill animals, even though animals keep killing each other.

If a child who is three or four years old killed a man, you cannot condemn the child, because it knows nothing. Similarly, animals should not be condemned for killing others, because animals have low intelligence and cannot understand that their behaviors bring suffering to other individuals. In fact, many animals have the same intelligence level as a child.

However, adult humans' intelligence is high enough for them to know that their behaviors may bring suffering to other individuals. Therefore, for adult humans, doing such behaviors is obviously evil.

We must not follow the law of nature.

The natural law that allows the stronger ones to prey upon the weaker ones runs counter to human morality. If not, there would be no need to protect the disadvantaged groups.

The laws of nature are brutal, but human morality is empathetic. Human beings must fight against the brutality and stop the killing.

We should be more concerned about animals than people.

The suffering and misery faced by animals are far more severe than people's hardship. At least the people are not being murdered or tortured.

Moreover, humans can be good or evil, but animals are all innocent and lovable, just like children.

Rich people and elites have strong power, but always squander the power on luxurious lives and meaningless faiths. I will be the owner of power, and use the power to make the greatest contribution to animal protection.

[Impenitent]

anthropomorphic fallacy aside, drumming muppets agree...



-Imp

[henry quirk]

...I can't back your cause, KAI.

[Frank N Stein]

anthropomorphic fallacy aside, drumming muppets agree...



-Imp

You don't understand the meaning of anthropomorphic. It doesn't mean acknowledging that other animals feel the same things we do, and often more intensely and profoundly.

[Impenitent]

anthropomorphic fallacy aside, drumming muppets agree...



-Imp

You don't understand the meaning of anthropomorphic. It doesn't mean acknowledging that other animals feel the same things we do, and often more intensely and profoundly.

intense and profound misunderstanding indeed.

finis

-Imp

[Age]

I have got empathy for animals since I was a child. When I was growing up, my faith and values changed several times, but my love and empathy for animals never changed. Now I already know that animal protection is the most noble cause.

Below is a brief summary of my animal protection principles.

We must protect animals.

Like human beings, animals have consciousness and feeling, and can experience suffering and happiness.

What do you mean when you say, 'like' human beings, animals ...?

Animals are NOT like human beings. Human beings ARE animals.

No one wants suffering, and neither do animals. This is a sufficient reason to protect animals.

Sufficient reason to protect animals from WHAT exactly?

Besides human beings, WHAT else do animals NEED protection from?

We do not advocate "protecting plants".

Plants do not have brain or nerve, so they never have any consciousness or feeling at all.

Is that a 100% KNOWN, and forever more indisputable, FACT?

Therefore, in terms of morality, it is not necessary to protect plants.

So, human beings can go out and kill ALL plant life? I think you KNOW what would happen to ALL the animals if their were NO plants at all.

We do not advocate "protecting mosquitoes".

Vertebrate animals, especially mammals and birds, have developed advanced nervous systems, therefore having strong feeling and consciousness.

Okay, what other animals do 'you' NOT advocate in protecting? I just want to make sure that the animals I can now go out and kill is all right with 'you'.

However, most invertebrates, such as insects, only have a very simple nervous system, which means that their feeling and consciousness are very weak.

Ah okay. So, it is all right to go out and kill ALL the animals with very weak feeling and consciousness. Mmmm I wonder how I could determine that EXACTLY?

We must not kill animals, even though animals keep killing each other.

Human beings keep killing each other (themselves), and from all accounts probably far more often than other animals keep killing themselves.

Now I am in a predicament. Does that mean; it is all right to keep killing the human animal, or, it is NOT all right to keep killing the human animal? I wonder?

If a child who is three or four years old killed a man, you cannot condemn the child, because it knows nothing.

At what age does a human being stops knowing no thing and starts nothing some thing?

Similarly, animals should not be condemned for killing others, because animals have low intelligence and cannot understand that their behaviors bring suffering to other individuals.

Some might, AND very well COULD, even argue that those human beings who keep killing other human beings/animals, through greed, crime, and wars, also have low intelligence and can NOT understand that their behaviors bring suffering to other individuals, which really does explain a lot.

In fact, many animals have the same intelligence level as a child.

Some might, and very well COULD even, argue that many animals, AND children, are far MORE intelligent than the adult human being. Only the adult human being pollutes its own environment beyond a livable stage, including the very air and water that it NEEDS for its own survival.

However, adult humans' intelligence is high enough for them to know that their behaviors may bring suffering to other individuals.

If it is, then these adult human beings do NOT often SHOW that they KNOW this.

Therefore, for adult humans, doing such behaviors is obviously evil.

That, I agree, could be very easily argued.

We must not follow the law of nature.

Do human beings have any other choice?

What other choices besides the natural law is there?

Of course there are the human made up laws, but looking at the "world" that is created from following those human made up laws I do NOT see much else besides the law of nature.

Human beings can not follow that law and continue on following their own laws and keep polluting until nature will NOT support them anymore, but that seems like a rather very stupid and foolish thing to do, from My perspective.

The natural law that allows the stronger ones to prey upon the weaker ones runs counter to human morality.

BUT, in the natural law there is NO stronger nor NO weaker ones. EVERY thing IS Equal in Nature.

If not, there would be no need to protect the disadvantaged groups.

The only ones that the, so called, "disadvantaged" groups of human beings NEED protection from, IS other human beings.

The laws of nature are brutal,

WHERE and/or HOW? I do NOT see this.

but human morality is empathetic.

Tell that the absolutely terrified children as the human made planes fly over heard, dropping those human made bombs on them.
Tell that to those children dying of starvation, from lack of food, while others are throwing food away just because they did not like the smell or taste of it.

Human beings must fight against the brutality and stop the killing.

'Must' they?

But how are those human beings who THINK that they are more dominant than others are going to SHOW this, ILLUSION, to others?

We should be more concerned about animals than people.

But people, within human bodies, are just another animal, are they not?

The suffering and misery faced by animals are far more severe than people's hardship.

Is this in and for ALL cases?

At least the people are not being murdered or tortured.

Are you SURE this is correct?

Moreover, humans can be good or evil, but animals are all innocent and lovable, just like children.

But humans ARE animals are they not?

Is the mosquito buzzing in a humans ear, when they are trying to sleep, innocent and LOVABLE?
Is the lion running at you, just when it leaps at you with its mouth wide open, innocent and LOVABLE?
Is the dingo, taking your baby away in its mouth, innocent and LOVABLE?
Are ALL children ALWAYS innocent and LOVABLE?

Rich people and elites have strong power,

What is classed as 'rich people' and 'elites'?
How do they, supposedly, have "strong" power?
Who gave them this "power"?

but always squander the power on luxurious lives and meaningless faiths.

Is that what ALL of them ALWAYS do?

I will be the owner of power, and use the power to make the greatest contribution to animal protection.

Okay. Have fun.

But by the way, when people make up their OWN principles, like you have here, but then include words like:
WE must, do this ...
WE must not, do this ...
WE should ...
WE do not ...
and similar,

then those people can be seen as dictators, and usually the first human/animal that most people want to get rid of and/or kill are those dictator type of human beings.

So, good luck.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have got empathy for animals since I was a child. When I was growing up, my faith and values changed several times, but my love and empathy for animals never changed. Now I already know that animal protection is the most noble cause.

Below is a brief summary of my animal protection principles.
.........
.........

The laws of nature are brutal, but human morality is empathetic. Human beings must fight against the brutality and stop the killing.

DNA wise ALL humans are endowed with mirror neurons thus as the potential for empathy and compassion. Such empathy is activated within a range from active to being indifferent.

The problem is some of those with very active proclivity for empathy are driven to empathize blindly or rather stupidly to their own self-destruction.
I have read of 4 people were drowned in trying to save a dog in a beach during an impending storm.
The Jains would cover their mouths so they do not swallow and kill flying insects.

To be productive in an efficient and optimal manner, one need to take heed of in exercising empathy like Aristotle's advice of anger;

• Anybody [many] can become angry [empathize] - that is easy, but to be angry [empathize]
  with the right person and
  to the right degree and
  at the right time and
  for the right purpose, and
  in the right way
  - that is not within everybody's power and is not easy.

I don't see you recommending caution, pragmatism, balance, net-positivity and optimality.

[Greta]

I wouldn't say animal protection is necessarily the most noble cause but it is a noble cause - to display at least some small measure of compassion to those at our mercy rather than treating them like objects.

Still, what goes around, comes around. Companies, which are displacing and dominating humans just as humans displaced and dominated other species, are looking likely to show individual humans about as much mercy as they have shown other animals. At present organisations are busy taking little peoples' resources and money, as we keep feeding the taxman while the big dogs don't.

Seeing the anger and resentment at being screwed all the time in the west, Middle East, South America and parts of the east, this is perhaps how other species felt when humans were first taking over and trashing the joint. Fighting back is not possible when might is right. Fightbacks earn the tags of terrorist, traitor and saboteur by governments funded by the people to represent them, but who treacherously now just join the corporations in milking the cash cow dry.

Poor old animals. The first to go, the canaries in the coal mine, followed by vulnerable humans. Alas, everything has its time, with almost all species that ever lived long extinct before we turned up.

I do think that if humans had been more careful about minimising harm to other organisms, especially sentient ones, then they may well have created more pleasant and sustainable societies with brighter future prospects. It appears that we are, and have been, too hardcore for our own good.

[henry quirk]

I protect (parts of) animals (in my stomach).

Pigs, cows, chickens, fish: all have safe haven (in my gut).

[SpheresOfBalance]

I have got empathy for animals since I was a child. When I was growing up, my faith and values changed several times, but my love and empathy for animals never changed. Now I already know that animal protection is the most noble cause.

Below is a brief summary of my animal protection principles.

We must protect animals.

Like human beings, animals have consciousness and feeling, and can experience suffering and happiness.

No one wants suffering, and neither do animals. This is a sufficient reason to protect animals.

We do not advocate "protecting plants".

Plants do not have brain or nerve, so they never have any consciousness or feeling at all.

Therefore, in terms of morality, it is not necessary to protect plants.

We do not advocate "protecting mosquitoes".

Vertebrate animals, especially mammals and birds, have developed advanced nervous systems, therefore having strong feeling and consciousness.

However, most invertebrates, such as insects, only have a very simple nervous system, which means that their feeling and consciousness are very weak.

We must not kill animals, even though animals keep killing each other.

If a child who is three or four years old killed a man, you cannot condemn the child, because it knows nothing. Similarly, animals should not be condemned for killing others, because animals have low intelligence and cannot understand that their behaviors bring suffering to other individuals. In fact, many animals have the same intelligence level as a child.

However, adult humans' intelligence is high enough for them to know that their behaviors may bring suffering to other individuals. Therefore, for adult humans, doing such behaviors is obviously evil.

We must not follow the law of nature.

The natural law that allows the stronger ones to prey upon the weaker ones runs counter to human morality. If not, there would be no need to protect the disadvantaged groups.

The laws of nature are brutal, but human morality is empathetic. Human beings must fight against the brutality and stop the killing.

We should be more concerned about animals than people.

The suffering and misery faced by animals are far more severe than people's hardship. At least the people are not being murdered or tortured.

Moreover, humans can be good or evil, but animals are all innocent and lovable, just like children.

Rich people and elites have strong power, but always squander the power on luxurious lives and meaningless faiths. I will be the owner of power, and use the power to make the greatest contribution to animal protection.

One!

That's fine you can do what ever you want to do, but you can't, with any sense of truth, make such a statement as if to blanket the whole of humankind, thus speaking for us all.

As nature directly calls you a liar!!!

The proof is simple. Nature has created both predators and prey. It's a law of the earth. Predators eat prey and prey suffer as they are eaten alive. Do I like it? NO! But that's the way it is on planet earth.

Two!

If a certain biologist is correct, you can't say that about plants either. He sites that the membrane around cells are much like the brain is to animals at the cellular level of all Earth's life. But then ignorance often leads anyone and everyone to believe in falsehoods. It's a part of our growth. We are once devoid of knowledge and if we are wise, continue to absorb and revise as much, so called, knowledge as possible otherwise growth is stunted.

I admire you for your caring of animals, but see that you're ignoring the truth of planet earth when you make such a blanket statement.

But always remember to fight the good fight!