/lit/ - Literature

>>16454040
>against euthanasia in humans, but in favor of euthanasia in animals
Because killing animals is a deed with no consequence, you need food, so you can also show mercy. But starting to kill your own due to missunderstood mercy sooner than later leads to aortions/ post partum killings of children, which are the base of future generations. People, especially women, will argue that they decandence is really just empathy and reproduction with for the most part cease.

An animal which fucks his own reproduction is already dead. In terms of the terminally ill or the old, they too have their value, in teaching. To see an old fuck do what he can till he drops shows currage and well as a strong believe. Killing yuor eldars is similar to cannibalism for those reasons, you are subverting your own culture. Killing of the soon to be dead, simply never was a thing. You either died instantly or killed yourself afterwards. Euthanasia is nothing but murder for personal gains under the veil of empathy and without moern medicine keeping tard and plants alive, unnecessary.

>>16454040
In regard to loving animals more than humans, it's just a cope when faced with the inability to reproduce, which is why it's mostly women going for cute pets as a surrogate child which they don' want because that would ruin their ability to whore around.

>>16454055
>Because killing animals is a deed with no consequence, you need food
That's not euthanasia tho. I'm talking about people taking their old sick dog to the vet to put him out.

>>16454075
That's the same thing. It's a dead without consequences. Your children will not see weakness, angst and the devaluing of life as well of the worth still in it, when you kill a dog. But they will consider life less, therefore reflecting on their day to day deeds, when you kill your eldars becausse they are old and in slight pain (that's why we have palliativ medication). You are showing them that KYS is an alternative why shouldn't they KYS themelves when they think pubertale depression is the end of everything? Why shouldn't the just kill a child which has a curable but painful illness? You just teached your society that pain is worse than death. How do you expect personal sacrifice in a military or even in daily life?

That's how you get individuals entitled to a painfree existance, which but their own comforts above everything else. Why should they go through the pains of birth when they can simply get a quick aortion under anaesthesia? Why do you think so many women claim they would rather kill themselves than to birth a child? It's this mentality, that you can just circumvent pain.

Animals become loyal and my friend when I feed them and give them pets. Human relationships are far too complicated and require too much work for the same level of loyalty a dog would give.

>>16454157
So animals are for societal outcasts, unable to work in normal human interactions? Your dog is loyal ecause he is stupid and needs you. Human loyality can never be replaced for an animal. But as you said, you don't want to invest what is essential to aquiere loyality, ecause you're most likely aren't worth it in the first place.

>>16454202
>implying human loyalty is any different
Face it, there's nothing wrong with preferring animals and only a humanist would disagree.

In the village, every man, woman and child belongs. In the city, everyone is superfluous. People can sense this instinctively. Teeming humanity is no good, only the innocence of animals can be sacred in a place like this

>>16454240
You only prefer animals, ecause you can't hndle your peers. Same reason why betas go to some asian country. They can't compete with their native people for a woman, so they have to go to some shithole where they seem like a God, by mere existance. That's what you do with a dog. You excues your ehaviour in their superior loyality, just like yellow fever victims claim that's the only traditional women left. Both are delusional and full of copium.

You are taking a lower animal to surrogate emotions which you can't get from your peers.

>>16454040
>people, religious or not, seem to frequently be against euthanasia in humans, but in favor of euthanasia in animals
I have mixed feelings about the main question of this thread, but this does interest me. I notice with the issue of abortion, it's often sold with "women deserve to choose what they do with their own body", yet many of those same women object to mutually-agreed combat, duelling, and suicide (doctor-assisted or otherwise). I always question where the line is drawn, and I hate to say that my evaluation is often harsh.

>>16454262
Based and high iq

>>16454303
Tedious insectoid

>>16454303
The only people who would be as loyal as dogs would be too stupid to befriend. I like dogs because of their lack of complexity. You act is if I have no friends or am a social outcast, neither of which is true, it is only because I have experience the wide range of human interaction at all manifest levels of loyalty that I derive the idea that dogs are simply better at the things I crave from it’s companionship compared to humans.

>>16454347
I have a big family, a handfull of good friends and am married. I also have a german shepard whic I do consider part of our family, while still not equal.

>>16454329
>>16454347
Pople like you two simply are so socially inept and unable to self-reflect that they consider their own inability to form worthwhile human bonds to be the fault og all those other humans, not themselves. You larp as a Knut Hamsun, while in reality being a Thoreau Walden merely having a vacation from humanity due to your own ego.

Just imagine being so deluted that you think your own peers are inferiour to a lower lifeform. Ironically also BECAUSE they have standards which you don't meet. You're the big kid which only hangs out with kids 5 years younger, because he's so behind growing up that he can't bond with his classmates.

Pathetic cope.

The entire concept of human dignity is decidely wanting and you have no right to it nor any argument for it that does not rely on ego.
https://academic.oup.com/icon/article/10/2/551/666082

The further science progresses, the closer we get to proving that animals are conscious in the same way that we are conscious. The very idea that we should be the only ones with consciousness is based in egotism which originally sprang from Judaism and Zoroastrianism, the latter of which has been eradicated, one day we will too eradicate Judaism and all the poison that it has caused.
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/369/6511/1626

Thanks to the poison poured out onto his by Abraham you think it is normal to elevate humans above all else, but had you been born elsewhere and with different normalities you would believe whatever is normal there, had you beem born in Hawaii or Haiti 150 years ago you would think cannibalism was normal. This is illogical and even the Pythagorians worked this out for themselves with no outside influence. The inability to see past the normalities of your birthplace and the beliefs of those around you is the mark if a closed mind.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pythagoreanism/

A 'civilization' that makes such a ridiculous fuss about alleged 'war crimes' - acts of violence against the actual or potential enemies of one's cause - and tolerates slaughterhouses and vivisection laboratories, and circuses and the fur industry (infliction of pain upon creatures that can never be for or against any cause), does not deserve to live.

>>16454410
Cannibalism isn't normal and never will be because biology itself clears the field if a sciety indulges in it.Same goes for putting animals as equals as your own people. This is evolutionary disadvantageous, which means it will reduce your birth rates or strength to fight other tribes, leading you into the night. To try and coin it as something abrahamic is ridiculous. Having respect for your food doesn't mean going full retard vegan and considering them equal, what those rather having pets than children do.

>>16454393
>Just imagine being so deluted that you think your own peers are inferiour to a lower lifeform.
I work at a hospital. Every weekend we get 39-60 victims of brutal assaults. You are sheltered. You probably spend all day in our room never experiencing what humans are truly like.

>>16454417
>birth rates

What the fuck are you talking about you fucking cretin.

>>16454427
Imagine being that retarded, as to consider assault to be a measure of a whole species. Guess what, I had my own fair share of bodily harm. What you do is to see what kind of people are doing those attacks and to distance yourself from them (whitetrash and non-whites).

>>16454429
>can't follow basic evolutionary consequences
No wonder you people rather fuck dogs.

>>16454468
>evolution is my teleological daddy that dictates my morals

noxious boomeroid

>>16454482
It doesn't, but it's telling when everything allignes. No be gone, human garbage.

>But humans are just so evil
>not like cute doggos
>unless evil humans train them to do evil
>but then it's still not the doggerino's fault
>Religion and Money are what make people evil, animals don't have those

>>16454521
Humans are capable of becoming inhuman, you couldn't say the same of a tiger or even a chimp.

>>16454040
There are plenty of indication you are dealing with someone who is evil.

1. Prefers animals above humans
2. Life revolves around sex and food, not family or friendship or intellect.
3. Think morality is about caring for immigrants, prison-inmates, starving African children, the homeless, the mentally ill etc.
4. Uses terms like love, nice or freedom, without understanding thats not, the same as Good.

>>16454410
>animals are conscious in the same way that we are conscious.

If animals are the equal to humans, you are trying to pull down human beings to the level of an animal.

Found the sociopath.

>>16454573
Their behaviour, which in human standards would be more than inhuman, can't be blamed on them, because they are lower creatures to begin with.

But they certainly can be cruel, especially chimp, which regularly >chimp out< as one of the most aggressive kind of our extended family.

Stop being retarded and trying to flee from your human duties by efrending animals.

>>16454573
>Humans are capable of becoming inhuman
Animals are not capable of becoming unanimal.

If you think animals are capable of the love and care that a family shows to its children, you are a sociopath, you lack the ability to feel empathy and certain other emotions, so you see no difference between a man and a beast.

>>16454614
>>16454622
Actually retarded.

>>16454632
>Actually retarded.
Use an argument to establish that fact, can you do that?

>>16454614
Sociopathy is not a medical term. Go back to netflix loser.

>>16454655
It's retarded to think that animals having consciousness is demeaning to humans in some way. You have this notion of "higher and lower" animals which is entirely arbitrary.
To think animals aren't capable of love and care to their offspring is way more indicative of sociopath than what anon said. You don't realise that most animals can walk straight out of the womb and humans take like 20 years before they're capable of looking after themselves. It necessitates far more care, but love and care and depression and neurosis and everything else are observable in animals.
You'll never make it if you are unable to understand the human as an animal. You'll never make it if you take offence based on aesthetic notions in your own head.

>>16454040
people ARE animals. but with original sin. makes them toxic victims, narcissists. they treat each other as property, slaves, teach each other how to live properly

>>16454667
Not an argument.

>>16454684
>It's retarded to think that animals having consciousness is demeaning to humans in some way. You have this notion of "higher and lower" animals which is entirely arbitrary.
>To think animals aren't capable of love and care to their offspring is way more indicative of sociopath than what anon said.
Didnt say any of these things.

I simply stated, that if you think a young goose imprinting on its mother, or a dog following its owner around, is the same thing as two parents lovingly raising a child, then you show sociopathic traits.

>You'll never make it if you are unable to understand the human as an animal.

Humans are not animals, we are creatures capable of higher forms of love, empathy, spirituality.

If you dont understand this, you are evil.

I wouldn't say that I prefer animals to humans, but I think that animals are comparable to a human child, in the sense that they are creatures that possess consciousness and are yet incapable of moral reasoning. And these creatures, who are conscious, who can feel pain, endure almost infinite suffering and misery. They'll never reach a point where they can comprehend it, rationalize it, perhaps overcome it -- they're restricted to nothing but pain, confusion, and fear. The only conclusion I can really come to is that conscious life is a bad thing.

>>16454723
>comparable to a human child

>>16454733
I gave the sense in which I meant that. They're obviously not the same thing, in that the child will (presumably) grow into an adult capable of reason. The animal is a worse position.

>>16454709
>Didnt say any of these things.
Since you haven't put forth an argument, just statements, I need to attack the assumptions that would give rise to your statements.
You have a strange idea of what humans and non-human animals are.
You have decided that animals are "low" and that humans are "high", in some sense. This doesn't make sense, it's an arbitrary aesthetic classification.
Because there's no reason why an animal would be incapable of love, empathy, and spirituality. The proof of that is that we are animals, and we are capable of those things.

The foundation for opposing your viewpoint is neither sociopathy or evil, it is love. Love for humanity and love for animals. There is tragedy and beauty in all things that die. To miss this your perception must be clouded by signs.

>>16454735
I do understand, I was just making fun out of the fact that there are sadly too many people who actually share that believe.

>>16454739
IIRC the behavior in that webm was caused by beating the dog every time it tried to walk on four legs. I imagine its in tremendous spinal and leg pain constantly.

>>16454737
>Since you haven't put forth an argument, just statements
I clearly gave you arguments, so thats another lie.

>You have a strange idea of what humans and non-human animals are.
No, the average person in society would agree with me that people are not animals. So nothing strange about that.

>>16454737
>This doesn't make sense, it's an arbitrary aesthetic classification.
If you think that the kind of love that human parents show for their children is arbitrary and just an aesthetic classification, you again prove yourself to be a sociopath.

>Because there's no reason why an animal would be incapable of love, empathy, and spirituality.

They literally have smaller brains....

>>16454737
>Love for humanity and love for animals.
Here we get to point 4 on my list of things that indicate someone is evil.

That is using the term love.

>>16454521
Yes.

>>16454865
Mark Twain would have gotten a nigger slave, pulled out its tonque and then called it his best friend.

>>16454040
you sterelize them
you redirect their instincts to be the most "human" possible
you put them a leash and a collar because they have to do exactly what you want them to do when you want them to do.
you obligate them to stay in houses or yards that you choose the time that you choose.
you use psychological manipulation to minimize their natural instincs and you are somehow happy with that.
we invent muzzles.
but hey, they are my friends.
people are so little selfaware in their relation with animals and the cruel and brutish and unnecesary domestication that we make them to do that is astonishing.

>>16455558
Something I keep trying to tell people here:

Choosing a dog over a human is like demanding that good humans should be lobotomized, have their tongues cut out, their balls cut off and put on a lease.

The moment you realise this, is when you realise most animal lovers and animal welfare people are people with sociopathic traits.

I'm for euthanasia for both and I prefer animals over humans.

I just don't enjoy being around people.

>>16455734
>I prefer animals over humans.
Sociopath.

>>16454040
>p-zombie
No, tranny. They're just misanthropes.

>>16455739
Maybe. Oh, well.

>>16455720
they want to love desperately. they are dr moreau and they make creatures to love them, but i still dont see socipathic traits in them. in their mindset its difficult to see the harshness of their attitude. i think they are more dumb and sentimental than really sociopathic. see this for example

>>16454737
>because there's no reason why an animal would be incapable of love, empathy, and spirituality.
see how he unconsciously omit all the intellect and rational differences with animals, which is precisely the basis of our power over them. they are totally sentimental, they are people who dont want to know the harsh intellectual power they use over them. they are so secure of that power that they permit themselves talk about love and spirituality in animals.

>>16454616
That monke was actually being given anti-anxiety meds.

Why the fuck is everyone so mean in this thread and what the fuck does it have to do with literature?

>>16455957
Who is mean here dear anon?. the ones who say you rob your puppy from their mother?.

>>16455830
I mostly get an impresion with a lot of animals lovers off:

>People dont take it when I victimize them, so instaid of improving my behaviour I am going to put all my devotion on an simple animal that cant speak or fight back.

Its atleast an antisocial trait, where a person seeks someone who is submissive and which they can lord over while equally feeling less need to socialize with other people.

An act of simpleness, kindness, childlike innocence etc are also traits people like that will automatically take on to appear less threatening, I would not belief it.

>>16455957
>>16456004
I have a nice one, imagine you take in your furbaby, castrate the thing, crop its tail, feed it slop every day, take it for short angry walks across the neighbourhood, keep it in all day, to force it to socialize with you and only you, give it almost nothing to do all day and then when its time to die you take it to the vet and unnaturally expand its lifesentence.....

This is the most cringe and yikes thread I've seen on /lit/

>>16456020
i agree with you in the big picture. i think i just dont need psychological labels to patologize them. i think if you start with this arguments all end in "you are wrong because you are sick". and that is unnecesary.