Some Sick Ppl Out There

[Heliamphora]

Hmm, Guess this has become more about morals than bug jewelry, but I'd think that if someone wanted squeaky clean hands and a shiny dead wasp, they could just scour a few neglected windowsills :?

Or for slightly less squeaky cleanness but an interesting public service, raiding a barbecue in the park with a net may prove interesting.

But as an overly long sidenote, there is a difference between killing something and doing something in which it will be killed. To continue the car example...

Driving where I live, even with great care, hitting small animals such as kamikaze birds or migrating newts is a matter of when, not if. And I'm sad to say, my record is not pristine. Two logical assumptions from this, are that by continuing to drive I will very probably hit something someday in the future, and my continuing to drive makes me technically complicit in this.

And yet... you will not see me chasing after small birds or amphibians with murderous intentions.

There's a lot of middle ground between a full animal-rights freakout and a scorched earth policy. It's very reasonable to step over the ant on the ground, just as it's reasonable to squash the one that bites you.

 

[Stylopidae]

According to his own reasoning and admissions in this very thread, if it was done 'on purpose' instead of 'accidentally', he absolutely would.

According to his own reasoning...but we both know how keyboard commandos work.

For some reason, KNOWING that driving your car around is killing hundreds of insects an hour, and doing it anyway because it's a 'necessity', is different than killing a few wasps with gas and spray painting them... because chrome-plated wasps aren't a 'necessity', and cars are... or something... I got confused there towards the end.

It seems that deciding to kill bugs is worse than deciding to do something during which bugs will be killed... doesn't stand up to the least resistance from simple logic, but it seems to be the ethos we're up against.

Yeah, but do you have any idea how much fun we could have with this?

Seriously...I love people like this. Poking at those holes in the logic until the entire framework collapses is so much fun.

If any of these people have ever sprayed a wasp colony...they're genocidal maniacs according to their own logic because this is not a neccessity. You can always get a new mailman if he happens to die of an allergic reaction because you refuse to douse the Polistes colony under the mailbox with a weak nerve agent because it makes you uncomfortable.

Roach traps? Same thing.

Eat farmed crops? Same thing.

Head lice? Just roomates!

Crab lice? Just congratulations for a job well done.

The state bug collections I spend a little bit of my time in consist of millions of insects killed unneccessarily. The first thing taxonomists usually do when they describe a new species?

Stick it in a jar full of alcohol.

In fact, biologists working in the feild will euthanize hundreds or thousands of animals in a single expedition and bring them back to the lab for study. Or even dissect them in the feild.

I guess according to JayzenBoyget and Jmoran...biologists wouldn't think twice about doing the same thing to their children.

I really hope that people understand the hyperbole here...

There's a lot of middle ground between a full animal-rights freakout and a scorched earth policy. It's very reasonable to step over the ant on the ground, just as it's reasonable to squash the one that bites you.

Not according to some of the people in this thread. When people start comparing chrome-plating an insect with a simple nervous system to chrome plating their children you have to realize that there is no middle ground to some people.

It's always interesting to see someone make a connection between killing people and killing insects because they generally end up backpedaling when some of the more intelligent members of the forums reply.

In fact, I went back and figured out who the members who catalyze this back-pedaling usually are...at least the most effective ones.

Mr. Internet-usually causes backpedal within a post or two
Cirith Ungol-usually 2 to 3 posts
Hedorah99-2 to 3 posts
Cheshire-2 or 3 posts (although one of those posts is a 'ur so mean' post)...sometimes they just stop posting and don't reply


In fact...as one of the pioneers of wasp keeping here on the boards, I really wish I had seen this earlier. I'd have loved to chrome-plate my first foundress and make a necklace out of her after she died. It would have been a cool momento...something unique that described me as a person with a hint of sentimentality.

I might actually do that this year (after the colony dies off, of course)...provided the instructions make the necklace durable enough to wear on a daily basis.

 

[Cirith Ungol]

What about animals we refuse to help while we know exactly that they are dying? If I see an earthworm that struggles in a pool of water after a heavy downpour and I don't help it, then I'm responsible for it's probable death. And that's only one of a couple of thousands of possible examples covering the "refusal to help" problem. If you think it is a problem.

I could also argue (or maybe I really am arguing) that the car and many other combustion motor vehicles are not as necessary as suggested. A stiff walk of an hour, even carrying thirty pounds of groceries, is nothing but healthy and covers just about the time anybody should be out walking per day.

I could even exaggerate more and say - so that less insects are killed by a car, one could fit very soft foam rubber to all the surfaces of the front of a car which are in a 90 degree angle to the oncomming air. Or one could drive only at 20mph. That would give any flying insect a chance to go arround the car.

With this type of argumentation I can make just about anybody look guilty of "animal murder" or make it sound as if they don't care ...and it's totally crazy bovine stercus. Or maybe in more productive terms: It's not very productive.
And the following is just too stupid to be posted in the open... unless ofcourse you use some other background colour than white, (or you happen to quote this) in which case you'll see this text immediately:
I also don't need to eat meat to survive. Or I could just eat larger animals in order to not be responsible of killing so many. If I eat animals that eat other animals then I can help the ones lower in the food chain. Eating blue whale should be a good candidate for that. Or I could actually just go kill myself. That way, unless I happen to fall on an insect at the moment of death, I can be pretty sure that I have saved looooots of animals. YAAY!!!

 

[357wheelgunner]

There's half a billion people starving out there...there's people trying to erase concepts which have saved the lives of billions from science books...there are viruses ravaging our populace that become resistant to our marginally effective drugs faster than we can produce them...and similarly there are antibiotic resistant bacteria which we can't kill even with antibiotics that are generally only used to kill resistant bacteria.

Great point.

I used to worry about killing everything. I'd carry worms from the pavement to the grass after a storm, try to save baby birds when they fall out of a nest, and I even adopted a woodcock with a broken pelvis. All of it was pointless, and all of it made it more difficult when they died anyway.

Then I turned 11.

Now I'm 25 and I know that people are above animals, and that no matter what you do you still kill dozens of them everyday on your way to work. If people are to flourish, animals will suffer somewhat. Some of them will be better off, others will die off. The ones that die will be replaced by another species, there will always be wildlife.

In the course of my career, I will personally kill billions of insects. The people who follow in my footsteps will kill billions more. Trillions, probably.

Awesome, congratulations on all of the human lives you will someday save.

This thread is hilarious, I hope that it continues....

 

[Tleilaxu]

I think its interesting that my reply was completely ignored now its either because I did not make any sense or...

Anyways here it is

Being a wasp lover(And keeper) I disagree with the practice of using them for jewelry, along with any insect for that matter.(Its more fun to have them as pets)

However having said that as long as they collect in a proper manner(Leave the queens) and humanly euthanize the wasp then I dont really have a problem with it.

I also believe that wasps are far from mindless as well. I have seen what appears to be learned behaviors(And memory) and the abilty to associate certain events with certain outcomes, and they seem to "get it" faster than other inverts do. Obviously more study needs to be done to confirm this.

 

[Cirith Ungol]

I think its interesting that my reply was completely ignored now its either because I did not make any sense or...

Anyways here it is

That's because your attitude made sense and nobody could rip your post to shreds. You're like the lone surviver of a senseless trench war.

 

[JMoran1097]

furthermore, i'd like to add that there has been several comments regarding those who choose to take an animal rights perspective. obviously, immaturity reigned in first and really showcased how stupid people are when dealing with an issue that really isn't THAT serious. granted, everyone has a right to their opinion, but sorry Chesire, I haven't noticed tremendous logic that disproves moral affiliation with this argument (which was pretty much the basis, duh).

i'm getting a little tired of the comments directed towards those who choose an animal rights perspective. arguing on a basis of logic isn't always the case in how you run your life, morons. most arguments are based solely on the case of moral principle which is entirely subjective.

take for instance a house painted in blue. you can argue that it looks good in blue while your wife can argue that it looks good in green. will any side truly win? no, because even if the house remains blue, then your wife will remain a smitten individual who still thinks that the house should have been painted green.

there is no justification to this cause, well beside the moral aspect, other than that insect jewelery would look stupid as all hell. last time I checked, we weren't Aboriginees or some sort of early Hominem.

sorry, the market would suck for this, i predict terrible sales, and you would be made fun of for looking tremendously retarded.

i couldn't wear a necklace or trinket knowing that a live creature was taken out of its environment, gassed, chrome-plated, and placed on there for my enjoyment. can you TRULY disprove my moral argument? no.

in closing, that's the point, or points rather, i've been trying to make. i don't know why this topic got out of hand, but it certainly made me want to drive more people off a cliff before I die.

 

[Stylopidae]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

such a cop out response. c'mon dude, use your head.

Yeah...you can laugh all you want, but the point's still valid.

Really...unless you can tell me why this is a 'cop out response', your post is a bare assertion and nothing more.

WAIT, HUH???

seriously, all i've noticed within the realm of your postings has been some angry kid just eager to poke fun, or holes rather, in logic that was never fore mentioned. in fact, you're speaking on behalf of my counsel and falsely representing me. i never said ONCE that I was against whatever it is that you were babbling on about in the case of biological research.

Yup...I'm a grumpy kid. I'm uber cute, though...so it's all OK. I also happen to know a bit about how things operate out here in the real world.

If you think someone making a decently cool necklace out of a cool bug they found dead is on the same line as the holocaust (or chrome plating a live child), then obviously actually killing animals when there is an alternative way to keep them alive is far more ethically unsound. It's a logical deduction from your line of thinking. Nothing more. Chrome plating a dead insect requires absolutely no harm to the insect. It's systems are already non-functional. Therefore, shutting down those systems, to you, must logically be far more reprehensible.

You said you were against useless killing of whatever animals you thought were cute and fuzzy. However, your definition of 'needless killing' or 'sanctity of life' resembles that of a sanctimonius teenager who thinks the entire world should stop rotating if one insignifficant creature should get hurt.

All the examples I mentioned were all more morally reprehensible than somebody chrome plating a wasp after it was dead. Unlike the chrome wasp, these examples all involve killing the animals invovled in the example.

Biologists could just as easily anethesize the subjects and keep them in a zoo until they died. They don't because they need to preserve them the way they found them because some potentially important features quickly decay.

Museums display actual specimens (sometimes through taxidermy) and fossils and charge admission to get funding and keep their research going. Is this the same as chrome plating children?

If people would accept higher food prices and slightly less perfect food (if they don't mind the stray catterpillar, that is) and if they could just get used to rampant disease, we could do without pesticides.

If people didn't mind beng itchy, we could live alongside headlice, body lice and pubic lice without any problems.

Cockroaches are actually cleaner than cats. They bathe themselves once an hour with antibiotic compounds excreted in their saliva. A cockroach infestation is little more than an insult to our notion of cleanlieness. Tenting a house is unneccessary for a cockroach infestation.

If we didn't mind moving every few years, we could do without termite exterminators.

We could simply feed our carnivorus zoo animals tofu impregnated with vitamins.

Biological research is full of what you consider needless killing. Nature is full of what you consider needless killing. Things you consider needless killing of insects are the backbone of our society. To people in third world countries, your precious bugs are little more than a bit of extra protein.

Some people make a living catching bugs, mounting them and then selling them. It's the only way they can squeak by.

Now...granted, chances are the person in the OP isn't one of them but still...it's in the same vein as the things you're railing against.

You are going on a rant over what some random person does with a bug that was already dead long before they arrived and comparing it to infanticide.

Do you not see any logical, moral or ethical problems with that?

but that's cool, i understand if you want to flex your intellectual muscles against someone that could give a crap less, go ahead. all I've been doing is merely skipping through your posts and just going "uh huh, irrelevant. uh huh, yeah"

so please, just use your head. I'm arguing against chrome plating wasps. stop bringing all of this entymological, evolutionary biologist mumbo jumbo into the equation. it has no place here and isn't the cause at hand.

The only reason you're dismissing it is because you don't understand what you are saying or what I am pointing out.

 

[JMoran1097]

i think you're again, misinterpreting anything that I'm saying. i really don't feel like returning to your posts and quoting them and all that, I have class in a few minutes. you are a smart dude, use your head. there are plenty of instances that you are sticking me with and that is unadequate representation. you were putting words into my mouth and I've already explained dozens of times that they simply were not what I was trying to say, at all.

and to your first quote, no the point is not valid. if you bother to read anything that I've said about animal rights and moral obligation, many people are passionate about it. to dismiss it due to the fact that there are a few bad apples is completely ignorant in itself.

i'm almost positive that I'm the only animal rights advocate that sees both sides of the equation and the only one who stuck around to fight my fight. anyways, i really don't care to argue about this anymore. it's mentally taxing.

 

[Stylopidae]

Everything in bold is my emphasis.

again, I'm not arguing against ACCIDENTAL killing, but rather purposeful killing. it's pretty obvious what i was differentiating between.

Again...all the things I mentioned were purposeful killing. What I said about animals killed on purpose in a daily basis fit in exactly with what you said.

You didn't explicitly say that pesticides didn't offend you, but you railed against 'purposeful killing'...and this is a very wide spectrum. Pesticides are one aspect.

first off, speciest is a term the has been around since the 70's with the emergence of peter singer's philosophy as described in "animal liberation."

Secondly, I dont see how we can even put human life on a scale of any sort. Just because we're capable of so much, doesnt mean we have the right to mindlessly and purposely kill a life form for a decoration. I mean, this argument would be said and done if we were discussing a pet dog, but instead inverts apparently dont have feelings, therefore its compleately ok. I mean, give me a freaking break. No one is arguing that t's dont have feelings or whatever, but instead trying to inteduce the nonsensical practice of jewlery making from live, fresh killed arthropoda. Its lame, tacky, and idiotic to defend this practice, but condemn dogs being abused.

Secondly...I pointed out the problems with the term 'speciest' in accurately describing just about damn near anything. It's not used by anyone outside the the so-called 'animal rights' movement...and even within the animal rights movement it's used as a cheap tie to racism. A transparent emotional tactic and nothing more. It's not used by sociologists or biologists and it's in not in any widely used dictionaries as far as I can tell from the three I have sitting on my desk.

Again...my museum example fits in with this exactly how you said.

Here, you are ignoring the fact that the wasp was already dead. This is a logical fallacy...you are comparing two things which are not comperable in an attempt at emotional manipulation.

Many people taxidermy their pets and put them on display after their death. There is nothing morally reprehensible about this...it's a bit creepy, perhaps...but there's nothing morally wrong with it.

Stop denying your own words.

Although I do have to apologize for one accidental misrepresentation...the chrome plated child thing was Jayzen Boyget. Not you.

Either way...the argument still stands on both fronts although I just kind of lumped two people in this thread together unintentionally. This is similar to what museums do. The wasp was already dead, therefore it cannot be cruel by definition.

 

[JMoran1097]

PM sent to chesire. I don't think this thread should carry on any further.

 

[357wheelgunner]

in closing, that's the point, or points rather, i've been trying to make. i don't know why this topic got out of hand, but it certainly made me want to drive more people off a cliff before I die.

Wow that's serious business

 

[357wheelgunner]

PM sent to chesire. I don't think this thread should carry on any further.

I would to if I shoved my foot as far into my mouth as you have in this thread.

 

[JMoran1097]

i didn't shove my foot into my mouth at all. in fact, my foot was more or less forced into my own mouth by people targeting me with false accusations.

 

[357wheelgunner]

i didn't shove my foot into my mouth at all. in fact, my foot was more or less forced into my own mouth by people targeting me with false accusations.

Keep telling yourself that, what matters in a debate is how right you feel :?

edited to add:

I shouldn't be like that.

What bothers me is when people say something in a public forum, then ask for it to be closed because they don't like the outcome.

I had a teacher in college who ended class 20 minutes early because I debated her into a corner, I guess it traumatized me for life.....

 

[Mister Internet]

in closing, that's the point, or points rather, i've been trying to make. i don't know why this topic got out of hand, but it certainly made me want to drive more people off a cliff before I die.

Good God, you're a hostile individual when you get going, aren't you? Preferring to debate something based on emotion is one thing, but when you just wallow around in your emotion, you make these crazy outbursts, get into a discussion you can't reason your way through, and then take your ball and go home.

I can understand that you don't want to use logic or reason... most people don't. It means they have to be able to give a good reason for their opinions, and most people only want to have opinions as a matter of identity, not principle. It seem you would rather identify yourself as an "animal rights person" than have a moral principle that's rationally sound on which to base their worldview.

But geez, don't come into a discussion with both guns blazing if you're not going to allow SOME logic to enter the discussion.... it seems it usually ends with you wanting to kill a bunch of people... I'm not sure why you're so hostile. If it's really no big deal, like you said, then be chill...

 

[pinkfoot]

My parahybana male went without food for nearly 1½ years, ate one roach and went on another 6 months fast. So how many roaches were saved by him not eating? Is he a good boy for not eating more than he really really needed to, in order to hang on to life?

ROFL!

 

[Aztek]

They're just bugs.

 

[auroborus]

wow, im surprised how long this forum is. Granted I didn't have to to read it all, some people were more long winded than others so sorry if I'm about to repeat something. I think that killing a creature just to be jewelry or for show is wrong, but if the bug is dying or dead already then its a lot more acceptable. It all depends on how each one of us as raised, that will determine our response to this thread. Someone used to killing, say a farmer thats used to killing his own chickens for food is more likely to be ok with it than a city boy who has never dealt with death.

BTW has no one fed a spider, mantis, snake, etc, just for the entertainment of watching them catch and eat the prey? Isn't that a little sick and yet I've done it myself many times.

 

[Draiman]

Obviously, it is morally wrong to extinguish a life simply for the perpetrator's amusement. It doesn't matter how miniscule that life is.