# Some Sick Ppl Out There



## SouthBelfastRed (May 8, 2008)

http://www.redcafe.net/f8/chromed-wasps-201237/

SICK GUY, WHAT A CRUEL THING TO DO


----------



## Drachenjager (May 8, 2008)

this has absolutely nothing to do with tarantulas.


----------



## SouthBelfastRed (May 8, 2008)

Sry Wrong Forum Lol

I'm Sorry


----------



## Mister Internet (May 8, 2008)

Oh for God's sake... THEY ARE DEAD, THIS CANNOT BE CRUEL BY DEFINITION.

I often wonder what the world would be like if people put half the energy they spend on being pissed at others into doing something productive for their fellow man.

BTW, this is getting moved to Insects.


----------



## Scorpendra (May 8, 2008)

i haven't clicked in yet, but i assume it's chrome-plating dead waps?

sounds like the hottest new jewlery fad, if you ask me.


----------



## JMoran1097 (May 8, 2008)

Mister Internet said:


> Oh for God's sake... THEY ARE DEAD, THIS CANNOT BE CRUEL BY DEFINITION.
> 
> I often wonder what the world would be like if people put half the energy they spend on being pissed at others into doing something productive for their fellow man.
> 
> BTW, this is getting moved to Insects.


so if you gas them, as the instructions mentioned, that isn't cruel somehow?


----------



## JMoran1097 (May 8, 2008)

Molitor said:


> i haven't clicked in yet, but i assume it's chrome-plating dead waps?
> 
> sounds like the hottest new jewlery fad, if you ask me.


haha yeah if we were all living in Rome as patricians.


----------



## What (May 8, 2008)

JMoran1097 said:


> so if you gas them, as the instructions mentioned, that isn't cruel somehow?


I doubt if anything done to kill an insect can really be thought of as cruel. Besides, it isnt like specimens that are collected for use as type specimens are killed with a killing jar that has nail polish remover to asphyxiate the insects(or even directly placed in alcohol)...


----------



## Mister Internet (May 8, 2008)

JMoran1097 said:


> so if you gas them, as the instructions mentioned, that isn't cruel somehow?


Correct.  Its impossible to do anything "cruel" to an organism that is incapable of appreciating it as such.  "Cruel" is a human word that means something quite specific.  It would be like asking if it's ok to be verbally abusive to wasps... it doesn't matter, because it's impossible for a wasp to conceive of abuse, verbal or otherwise, and therefore impossible for it to appreciate itself *being* abused at all.  The premise, and consequently the question, fly right out the window.

You can try to make an argument as to whether it is "moral", or "justifiable", or "defensible", but not "cruel".


----------



## Scorpendra (May 8, 2008)

i like wasps, but i don't see how it's worse than exerminating them for the sake of having them gone.


----------



## Drachenjager (May 8, 2008)

JMoran1097 said:


> so if you gas them, as the instructions mentioned, that isn't cruel somehow?


better than raid probably


----------



## JMoran1097 (May 8, 2008)

Mister Internet said:


> Correct.  Its impossible to do anything "cruel" to an organism that is incapable of appreciating it as such.  "Cruel" is a human word that means something quite specific.  It would be like asking if it's ok to be verbally abusive to wasps... it doesn't matter, because it's impossible for a wasp to conceive of abuse, verbal or otherwise, and therefore impossible for it to appreciate itself *being* abused at all.  The premise, and consequently the question, fly right out the window.
> 
> You can try to make an argument as to whether it is "moral", or "justifiable", or "defensible", but not "cruel".


taking a wasp's life for a novelty decoration is pretty tacky and wasteful.  i think you're skipping the point and i'm not about to get into a war of words with you, but that's just my 2 cents.


----------



## What (May 8, 2008)

JMoran1097 said:


> taking a wasp's life for a novelty decoration is pretty tacky and wasteful.  i think you're skipping the point and i'm not about to get into a war of words with you, but that's just my 2 cents.


JMoran, do you keep any WC inverts? Or own anything made of wood? Live in a house? Keep invertebrates?


----------



## JMoran1097 (May 8, 2008)

What said:


> JMoran, do you keep any WC inverts? Or own anything made of wood? Live in a house? Keep invertebrates?


no.  yes. yes. yes.


let me guess, you're going to take the typical "oh well you're killing a million bugs by living in a house"  when clearly I'm arguing a method of choice.

logically and purposely killing wasps to make them a decoration...how isn't this wrong?


----------



## Choobaine (May 8, 2008)

I quite like how it looks, personally. There's absolutely nothing wrong with it unless you are harvesting them in a fashion that harms the environment. I have roach broaches and Tenebrio neclaces (in teh works, will show anyone interested when done!) and I'd simply love to wear wasps too! 

I eat bugs, keep them, study them, wear them. Ain't a thing wrong with that.


----------



## What (May 8, 2008)

JMoran1097 said:


> let me guess, you're going to take the typical "oh well you're killing a million bugs by living in a house"  when clearly I'm arguing a method of choice.


Actually I was going to say that by living in a house you are killing many trees, same for owning things made of wood. As for the inverts, where do you think the original specimens came from? Those were probably collected as 'pets' which in the case of inverts are mostly 'decoration'.

Also, do you freak out over the traps that kill hornets and yellow jackets? How about pesticides in gardens? On yards?  Do you ever waste feeder insects? 

What about the bugs that splatter on windshields? Do those make you mad? Have you stopped driving because you hit bugs? Surely you have killed more bugs driving in the past year than have been effected by that post in a forum.


----------



## JMoran1097 (May 8, 2008)

What said:


> Actually I was going to say that by living in a house you are killing many trees, same for owning things made of wood. As for the inverts, where do you think the original specimens came from? Those were probably collected as 'pets' which in the case of inverts are mostly 'decoration'.


name a reasonable alternative to wood then.  oh yeah, because I can't think of any that won't somehow disrupt the environmental balance of anything.  again, this is reasonable in order to sustain my life.  in the wild, would my shelter be made out of plastic or something?



> Also, do you freak out over the traps that kill hornets and yellow jackets? How about pesticides in gardens? On yards?  Do you ever waste feeder insects?


i don't "freak out," but I certainly find it ridiculous to expend an insect's life for some decoration as I've already stated multiple times.  



> What about the bugs that splatter on windshields? Do those make you mad? Have you stopped driving because you hit bugs? Surely you have killed more bugs driving in the past year than have been effected by that post in a forum.


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


----------



## JMoran1097 (May 8, 2008)

look, i don't want to make this bigger than what it really is.  bottom line, i'm borderline-"hippyish."  i respect everyone's input on this.  

alas, chrome wasps aren't my thing hahaha


----------



## arachnocat (May 8, 2008)

That's actually kind of a neat idea.
My Mom used to work at an electronic assembly company. They would get bored and gold plate bugs. The gold plated potato bug was the coolest but it fell apart after a while.


----------



## What (May 8, 2008)

JMoran1097 said:


> i don't "freak out," but I certainly find it ridiculous to expend an insect's life for some decoration as I've already stated multiple times.


How is a decoration any more petty than driving from place to place? There are other modes of transportation that would reduce your impact on insect populations. At least the things being killed for the decoration arent just discarded(like with the things on your windshield).


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


Can it really be an accident? I mean you are purposefully driving from one place to another, and you certainly dont swerve to miss them so how exactly is it accidental?


----------



## tigger_my_T. (May 8, 2008)

well thats a dumb hobby, I mean come on! Why?!


----------



## vvx (May 8, 2008)

Can anyone help me out with a vegan substitute for crickets/roaches to feed my tarantulas?


----------



## Matt K (May 8, 2008)

vvx said:


> Can anyone help me out with a vegan substitute for crickets/roaches to feed my tarantulas?


I was going to suggest taking some TVP (textured vegetable protein) and shaping it into little one-inch sausage shapes to simulate crickets... squash them a bit and you have a roach, roll them out a bit and its a waxworm....


----------



## JMoran1097 (May 9, 2008)

vvx said:


> Can anyone help me out with a vegan substitute for crickets/roaches to feed my tarantulas?


well we have proof that they have taken peas before.


----------



## JMoran1097 (May 9, 2008)

What said:


> How is a decoration any more petty than driving from place to place? There are other modes of transportation that would reduce your impact on insect populations. At least the things being killed for the decoration arent just discarded(like with the things on your windshield).
> 
> Can it really be an accident? I mean you are purposefully driving from one place to another, and you certainly dont swerve to miss them so how exactly is it accidental?


um...you're missing my point again, completely.  realistically you aren't showing a shred of evidence that disproves what i've been trying to say all along.


----------



## tigger_my_T. (May 9, 2008)

vvx said:


> Can anyone help me out with a vegan substitute for crickets/roaches to feed my tarantulas?


That would be way to cool.


----------



## JMoran1097 (May 9, 2008)

honestly though, just a side question, are there any other vegans in here beside me?


----------



## What (May 9, 2008)

Please dont try to switch a T to a 'vegan' diet.... That would most definitely be more cruel that anything that has been done to the wasps. 

And no, I didnt miss your point. I am showing that no matter how much you want to complain that it is cruelty you do far worse *everyday*.


----------



## JMoran1097 (May 9, 2008)

when did i ever acknowledge that I was somehow a saint?  

yes you are missing my point when you give me obvious information that is completely irrelevant to what I'm arguing against.


----------



## What (May 9, 2008)

JMoran1097 said:


> when did i ever acknowledge that I was somehow a saint?
> 
> yes you are missing my point when you give me obvious information that is completely irrelevant to what I'm arguing against.


You know what... I give up, you are obviously choosing to believe that what you do is soo much different that what happens with the wasps you are soo concerned about.

Im done. Between you and cjm1991 I have witnessed more ignorance in the past couple days than ever before on AB this is _exactly_ the reason I dont read the T section very often.


----------



## 357wheelgunner (May 9, 2008)

I have no pity for wasps.

The day they stop crawling into my pants while hanging outside to dry is the day that I start caring if some guy chrome plates a few of them to decorate his house with.

Seriously, there are plenty of the things in the world, a few less won't make any difference.


----------



## Cirith Ungol (May 9, 2008)

So, where is a picture of said wasp? I wanna see it!


----------



## verry_sweet (May 9, 2008)

I have a big P. pederseni in the freezer and I’m so gona try this over the weekend.


----------



## JMoran1097 (May 9, 2008)

What said:


> You know what... I give up, you are obviously choosing to believe that what you do is soo much different that what happens with the wasps you are soo concerned about.
> 
> Im done. Between you and cjm1991 I have witnessed more ignorance in the past couple days than ever before on AB this is _exactly_ the reason I dont read the T section very often.


so now Im ignorant? Dont get bent out of shape, sheesh


----------



## 8ballphoenix (May 10, 2008)

What said:


> JMoran, do you keep any WC inverts? Or own anything made of wood? Live in a house? Keep invertebrates?


Maybe we should continue this absurd list: Do you use a toilet? Do you wipe? Do you eat? Do you bathe? Flushing uses up valuable water and you know toilet paper is made from trees and in bathing you are probably washing off and drowning all those little critters the live and die on your skin... 

Don't you know having a conscience is uncool? Ethics are made to be broken or manipulated so that we can all sleep easy. 

Sure people here will ride someone until they cry for there mommy for having bark in their tanks but don't you dare imply anything about the emotional or psychological well being of a T. They will be on here politely following the rules as they correct from here to eternity. And they love Ts, unlike wasps. 

Has anyone stopped to think that we should not be cruel to things because we as humans are suppose to know better?  In what was is chrome plating wasps, not comodofing life? Isn't it bad enough that if everyone else in the world tried to maintain the unrealistic and greedy standard of living that we have in the united states it would take something like three earths to substaine us, that people can sit here and compare driving a car and living in a house to the use toxic chemicals to kill creatures before dipping them in metal to make horrid jewelry? :? Come on, wake up, try to make "human" a good word instead of a nasty one. Today, I'd rather someone call me a dung beetle than be called human.


----------



## Choobaine (May 10, 2008)

mole hill
mountain

that's all I really need to say.
common sense tells me to leave it at that because the subject is a wasp, not even plural here, a... wasp. yes. we are arguing about a wasp. 

trivial AND subjective. 

even if it was plural, see above.


----------



## JayzunBoget (May 10, 2008)

Choobaine said:


> mole hill
> mountain
> 
> that's all I really need to say.
> ...


...and if it were a _*tarantula*_ that someone had done this to? Or even plural, Say someone had a rosie lay a whole sac of unwanted slings and someone was doing this to *them*, would it be any different? Would you want one?
I will have to admit to not caring enough about the wasp. I've committed a few sensless wasp murders in my time, and I will prob'ly do it again, someday.
That doesn't make it right. There is an inherent difference beween the (replace accidental with) unintentional deaths that we cause everyday by doing all manner of activities from driving across town and bug mashing with a winshield to just breathing, using toilet paper or bathing, and the intentional destruction of an animal for our amusement.
Perhaps the wasp does not merit any basic respect for it's right to exist. Again, I have not afforded them much of this myself. But that doesn't make it right.
At what point does it matter? At what evolutionary rung of the ladder does an organism merit this respect? 
Shall we snuff and chrome birds? Rodents? Kittens? Or, perhaps as was mentioned on the linked page, small children?
Subjective? Yes. Trivial? Only to the exact same extent as watching a young child pull wings off flies.


----------



## Cirith Ungol (May 10, 2008)

JayzunBoget said:


> ...


Let me ask, do you think you really deserve a serious answer? If you do think that, then certainly the person with the difficulty of seing the differences between species is you first of all. Especially after trying to make it look as if someone else didn't know it... 

What's next? Are you gonna go kill people who kill insects? 

No I doubt it, but putting your extreme reaction into context it might just as well look like it. Simmer down man!


----------



## JayzunBoget (May 10, 2008)

Unfortunately, posting on the internet doesn't allow for much emotional context to clarify things. If I came of ranting and raving or certainly, suggesting that I should, 





Cirith Ungol said:


> kill people who kill insects?


 that certainly was not my intention nor my point of view.
I did feel that both the concept of killing for casual amusement or decoration and Choobaine's casual dismissal of any value to that life distasteful.
But I certainly did not mean to come down as condemning, even going so far as to point out my own shared guilt in this human flaw of Hubris.
My intention, by describing a more extreme situation was to increase the contrast, deepen the relief and draw it out to where it is more black and white.
Should we euthanise and chrome children? That is an absurd question that is very much rhetorical, if I was unclear. Is there, at the heart of the matter, a complete and total difference between the value of a human child and a wasp? Again absurd. But how about, let's fuzz the line a little here, a kitten? Fuzz the line some more, a rodent? A live tarantula? Those are the underlying questions that I was trying to pose.


Cirith Ungol said:


> Let me ask, do you think you really deserve a serious answer?


Yes, I do. If I have comported myself so poorly that you do not believe that my points deserve _*any*_ consideration, then please stand aside, as perhaps someone else may. I have never before been dismissed so casually, so out of hand as to be told to... 





Cirith Ungol said:


> Simmer down man!


And, if I have again come off as ranting or frothing at the mouth, I apologize. I am a bit offended by the snub tho. ;P


----------



## Cirith Ungol (May 10, 2008)

Good. Now it's all easier.  

I for one don't think that the matter of killing a wasp for chroming is worth that much consideration. It's not like I'd build up an industry arround it but instead in my case I'd just do it out of curiosity, even if it was a morbid kind of curiosity. But as hinted, I wouldn't go far with this or go out of my way.

I have no idea how much any life is worth. It depends on the circumstances. This is very much also a political question, (without trying to make this off topic) you could look at Burma right now where the relief packages for the disaster victims are simply confiscated by the military. How much is a life worth? Even a human life? Less than a few packages of food appearantly. But let's leave the rest of this train of thought for TWH, no need to derail this even further.

I don't see what kind of statment Choobaine made that riled you up like that. I don't see her casually dismissing any value, as you said, I think however that she regarded the treatment of the topic as being a bit over the top serious. Something I agree with.
Remember that chroming an arthropod is a novelty idea, thus many people might be curious about it, including me. It will lose its appeal soon enough, no need to worry.


----------



## 357wheelgunner (May 10, 2008)

My dog (german shepherd) at a half dozen or so wasps and bees already today, while sitting on the porch.  She's real good about protecting our daughter against any percieved threat.


----------



## JMoran1097 (May 10, 2008)

I'm glad to know there are others on board with me.  Jayzun made a great point : Being a speciest is the outright dumbest thing that others can attempt to justify.


----------



## hairmetalspider (May 10, 2008)

JMoran1097 said:


> no.  yes. yes. yes.
> 
> 
> let me guess, you're going to take the typical "oh well you're killing a million bugs by living in a house"  when clearly I'm arguing a method of choice.
> ...


I'm going to agree with you, particularly on the point if it being tacky.

I don't believe using the argument of an organism simply not being aware is a good enough one to use in the term of death.
But, truth is, there are people who are going to feel that way, and you're not going to convince them otherwise. (On a broader and I believe a more common scale, the same way some people see a 'dog' as a 'dog', and not a companion or pet as a lot do.)
Especially in these forums, sometimes you just have to let things go.
I agree with you but as said previously, it's not worth the war of words with those who cannot to listen, or rather, won't.


----------



## hairmetalspider (May 10, 2008)

JMoran1097 said:


> so now Im ignorant? Dont get bent out of shape, sheesh


Sometimes people just get angry when they don't understand...


----------



## Cirith Ungol (May 10, 2008)

This got me thinking, while there seems to be an eagerness to ascribe certain values to lives (which I refuse to do in this context, but some of you may find the following fun to think about)...

Most people on this board keep predatory pets. There is no question, in order to keep them alive you have to feed them with other animals. A T for example can be fed mealworms, roaches, mice, snakes, crickets, wasps, flies, maggots, fish, shrimp, superworms, frogs, beetles... the list is endless.

Now I wonder, is anyone here who is outraged at the wasp killing who has fed their T an invertabrate? Anyone here who has fed their T more than a bare minimum? Maybe because feeding the T was, (oh shock...!) fun?

Obviously the animal being fed, whatever its kind, will get nourishment from being fed, but if it wasn't conceivable that the animal was clearly hungry or in a real need of food at that time (which can be said for 95% of Ts at all times since the only time it may be seen as relatively important they eat, is after a shed) then feeding is more for your entertainment than out of necessity. 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?

Point being, I think a lot of people here are hypocritical about this subject. If you really are convinced that a single insect's life matters then see over your feeding habits for example. Think long and hard before you come to the conclusion that your T, scorp, snake, whatever really needs food and at what temperatures you keep them. Because if you are truely worried about this, you can make a whole lot of difference to a lot of insects and other animals by feeding less and by keeping your predatory pets at lower temperatures. And I'm not trying to make fun of anybody here who really cares that much. I'm absolutely OK with everybody who is truthful in his/her shock here, but if you arn't, you better stop your playground bickering.


----------



## GartenSpinnen (May 10, 2008)

Go cry about all the bugs you kill when you walk through you yard or drive your car down the road. I guarantee more are killed that way then people walking around catching them and spray painting them silver. I promise more "horrible" things go on in this world than bug painting, if you dont realize that then go join the Army. 
-Nate


----------



## Choobaine (May 10, 2008)

I am far far too intoximicated to make a coherent argument here but even through my haze I feel this is outrageous, people are getting upset over invert jewellry! 
oh dear me...

will reply when double vision clears...


----------



## JayzunBoget (May 10, 2008)

I'm not the Lorax for the wasps and I'm not trying to "save" anything. The wasps don't need me for that, they have their own strategy that seems to be working out for them just fine.
I was commenting on a speciest attitude that seemed (to me) to not afford any value whatsoever to this "lower life form". 
I tried to put this into a slightly different context to see if the outlook might be any different and I was asked if I even thought i deserved a serious answer at all.
Life seems to exist at the expense of other life up and down the food chain, I have no issue with this. But, even as I take life to sustain life, i afford even that sacrificial life a certain amount of respect.
And if (for those of you who believe so) there is really no difference between chrome plating wasps and feeding off crix, then I ask you, "how well would it fly on this board were I to suggest chrome plating a batch of rosie slings to sell for jewelry?"
Would you be first in line to buy one, or first in line with the torches and the pitchforks to condemn me?
Again, I'm not saying that killing off some wasps is the worst thing that you could ever do. *I have done it myself.* But never with the attitude that it was a casual entertainment. That, in my opinion is the moral equivalent of pulling wings off of flies. Now who among you would defend or dismiss that behavior?


----------



## Choobaine (May 10, 2008)

want my honest opinion? 
either way this is far far too trivial for me to care. it's a SILLY argument


if your rosie sling jewellry was well crafted and durable I'd happily invest.

if you were harming local populations of invertebrates through your actions I would not invest. 

I'm amazed we got this far.


----------



## Tleilaxu (May 10, 2008)

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.


----------



## JMoran1097 (May 10, 2008)

Choobaine said:


> I am far far too intoximicated to make a coherent argument here but even through my haze I feel this is outrageous, people are getting upset over invert jewellry!
> oh dear me...
> 
> will reply when double vision clears...


or maybe when you learn to follow a coherent argument.  i think all of this random popping up and making the claim that this is "only trivial" is unnecessary.

i mean, i don't know how you can disagree in the case of insect jewelery being an important issue to discuss.


----------



## JMoran1097 (May 10, 2008)

Cirith Ungol said:


> This got me thinking, while there seems to be an eagerness to ascribe certain values to lives (which I refuse to do in this context, but some of you may find the following fun to think about)...
> 
> Most people on this board keep predatory pets. There is no question, in order to keep them alive you have to feed them with other animals. A T for example can be fed mealworms, roaches, mice, snakes, crickets, wasps, flies, maggots, fish, shrimp, superworms, frogs, beetles... the list is endless.
> 
> ...


somewhere in this twisted array of wording, i got completely lost and off base with what you were trying to convey.  

re-iterate please.  this time, make it short and sweet


----------



## 8ballphoenix (May 10, 2008)

shammer4life said:


> Go cry about all the bugs you kill when you walk through you yard or drive your car down the road. I guarantee more are killed that way then people walking around catching them and spray painting them silver. I promise more "horrible" things go on in this world than bug painting, if you dont realize that then go join the Army.
> -Nate


Okay. 1) Why is it hard to distinguish between necessary killing and unnecessary? A car is for many people a necessity. They need it to get to and from work; they need to work for food, etc. So, they don't purposefully get into a car with the intent to kill a bug or some deer or a cat. Right? But some waking up one morning and deciding "hey lets go kill this creature to turn it into jewlery" is an unnecessary death. 2) There are more "horrible" things going on in the world go visit your local homeless shelter. There terrible tragedies of this world are all around us. Just because I have compassion for a bug doesn't mean I can't have compassion for human life. 3) I would hope that any one that has served in our arm forces knows the difference between necessary killing and unnecessary killing because thats the difference between a soldier and a murderer.


----------



## Mister Internet (May 11, 2008)

Is "speciest" actually a word now?  Like, for real?  I'm not going to use it, or ascribe it any validity, but it might actually help this discussion some to realize that there are people who actually think this way.

Also, a "senseless" bug killing is now a "murder"?

I'm getting very confused here... we're still talking about bugs, not people, right?


----------



## Mister Internet (May 11, 2008)

hairmetalspider said:


> Especially in these forums, sometimes you just have to let things go.
> I agree with you but as said previously, it's not worth the war of words with those who cannot to listen, or rather, won't.


.....orrrr maybe it's because of the exact attitude you displayed with this post, that you are somehow automatically morally superior, and those of us who have a different opinion do so only out of willful ignorance.

And you have the balls to call US arrogant?  Unbelieveble.  Who the heck gave you permission to have the moral high ground here?


----------



## Choobaine (May 11, 2008)

JMoran1097 said:


> or maybe when you learn to follow a coherent argument.  i think all of this random popping up and making the claim that this is "only trivial" is unnecessary.
> 
> i mean, i don't know how you can disagree in the case of insect jewelery being an important issue to discuss.


Er... I was coherant, brief perhaps, but certainly not beyond understanding. 

Never mind, I'll elaborate, but I find it kind of amusing that your very next post requests exactly the opposite (I understood what Cirith said perfectly by the way, I suggest you read it again until you get it). I have a feeling you wont be happy with post structure until you get what you want to hear.

Ok. Well why is this trivial? 
Were dealing with invertebrates. 

Is that not enough? Ok.
Invertebrates in general, including the majestic wasp, are incredibly successful creatures that have one key factor (among others) that we shall deal with on their side. 

Numbers. Yes. 

Wasps use numbers, the loss of an individual is no loss to the hive. Same with the loss of a few individuals, the hive will replace what's lost. 

If done carefully and considerately there will be no loss to the wasps.  


Now lets look at the moral aspect.

LOL there's a moral aspect. 
Hold on let me get my breath here.

Killing a bug does not lead to, and is certainly not the same as killing babies or ravens or whatever shatters your fuzzy little world, why oh why would anyone allow themsevles to be using such a rediculous comparison? It is NOT the same, the invertebrates are just that, INVERTS! 

Knowing better? What? You're kidding here right? Having an indoctrinated politically correct mindset does NOT put you on the high ground. 
Feeling that you have to impose your little attitude on everyone else (which you are, don't deny it, several of you have not just questioned, but outright complained about my views, that is a call for change) is hypocritical because you're telling OTHERS off rather than doing something about YOUR immideate situation (why not like... go out and make a change in the world instead of complaining here? go on! go make bird boxes and donate to shelters where it MATTERS). You do realise that a few other people wearing bugs will have no impact on your life and it is just moral richeousness to think that you have the right somehow, to tell us we are bad bad people for even thinking this. 

right lets get this Species thing adressed. political correctness of THIS kind may kill us. 

"animal companion A pet. This is the PC-preferred term, presumably  because the older one is thought to be condescending to animals, if not outright  animalist. Hence also, non-human companion and household non-human  animal. I cannot beleive that any of these acheived much penetration but who  knows. 'A person who beleives that men and women are more significant than the  rabbit or the mouse is liable to be accused of "speciesism". Even the word pet  is now frowned upon. President Bush was recently  publicly corrected for using it [instead of] "animal companion"' - The Daily  Telegraph (26 June 1991); 'Imagine the shift a children's tale would have to  undergo to rid itself of all offending elements. "It's raining nonhuman animal  companions," said Wendy and Mellisa's father' - Beard and Cerf, The Official  Politically Correct Dictionary and handbook (1992)."

This is the attitude you are showing. Outrageous. 


I hope this has highlighted to at least a degree (allthough common sense can do this for you) exactly why I find this entire topic trivial.

Thank you, come again.


----------



## JMoran1097 (May 11, 2008)

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.


----------



## JMoran1097 (May 11, 2008)

and yes, the morons in this thread just keep arguing in circles which is making you look foolish, not your opinions. And since when did anyone inroduce a pc aspect to this?


----------



## Cirith Ungol (May 11, 2008)

JayzunBoget said:


> ...


I wonder if you're putting on this show of the avatar because my previous post caught you with your pants down. You have surely not denied that its contents fit you, and putting down this much work into trying to tickle my emotions has with certainty its counterpart in your head, otherwise you wouldn't have done it. No problem though. It's quite a nice avatar  

Where do you draw the line? I sure don't know where you do. (If you do at all?!) In case you really think what you say, then appearantly killing a wasp for chrome plating is the same as the Nazi Holocaust to you. What can I do to bring to consistency to my life in this matter?
Would you let me chrome plate a dustmite? What if I plan my route, everywhere I go so I only go in as straight lines as possible, using as few steps as possible, then I won't step on anything unnessessily? What is better for the environment? Going on foot or using the bike so I don't crush invertebrates with my weight? What if I use a little less yeast when baking bread next time? Surely since every life is worth equally much, "speciest" I mean (did I use that right?) I could be saving loads of fungi there!

As I said before, I don't have a problem (emotionally or otherwise) with the people who disagree with me on this, but if you don't really mean what you say, then this topic can make you look pretty stupid if you only say all this stuff to put on a show of benignancy because you think someone else is expecting it off you or because you think it makes you look good. Do it and mean it... and I suspect not half of you are honest. You are just pissed off at me (amongst others) because this has become a bit of a right or wrong fight and now you think you have to defend your positions with your life. I don't think you can be angry with me for what I've said, I've not said anything unreasonable here at all. I have only asked you to be consistent and I have inquired if you are consistent in the feeding of your predatory pets by feeding them less. 

There is a branch in Buddhism I believe, where the monks walk brooming their path so that they don't accidentally step on an animal. I have nothing but respect for those people, but they don't come at me like rabid dogs attacking me for what I do or don't do. If you feel like the Buddhist way is your way, cool for you, I really respect that, but don't try and tell me that this wasp is important and then in the secrecy of your real life you don't follow up. If this is just a discussion you have ended up on the wrong side off, I strongly suggest you just better back off. (It looks better...)

And that goes for you too Moran.


----------



## Hedorah99 (May 11, 2008)

What this boils down to is, if you don't like it don't do it or buy one. I don't agree with needlessly killing anything to make jewelry out of it, so I don't do it and will most likely not buy one. The people comparing euthanizing a wasp to murder hopefully don't own ANYTHING made of any animal, but somehow I doubt that.


----------



## JayzunBoget (May 11, 2008)

*Try to pay attention this time.*

I am not trying to save the wasp.


JayzunBoget said:


> The wasps don't need me for that, they have their own strategy that seems to be working out for them just fine.


Like Choobaine said, they've got the numbers thing going pretty good.
What I am responding to is the _attitude_ of shock and outrage that these creatures could have some value worth more than the casual amusement of their extinction. If I saw a child stomping on ant for its own amusement, I would have the same reaction.
I don't think that either Choobaine, Cirith, or perhaps any of the people who've disparaged having any distaste for such behavior see how harsh and dismissive you have come off.


Choobaine said:


> ...I feel this is outrageous, people are getting upset over invert jewellry!





Choobaine said:


> trivial AND subjective.





Cirith Ungol said:


> Let me ask, do you think you really deserve a serious answer?





Choobaine said:


> It is NOT the same, the invertebrates are just that, INVERTS!


Again, this is not abut saving the wasp but the attitude that its life is so meaningless as to merit ridicule if one should stand up and say, "hey, that's not right."
Let's go back to the metaphor of the small child stomping on ants. They, also, are inverts. Would I be wrong in trying to stop him? Now what if the child were, instead, a bored adult waiting at a bus stop? I, myself, would have the balls to call him on his callous behavior.
How, then, is this any different?



Cirith Ungol said:


> I wonder if you're putting on this show of the avatar because my previous post caught you with your pants down. You have surely not denied that its contents fit you, and putting down this much work into trying to tickle my emotions has with certainty its counterpart in your head, otherwise you wouldn't have done it. No problem though. It's quite a nice avatar


Have you read anything that I have written? That's okay, you don't have to. Everything you have said in relationship to me suggests again and again that this is so. Caught me with my pants down? No. Dismissed everything that I had to say? Yes, quite thoroughly. Oh, well, the avatar has broken no ground, either, but at least it amuses the hell out of me. It is a nice avatar. It took me perhaps 30 seconds in photoshop to alter.
Oh, well. Attitudes don't rilly change in my experience. There are those of you who see the animal kingdom, or perhaps the lowest among it, as little more than playthings for the adult child. I don't sweep in front of me when I walk, I eat meat pretty much everyday, but I don't kill for idle amusement. I find those that do as well as those that condone such behavior distasteful.
That is the point that I have tried to make, throughout.


----------



## JayzunBoget (May 11, 2008)

I've been searching for the book with this picture in it since yesterday. This is Professor Sam Marshall, author of Barron's Tarantulas an Other Arachnids and possibly the worlds foremost authority on Theraphosa blondi. He is pictured here in French Guiana, where he travels twice a year to work on blondi population mapping. He is holding a large blondi that has been caught, killed and cast in resin as a tourist trinket.
Now please tell me what is wrong with that practice that is not wrong with spray painting wasps? 
I will admit, at the onset, that I myself have a much stronger reaction to this picture than the seeds of this particular thread. The latter inspires distaste and the former repugnance. But, at the heart of the matter, what's the differance. I've asked this all along.


Choobaine said:


> Ok. Well why is this trivial?
> Were dealing with invertebrates...Thank you, come again.


----------



## ShadowBlade (May 11, 2008)

JayzunBoget said:


> I will admit, at the onset, that I myself have a much stronger reaction to this picture than the seeds of this particular thread. The latter inspires distaste and the former repugnance. But, at the heart of the matter, what's the differance. I've asked this all along.


lol.. There is no difference. When I went to Ecuador and Peru for a trip, I brought back a nice big glass display of cool bugs.. and there was a _Pamphobeteous_ in it. I sure didn't lose any sleep over it, they kill them like wasps down there. eek: *oops, wrong example to use here.)

-Sean


----------



## JayzunBoget (May 11, 2008)

ShadowBlade said:


> lol.. There is no difference. When I went to Ecuador and Peru for a trip, I brought back a nice big glass display of cool bugs.. and there was a _Pamphobeteous_ in it. I sure didn't lose any sleep over it, they kill them like wasps down there. eek: *oops, wrong example to use here.)
> 
> -Sean


Actually, Sean, I think you used exactly the correct example to use here. That truly does sum it up and shed light on every aspect of this discussion. 
I thought that there was a difference, but I find myself outside the mainstream in so many things that I think. That post, I now think, typifies the prevailing mindset on this matter. 
If that is the case, there is no point in my arguing to the contrary. I give up, I fold. Think, consume, waste what you will. All of this will still go on, but without me. I still refuse that mindset, set of values.


----------



## ShadowBlade (May 11, 2008)

JayzunBoget said:


> If that is the case, there is no point in my arguing to the contrary. I give up, I fold. Think, consume, waste what you will. All of this will still go on, but without me. I still refuse that mindset, set of values.


Well, continue one in your belief you are so much above us morally, by not spray-painting wasps, (which _I'm not particularly advocating here_, just saying its not that big a deal). 

While you drive to work tomorrow and kill countless dragonflies, bees, wasps, mosquitoes, gnats, along with everyone else on the highway, *murdering* millions of bugs by the minute. Carry on, oh enlightened one...

I'll just keep on doing my quiet, reasonable respect for life, and not shouting out and acting so self-righteous when I see someone else committing a rather trivial act.

-Sean


----------



## JColt (May 11, 2008)

Sweet Jesus! I've seen less arguing over politics.

 And yes, speciest is a word but why argue over it? :wall:


----------



## Cirith Ungol (May 11, 2008)

JayzunBoget said:


> ...


Ok, here is what I reacted to: You said that the casual feel of some people's attitudes towards the topic was distasteful, that includes showing outrage at "*casual amusement*". Then you try to equate killing off a wasp with: 





			
				JayzunBoget said:
			
		

> Should we euthanise and chrome children?


Excuse me for reacting to your over-reaction! And then what? You're outraged at me and probably someone else because of our attitudes? You're putting words and phrases into our mouths that arn't even close to what was suggested.

I don't even know what to say about your comparisons. Let me ask, who hasn't read what? How did you know my attitude was equal to "casual amusement"? I sure didn't say "Chrome plating wasps is fun" or anything like it. 





> attitude that seemed (to me) to not afford any value whatsoever to this "lower life form".


 Not any value whatsoever? That's where you're wrong, because you're making it out to be a thing that is about "lower life form"s as a cathegory. But we're not talking about entire cathegories, we're talking about a single wasp. And as response to your recent posts, it's not about a chrome wasp tourist industry, it's about a single wasp. And what, in that context would 3, 4, 5 wasps do? Not much more. We're not talking thousands of wasps, or tens of thousands, but in keeping of the original topic we're talking about 1 wasp, *a* wasp.

You could say that this:





> there seems to be an eagerness to ascribe certain values to lives


 means something. However, if you go back you'll see I didn't ascribe ANY value at all to anything, neither positive nor negative. I stayed out of it. I don't know what you might have read that to be?

But no, I can't say a single wasp or other single insect from a relatively stable population gets me worked up that much if killed for no vital reason. But then you say you aren't out to save the wasp either. Meaning you don't really care about a single wasp either or did I get you wrong there?

Curiosity, I admitted to that much of a reason, but I'm curious because one of my backgrounds is as a metal worker and I'm really curious if chrome actually sticks to chitin. And no, if I felt I just had to test it (which you have no way of knowing if I actually do or not - just in case you're getting fired up for your next rant) and the only way of getting my hands on an insect to try it on, was to kill it, then I'd do it. But that *doesn't* mean I equate killing a wasp to euthanizing a child, just for the record, before anyone gets even more confused.



> There are those of you who see the animal kingdom, or perhaps the lowest among it, as little more than playthings for the adult child.


 You said that! That's your attitude, and it has been all along, from before my first response to you. What you are the most outraged at is not what people have said, but at what you started thinking they said. I don't see the animal kingdom as a plaything for anyone. But you said I (or should I say "you" or "we"?) do. I don't think it's worth losing sleep over the death of a wasp that gets chromed. It doesn't mean anything more than that. Doesn't mean I go pouring petrol on an ant hill, doesn't mean I torture wasps to death for my amusement. Or whatever it is you think. It sure as hell doesn't mean I or anyone else for that matter is indifferent to the death of a child, as you tried to suggest! Appearantly I have a problem understanding what you think, because on one side you really get quite fired up, and on the other you're not that bothered, because you're not out to save a wasp. What exactly are you out to do? Fighting an attitude that nobody has displayed, good work mate!


----------



## JMoran1097 (May 11, 2008)

wait, why was I told to back off, Crith Ungol?


----------



## JMoran1097 (May 11, 2008)

ShadowBlade said:


> Well, continue one in your belief you are so much above us morally, by not spray-painting wasps, (which _I'm not particularly advocating here_, just saying its not that big a deal).
> 
> While you drive to work tomorrow and kill countless dragonflies, bees, wasps, mosquitoes, gnats, along with everyone else on the highway, *murdering* millions of bugs by the minute. Carry on, oh enlightened one...
> 
> ...


FOR THE LAST TIME, jesus christ, this is NOT what the premise of the argument was, AT ALL!

i'm not going to reiterate myself because you need to go back and re-read.


----------



## ShadowBlade (May 11, 2008)

JMoran1097 said:


> FOR THE LAST TIME, jesus christ, this is NOT what the premise of the argument was, AT ALL!
> 
> i'm not going to reiterate myself because you need to go back and re-read.


Nice to meet you *JayzunBoget*. 

-Sean


----------



## JMoran1097 (May 11, 2008)

Jazun's demeanor is considered angry because?


----------



## Stylopidae (May 12, 2008)

JColt said:


> Sweet Jesus! I've seen less arguing over politics.
> 
> And yes, speciest is a word but why argue over it? :wall:


Not according to any of the three dictionaries I have at my desk...or dictionary.com.

I mean, really. It's such a stupid term. It has no usage in sociology or biology. The only people who use the term are animal rights activists who are generally idiots who will go as far as to ignore the biology of the animals they're trying to 'save'.

Are predators and parasites speciest?

What about herbivores? Or would they be kingdomist?

Are doctors who specialize in discovering new antibiotics domainist?

God...you guys argue over the dumbest crap. You know that?

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.

You're arguing over what someone does with a wasp that's already dead.

Some days, I am ashamed to be a part of the human race.


----------



## Stylopidae (May 12, 2008)

*I'll just grind this in...*



JMoran1097 said:


> and yes, the morons in this thread just keep arguing in circles which is making you look foolish, not your opinions. And since when did anyone inroduce a pc aspect to this?


As a future entomologist and an evolutionary biologist, I will be responsible for studying how insects become resistant to pesticides as well as how they adapt and speciate over time in response to changing environments.

I will use the information I gain from studying how insects do the things above to create new and imaginative ways to kill them.

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.

The people whose footsteps I am following have already killed billions.

However, the technologies I will help develop will save _billions_ of lives.

If chrome-plating a wasp that's already dead gets your waterworks going, then the Sterile Insect Technique will probably make you crap your pants and prepare your sandwich boards.

However the SIT, which involves the sterilization of millions insects at a time through exposure to Cobalt-60, alone is responsible for the eradication of sleeping sickness in some of the most impoverished nations in the world.

Just eliminating the disease has saved millions of lives...and because the disease no longer effects livestock (it's completely gone) beef production alone has at least doubled...preventing more human deaths from starvation.

Oh...and we used this technique to completely eradicate the screw-worm, saving the US beef industry about $200 million per year.

You know what?

I'm going to _love_ this job.


----------



## ironmonkey78 (May 12, 2008)

*wow*

I think this post went in a hundred different directions.  lots of overreactions on both sides of the argument. and after the first couple postings there really wasnt an argument.  just arguing. can't believe I actually read it. LOL. personally I would have been more P.O'd that she shoved them into the nintendo 64.  if you read other posts they actually have a link to this thread.


----------



## hairmetalspider (May 12, 2008)

Mister Internet said:


> .....orrrr maybe it's because of the exact attitude you displayed with this post, that you are somehow automatically morally superior, and those of us who have a different opinion do so only out of willful ignorance.
> 
> And you have the balls to call US arrogant?  Unbelieveble.  Who the heck gave you permission to have the moral high ground here?


It's a case and point. There are people who will not listen. Therefore, you're wasting your time trying to converse. It doesn't really matter what they believe in or who they are. 

Unless you like to argue with brick walls, I think people's time can be better spent. That's just me though.


----------



## hairmetalspider (May 12, 2008)

Hedorah99 said:


> What this boils down to is, if you don't like it don't do it or buy one. I don't agree with needlessly killing anything to make jewelry out of it, so I don't do it and will most likely not buy one. The people comparing euthanizing a wasp to murder hopefully don't own ANYTHING made of any animal, but somehow I doubt that.


Do people count? Because I'm from Wisconsin, and well...it just seems kind of customary here.


----------



## jpet (May 13, 2008)

hairmetalspider said:


> Do people count? Because I'm from Wisconsin, and well...it just seems kind of customary here.


An Ed Gein reference, now this post is complete;P


----------



## Stylopidae (May 13, 2008)

Mister Internet said:


> .....orrrr maybe it's because of the exact attitude you displayed with this post, that you are somehow automatically morally superior, and those of us who have a different opinion do so only out of willful ignorance.
> 
> And you have the balls to call US arrogant?  Unbelieveble.  Who the heck gave you permission to have the moral high ground here?


One thing I've noticed in these posts is that the people who get pissed off about things like this generally have no idea how the world works. Either that or they just don't think about anything at all. They're the ignorant ones...and often times, it's entertaining to watch. That is, until they start in with the Hitler refrences.

Half the people in this thread would consider my carreer description genocide, despite the fact that the stuff I hope to help develop one day will save billions of lives.

Oh, well...I'll just let the keyboard commandoes have thier fun while I laugh at their trivial moral high ground while knowing full well the very fact they're alive means they're responsible for the deaths of billions of insects.

I mean, seriously...does anyone honestly think that Jmoran...whatever the rest of his alias is...would actually speak out against someone stomping on an ant?


----------



## Pulk (May 13, 2008)

chesh, shouldn't your signature say 'trichotomy'?


----------



## Mister Internet (May 13, 2008)

Cheshire said:


> I mean, seriously...does anyone honestly think that Jmoran...whatever the rest of his alias is...would actually speak out against someone stomping on an ant?


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

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.


----------



## Heliamphora (May 13, 2008)

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 (May 13, 2008)

Mister Internet said:


> 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.



			
				Mister Internet said:
			
		

> 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...



Heliamphora said:


> 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 (May 13, 2008)

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 (May 13, 2008)

Cheshire said:


> 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.



Cheshire said:


> 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 (May 13, 2008)

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 (May 14, 2008)

Tleilaxu said:


> 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 (May 14, 2008)

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 (May 14, 2008)

JMoran1097 said:


> 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.



JMoran1097 said:


> 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 (May 14, 2008)

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 (May 14, 2008)

Everything in bold is my emphasis.



JMoran1097 said:


> 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.



JMoran1097 said:


> 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 (May 14, 2008)

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


----------



## 357wheelgunner (May 14, 2008)

JMoran1097 said:


> 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 (May 14, 2008)

JMoran1097 said:


> 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 (May 14, 2008)

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 (May 14, 2008)

JMoran1097 said:


> 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 (May 14, 2008)

JMoran1097 said:


> 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 (May 17, 2008)

Cirith Ungol said:


> 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 (Jun 6, 2008)

They're just bugs.


----------



## auroborus (Jun 7, 2008)

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 (Jun 9, 2008)

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


----------



## Scott C. (Jun 9, 2008)

ShadowBlade said:


> ....I'll just keep on doing my quiet, reasonable respect for life, and not shouting out and acting so self-righteous when I see someone else committing a rather trivial act.
> 
> -Sean


You are a fine young man Sean. There are a lot of older cats that would do well to follow your example... You ditch the 'rather trivial' in the above and it's even sweeter  


I won't be buying any dead bugs that aren't worthy of eating.


----------



## Scott C. (Jun 9, 2008)

Phark said:


> Obviously, it is morally wrong to extinguish a life simply for the perpetrator's amusement....


Goes against my code, but I don't think it's obvious... I don't wear a sign, or anything. 

This obvious universal morality thing I keep hearing about puts out so much more hurt than it's high bar allows for.


----------

