|
|
Which rights for which animals? (was: problem with this newsgroup)
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 13:34:46 -0500, "LarryLook" wrote:
The problem with this newsgroup is the following. The anti's here are under the assumptions: 1. That vegetarians don't think modern lifestyle kills anything. Some of us don't believe you're honestly too stupid to understand that you contribute to most of the same wildlife deaths that everyone else does. Some of us believe deep down you are actually aware of it, meaning that we think you lie to everyone else in your attempts to promote veg*nism, and possibly even lie to yourselves in order to reduce the discomfort of your cognitive dissonance which results from it. That's crazy. You are the ones who give the impression that you're too stupid to understand, so if anyone has that impression it is YOUR fault. As I pointed out above, some of us believe you are really more dishonest than you are stupid, though maybe not by much. I must kill and occassional ant driving to work. I admit it. So there. · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does. What they try to avoid are products which provide life (and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have to avoid the following items containing animal by-products in order to be successful: Tires, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides, Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen, Heparin, Insulin, Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides, Gelatin Capsules, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products, Plywood, Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane Wrap and Tape, Abrasives, Steel Ball Bearings 2. The anti's don't think we vegetarians care about numbers. But clearly the death of one animal is better than the death of 1000. It's not a hard concept. Here we see plowing: http://tinyurl.com/8fmxe and here harrowing: http://tinyurl.com/zqr2v both of which kill animals by crushing, mutilation, suffocation, and exposing them to predators. We can see that planting kills in similar ways: http://tinyurl.com/k6sku and death from herbicides and pesticides needs to be kept in mind: http://tinyurl.com/ew2j5 Harvesting kills of course by crushing and mutilation, and it also removes the surviving animals' food, and it exposes them to predators: http://tinyurl.com/otp5l In the case of rice there's additional killing as well caused by flooding: http://tinyurl.com/qhqx3 and later by draining and destroying the environment which developed as the result of the flooding: http://tinyurl.com/rc9m3 Cattle eating grass rarely if ever cause anywhere near as much suffering and death. · http://tinyurl.com/q7whm 3. They think we can not acknowledge that a clam's life is worth less than a horse. Well it is. Clearly a clam is less sentient and sapient. Let's get real here. You want me to value and ant over my dog??? "Theres no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. Theyre all animals." - Newkirk 4. They think a movement will start where former vegetarians and ethical eaters are going to start eating rare grass fed cows (as if they were ubiquitous) which produce loads of harmful methane, to cut down on the total numbers of deaths. They accept Stephen Davis' numbers blindly with no critical thinking. The meat industry provides life for the animals that it slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume animal products from animals they think are raised in decent ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by being vegan. From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. · What kind of movement are they talking about? One that provides decent lives for billions of livestock animals. Vegetarian for McDonalds? Obviously not since veg*nism does nothing to help any livestock, much less to provide decent lives for them. They know full well the more workable system is for vegetarians to be vegetarians, not search out grass fed cows. People who want to contribute to decent lives for livestock must do it by being more conscientious consumers of animal products. The can NOT do it by being veg*n. 5. Most of the anti's here aren't in favor of ethical eating and don't admit to finding ethical eating desirable or possible. So they are qualified for this discussion? Obviously people in favor of providing decent animal welfare for livestock are more qualified to discuss it than people who want to eliminate livestock instead. The gross misnomer "animal rights" would not provide better lives, longer lives, rights, or any life at all for domestic animals. The misnomer would ELIMINATE domestic animals which of course would make rights or even decent welfare for them impossible, since they would not exist. Since advocates of the misnomer contribute to almost all if not more wildlife deaths than other people do, we have no reason to believe they would provide rights for wildlife either. The biggest question associated with the misnomer is: Which rights for which animals??? |
Which rights for which animals? (was: problem with this newsgroup)
Rupert wrote:
On Nov 28, 11:22 am, dh@. wrote: On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 13:34:46 -0500, "LarryLook" wrote: The problem with this newsgroup is the following. The anti's here are under the assumptions: 1. That vegetarians don't think modern lifestyle kills anything. Some of us don't believe you're honestly too stupid to understand that you contribute to most of the same wildlife deaths that everyone else does. Some of us believe deep down you are actually aware of it, meaning that we think you lie to everyone else in your attempts to promote veg*nism, and possibly even lie to yourselves in order to reduce the discomfort of your cognitive dissonance which results from it. Did you listen to him? He acknowledged that deaths occur in order to support his lifestyle. Screams of the Vegetables by The Arrogant Worms http://www.arrogant-worms.com/ Listen up brothers and sisters, come hear my desperate tale. I speak of our friends of nature, trapped in the dirt like a jail. Vegetables live in oppression, served on our tables each night. This killing of veggies is madness, I say we take up the fight. Salads are only for murderers, coleslaw's a fascist regime. Don't think that they don't have feelings, just cause a radish can't scream. Chorus: I've heard the screams of the vegetables (scream, scream, scream) Watching their skins being peeled (having their insides revealed) Grated and steamed with no mercy (burning off calories) How do you think that feels (bet it hurts really bad) Carrot juice constitutes murder (and that's a real crime) Greenhouses prisons for slaves (let my vegetables go) It's time to stop all this gardening (it's dirty as hell) Let's call a spade a spade (is a spade is a spade is a spade) I saw a man eating celery, so I beat him black and blue. If he ever touches a sprout again, I'll bite him clean in two. I'm a political prisoner, trapped in a windowless cage. Cause I stopped the slaughter of turnips by killing five men in a rage I told the judge when he sentenced me, This is my finest hour, I'd kill those farmers again just to save one more cauliflower Chorus How low as people do we dare to stoop, Making young broccolis bleed in the soup? Untie your beans, uncage your tomatoes Let potted plants free, don't mash that potato! I've heard the screams of the vegetables (scream, scream, scream) Watching their skins being peeled (fates in the stirfry are sealed) Grated and steamed with no mercy (you fat gourmet slob) How do you think that feels? (leave them out in the field) Carrot juice constitutes murder (V8's genocide) Greenhouses prisons for slaves (yes, your composts are graves) It's time to stop all this gardening (take up macrame) Let's call a spade a spade (is a spade, is a spade, is a spade, is a spade..... |
Which rights for which animals? (was: problem with this newsgroup)
Rupert wrote:
On Dec 3, 4:11 am, Bob LeChevalier wrote: Rupert wrote: On Nov 28, 11:22 am, dh@. wrote: On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 13:34:46 -0500, "LarryLook" wrote: The problem with this newsgroup is the following. The anti's here are under the assumptions: 1. That vegetarians don't think modern lifestyle kills anything. Some of us don't believe you're honestly too stupid to understand that you contribute to most of the same wildlife deaths that everyone else does. Some of us believe deep down you are actually aware of it, meaning that we think you lie to everyone else in your attempts to promote veg*nism, and possibly even lie to yourselves in order to reduce the discomfort of your cognitive dissonance which results from it. Did you listen to him? He acknowledged that deaths occur in order to support his lifestyle. Screams of the Vegetables by The Arrogant Wormshttp://www.arrogant-worms.com/ Listen up brothers and sisters, come hear my desperate tale. I speak of our friends of nature, trapped in the dirt like a jail. Vegetables live in oppression, served on our tables each night. This killing of veggies is madness, I say we take up the fight. Salads are only for murderers, coleslaw's a fascist regime. Don't think that they don't have feelings, just cause a radish can't scream. Chorus: I've heard the screams of the vegetables (scream, scream, scream) Watching their skins being peeled (having their insides revealed) Grated and steamed with no mercy (burning off calories) How do you think that feels (bet it hurts really bad) Carrot juice constitutes murder (and that's a real crime) Greenhouses prisons for slaves (let my vegetables go) It's time to stop all this gardening (it's dirty as hell) Let's call a spade a spade (is a spade is a spade is a spade) I saw a man eating celery, so I beat him black and blue. If he ever touches a sprout again, I'll bite him clean in two. I'm a political prisoner, trapped in a windowless cage. Cause I stopped the slaughter of turnips by killing five men in a rage I told the judge when he sentenced me, This is my finest hour, I'd kill those farmers again just to save one more cauliflower Chorus How low as people do we dare to stoop, Making young broccolis bleed in the soup? Untie your beans, uncage your tomatoes Let potted plants free, don't mash that potato! I've heard the screams of the vegetables (scream, scream, scream) Watching their skins being peeled (fates in the stirfry are sealed) Grated and steamed with no mercy (you fat gourmet slob) How do you think that feels? (leave them out in the field) Carrot juice constitutes murder (V8's genocide) Greenhouses prisons for slaves (yes, your composts are graves) It's time to stop all this gardening (take up macrame) Let's call a spade a spade (is a spade, is a spade, is a spade, is a spade.....- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I hope, for your sake, that you are just having a joke and that you realize how stupid this is. The whole topic is a joke. When someone mentions "vegetarian" and "kill" in the same sentence, I think of that song, and I laugh. All ideologies are wrong. It is appropriate to laugh at them. Someone posts ideological discussion to the education newsgroups, and I will laugh at them (especially if they crosspost it to the dog and cat newsgroups) lojbab |
Which rights for which animals? (was: problem with this newsgroup)
"Bob LeChevalier" wrote in message ...
Rupert wrote: On Dec 3, 4:11 am, Bob LeChevalier wrote: Rupert wrote: On Nov 28, 11:22 am, dh@. wrote: On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 13:34:46 -0500, "LarryLook" wrote: The problem with this newsgroup is the following. The anti's here are under the assumptions: 1. That vegetarians don't think modern lifestyle kills anything. Some of us don't believe you're honestly too stupid to understand that you contribute to most of the same wildlife deaths that everyone else does. Some of us believe deep down you are actually aware of it, meaning that we think you lie to everyone else in your attempts to promote veg*nism, and possibly even lie to yourselves in order to reduce the discomfort of your cognitive dissonance which results from it. Did you listen to him? He acknowledged that deaths occur in order to support his lifestyle. Screams of the Vegetables by The Arrogant Wormshttp://www.arrogant-worms.com/ Listen up brothers and sisters, come hear my desperate tale. I speak of our friends of nature, trapped in the dirt like a jail. Vegetables live in oppression, served on our tables each night. This killing of veggies is madness, I say we take up the fight. Salads are only for murderers, coleslaw's a fascist regime. Don't think that they don't have feelings, just cause a radish can't scream. Chorus: I've heard the screams of the vegetables (scream, scream, scream) Watching their skins being peeled (having their insides revealed) Grated and steamed with no mercy (burning off calories) How do you think that feels (bet it hurts really bad) Carrot juice constitutes murder (and that's a real crime) Greenhouses prisons for slaves (let my vegetables go) It's time to stop all this gardening (it's dirty as hell) Let's call a spade a spade (is a spade is a spade is a spade) I saw a man eating celery, so I beat him black and blue. If he ever touches a sprout again, I'll bite him clean in two. I'm a political prisoner, trapped in a windowless cage. Cause I stopped the slaughter of turnips by killing five men in a rage I told the judge when he sentenced me, This is my finest hour, I'd kill those farmers again just to save one more cauliflower Chorus How low as people do we dare to stoop, Making young broccolis bleed in the soup? Untie your beans, uncage your tomatoes Let potted plants free, don't mash that potato! I've heard the screams of the vegetables (scream, scream, scream) Watching their skins being peeled (fates in the stirfry are sealed) Grated and steamed with no mercy (you fat gourmet slob) How do you think that feels? (leave them out in the field) Carrot juice constitutes murder (V8's genocide) Greenhouses prisons for slaves (yes, your composts are graves) It's time to stop all this gardening (take up macrame) Let's call a spade a spade (is a spade, is a spade, is a spade, is a spade.....- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I hope, for your sake, that you are just having a joke and that you realize how stupid this is. The whole topic is a joke. When someone mentions "vegetarian" and "kill" in the same sentence, I think of that song, and I laugh. All ideologies are wrong. It is appropriate to laugh at them. Someone posts ideological discussion to the education newsgroups, and I will laugh at them (especially if they crosspost it to the dog and cat newsgroups) lojbab Don't be so foolish. Think of this song, and cry. Meat Is Murder / The Smiths Heifer whines could be human cries Closer comes the screaming knife This beautiful creature must die This beautiful creature must die A death for no reason And death for no reason is murder And the flesh you so fancifully fry Is not succulent, tasty or kind Its death for no reason And death for no reason is murder And the calf that you carve with a smile Is murder And the turkey you festively slice Is murder Do you know how animals die ? Kitchen aromas arent very homely Its not comforting, cheery or kind Its sizzling blood and the unholy stench Of murder Its not natural, normal or kind The flesh you so fancifully fry The meat in your mouth As you savour the flavour Of murder No, no, no, its murder No, no, no, its murder Oh ... and who hears when animals cry ? |
Which rights for which animals? (was: problem with this newsgroup)
In article ,
"pearl" wrote: [SNIP] It[']s not natural Humans are omnivores, as evidenced by (among other things) the teeth and the intestines. So both eating meat and eating veggies are "natural". Whether or not eating meat is considered "ethical" is a whole 'nother kettle of fish (or fava beans). -- --------------------------- | BBB b \ Barbara at LivingHistory stop co stop uk | B B aa rrr b | | BBB a a r bbb | Quidquid latine dictum sit, | B B a a r b b | altum viditur. | BBB aa a r bbb | ----------------------------- |
Which rights for which animals? (was: problem with this newsgroup)
"Barb Knox" wrote in message ...
In article , "pearl" wrote: [SNIP] It[']s not natural Humans are omnivores, as evidenced by (among other things) the teeth and the intestines. So both eating meat and eating veggies are "natural". It's a very sorry state of affairs when 'we' don't even know what our natural dietary niche is. 'One of the most famous anatomists, Baron Cuvier, wrote: "The natural food of man, judging from his structure, appears to consist principally of the fruits, roots, and other succulent parts of vegetables. His hands afford every facility for gathering them; his short but moderately strong jaws on the other hand, and his canines being equal only in length to the other teeth, together with his tuberculated molars on the other, would scarcely permit him either to masticate herbage, or to devour flesh, were these condiments not previously prepared by cooking." The poet Shelley, in his essay, "A Vindication of a Natural Diet," wrote: "Comparative anatomy teaches us that man resembles the frugivorous animals in everything, the carnivorous in nothing... It is only by softening and disguising dead flesh by culinary preparation that it is rendered susceptible of mastication or digestion, and that the sight of its bloody juices and raw horror does not excite loathing and disgust... ... 'Linneaus, who introduced binomial nomenclature (naming plants and animals according to their physical structure) wrote: "Man's structure, external and internal, compared with that of other animals shows that fruit and succulent vegetables constitute his natural food." Dr. F.A. Pouchet, 19th century author of The Universe, wrote in his Pluralite' de la Race Humaine: "It has been truly said that Man is frugivorous. All the details of his intestinal canal, and above all his dentition, prove it in the most decided manner." Professor William Lawrence, FRS, in his lectures delivered at the Royal College of Surgeons in 1822, said: "The teeth of man have not the slightest resemblance to those of the carnivorous animals, excepting that their enamel is confined to the external surface. He possesses, indeed, teeth called canine; but they do not exceed the level of others, and are obviously unsuited to the purposes which the corresponding teeth execute in carnivorous animals. Thus we find, whether we consider the teeth and jaws, or the immediate instruments of digestion, that the human structure closely resembles that of the apes, all of whom, in their natural state, are completely herbivorous (frugivorous)." Professor Charles Bell, FRS, wrote in his 1829 work, Anatomy, Physiology, and Diseases of the Teeth: "It is, I think, not going too far to say that every fact connected with the human organisation goes to prove that man was originally formed a frugivorous animal. This opinion is derived principally from the formation of his teeth and digestive organs, as well as from the character of his skin and the general structure of his limbs." Professor Richard Owen, FRS, in his elaborate 1845 work, Odontography, wrote: "The apes and monkeys, whom man nearly resembles in his dentition, derive their staple food from fruits, grain, the kernels of nuts, and other forms in which the most sapid and nutritious tissues of the vegetable kingdom are elaborated; and the close resemblance between the quadrumanous and the human dentition shows that man was, from the beginning, adapted to eat the fruit of the tree of the garden." ... "Man, by nature, was never made to be a carnivorous animal," wrote John Ray, FRS, "nor is he armed for prey or rapine, with jagged and pointed teeth, and claws to rend and tear; but with gentle hands to gather fruit and vegetables, and with teeth to chew and eat them." According to Dr. Spenser Thompson, "No physiologist would dispute with those who maintain that men ought to have a vegetable diet." Dr. S.M. Whitaker, MRCS, LRCP, in Man's Natural Food: An Enquiry, concluded, "Comparative anatomy and physiology indicate fresh fruits and vegetables as the main food of man." More recently, William S. Collens and Gerald B. Dobkens concluded: "Examination of the dental structure of modern man reveals that he possesses all the features of a strictly herbivorous animal. While designed to subsist on vegetarian foods, he has perverted his dietary habits to accept food of the carnivore. It is postulated that man cannot handle carnivorous foods like the carnivore. Herein may lie the basis for the high incidence of arteriosclerotic disease." ...' http://www.all-creatures.org/murti/tsnhod-14.html 'Furthermore, William C. Roberts, M.D., Professor and Director of the Baylor University Medical Center, and Editor in Chief of the American Journal of Cardiology, stated in this peer-reviewed journal, Thus, although we think we are one and we act as if we are one, human beings are not natural carnivores. When we kill animals to eat them, they end up killing us because their flesh, which contains cholesterol and saturated fat, was never intended for human beings, who are natural herbivores.[11] ... [11] Roberts, William C. American Journal of Cardiology. Volume 66, P. 896. 1 Oct, 1990 . ...' http://animalliberationfront.com/Phi...f_property.htm 'There appears to be no threshold of plant-food enrichment or minimization of fat intake beyond which further disease prevention does not occur. These findings suggest that even small intakes of foods of animal origin are associated with significant increases in plasma cholesterol concentrations, which are associated, in turn, with significant increases in chronic degenerative disease mortality rates. - Campbell TC, Junshi C. Diet and chronic degenerative diseases: perspectives from China. Am J Clin Nutr 1994 May;59 (5 Suppl):1153S-1161S.' Whether or not eating meat is considered "ethical" is a whole 'nother kettle of fish (or fava beans). You are familiar with The Golden Rule? "Do unto others.... |
Which rights for which animals? (was: problem with this newsgroup)
Rupert wrote:
There are plenty of respectable arguments for ethical vegetarianism. All based on assumptions that are peculiar to the ethical vegetarian, and hence utterly meaningless to all the rest of us that reject those assumptions. You have given no evidence that you are aware of what they are. There are meaningless to me, so I have tuned them out. You are welcome to laugh at ethical vegetarianism if you want, I laugh at all isms. It's very interesting that you can dismiss a belief system purely on the grounds that it is "ideological". What's your definition of an ideology? The inherently flawed idea that a group of assumptions is Truth and that they can be systematically applied to real life. This usually ends up involving the redefinition of words from the meaning used by everyone else to some peculiar form that is a nice inside-joke for the True Believers. The redefinition of "murder" to include animals is one such redefinition, and it begs the question of why killing animals is murder, but not killing vegetables? Hence the song I posted. I apologize if your newsgroups have been polluted with a topic you don't regard as worthy of serious consideration. It was David Harrison who did that, for reasons best known to himself, not the ethical vegetarians. No apology is necessary. One merely had to look at the header lists to see that it wasn't serious discussion. lojbab |
Which rights for which animals? (was: problem with this newsgroup)
"Bob LeChevalier" wrote in message ...
The redefinition of "murder" to include animals is one such redefinition, 'murder ... v.tr. 1. To kill (another human) unlawfully. 2. To kill brutally or inhumanly. ... http://www.answers.com/murder&r=67 "The time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals as they now look on the murder of men." - Leonardo da Vinci, artist and scientist. |
Which rights for which animals? (was: problem with this newsgroup)
"Michael Gordge" wrote in message ... On Dec 4, 2:16 pm, Bob LeChevalier wrote: Rupert wrote: On Dec 3, 4:11 am, Bob LeChevalier wrote: Rupert wrote: On Nov 28, 11:22 am, dh@. wrote: On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 13:34:46 -0500, "LarryLook" wrote: The problem with this newsgroup is the following. The anti's here are under the assumptions: 1. That vegetarians don't think modern lifestyle kills anything. Some of us don't believe you're honestly too stupid to understand that you contribute to most of the same wildlife deaths that everyone else does. Some of us believe deep down you are actually aware of it, meaning that we think you lie to everyone else in your attempts to promote veg*nism, and possibly even lie to yourselves in order to reduce the discomfort of your cognitive dissonance which results from it. Did you listen to him? He acknowledged that deaths occur in order to support his lifestyle. Screams of the Vegetables by The Arrogant Wormshttp://www.arrogant-worms.com/ Listen up brothers and sisters, come hear my desperate tale. I speak of our friends of nature, trapped in the dirt like a jail. Vegetables live in oppression, served on our tables each night. This killing of veggies is madness, I say we take up the fight. Salads are only for murderers, coleslaw's a fascist regime. Don't think that they don't have feelings, just cause a radish can't scream. Chorus: I've heard the screams of the vegetables (scream, scream, scream) Watching their skins being peeled (having their insides revealed) Grated and steamed with no mercy (burning off calories) How do you think that feels (bet it hurts really bad) Carrot juice constitutes murder (and that's a real crime) Greenhouses prisons for slaves (let my vegetables go) It's time to stop all this gardening (it's dirty as hell) Let's call a spade a spade (is a spade is a spade is a spade) I saw a man eating celery, so I beat him black and blue. If he ever touches a sprout again, I'll bite him clean in two. I'm a political prisoner, trapped in a windowless cage. Cause I stopped the slaughter of turnips by killing five men in a rage I told the judge when he sentenced me, This is my finest hour, I'd kill those farmers again just to save one more cauliflower Chorus How low as people do we dare to stoop, Making young broccolis bleed in the soup? Untie your beans, uncage your tomatoes Let potted plants free, don't mash that potato! I've heard the screams of the vegetables (scream, scream, scream) Watching their skins being peeled (fates in the stirfry are sealed) Grated and steamed with no mercy (you fat gourmet slob) How do you think that feels? (leave them out in the field) Carrot juice constitutes murder (V8's genocide) Greenhouses prisons for slaves (yes, your composts are graves) It's time to stop all this gardening (take up macrame) Let's call a spade a spade (is a spade, is a spade, is a spade, is a spade.....- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I hope, for your sake, that you are just having a joke and that you realize how stupid this is. The whole topic is a joke. When someone mentions "vegetarian" and "kill" in the same sentence, I think of that song, and I laugh. All ideologies are wrong. It is appropriate to laugh at them. Someone posts ideological discussion to the education newsgroups, and I will laugh at them (especially if they crosspost it to the dog and cat newsgroups) lojbab- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I only ever eat vegetarian meat. Of course! For you'd starve if you were left to grow apples. Loser. MG |
Which rights for which animals? (was: problem with this newsgroup)
"pearl" wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" wrote in message ... The redefinition of "murder" to include animals is one such redefinition, 'murder .. v.tr. 1. To kill (another human) unlawfully. 2. To kill brutally or inhumanly. .. http://www.answers.com/murder&r=67 "The time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals as they now look on the murder of men." - Leonardo da Vinci, artist and scientist. So what excuses killing vegetables from this definition. What we do to prepare vegetables is at least as "brutal" as what we do to animals. Of course, it is hard to argue that killing plants or animals is "inhuman" since we've been doing it as a norm since we've existed as a species. lojbab |
Which rights for which animals? (was: problem with this newsgroup)
"Bob LeChevalier" wrote in message ...
"pearl" wrote: "Bob LeChevalier" wrote in message ... The redefinition of "murder" to include animals is one such redefinition, 'murder .. v.tr. 1. To kill (another human) unlawfully. 2. To kill brutally or inhumanly. .. http://www.answers.com/murder&r=67 "The time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals as they now look on the murder of men." - Leonardo da Vinci, artist and scientist. So what excuses killing vegetables from this definition. What we do to prepare vegetables is at least as "brutal" as what we do to animals. 'bru·tal (brut'l) adj. 1. Extremely ruthless or cruel. ... Causing sharp, often prolonged discomfort: ...' http://www.answers.com/brutal 'Do Plants Feel Pain ? No scientific evidence supports such a contention. For instance Ted W. Altar, Simon Fraser Univ. (plant molecular biology dept) Burnaby, Canada, wrote (Dec 18, '92): (http://tinyurl.com/35p983) "1. Our best science to date shows that plants lack any semblance of a central nervous system or any other system designed for such complex capacities as that of a conscious suffering from felt pain. 2. Plants simply have no evolutionary need to feel pain. Animals being mobile would benefit from the ability to sense pain; plants would not. Nature does not create gratuitously such complex capacities as that of feeling pain unless there should be some benefit for the organism's survival. With respect to all mammals, birds, and reptiles, we know that they possess a sufficiently complex neural structure to enable pain to be felt plus an evolutionary need for such consciously felt states. They possess complex and specialised organisations of tissues called sense organs. They also possess a specialised and complex structure for processing information and for centrally orchestrating appropriate behaviours in accordance with mental representations, integrations and reorganizations of that information. The proper attribution of felt pain in these animals is well-justified, but it is not for plants by any stretch of the imagination." ...' http://web.archive.org/web/200208290...article_43.htm Of course, it is hard to argue that killing plants or animals is "inhuman" 'in·hu·man adj. 1. Lacking kindness, pity, or compassion; cruel. ...' http://dictionary.reference.com/search?qinhuman since we've been doing it as a norm since we've existed as a species. 'In a position paper by the American Dietetic Association entitled "Position paper on the vegetarian approach to eating", the protein myth is indirectly addressed. In one section it is stated that "the A.D.A. recognizes that most of mankind for much of human history has subsisted on near-vegetarian diets. The vast majority of the population of the world today continues to eat vegetarian or semi- vegetarian diets..." ...' http://www.uga.edu/vegsoc/news1_2.html 'Ethnographic parallels with modern hunter-gatherer communities have been taken to show that the colder the climate, the greater the reliance on meat. There are sound biological and economic reasons for this, not least in the ready availability of large amounts of fat in arctic mammals. From this, it has been deduced that the humans of the glacial periods were primarily hunters, while plant foods were more important during the interglacials. ...' http://www.phancocks.pwp.blueyonder..../devensian.htm "Studies of frugivorous communities elsewhere suggest that dietary divergence is highest when preferred food (succulent fruit) is scarce, and that niche separation is clear only at such times (Gautier-Hion & Gautier 1979: Terborgh 1983). " Foraging profiles of sympatric lowland gorillas and chimpanzees in the Lopé Reserve, Gabon, p.179, Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences vol 334, 159-295, No. 1270. |
Which rights for which animals? (was: problem with this newsgroup)
In article ,
"pearl" wrote: [SNIP] With respect to all mammals, birds, and reptiles, we know that they possess a sufficiently complex neural structure to enable pain to be felt plus an evolutionary need for such consciously felt states. You avoided responding to this issue in a previous thread, so I'll try again: We agree that animals possess sensors for various dangerous stimuli (intense heat, cold, pressure, etc.), and that they are neurologically complex enough to consistently respond in ways to avoid such stimuli; BUT, the scientific state of the art is currently unable to tell us if they have any SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE analogous to our feelings of pain, or for that matter any subjective experience of anything at all. One could build a small mobile robot that senses and avoids extreme environmental conditions, but surely from seeing its purposeful behaviour you would not leap to the conclusion that it had "consciously felt states". Or would you? Note that I am not asserting that higher animals definitely lack subjective experience, but rather that our ignorance of the material underpinnings of subjective experience is so vast that we can not even begin to answer questions such which animals (if any) have "consciously felt states". Over to you. And please try to respond with your own thoughts, rather than another large cut-and-paste. [SNIP] -- --------------------------- | BBB b \ Barbara at LivingHistory stop co stop uk | B B aa rrr b | | BBB a a r bbb | Quidquid latine dictum sit, | B B a a r b b | altum viditur. | BBB aa a r bbb | ----------------------------- |
Which rights for which animals? (was: problem with this newsgroup)
"Barb Knox" wrote in message ...
In article , "pearl" wrote: [SNIP] With respect to all mammals, birds, and reptiles, we know that they possess a sufficiently complex neural structure to enable pain to be felt plus an evolutionary need for such consciously felt states. You avoided responding to this issue in a previous thread, But I did respond to this in a previous thread, and I reproduce that response - which _you_ avoided responding to - below. so I'll try again: We agree that animals possess sensors for various dangerous stimuli (intense heat, cold, pressure, etc.), and that they are neurologically complex enough to consistently respond in ways to avoid such stimuli; BUT, the scientific state of the art is currently unable to tell us if they have any SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE analogous to our feelings of pain, or for that matter any subjective experience of anything at all. One could build a small mobile robot that senses and avoids extreme environmental conditions, but surely from seeing its purposeful behaviour you would not leap to the conclusion that it had "consciously felt states". Or would you? Of course not. Your robot lacks a central nervous system, and life. Note that I am not asserting that higher animals definitely lack subjective experience, but rather that our ignorance of the material underpinnings of subjective experience is so vast that we can not even begin to answer questions such which animals (if any) have "consciously felt states". 'We address the question of pain perception in fish by first accepting the assumption that it is unlikely that the conscious perception of pain evolved to simply guide reactions to noxious events, or to provide an experiential dimension to accompany reflexes, but rather it allowed an organism to discriminate their environment in ways that permitted adaptive and flexible behaviour (Chandroo et al. 2004). The neural systems involved in nociception and pain perception, and the cognitive processes resulting in flexible behaviour function, probably evolved as an interactive dynamic system within the central nervous system (Chapman and Nakamura 1999). .........' http://www.aquanet.ca/English/resear...erspective.pdf 'Neurophysiologists have so far discovered no fundamental difference between the structure or functions of neurons in men and other animals."[19] Anthropomorphism he calls an obsolete straitjacket. After I read Griffin's book, my quest for a context into which an understanding of ocean mind might grow met with another stroke of luck. At the 1980 Conference on Cetacean Intelligence in Washington DC, I met psychologist Dr Michael Bossley of Magill University, South Australia. Later he sent me an extraordinary unpublished manuscript - his review of the scientific evidence for non-human mind, which was a global survey of formal research into cognitive ethology since Griffin had defined it. I read this with utter delight and suggested a title, Continuum, which Dr Bossley accepted. The implications of Bossley's survey could upset many. He insists that an entirely new ethical system is required, and presents compelling evidence for a continuity between human psychological processes and those of other life forms. He urges our species to climb down from its imaginary pedestal: 'Everything grades into everything else. We are part of the natural world.' Much of the research Bossley examines is recent and ongoing. For the most part it has appeared only in highly technical literature accessible to specialised academics. It may be several generations before the full implications are heeded. Like the Copernican and Darwinian revolutions, it could alter the way we view our place on this planet, how we treat other life forms and each other. Legitimate evidence that five vital aspects of being human can be traced to other animals exists in the published work of established scientists. In each of five chapters, Bossley summarises that evidence. ...' http://www.wadedoak.com/projectinterlock.htm 'Anthropocentrism By Penelope Smith Albert Einstein is quoted as saying, "A human being is part of the whole, called by us 'Universe', a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest, a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty." Many humans have an attitude that restricts their ability to understand or empathize with non-human animals and other life forms and has some serious consequences for all life on this planet. It is called anthropocentrism, or viewing man as the center or final aim of the universe. I refer to this in my book, Animal Talk, as the "human superiority complex" considering humans as superior to or the pinnacle of all forms of life. From the anthropocentric view, non- human beings that are most like human are usually considered more intelligent, for example, chimpanzees who learn to use sign language or dolphins who signal word or thought comprehension through touching electronic devices in their tanks. Animals or other life forms that don't express themselves in human ways by language or in terms easily comprehensible by common human standards are often considered less developed, inferior, more primitive or mechanistic, and usually of less importance than humans. This viewpoint has been used to justify using animals as objects for human ends. Since humans are the superior creatures, "dumb, unfeeling" non-humans can be disregarded, mistreated, subjugated, killed or whole species eliminated without much concern for their existence in itself, only their usefulness or lack of it to humankind. Many humans, as they see other animals are more like them in patterns of behavior and expression of intelligence, begin to respect them more and treat them with more regard for their rights. However, this does not transcend the trap of anthropocentrism. To increase harmony of life on Earth, all beings need to be regarded as worthy of respect, whether seen as different or similar to the human species. The anthropocentric view toward animals echoes the way in which many humans have discriminated against other humans because they were of different cultures, races, religions, or sexes. Regarding others as less intelligent or substandard has commonly been used to justify domination, cruelty or elimination of them. Too often people label what they don't understand as inferior, dumb, or to be avoided, without attempting to understand a different way of being. More enlightened humans look upon meeting people, things or animals that are different than themselves as opportunities to expand their understanding, share new realities, and become more whole. Anthropocentrism does not allow humans to bridge the artificial gap it creates. It leaves humans fragmented or alienated from much of their environment. We see the disastrous consequences of this in human disruption of the earth's ecology, causing the disintegration of health and harmony for all including human life. Anthropocentrism causes humans to misjudge animal intelligence and awareness. Humans can get too fixed in the view or model that they indeed are the center of and separate from the universe and therefore the most intelligent and aware. They then see or seek only to prove that point. Anthropocentric humans also tend to judge non-human animals according to human cultural standards, as human groups often do with other human cultures. Instead of viewing and evaluating animals according to the their own cultural experience, heredity, training and environment, they impose human environments, tests, standards and methods and evaluate animals, according to the ability to exhibit human-like behavior. This is similar to the bias that was found in college preparatory and intelligence tests, which caused anyone unfamiliar with a white middle class upbringing to score lower and therefore to be considered less intelligent. Individuals with different ethnic backgrounds could not comprehend the tests' frames of reference and therefore were not able to express their intelligence through them. When we respectfully regard animals as intelligent, sensitive fellow beings with whom we walk upon the Earth, our whole perspective of life changes. In cooperation instead of alienation, we can create a new balance and joy in living for all us here. Lets each of us do our part. http://animalliberty.com/animalliber...pe/pene-2.html Over to you. And please try to respond with your own thoughts, rather than another large cut-and-paste. Please try to stop being such a control freak. |
Which rights for which animals? (was: problem with this newsgroup)
Here's another "large cut-and-paste" for you, Barb.
'February 20, 2007 Is It Unscientific to Say that an Animal is Happy? A response to "Feelings Do Not a Science Make": Marian Stamp Dawkins' review of Jonathan Balcombe's book, Pleasurable Kingdom: Animals and the Nature of Feeling Good, Macmillan, 2006. BioScience Jan. 2007. Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 83-84. http://www.bioone.org/archive/0006-3...68-57-1-84.pdf By Karen Davis, PhD, President of United Poultry Concerns Many scientists willing to concede that birds and other animals can experience negative emotions such as fear, cry "anthropomorphism" and "sentimentality" if you dare to suggest that animals can experience happiness and pleasure, as well. Marian Stamp Dawkins, a professor of animal behavior in the Department of Zoology at the University of Oxford, who has done a lot of experimental research into "what hens want," scoffs at the presumption that the individuals of other species showing similar behavior to that of humans when eating, being touched by their companions, playing together, or having sex, enjoy the experience. She implies that people who believe that nonhuman animals have an evolved capacity to enjoy life have abandoned the rigorous intellectual standards that define the behaviorist science to which she subscribes. According to these standards, "the existence of conscious feelings cannot be tested empirically, and so the study of conscious emotions is outside the realm of science." Let us stipulate that there are dimensions of reality beyond science, just as there are scientific prospects that are beyond behaviorism. This said, there is a correlation in human life between things that we must do to survive and perpetuate ourselves and the pleasure we derive from doing these things. We have to eat to live, and eating is a primary pleasure in human life. We have to have sex in order to perpetuate our species, and sex is a primary pleasure in human life. We have to play in order to relieve tension - and (to risk tautology) enjoy ourselves. Why would it be more plausible, or plausible at all, to assume or conclude that other animals, engaging in the identical acts of eating, touching, playing together, and having sex that we do, have not been endowed by nature with the same incentives of pleasure and enjoyment to do the things that need to be done in order to survive and thrive? If we subscribe to the idea that we can never learn or make logical inferences about emotions, the same restriction applies to the emotions of human beings as well as to inferences about an animal's, or anyone's, fear. Why should we believe Marian Dawkins when she writes that Balcombe's book about animal pleasure left her with a "depressing feeling"? Why tell us about her feelings, which can't be proved? In addition, there are studies being done in which the pleasure centers in nonhuman animals' brains are stimulated in such a way as to encourage or compel the animal to seek to perpetuate the pleasurable feeling, as indicated by his or her behavioral response to the stimulus. Do I err in my recollection that science has identified areas of the brain in certain species of nonhuman animals that are responsible for feelings of pleasure in those species? Also, there is a standard of intellectual inquiry that calls for the simplest, most reasonable explanation of a given phenomenon. If I see sad body language such as drooping in one of our chickens, I conclude that the chicken is not feeling well and that this feeling probably reflects an adverse condition affecting the chicken. Conversely, if I see a chicken with her tail up, eating with gusto (pleasure!), eyes bright and alert, I conclude that her condition is good and that she feels happy. Why should I doubt these conclusions when the preponderance of evidence supports them? What I see in scientists like Marian Dawkins, who scold people for daring to infer (or to argue) that recognizable expressions of happiness in an animal most likely mean that the animal is feeling good, is stinginess, a niggardly attitude and a crabbed spirit hiding behind a guise of so-called objectivity and principled, never-ending doubt. Probably when a person views nonhuman animals mainly or entirely, for years, in laboratory settings that elicit little more than dullness and dread in the animals being manipulated for study, one loses one's sense of continuity with these "objects," while extrapolating the deadening anthropomorphic determinism of the laboratory environment to the entire world, excepting one's own professional culture. It could be that, over time, these circumstances have the effect of eroding the capacity for spontaneous happiness and pleasure in the behaviorist to such an extent that the behaviorist's own diminished emotional capacity becomes the scientific standard by which she or he judges everything else. When this happens, the so-called science is little more than self-massage, the scientist little more than a self-medicator, a self-referential system incapable of making a worthwhile contribution to life outside the institution. __ Karen Davis is the president and founder of United Poultry Concerns, a nonprofit organization that promotes the compassionate and respectful treatment of domestic fowl. For more information, visit: www.upc-online.org and www.upc-online.org/karenbio.htm. |
Which rights for which animals? (was: problem with this newsgroup)
Rupert wrote:
On Dec 5, 6:40 pm, Bob LeChevalier wrote: Rupert wrote: There are plenty of respectable arguments for ethical vegetarianism. All based on assumptions that are peculiar to the ethical vegetarian, and hence utterly meaningless to all the rest of us that reject those assumptions. No, actually, that's not right. It inherently must be right. Otherwise everyone else would be ethical vegetarians. We can have a serious discussion of these arguments if you want. I never have a serious discussion about ideology. You have given no evidence that you are aware of what they are. There are meaningless to me, so I have tuned them out. I don't think you've actually encountered the strongest arguments. That would require that people who have discussed the topic in my witness have avoided their strongest arguments, which strikes me as implausible. There are no arguments that I would consider, since I consider the subject to be silly. (Indeed, I consider the topic of ethics to be not subject to serious theoretical discussion - in order to make it theoretical, you have to make assumptions, and I reject unnecessary assumptions). You are welcome to laugh at ethical vegetarianism if you want, I laugh at all isms. Well, that's pretty silly. I'm glad you see the humor. It's very interesting that you can dismiss a belief system purely on the grounds that it is "ideological". What's your definition of an ideology? The inherently flawed idea that a group of assumptions is Truth and that they can be systematically applied to real life. This usually ends up involving the redefinition of words from the meaning used by everyone else to some peculiar form that is a nice inside-joke for the True Believers. The redefinition of "murder" to include animals is one such redefinition, and it begs the question of why killing animals is murder, but not killing vegetables? Hence the song I posted. Yes, well this really is incredibly stupid. The topic is, indeed. I don't much care what someone else eats. If they tell me what to eat (or tell me what to do in general) based on their personal choices of assumption, my *least* offensive response is to laugh. We can try to have a serious discussion about it if you like. I don't get the impression that you're interested. I'm not. I apologize if your newsgroups have been polluted with a topic you don't regard as worthy of serious consideration. It was David Harrison who did that, for reasons best known to himself, not the ethical vegetarians. No apology is necessary. One merely had to look at the header lists to see that it wasn't serious discussion. It is your contributions that are not serious. If you want serious philosophy (an oxymoron), stick to philosophy groups. If you post about vegetarianism and mention killing of animals on the education newsgroups, where the topic is almost invariably spam, then it will likely remind me of that song, which causes most anyone who doesn't take themselves too seriously to laugh. lojbab |
Which rights for which animals? (was: problem with this newsgroup)
On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 18:08:39 -0800 (PST), Rupert wrote:
On Nov 28, 11:22 am, dh@. wrote: On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 13:34:46 -0500, "LarryLook" wrote: The problem with this newsgroup is the following. The anti's here are under the assumptions: 1. That vegetarians don't think modern lifestyle kills anything. Some of us don't believe you're honestly too stupid to understand that you contribute to most of the same wildlife deaths that everyone else does. Some of us believe deep down you are actually aware of it, meaning that we think you lie to everyone else in your attempts to promote veg*nism, and possibly even lie to yourselves in order to reduce the discomfort of your cognitive dissonance which results from it. Did you listen to him? He acknowledged that deaths occur in order to support his lifestyle. That's crazy. You are the ones who give the impression that you're too stupid to understand, so if anyone has that impression it is YOUR fault. Show us a quote from him where he denied that deaths occur in order to support his lifestyle. Show us a quote from him acknowledging that he's aware of the deaths he contributes to. As I pointed out above, some of us believe you are really more dishonest than you are stupid, though maybe not by much. I must kill and occassional ant driving to work. I admit it. So there. · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does. What they try to avoid are products which provide life (and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have to avoid the following items containing animal by-products in order to be successful: Tires, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides, Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen, Heparin, Insulin, Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides, Gelatin Capsules, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products, Plywood, Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane Wrap and Tape, Abrasives, Steel Ball Bearings 2. The anti's don't think we vegetarians care about numbers. But clearly the death of one animal is better than the death of 1000. It's not a hard concept. Here we see plowing:http://tinyurl.com/8fmxe and here harrowing:http://tinyurl.com/zqr2v both of which kill animals by crushing, mutilation, suffocation, and exposing them to predators. We can see that planting kills in similar ways:http://tinyurl.com/k6sku and death from herbicides and pesticides needs to be kept in mind:http://tinyurl.com/ew2j5 Harvesting kills of course by crushing and mutilation, and it also removes the surviving animals' food, and it exposes them to predators:http://tinyurl.com/otp5l In the case of rice there's additional killing as well caused by flooding:http://tinyurl.com/qhqx3 and later by draining and destroying the environment which developed as the result of the flooding:http://tinyurl.com/rc9m3 Cattle eating grass rarely if ever cause anywhere near as much suffering and death. ·http://tinyurl.com/q7whm That statement requires more argument than a picture of some cows. Most beef on the market requires a lot of crop inputs. Not grass raised cattle And cattle suffer significantly when confined on intensive feedlots, According to the people I've known who have had experience around feedlots, cattle LIKE to eat grain all day. From personal experience I believe that is true, since if they get a chance cattle will eat themselves to death eating grain. and when being transported and slaughtered. If you think that ethical vegetarians could significantly reduce their contribution to suffering and death by including some grass-fed beef in their diets, you may or may not be right, but you've got to argue the point in more detail, and tell us which grass-fed beef you're talking about. A lot of beef labelled "grass-fed" is still grain-fed. __________________________________________________ _______ Grass (Forage) Fed Claim Comments and Responses By the close of the comment period for the December 30, 2002 notice, AMS received 369 comments concerning the grass (forage) fed claim from consumers, academia, trade and professional associations, national organic associations, consumer advocacy associations, meat product industries, and livestock producers. Only three comments received were in general support of the standard as originally proposed. Summaries of issues raised by commenters and AMS's responses follow. Grass (Forage) Definition and Percentage Comment: AMS received numerous comments suggesting the percentage of grass and forage in the standard be greater than the 80 percent originally proposed. Most comments suggested the standard be 100 percent grass or forage. Other comments recommended various levels of 90, 95, 98 and 99 percent grass and forage as the primary energy source. .. . . AMS determined the most appropriate way to integrate the grass (forage) fed claim into practical management systems and still maximize or keep the purest intent of grass and/or forage based diets was by changing the standard requirements to read that grass and/or forage shall be 99 percent or higher of the energy source for the lifetime of the animal. .. . . http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0509.txt ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ |
Which rights for which animals? (was: problem with this newsgroup)
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 13:19:13 -0000, "pearl" wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" wrote in message ... Rupert wrote: On Dec 3, 4:11 am, Bob LeChevalier wrote: Rupert wrote: On Nov 28, 11:22 am, dh@. wrote: On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 13:34:46 -0500, "LarryLook" wrote: The problem with this newsgroup is the following. The anti's here are under the assumptions: 1. That vegetarians don't think modern lifestyle kills anything. Some of us don't believe you're honestly too stupid to understand that you contribute to most of the same wildlife deaths that everyone else does. Some of us believe deep down you are actually aware of it, meaning that we think you lie to everyone else in your attempts to promote veg*nism, and possibly even lie to yourselves in order to reduce the discomfort of your cognitive dissonance which results from it. Did you listen to him? He acknowledged that deaths occur in order to support his lifestyle. Screams of the Vegetables by The Arrogant Wormshttp://www.arrogant-worms.com/ Listen up brothers and sisters, come hear my desperate tale. I speak of our friends of nature, trapped in the dirt like a jail. Vegetables live in oppression, served on our tables each night. This killing of veggies is madness, I say we take up the fight. Salads are only for murderers, coleslaw's a fascist regime. Don't think that they don't have feelings, just cause a radish can't scream. Chorus: I've heard the screams of the vegetables (scream, scream, scream) Watching their skins being peeled (having their insides revealed) Grated and steamed with no mercy (burning off calories) How do you think that feels (bet it hurts really bad) Carrot juice constitutes murder (and that's a real crime) Greenhouses prisons for slaves (let my vegetables go) It's time to stop all this gardening (it's dirty as hell) Let's call a spade a spade (is a spade is a spade is a spade) I saw a man eating celery, so I beat him black and blue. If he ever touches a sprout again, I'll bite him clean in two. I'm a political prisoner, trapped in a windowless cage. Cause I stopped the slaughter of turnips by killing five men in a rage I told the judge when he sentenced me, This is my finest hour, I'd kill those farmers again just to save one more cauliflower Chorus How low as people do we dare to stoop, Making young broccolis bleed in the soup? Untie your beans, uncage your tomatoes Let potted plants free, don't mash that potato! I've heard the screams of the vegetables (scream, scream, scream) Watching their skins being peeled (fates in the stirfry are sealed) Grated and steamed with no mercy (you fat gourmet slob) How do you think that feels? (leave them out in the field) Carrot juice constitutes murder (V8's genocide) Greenhouses prisons for slaves (yes, your composts are graves) It's time to stop all this gardening (take up macrame) Let's call a spade a spade (is a spade, is a spade, is a spade, is a spade.....- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I hope, for your sake, that you are just having a joke and that you realize how stupid this is. The whole topic is a joke. When someone mentions "vegetarian" and "kill" in the same sentence, I think of that song, and I laugh. All ideologies are wrong. It is appropriate to laugh at them. Someone posts ideological discussion to the education newsgroups, and I will laugh at them (especially if they crosspost it to the dog and cat newsgroups) lojbab Don't be so foolish. Think of this song, and cry. Meat Is Murder / The Smiths Heifer whines could be human cries Closer comes the screaming knife This beautiful creature must die This beautiful creature must die A death for no reason · Since the animals we raise for food would not be alive if we didn't raise them for that purpose, it's a distortion of reality not to take that fact into consideration whenever we think about the fact that the animals are going to be killed. The animals are not being cheated out of any part of their life by being raised for food, but instead they are experiencing whatever life they get as a result of it. · And death for no reason is murder And the flesh you so fancifully fry Is not succulent, tasty or kind Its death for no reason And death for no reason is murder And the calf that you carve with a smile Is murder And the turkey you festively slice Is murder · The meat industry includes habitats in which a small variety of animals are raised. The animals in those habitats, as those in any other, are completely dependant on them to not only sustain their lives, but they also depend on them to provide the pairing of sperm and egg that begins their particular existence. Those animals will only live if people continue to raise them for food. Animals that are born to other groups--such as wild animals, pets, performing animals, etc.--are completely different groups of animals. Regardless of how many or few animals are born to these other groups, the billions of animals which are raised for food will always be dependant on consumers for their existence. · Do you know how animals die ? Kitchen aromas arent very homely Its not comforting, cheery or kind Its sizzling blood and the unholy stench Of murder Its not natural, normal or kind The flesh you so fancifully fry The meat in your mouth As you savour the flavour Of murder No, no, no, its murder No, no, no, its murder Oh ... and who hears when animals cry ? · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does. What they try to avoid are products which provide life (and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have to avoid the following items containing animal by-products in order to be successful: Tires, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides, Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen, Heparin, Insulin, Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides, Gelatin Capsules, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products, Plywood, Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane Wrap and Tape, Abrasives, Steel Ball Bearings The meat industry provides life for the animals that it slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume animal products from animals they think are raised in decent ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by being vegan. From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. · |
Which rights for which animals? (was: problem with this newsgroup)
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 14:08:35 -0800 (PST), Michael Gordge wrote:
I only ever eat vegetarian meat. Don't forget that pigs and poultry are omnivorous. |
Which rights for which animals? (was: problem with this newsgroup)
Troll dh@. spammed in message ...
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 13:19:13 -0000, "pearl" wrote: .. Meat Is Murder / The Smiths Heifer whines could be human cries Closer comes the screaming knife This beautiful creature must die This beautiful creature must die A death for no reason · Since the animals we raise for food would not be alive "We don't raise cattle out of consideration for them either, but because they're fairly easy to raise.." David Harrison Sep 26 2005 http://tinyurl.com/qcp23 "obtaining meat and gravy are at least two reasons to promote life for farm animals" - dh@. 22 Mar 2006. From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE "Cattle are the scourge of the Earth." ................' http://www.wasteofthewest.com/Chapter6.html |
Which rights for which animals? (was: problem with this newsgroup)
Rupert wrote:
You don't have any reasonable grounds for saying this ethical issue is not worthy of serious discussion. No ethical issue is worthy of serious discussion without shared systematic assumptions about the ethical framework. "Shared systematic assumptions" = "ideology" There are no arguments that I would consider, since I consider the subject to be silly. (Indeed, I consider the topic of ethics to be not subject to serious theoretical discussion - in order to make it theoretical, you have to make assumptions, and I reject unnecessary assumptions). Well, that's completely absurd. You've never thought seriously about ethics. I've thought seriously enough to realize that thinking seriously about it is a waste of time. No, it's not true that you have to "make assumptions". Without assumptions, you cannot exercise logic. But logical thinking is only as good as the quality of the assumptions. If one assumption is actually false or even inaccurate, then the whole intellectual framework is meaningless. You're not qualified to dismiss the entire field of ethics. Of course I am. I dismiss the entire field of philosophy as well. Yes, well this really is incredibly stupid. The topic is, indeed. Well, if you think so, why bother to talk about it? Your attempts at criticizing the ethical vegetarian position are a joke. It is intended to be a joke. But of course only people who take themselves too seriously can't take a joke. I don't much care what someone else eats. If they tell me what to eat (or tell me what to do in general) based on their personal choices of assumption, my *least* offensive response is to laugh. If someone has an argument for an ethical position that they think is worth considering, Arguments are based on assumptions. Assumptions might be incorrect, therefore arguments are worthless. you can either make a serious attempt to engage with the argument, or you can acknowledge that you haven't considered that argument yet and you don't know if you have a satisfactory response to it. I don't need a satisfactory response to it. It's only an argument. It is "theory". I prefer to deal with reality - that which works most effectively (effectivity being a subjective evaluation based on personal preferences). Good. So just acknowledge that you're not qualified to make fun of my views and move on to something else. I don't care about your views. But you posted them to this forum, so I will respond to them. lojbab |
I thought that was nice.
|
Which rights for which animals? (was: problem with this newsgroup)
"Bob LeChevalier" wrote in message ...
I prefer to deal with reality http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...65599951277261 |
Which rights for which animals? (was: problem with this newsgroup)
In article ,
"pearl" wrote: "Barb Knox" wrote in message ... In article , "pearl" wrote: [SNIP] [re-ordered] With respect to all mammals, birds, and reptiles, we know that they possess a sufficiently complex neural structure to enable pain to be felt plus an evolutionary need for such consciously felt states. You avoided responding to this issue in a previous thread, so I'll try again: We agree that animals possess sensors for various dangerous stimuli (intense heat, cold, pressure, etc.), and that they are neurologically complex enough to consistently respond in ways to avoid such stimuli; BUT, the scientific state of the art is currently unable to tell us if they have any SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE analogous to our feelings of pain, or for that matter any subjective experience of anything at all. One could build a small mobile robot that senses and avoids extreme environmental conditions, but surely from seeing its purposeful behaviour you would not leap to the conclusion that it had "consciously felt states". Or would you? Over to you. And please try to respond with your own thoughts, rather than another large cut-and-paste. Please try to stop being such a control freak. I can't stop what hasn't been started. In this case I just made a polite request with the hope of provoking some original thought. And it worked: Of course not. Your robot lacks a central nervous system, and life. Its CPU + memory is a reasonable analogue of a CNS. And as for lacking life, are you saying that evolved biological machines have some "vital force" that other machines necessarily lack? If so, that's a rather outdated view which lacks any direct evidence in its favour and is made less and less plausible as we learn more and more of the underlying details about how biological machines operate. Suppose someone makes a mobile robot and gives it a "life-like" furry exterior (when seen from a distance). So, when you observe its extreme-stimulus avoiding behaviour from a distance, not knowing that it's not biological, would you THEN conclude that it has "consciously felt states"? If not, why not? Note that I am not asserting that higher animals definitely lack subjective experience, but rather that our ignorance of the material underpinnings of subjective experience is so vast that we can not even begin to answer questions such which animals (if any) have "consciously felt states". But I did respond to this in a previous thread, and I reproduce that response - which _you_ avoided responding to - below. [SNIP repeat of large cut-and-paste] -- --------------------------- | BBB b \ Barbara at LivingHistory stop co stop uk | B B aa rrr b | | BBB a a r bbb | Quidquid latine dictum sit, | B B a a r b b | altum viditur. | BBB aa a r bbb | ----------------------------- |
Which rights for which animals? (was: problem with this newsgroup)
"Barb Knox" wrote in message ...
In article , "pearl" wrote: "Barb Knox" wrote in message ... In article , "pearl" wrote: [SNIP] [re-ordered] Put back as it was. With respect to all mammals, birds, and reptiles, we know that they possess a sufficiently complex neural structure to enable pain to be felt plus an evolutionary need for such consciously felt states. You avoided responding to this issue in a previous thread, But I did respond to this in a previous thread, and I reproduce that response - which _you_ avoided responding to - below. You have avoided responding again, Barb. You should also retract the false claim that I avoided responding to this in a previous thread. so I'll try again: We agree that animals possess sensors for various dangerous stimuli (intense heat, cold, pressure, etc.), and that they are neurologically complex enough to consistently respond in ways to avoid such stimuli; BUT, the scientific state of the art is currently unable to tell us if they have any SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE analogous to our feelings of pain, or for that matter any subjective experience of anything at all. One could build a small mobile robot that senses and avoids extreme environmental conditions, but surely from seeing its purposeful behaviour you would not leap to the conclusion that it had "consciously felt states". Or would you? Over to you. And please try to respond with your own thoughts, rather than another large cut-and-paste. Please try to stop being such a control freak. I can't stop what hasn't been started. In this case I just made a polite request with the hope of provoking some original thought. And it worked: If only I'd realised that this was all about original thought.... (LOL.) Of course not. Your robot lacks a central nervous system, and life. Its CPU + memory is a reasonable analogue of a CNS. No, it is not. Show us a CPU + memory that *feels* anything. A CPU which can *experience* pain, euphoria, depression, .. . And as for lacking life, are you saying that evolved biological machines have some "vital force" that other machines necessarily lack? If so, that's a rather outdated view which lacks any direct evidence in its favour and is made less and less plausible as we learn more and more of the underlying details about how biological machines operate. With all your advances you can't make living "biological machines". Ask yourself why that might be. Suppose someone makes a mobile robot and gives it a "life-like" furry exterior (when seen from a distance). So, when you observe its extreme-stimulus avoiding behaviour from a distance, not knowing that it's not biological, would you THEN conclude that it has "consciously felt states"? If not, why not? Ask me again when you've managed to 'create' such a life-like thing. Note that I am not asserting that higher animals definitely lack subjective experience, but rather that our ignorance of the material underpinnings of subjective experience is so vast that we can not even begin to answer questions such which animals (if any) have "consciously felt states". [SNIP repeat of large cut-and-paste] Evasion. |
Which rights for which animals? (was: problem with this newsgroup)
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 20:04:04 -0000, "pearl" wrote:
Troll dh@. spammed in message ... On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 13:19:13 -0000, "pearl" wrote: .. Meat Is Murder / The Smiths Heifer whines could be human cries Closer comes the screaming knife This beautiful creature must die This beautiful creature must die A death for no reason · Since the animals we raise for food would not be alive if we didn't raise them for that purpose, it's a distortion of reality not to take that fact into consideration whenever we think about the fact that the animals are going to be killed. The animals are not being cheated out of any part of their life by being raised for food, but instead they are experiencing whatever life they get as a result of it. · "We don't raise cattle out of consideration for them either, but because they're fairly easy to raise.." David Harrison Sep 26 2005 http://tinyurl.com/qcp23 "obtaining meat and gravy are at least two reasons to promote life for farm animals" - dh@. 22 Mar 2006. · The meat industry includes habitats in which a small variety of animals are raised. The animals in those habitats, as those in any other, are completely dependant on them to not only sustain their lives, but they also depend on them to provide the pairing of sperm and egg that begins their particular existence. Those animals will only live if people continue to raise them for food. Animals that are born to other groups--such as wild animals, pets, performing animals, etc.--are completely different groups of animals. Regardless of how many or few animals are born to these other groups, the billions of animals which are raised for food will always be dependant on consumers for their existence. · · From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. · GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE .. . . __________________________________________________ _______ Environmental Benefits Well-managed perennial pastures have several environmental advantages over tilled land: they dramatically decrease soil erosion potential. require minimal pesticides and fertilizers, and decrease the amount of barnyard runoff. Data from the Soil Conservation Service shows that in 1990, an average of 4.8 tons of soil per acre was lost to erosion on Wisconsin cropland and an average of 2.6 tons of soil per acre was lost on Minnesota cropland. Converting erosion-prone land to pasture is a good way to minimize this loss since perennial pastures have an average soil loss of only 0.8 tons per acre. It also helps in complying with the nationwide "T by 2000" legislation whose goal is that erosion rates on all fields not exceed tolerable limits ("T") by the year 2000. Decreasing erosion rates will preserve the most fertile soil with higher water holding capacity for future crop production. It will also protect our water quality. High levels of nitrates and pesticides in our ground and surface waters can cause human, livestock, and wildlife health problems. Pasturing has several water quality advantages. It reduces the amount of nitrates and pesticides which leach into our ground water and contaminate surface waters. It also can reduce barnyard runoff which may destroy fish and wildlife habitat by enriching surface waters with nitrogen and phosphorous which promotes excessive aquatic plant growth (leading to low oxygen levels in the water which suffocates most water life). Wildlife Advantages Many native grassland birds, such as upland sandpipers, bobolinks, and meadowlarks, have experienced significant population declines within the past 50 years. Natural inhabitants of the prairie, these birds thrived in the extensive pastures which covered the state in the early 1900s. With the increased conversion of pasture to row crops and frequently-mowed hay fields, their habitat is being disturbed and their populations are now at risk. Rotational grazing systems have the potential to reverse this decline because the rested paddocks can provide undisturbed nesting habitat. (However, converting existing under-grazed pasture into an intensive rotational system where forage is used more efficiently may be detrimental to wildlife.) Warm-season grass paddocks which aren't grazed until late June provide especially good nesting habitat. Game birds, such as pheasants, wild turkey, and quail also benefit from pastures, as do bluebirds whose favorite nesting sites are fenceposts. The wildlife benefits of rotational grazing will be greatest in those instances where cropland is converted to pasture since grassland, despite being grazed, provides greater nesting opportunity than cropland. Pesticides can be very damaging to wildlife. though often short lived in the environment, some insecticides are toxic to birds and mammals (including humans). Not only do they kill the target pest but many kill a wide range of insects, including predatory insects that could help prevent future pest out breaks. Insecticides in surface waters may kill aquatic invertebrates (food for fish, shorebirds, and water fowl.) Herbicides can also be toxic to animals and may stunt or kill non-target vegetation which may serve as wildlife habitat. http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...s/MIG/Why.html ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ |
Which rights for which animals? (was: problem with this newsgroup)
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 04:18:09 -0800 (PST), Michael Gordge wrote:
On Dec 7, 4:16 am, dh@. wrote: On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 14:08:35 -0800 (PST), Michael Gordge wrote: I only ever eat vegetarian meat. Don't forget that pigs and poultry are omnivorous. Don't forget meat eaters ultimately couldn't exist if it weren't for vegetarians. Not vegetarian humans of course. Veg*nism does nothing to help humanity, and CERTAINLY does nothing to help livestock. People can only contribute to decent lives for livestock by being conscientious consumers of livestock products. And as far as the existence of humans: If it weren't for meat consumers humans could never have populated much less formed thriving societies in most parts of the world that they now thrive in. The settling and developement of such places could have had nothing to do with veg*ns, since people who didn't eat meat could not have survived. It's only now that places have been populated and developed by omnivorous humans, that veg*n humans can survive in such places...survive to **** and moan about meat consumption, even when consuming meat contributes to fewer deaths than being veg*n. It's not unlike people who can only survive on medicines developed by animal research, who bitch about the animal research without which they would be long dead. Actually, there's no way of knowing how many of the people who bitch about animal research would not exist to bitch if it weren't for the very thing they bitch about. How many of them would have gotten Polio, or their parents, or their children, or other members of their family and friends? There's just no way of knowing how many people survive only because of animal research, but it's a safe bet that we all benefit from it in some ways. __________________________________________________ _______ WITHOUT ANIMAL RESEARCH: Polio would kill or cripple thousands of unvaccinated children and adults this year. Most of the nation's one million insulin-dependent diabetics wouldn't be insulin dependent -- they would be dead. 60 million Americans would risk death from heart attack, stroke or kidney failure from lack of medication to control their high blood pressure. Doctors would have no chemotherapy to save the 70% of children who now survive acute lymphocytic leukemia. More than one million Americans would lose vision in at least one eye this year because cataract surgery would be impossible. Hundreds of thousands of people disabled by strokes or by head or spinal cord injuries would not benefit from rehabilitation techniques. The more than 100,000 people with arthritis who each year receive hip replacements would walk only with great pain and difficulty or be confined to wheelchairs. 7,500 newborns who contract jaundice each year would develop cerebral palsy, now preventable through phototherapy. There would be no kidney dialysis to extend the lives of thousands of patients with end-stage renal disease. Surgery of any type would be a painful, rare procedure without the development of modern anesthesia allowing artificially induced unconsciousness or local or general insensitivity to pain. Instead of being eradicated, smallpox would continue unchecked and many others would join the two million people already killed by the disease. Millions of dogs, cats, and other pets and farm animals would have died from anthrax, distemper, canine parvovirus, feline leukemia, rabies and more than 200 other diseases now preventable thanks to animal research. http://www.ampef.org/research.htm ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ |
Which rights for which animals? (was: problem with this newsgroup)
dh@. wrote in message ...
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 20:04:04 -0000, "pearl" wrote: Troll dh@. spammed in message ... On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 13:19:13 -0000, "pearl" wrote: .. Meat Is Murder / The Smiths Heifer whines could be human cries Closer comes the screaming knife This beautiful creature must die This beautiful creature must die A death for no reason · Since the animals we raise for food would not be alive if we didn't raise them for that purpose, it's a distortion of reality not to take that fact into consideration whenever we think about the fact that the animals are going to be killed. The animals are not being cheated out of any part of their life by being raised for food, but instead they are experiencing whatever life they get as a result of it. · "We don't raise cattle out of consideration for them either, but because they're fairly easy to raise.." David Harrison Sep 26 2005 http://tinyurl.com/qcp23 "obtaining meat and gravy are at least two reasons to promote life for farm animals" - dh@. 22 Mar 2006. · The meat industry includes habitats GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE "Cattle are the scourge of the Earth." ................' http://www.wasteofthewest.com/Chapter6.html · From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE . . . Environmental Benefits 'Livestock a major threat to environment ... .... a steep environmental price, according to the FAO report, Livestock's Long Shadow -Environmental Issues and Options. "The environmental costs per unit of livestock production must be cut by one half, just to avoid the level of damage worsening beyond its present level," it warns. When emissions from land use and land use change are included, the livestock sector accounts for 9 percent of CO2 deriving from human-related activities, but produces a much larger share of even more harmful greenhouse gases. It generates 65 percent of human- related nitrous oxide, which has 296 times the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of CO2. Most of this comes from manure. And it accounts for respectively 37 percent of all human-induced methane (23 times as warming as CO2), which is largely produced by the digestive system of ruminants, and 64 percent of ammonia, which contributes significantly to acid rain. Livestock now use 30 percent of the earth's entire land surface, mostly permanent pasture but also including 33 percent of the global arable land used to producing feed for livestock, the report notes. As forests are cleared to create new pastures, it is a major driver of deforestation, especially in Latin America where, for example, some 70 percent of former forests in the Amazon have been turned over to grazing. Land and water At the same time herds cause wide-scale land degradation, with about 20 percent of pastures considered as degraded through overgrazing, compaction and erosion. This figure is even higher in the drylands where inappropriate policies and inadequate livestock management contribute to advancing desertification. The livestock business is among the most damaging sectors to the earth's increasingly scarce water resources, contributing among other things to water pollution, euthropication and the degeneration of coral reefs. The major polluting agents are animal wastes, antibiotics and hormones, chemicals from tanneries, fertilizers and the pesticides used to spray feed crops. Widespread overgrazing disturbs water cycles, reducing replenishment of above and below ground water resources. Significant amounts of water are withdrawn for the production of feed. Livestock are estimated to be the main inland source of phosphorous and nitrogen contamination of the South China Sea, contributing to biodiversity loss in marine ecosystems. Meat and dairy animals now account for about 20 percent of all terrestrial animal biomass. Livestock's presence in vast tracts of land and its demand for feed crops also contribute to biodiversity loss; 15 out of 24 important ecosystem services are assessed as in decline, with livestock identified as a culprit. ....' http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/...448/index.html |
Which rights for which animals? (was: problem with this newsgroup)
dh@. wrote in message ...
WITHOUT ANIMAL RESEARCH: "My own conviction is that the study of human physiology by way of experiments on animals is the most grotesque and fantastic error ever committed in the whole range of human intellectual activity." Dr G. F. Walker, Medical World, December 1933. http://www.health.org.nz/foreartl.html http://www.health.org.nz/contents.html Polio would kill or cripple thousands of unvaccinated children and adults this year. 'Although those who promote vivisection often cite the polio vaccine to support animal experimentation, the truth is more complicated. The most important advance in the development of a polio vaccine came in 1949 when Enders, Weller and Robbins showed that the polio virus could be grown in human tissue. They were awarded the Nobel prize for this discovery. Despite this breakthrough, Salk and Sabin - who are usually credited with the polio vaccines - continued their reliance on traditional animal models and the use of monkey tissues. They feared that human tissues would harbor dangerous human viruses. In fact, we now know that monkey cells harbor many viruses, some of which have been shown to infect humans, and are probably at least as dangerous as human tissue, if not more so. Sabin himself made an impressive argument against vivisection when he testified to the House Committee on Veterans Affairs in 1984 saying: 'Work on prevention [of polio] was delayed by an erroneous conception of the nature of the human disease, based on misleading experimental models [of polio] in monkeys'. ....' http://vivisection-absurd.org.uk/faq.html#6 See also; http://www.health.org.nz/polio.html Most of the nation's one million insulin-dependent diabetics wouldn't be insulin dependent -- they would be dead. 'The link between diabetes and a damaged pancreas was first established by post-mortem analysis of human patients. This finding encouraged researchers to give pancreatic extracts to both laboratory animals and diabetic patients, but the extracts were so crude they caused severe toxicity. Even Banting and Best's first human trial had to be stopped, with Banting admitting that results were not as encouraging as those achieved 13 years earlier by Zuetzer. (Banting and Best's well-publicized dog experiments are widely believed to have produced the cure for diabetes). Only when the biochemist J. B. Collip used chemical techniques to purify the extracts did a more effective and less toxic preparation become available. [Source, together with original references: R. Sharpe, The Cruel Deception, Thorsons, 1988] Although in the past, most insulin originated from animal sources, diabetic patients are now usually treated with human insulin, produced from bacteria by genetic engineering. ....' http://animalliberationfront.com/Phi.../experime1.htm 'In New Scientist, March 18 1982, doctors say they believe insulin could be responsible for the high levels of blindness in diabetics. Massive available data shows that diabetes is preventable through appropriate diet. That the highest incidence of the disease is in the United States, which consumes an average of 35 percent animal fats and meat, the lowest in Japan which diet contains an average of five percent, and that when the Japanese take to American eating habits they developed diabetic problems. One of the well-worn favourites of the exponents of vivisection when tub-thumping supposed examples of the benefits of their grotesque and obvious fraud, is the discovery of insulin to administer to diabetic patients. Yet more people per capita are dying of diabetes today than in 1900 - twentytwo years before the discovery of insulin. ........' http://www.health.org.nz/diab.html 60 million Americans would risk death from heart attack, stroke or kidney failure from lack of medication to control their high blood pressure. 'Deaths per year (US) 6 ------------------------------------------------------- heart disease 709,894 cancer 551,833 stroke 166,028 diabetes 68,662 high blood pressure 17,964 ------------------------------------------------------ ... Number of Americans Living with Diet- and Inactivity-Related Diseases ------------------------------------------------------- Seriously Overweight/Obese9 113,360,000 High Blood Pressure9 50,000,000 Diabetes10 15,700,000 Coronary Heart Disease9 12,600,000 Osteoporosis7 10,000,000 Cancer11 8,900,000 Stroke9 4,600,000] ------------------------------------------------------- ...' http://www.cspinet.org/nutritionpoli...on_policy.html '.. disease rates were significantly associated within a range of dietary plant food composition that suggested an absence of a disease prevention threshold. That is, the closer a diet is to an all-plant foods diet, the greater will be the reduction in the rates of these diseases.' http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases...sis_paper.html "Isn't man an amazing animal? He kills wildlife - birds, kangaroos, deer, all kinds of cats, coyotes, beavers, groundhogs, mice, foxes, and dingoes - by the millions in order to protect his domestic animals and their feed. Then he kills domestic animals by the billions and eats them. This in turn kills man by the millions, because eating all those animals leads to degenerative and fatal health conditions like heart disease, kidney disease, and cancer. So then man tortures and kills millions more animals to look for cures for these diseases. .."... C. David Coats (from the preface of his book: Old MacDonald's Factory Farm) .... - which in turn injure and kill man by the million. Doctors would have no chemotherapy to save the 70% of children who now survive acute lymphocytic leukemia. '1. Benzene was not withdrawn from use as an industrial chemical despite clinical and epidemological evidence that exposure caused leukemia in humans, because manufacturer- supported tests failed to reproduce leukemia in mice.[1] ... [1]Lancet, June 25 1977, pp1348-9. ....' http://vivisection-absurd.org.uk/50dis.html 'There is much evidence that childhood leukemia is also the direct legacy of vaccination, the foundation stone of vivisection. "Vaccinations and sulfa drugs have been recognised as being directly responsible for the production of leukemia in humans." (Dr B. Duperrat, of the Sant-Louis Hospital in Paris, writing in the French medical journal Presse Medicale, March 12 1955.) "Already published reports, as well as our own observations indicate that smallpox vaccination sometimes produces manifestations of leukemia. In children and adults observed in the clinics of Cracow, smallpox vaccination has been followed by violent local and general reactions and by leukemia." (Professors Julian Aleksandrowickz and Boguslave Halileokowski of the Medical Academy of Cracow, Poland wrote as reported in Lancet, May 6 1967.) "The vaccine modifies the terrain of the vaccinated, driving it towards alkaline and oxidised terrain - the terrain of cancer. The fact can no longer be denied." (The January 1958 issue of another French medical journal, Revue De Pathologie Generale et de Physiologie Clinique.) "In England and Wales, total death rates from all forms of leukemia have increased more than six times between 1920 and 1952... According to Wilkinson, sulphanomides (antibiotics) stand convicted as one of the contributing factors, even when fairly low dosages were employed. In cases reported in detail, the tragic path from a granulocytosis to haemolitic anaemia and acute monolytic leukemia is revealed in black and white." (The July 1957 issue of Medical World, article by Freda Lucas.) "Leukemia has been dramatically increasing, especially among children, ever since the various modern 'therapies' have been inflicted upon a frightened, artfully misinformed public. Urethane has sometimes an inhibitory effect on human leukemia in contrast to what animal experiments had shown." "The characteristic effects in leukemia were detected solely as a result of clinical observation. The various leukemias in the mouse and rat were relatively refractory to the influence of urethane, and the remarkable effect in the human might have eluded discovery if attention had been directed to the animal alone. That illustrates the hazards of such work." (Prof. Alexander Haddow, British Medical Journal, December 2 1950, page 1272.) "The argument from man is so much more convincing than the argument from mice - which indeed, may be completely misleading, as in the case of urethane, which has some inhibitory action on human tumours, but a marked, though temporary one on chronic human leukemias." (Dr C.G. Learoyd, Surgeon, Medical World, August 1954, page 172.) "The drugs Prednisone and Vincristine are often hailed as 'curing' childhood leukemia. Both drugs were rejected by the US National Cancer Institute as 'useless' on the basis of animal tests. Prednisone was developed as a result of clinical observation of the effects of adrenal extract. Vincristine is an alkaloid of 'Vincra Rosea', a type of periwinkle plant, and extracts of periwinkle were used in the Roman Empire to 'dry tumours' (Pliny). They were eventually brought to clinical trials. The children cured of leukemia owe their lives to clinical observations and trials - and not to the animal 'model'." (Brandon Reines, Cancer Research on Animals: Impact and Alternatives.) ...' http://www.health.org.nz/chleu.html More than one million Americans would lose vision in at least one eye this year because cataract surgery would be impossible. 'On January 6 1992 the N.Z. Woman's Weekly cites the work of Dr George Duncan of the University of East Anglia who is using human eye tissue in cataract research. He, and fellow researchers at Lister Hospital, claim that human tissue tests "give reassurance that experiments on animals do not". "The wounds of an animal behave so differently from those of man that the conclusions drawn from them by the vivisectors are completely valueless and have caused more damage than benefit." (Lawson Tait, quoted in Prof. Croce's Vivisection or Science - a choice to make.) In the Journal of Organotherapy, Vol. XVI, No. 1, January-February 1932, page 23, it is reported that a well-known operation for cataract devised by Philip Syng Physick, was the result of clinical research alone. In Medical Press, January 27 1954, page 74, in criticism of an article which drew attention to reports of successful treatment of cataract through experiments on rats, Posner warns that there are dangerous hazards, even resulting in blindness should the method be applied to human beings. ...' http://www.health.org.nz/catrct.html Hundreds of thousands of people disabled by strokes or by head or spinal cord injuries would not benefit from rehabilitation techniques. 'Spinal cord experiments on animals are part of the medical fraud of vivisection. We are told that animals must be used in this horrifying way in attempts to understand physiological mechanisms and to test surgical procedures, but extracts from articles written by those undertaking this "research" show that spinal cord research with animals is obviously not working. ...' http://www.health.org.nz/spcord.html The more than 100,000 people with arthritis who each year receive hip replacements would walk only with great pain and difficulty or be confined to wheelchairs. 'John Charnley developed an arthoplasty of the hip in 1946, but a preliminary trial led him to believe that it was unsatisfactory(1). In 1949, Charnley received a Home Office licence to experiment on animals, and it is said that he grafted bones in goats but did not record the results. Likewise, he did not publish ANY papers on any animal experiments he may have conducted(1). Charnley wrote "A few observations on the human are often of more value than a large series of experiments on animals..."The `crucial` experiment was an isolated observation"(2). The `crucial` experiment had been performed on a human patient(3). Later, Charnley measured co-efficiency of the fracture of articular cartilage. This could be done quite simply in an engineering laboratory but it was not so easy in animal joints, since the cartilage could not be fashioned into a plane surface. Charnley checked the published papers and found two written in 1934 and 1936 by E S Jones, who had described his experiments on the knees of horses but Charnley believed that such experiments were open to various objections and decided to make measurements on a freshly amputated knee joint of a human patient(3). Thus, Charnley may have had a vivisector`s license and, possibly, did conduct some animal experiments - but he realized that the progress had to come from clinical work - which he did. ...' http://www.freewebs.com/scientific_a...ycontinued.htm 7,500 newborns who contract jaundice each year would develop cerebral palsy, now preventable through phototherapy. 'Phototherapy has proven successful in humans and Gunn rats for the long-term management of unconjugated hyperbilirubinemia. Exposure to high-intensity visible light induces catabolism of bilirubin to less toxic, diazonegative derivatives, which can be excreted in bile and urine.(6) This therapy was not derived from the Gunn rat model. In 1958, by measuring the effects of sunlight and artificial blue light on serum bilirubin concentrations in newborn infants, Cremer demonstrated that phototherapy had potential value in the prevention of hyperbilirubinemia.(40) Lucey et al. noted, "The decolorizing effect of sunlight and artificial light upon solutions of bilirubin has been known for many years. This observation prompted Cremer to first use phototherapy clinically"(41) in 1958. In 1968, Lucey et al. conducted the first controlled study of low-birthweight infants to test the effectiveness of phototherapy in the prophylaxis of hyperbilirubinemia. They found that, "...continuous phototherapy is effective in significantly modifying hyperbilirubinemia."(41) To date, the treatment of CJN syndrome "...usually requires exchange transfusions and phototherapy."(34) ...' http://www.curedisease.com/Perspecti...liment/Model%2 There would be no kidney dialysis to extend the lives of thousands of patients with end-stage renal disease. 'In Holland, Willem Kolff heard of cellophane in 1938 from Prof Brinkman, his biochemistry teacher at Groningen University. Once he was aware of this, Kolff took 45cm of skin used to cover sausages, filled the skin with blood and added 100mg of urea. He sealed both ends of the sausage skin, fixed it to a board and rocked it in saline solution in a bath. After 30 minutes, all of the urea had passed from the blood to the rinsing solution. This led to Kolff`s idea of an artificial kidney. He purchased further supplies of the sausage skin and began calculating the requirements for the design. Through trial and error, Kolff built four machines, but none were considered reliable enough for clinical use. In 1942, Kolff and Berk constructed the fifth prototype - but it remained unused for some time. In 1943, the first patient was referred to Kolff as doctors at the time thought that the machine would, at least, do no harm - but it did. The first 15 patients treated with the new artificial kidney all died.. It was not until 1945 that Kolff successfully treated Sofia Schafstedt, a 67 year old woman. Kolff went on to send eight machines to different parts of the Netherlands. After 1946, one machine was sent to London, another to New York, and a third to Montreal, Canada(1). ref 1.Keck, PS. Meserko, JJ. Proc Am Acad of Cardiovascular Perfusion. vol 6. 1985 ...' http://www.freewebs.com/scientific_a...nalsurgery.htm Surgery of any type would be a painful, rare procedure without the development of modern anesthesia allowing artificially induced unconsciousness or local or general insensitivity to pain. '(26) According to the Royal Commission into vivisection (1912), 'The discovery of anaesthetics owes nothing to experiments on animals'. The great Dr Hadwen noted that 'had animal experiments been relied upon...humanity would have been robbed of this great blessing of anaesthesia'. The vivisector Halsey described the discovery of Fluroxene as 'one of the most dramatic examples of misleading evidence from animal data'. ...' http://vivisection-absurd.org.uk/33facts.html Instead of being eradicated, smallpox would continue unchecked and many others would join the two million people already killed by the disease. "Official statistics from many countries indicate that smallpox (and other communicable diseases) were declining before vaccination programs were enforced. This may be attributed to the sanitation reforms and nutritional teachings instituted around the mid-1800's. For example, water supplies were protected from contamination, streets and stables were cleaned, sewage was removed, and food was delivered while still fresh. However, once smallpox vaccinations became mandatory, deaths from the disease steadily increased. In fact, records in several countries show that nearly every contagious disease-plague, cholera, measles, scarlet fever, dysentery, whooping cough-except smallpox (kept alive by mandatory shots), declined in number and severity on its own." [Eleanor McBean, The Poisoned Needle (Mokelumne Hill, CA : Health Research, 1974) pp. 12-20](p. 45) Before England passed a compulsory vaccination law in 1853, the highest death rate for anytwo year period was only 2,000 cases, even during the most severe epidemics. [Eleanor McBean, The Poisoned Needle (Mokelumne Hill, CA : Health Research, 1974) pp. 13]"(Jenner himself admitted that smallpox was relatively unknown before he began his vaccinations. In fact, there were only a few hundred cases of smallpox in England at that time.) After more than fifteen years of mandatory vaccinations, in 1870 and 1871 alone more than 23,000 people died from the disease. In Germany, over 124,000 people died of smallpox during the same epidemic. All had been vaccinated. In Japan, nearly 29,000 people died in just seven years under a stringent compulsory vaccination and re-vaccination program. Compare these devastating figures to Australia, where the government terminated compulsory vaccinations when two children died from their smallpox shots. As a result, smallpox virtually disappeared in that country (three cases in fifteen years)." (p. 46) "Every examination of the facts indicates that the smallpox vaccine was not only ineffective but dangerous. Undoctored hospital records consistently show that about 90 percent of all smallpox cases occurred after the individual was vaccinated. " . . . There is a direct relationship between the percentage of babies vaccinated and the number of smallpox deaths: the higher the percentage, the greater the fatalities. In other words, deaths from smallpox tumbled only after people refused the shots [see Figure 1 below]."(p. 46) .... http://gentlebirth.org/nwnm.org/Does...eally_Need.htm Millions of dogs, cats, and other pets and farm animals would have died from anthrax, distemper, canine parvovirus, feline leukemia, rabies and more than 200 other diseases now preventable thanks to animal research. At least that's applicable to the target species. .... http://vivisection-absurd.org.uk/errors.html http://www.ampef.org/research.htm Pro-vivisection propaganda. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:48 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CatBanter.com