If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
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 | ----------------------------- |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
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. · |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
this newsgroup is so gay | muratbey | Cat anecdotes | 21 | December 26th 06 05:47 AM |
Nox Vs A Newsgroup | Enfilade | Cat anecdotes | 17 | April 26th 05 03:08 AM |
New to the Newsgroup | MELISSA WHEELER | Cat anecdotes | 16 | March 7th 05 11:57 PM |
Is it a behavioral problem or a genetic problem. | Kuisse0002 | Cat health & behaviour | 18 | November 1st 03 12:40 AM |
Accessing this newsgroup | Mr. Nangla | Cat health & behaviour | 15 | September 12th 03 06:44 PM |