On Jun 29, 10:22*pm, Fred wrote:

[snip]

No, killing animals to eat them is not evidence of psychopathology.

* * * * Why don't they show it on television? *Why don't they give people tours of
the abattoirs? *Why do people prefer not to see that going on? *It's not
something that most of us want to think about whether we eat meat or not. *
Most people would rather go on eating their Big Macs and not think about
where it came from or what had to be done to make it. *

Never bothered me. You see, I grew up on a farm and have seen animals
killed for food from early age on. I know precisely where my meat
comes from.

If people had to
actually go out and do their own killing, there's be a lot more vegetarians
around.

I have not noticed that there were many vegetarians around when people
indeed did their own killing, either on their farms or in a hunter-
gatherer economy. So your argument does not match the facts.

Dragonblaze wrote:
On Jun 29, 10:22 pm, Fred wrote:

[snip]

No, killing animals to eat them is not evidence of psychopathology.
Why don't they show it on television? Why don't they give people tours of
the abattoirs? Why do people prefer not to see that going on? It's not
something that most of us want to think about whether we eat meat or not.
Most people would rather go on eating their Big Macs and not think about
where it came from or what had to be done to make it.

Never bothered me. You see, I grew up on a farm and have seen animals
killed for food from early age on. I know precisely where my meat
comes from.

I don't want to extrapolate too much from your case to all farm folks,
but it does tend to contradict the usual vegetarian line. That line
goes that if people could witness the slaughter of animals for meat, it
would put them off meat for good and they'd all become vegetarian. But
your experience, and the statistical experience of most rural residents,
is exactly the opposite. People who grow up on or around farms are far
more likely to have witnessed the slaughter of meat animals, yet the
incidence of vegetarianism among them is lower than in the urban
population. It clearly isn't the sight of seeing animals slaughtered
/per/ /se/ that might permanently put someone off meat. Now, the
/method/ by which a lot of commercially grown and slaughtered animals
are actually slaughtered is apparently often horrific. But - it isn't
the killing of animals /per/ /se/ that is offensive; it's how it's done
that matters.


If people had to
actually go out and do their own killing, there's be a lot more vegetarians
around.

I have not noticed that there were many vegetarians around when people
indeed did their own killing, either on their farms or in a hunter-
gatherer economy. So your argument does not match the facts.

K wrote:
Dragonblaze wrote:
On Jun 29, 10:22 pm, Fred wrote:

[snip]

No, killing animals to eat them is not evidence of psychopathology.
Why don't they show it on television? Why don't they give
people tours of
the abattoirs? Why do people prefer not to see that going on? It's not
something that most of us want to think about whether we eat meat or
not. Most people would rather go on eating their Big Macs and not
think about
where it came from or what had to be done to make it.

Never bothered me. You see, I grew up on a farm and have seen animals
killed for food from early age on. I know precisely where my meat
comes from.

I don't want to extrapolate too much from your case to all farm folks,
but it does tend to contradict the usual vegetarian line. That line
goes that if people could witness the slaughter of animals for meat, it
would put them off meat for good and they'd all become vegetarian. But
your experience, and the statistical experience of most rural residents,
is exactly the opposite. People who grow up on or around farms are far
more likely to have witnessed the slaughter of meat animals, yet the
incidence of vegetarianism among them is lower than in the urban
population. It clearly isn't the sight of seeing animals slaughtered
/per/ /se/ that might permanently put someone off meat. Now, the
/method/ by which a lot of commercially grown and slaughtered animals
are actually slaughtered is apparently often horrific. But - it isn't
the killing of animals /per/ /se/ that is offensive; it's how it's done
that matters.

I question the veracity of reports of animal suffering in
the modern slaughterhouse. You know the old saying, if it
bleeds, it leads. I have never seen a report of anything I
had personal knowledge about come close to getting it right.
If you read independent audits like Temple Grandin's you get
a different picture.
http://www.grandin.com/survey/2008.r...nt.audits.html

wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:37:20 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 00:17:33 -0700 (PDT), Dragonblaze
wrote:

On Jun 29, 10:22 pm, Fred wrote:

[snip]

No, killing animals to eat them is not evidence of psychopathology.
Why don't they show it on television? Why don't they give people tours of
the abattoirs? Why do people prefer not to see that going on? It's not
something that most of us want to think about whether we eat meat or not.
Most people would rather go on eating their Big Macs and not think about
where it came from or what had to be done to make it.
Never bothered me. You see, I grew up on a farm and have seen animals
killed for food from early age on. I know precisely where my meat
comes from.

If people had to
actually go out and do their own killing, there's be a lot more vegetarians
around.
I have not noticed that there were many vegetarians around when people
indeed did their own killing, either on their farms or in a hunter-
gatherer economy. So your argument does not match the facts.
Where I grew up if you didn't kill it you didn't eat!
I still like goat meat!

Yuk!

Haven't you ever eaten birria at a Mexican restaurant? It's actually
pretty good, although a bit on the bony side.

K wrote:

Fred wrote:
K wrote:

Fred wrote:

Well, unless you're a psychopath, it is.
No, killing animals to eat them is not evidence of psychopathology.


Why don't they show it on television?

Why don't they show up-close-and-personal operation of sewage treatment
plants?

Well they do.

Why do you suggest that a decision to show, or not show, some activity
on television is the ultimate test of whether or not the activity is
moral?

That's not what I said. It is immoral, but this is not the test. If
you'll recall, the question was about whether killing animals without
compassion was evidence of psychopathy. Most people don't even want to
witness it because it would give them nightmares. That's why we don't see
it on television. If they don't have to think about where their food came
from life is more comfortable for them. It's called "denial."


It's not something that most of us want to think about whether we eat
meat or not.

You're right. I also don't have any wish to watch anyone change the oil
on my car, or submerge my clothes in dry cleaning fluid. So what?

And *that* is the logic of the psychopath!


Most people would rather go on eating their Big Macs and not think about
where it came from or what had to be done to make it. If people had to
actually go out and do their own killing, there's be a lot more
vegetarians around.

That's a common belief by so-called "ethical" vegetarians, and there's
no evidence to support it - *zero*.

There might be. Regardless it's true because of what we know about human
nature, those of us who are not psychopaths know it, anyway.

In fact, among rural people who
quite often /do/ see the slaughter of animals for food, and who also
hunt, the incidence of vegetarianism is much lower than in cities. So,
your claim is directly contradicted: witnessing the slaughter of
animals does not, in and of itself, put people off eating meat.

I've seen what you refer to and this is the first time you've even come
close to making a rational argument, congratulations, but it doesn't quite
make it. Developing a callous disregard for the suffering of others *is*
similar to a learned psychopathy, or a lesser degree of it. It is possible
to switch off that part of our brains that react to others by way of
sympathy or even empathy. When the suffering becomes too great, a reflex
action turns that area of the brain off to block the pain. It may be thought
of, at least, as a pseudo-psychopathy as the real psychopathic mechanism
hasn't been shown yet, but people must be working on it... I hope.

--
Peace,
Fred
remove FFFf from my email address to reply.

Dutch wrote:


"K" wrote in message
news
Dutch wrote:
K wrote:
John Mayson wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, K wrote:

Eating meat in moderate amounts won't harm your health, either. Meat
is an excellent source of protein, some minerals and other nutrients.

Protein that you just **** down the drain.

False.


We can get all the protein we need and then some from plant sources.

So? If that's your preference, then do it; just don't try to claim
you're being "more ethical" for it. You aren't.


And what "other nutrients" do you suggest we get from meat?

Iron, zinc, omega-3 fatty acids, B and D vitamins, selenium.

Specifically B-12 which is only reliably available from animal sources.

Good point. However, I wasn't specifically interested in nutrients that
are unique to meat. Mayson seemed to be suggesting that there aren't any
important nutrients found in meat. Nor was I claiming that meat is
necessarily the best source for these nutrients; my claim is limited to
the fact that meat /is/ a source for some important nutrients.

What I find distressing about this part of the thread is my certainty
that, in the end, he's suddenly going to abandon the nutrition argument
entirely, and fall back onto some variant of "meat is murder". It bugs
me when people use a smokescreen argument that they only intend to
abandon later on anyway.

It just demonstrates a fundamental insincerity. Proponents of veganism use
these utilitarian arguments like animal suffering, health, or the
environment until those arguments get shot down,

It's never happened yet.

then they switch to a
deontological perspective, asserting that humans have no_right to use
animals for their own purposes, regardless of the benefits. Sometimes the
shifting goes in the other direction.

It's the same argument in different words.

--
Peace,
Fred
remove FFFf from my email address to reply.

Dutch wrote:

"Fred" wrote
K wrote:

No, killing animals to eat them is not evidence of psychopathology.

Why don't they show it on television?

Because the process of slaughtering animals is messy and not entertaining
to watch.

yes, because it's too horrific.

Why don't they give people tours of
the abattoirs? Why do people prefer not to see that going on? It's not
something that most of us want to think about whether we eat meat or not.

You obviously don't think much about the death toll behind your own
consumer choices.

It's minimal. I do what I can. Nobody's perfect.

Most people would rather go on eating their Big Macs and not think about
where it came from or what had to be done to make it. If people had to
actually go out and do their own killing, there's be a lot more
vegetarians
around.

Because people are lazy and inept. If they had to grow their own, many
more would simply starve.

True, but that's an unrelated concept.

--
Peace,
Fred
remove FFFf from my email address to reply.

Fred wrote:
K wrote:

Fred wrote:
K wrote:

Fred wrote:

Well, unless you're a psychopath, it is.
No, killing animals to eat them is not evidence of psychopathology.


Why don't they show it on television?
Why don't they show up-close-and-personal operation of sewage treatment
plants?

Well they do.

No, they don't.


Why do you suggest that a decision to show, or not show, some activity
on television is the ultimate test of whether or not the activity is
moral?

That's not what I said. It is immoral, but this is not the test.

Your question implied that that is precisely the test.

What are you saying is immoral? Killing animals to eat them? You
haven't shown that, and you couldn't possibly show it.


If you'll recall, the question was about whether killing animals without
compassion was evidence of psychopathy.

No, there was no mention of "compassion" at all. Pretty clearly, you
simply /define/ killing animals in order to eat them as killing them
without compassion.

What about the animals that are killed to put food on your table, even
though you don't eat them? You know - the animals that are killed in
the course of producing and distributing vegetable produce? Are they
killed with compassion?



Most people don't even want to
witness it because it would give them nightmares.

You don't have any sound reason to believe that. It's just a bit of
boilerplate rhetoric from the so-called "ethical vegetarian" crowd.



That's why we don't see
it on television. If they don't have to think about where their food came
from life is more comfortable for them. It's called "denial."

Are you in denial over the animals that are killed wantonly for your
"lifestyle"?



It's not something that most of us want to think about whether we eat
meat or not.
You're right. I also don't have any wish to watch anyone change the oil
on my car, or submerge my clothes in dry cleaning fluid. So what?

And *that* is the logic of the psychopath!

I don't think you know anything at all about what makes someone a
psychopath.

The example was given to illustrate that just because someone doesn't
want to witness something they find unpleasant to witness does not mean
the activity, if done by someone else, makes the doer a psychopath.



Most people would rather go on eating their Big Macs and not think about
where it came from or what had to be done to make it. If people had to
actually go out and do their own killing, there's be a lot more
vegetarians around.
That's a common belief by so-called "ethical" vegetarians, and there's
no evidence to support it - *zero*.

There might be.

There isn't. Actually, it's the opposite.


Regardless it's true because of what we know about human
nature, those of us who are not psychopaths know it, anyway.

It isn't true at all. And I have no reason to think you know anything
at all about who is or isn't a psychopath. You pretty clearly flatter
yourself about your so-called "ethics", and you simply define anyone who
disagrees with you as a psychopath; no science in that at all.


In fact, among rural people who
quite often /do/ see the slaughter of animals for food, and who also
hunt, the incidence of vegetarianism is much lower than in cities. So,
your claim is directly contradicted: witnessing the slaughter of
animals does not, in and of itself, put people off eating meat.

I've seen what you refer to and this is the first time you've even come
close to making a rational argument, congratulations, but it doesn't quite
make it. Developing a callous disregard for the suffering of others *is*
similar to a learned psychopathy, or a lesser degree of it.

You haven't demonstrated that there is a callous disregard shown for the
suffering of animals killed for meat.

But we keep coming back to you: do you have a callous disregard for the
suffering of the animals killed in the course of producing and
distributing the vegetables you eat?

Fred wrote:
Dutch wrote:

"K" wrote in message
news
Dutch wrote:
K wrote:
John Mayson wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, K wrote:

Eating meat in moderate amounts won't harm your health, either. Meat
is an excellent source of protein, some minerals and other nutrients.
Protein that you just **** down the drain.
False.


We can get all the protein we need and then some from plant sources.
So? If that's your preference, then do it; just don't try to claim
you're being "more ethical" for it. You aren't.


And what "other nutrients" do you suggest we get from meat?
Iron, zinc, omega-3 fatty acids, B and D vitamins, selenium.
Specifically B-12 which is only reliably available from animal sources.
Good point. However, I wasn't specifically interested in nutrients that
are unique to meat. Mayson seemed to be suggesting that there aren't any
important nutrients found in meat. Nor was I claiming that meat is
necessarily the best source for these nutrients; my claim is limited to
the fact that meat /is/ a source for some important nutrients.

What I find distressing about this part of the thread is my certainty
that, in the end, he's suddenly going to abandon the nutrition argument
entirely, and fall back onto some variant of "meat is murder". It bugs
me when people use a smokescreen argument that they only intend to
abandon later on anyway.
It just demonstrates a fundamental insincerity. Proponents of veganism use
these utilitarian arguments like animal suffering, health, or the
environment until those arguments get shot down,

It's never happened yet.

Yes, it has - often, and going back a long time.



then they switch to a
deontological perspective, asserting that humans have no_right to use
animals for their own purposes, regardless of the benefits. Sometimes the
shifting goes in the other direction.

It's the same argument in different words.

It's not the same argument at all.

Fred wrote:
Dutch wrote:

"Fred" wrote
K wrote:
No, killing animals to eat them is not evidence of psychopathology.

Why don't they show it on television?
Because the process of slaughtering animals is messy and not entertaining
to watch.

yes, because it's too horrific.

So is open heart surgery, but no one suggests that it's the work of
psychopaths.


Why don't they give people tours of
the abattoirs? Why do people prefer not to see that going on? It's not
something that most of us want to think about whether we eat meat or not.
You obviously don't think much about the death toll behind your own
consumer choices.

It's minimal.

It is not. You do not "minimize" - not even close.


I do what I can.

I don't think you do anything even to start to reduce it, let alone
"minimize" it. I don't think you have any idea how many animals die in
the course of producing what you consume. You're committing a fallacy:
you think that because you don't consume animal parts, that
*automatically* equates to "minimizing" the deaths you do cause. But
that's patently false.


Nobody's perfect.

You aren't even good at all as far as not killing animals goes.



Most people would rather go on eating their Big Macs and not think about
where it came from or what had to be done to make it. If people had to
actually go out and do their own killing, there's be a lot more
vegetarians
around.
Because people are lazy and inept. If they had to grow their own, many
more would simply starve.

True, but that's an unrelated concept.

No, it's perfectly related. Unless you produce everything you consume,
you aren't minimizing the death toll.

"Fred" wrote in message
...
Dutch wrote:


"K" wrote in message
news
Dutch wrote:
K wrote:
John Mayson wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, K wrote:

Eating meat in moderate amounts won't harm your health, either.
Meat
is an excellent source of protein, some minerals and other
nutrients.

Protein that you just **** down the drain.

False.


We can get all the protein we need and then some from plant sources.

So? If that's your preference, then do it; just don't try to claim
you're being "more ethical" for it. You aren't.


And what "other nutrients" do you suggest we get from meat?

Iron, zinc, omega-3 fatty acids, B and D vitamins, selenium.

Specifically B-12 which is only reliably available from animal sources.

Good point. However, I wasn't specifically interested in nutrients that
are unique to meat. Mayson seemed to be suggesting that there aren't
any
important nutrients found in meat. Nor was I claiming that meat is
necessarily the best source for these nutrients; my claim is limited to
the fact that meat /is/ a source for some important nutrients.

What I find distressing about this part of the thread is my certainty
that, in the end, he's suddenly going to abandon the nutrition argument
entirely, and fall back onto some variant of "meat is murder". It bugs
me when people use a smokescreen argument that they only intend to
abandon later on anyway.

It just demonstrates a fundamental insincerity. Proponents of veganism
use
these utilitarian arguments like animal suffering, health, or the
environment until those arguments get shot down,

It's never happened yet.

It has happened, here it is again:

Animal suffering: occurs in every commercial agricultural endeavor.
Health: a sensible diet including moderate amounts of well chosen meat is as
close to ideal as any diet.
Environment: is severely impacted by every type of commercial agriculture.

then they switch to a
deontological perspective, asserting that humans have no_right to use
animals for their own purposes, regardless of the benefits. Sometimes the
shifting goes in the other direction.

It's the same argument in different words.

They are totally different arguments.

The rights approach, i.e. the deontological argument, states that animals
are born with inherent rights which we violate by treating them as a
commodity, therefore we must stop doing so regardless of whether or not it
is beneficial. It is the argument which prevents us from using humans as
subjects for medical research.

The utilitarian argument is the one I addressed above. It argues that using
animals as a commodity actually causes bad outcomes.

"Fred" wrote in message
...
Dutch wrote:

"Fred" wrote
K wrote:

No, killing animals to eat them is not evidence of psychopathology.

Why don't they show it on television?

Because the process of slaughtering animals is messy and not entertaining
to watch.

yes, because it's too horrific.

Why don't they give people tours of
the abattoirs? Why do people prefer not to see that going on? It's not
something that most of us want to think about whether we eat meat or
not.

You obviously don't think much about the death toll behind your own
consumer choices.

It's minimal.

You don't know that, that is simply a self-serving assumption.

I do what I can.

No you don't, you do what is easy.

Nobody's perfect.

Yet you judge others as if you were.

Most people would rather go on eating their Big Macs and not think about
where it came from or what had to be done to make it. If people had to
actually go out and do their own killing, there's be a lot more
vegetarians
around.

Because people are lazy and inept. If they had to grow their own, many
more would simply starve.

True, but that's an unrelated concept.

The truth is that people placed in a survival situation learn to fish, hunt
and trap small animals as well as find edible plants. The aversion you speak
of is not our basic nature, it is a learned domesticality.

"Dutch" wrote in message
...

"Fred" wrote in message
...
Dutch wrote:

"Fred" wrote
K wrote:

No, killing animals to eat them is not evidence of psychopathology.

Why don't they show it on television?

Because the process of slaughtering animals is messy and not
entertaining
to watch.

yes, because it's too horrific.

Why don't they give people tours of
the abattoirs? Why do people prefer not to see that going on? It's
not
something that most of us want to think about whether we eat meat or
not.

You obviously don't think much about the death toll behind your own
consumer choices.

It's minimal.

You don't know that, that is simply a self-serving assumption.

I do what I can.

No you don't, you do what is easy.

Nobody's perfect.

Yet you judge others as if you were.

Most people would rather go on eating their Big Macs and not think
about
where it came from or what had to be done to make it. If people had to
actually go out and do their own killing, there's be a lot more
vegetarians
around.

Because people are lazy and inept. If they had to grow their own, many
more would simply starve.

True, but that's an unrelated concept.

The truth is that people placed in a survival situation learn to fish,
hunt and trap small animals as well as find edible plants. The aversion
you speak of is not our basic nature, it is a learned domesticality.

This reminds me that the National Geographic channel on DISH network is
constantly running predator films about lions devouring zebras, alligators
crunching birds that stick their feet into the water, Orcas smashing seals,
sharks eating everyone in sight, whales eating krill by the million,
anacondas squeezing pigs, grizzly bears eating fruits and nuts and the
occasional human (maybe a fruit or a nut - in one case definitely a nut) and
ocopussessess unsealing oysters, and eating them raw, without even any
horseradish.

It is time to sue Mother Nature! She is responsible for this unacceptable
behaviour. Just because people say that it is in the nature of a predator
to hunt (because they cannot farm tofu) does not mean that we have to accept
this crass lifestyle, that is not in keeping with todays norms and mores and
other things with words too big for me to spell correctly. We must make up
some signs and picket these lions, sharks, orcas, whales, grizzleys, and
even the octopi (bet you thought I didn't know that word. I do, I was just
running out of pussess.

I'll try to help more, later.

Billzz wrote:
"Dutch" wrote in message
...
"Fred" wrote in message
...
Dutch wrote:

"Fred" wrote
K wrote:
No, killing animals to eat them is not evidence of psychopathology.

Why don't they show it on television?
Because the process of slaughtering animals is messy and not
entertaining
to watch.

yes, because it's too horrific.

Why don't they give people tours of
the abattoirs? Why do people prefer not to see that going on? It's
not
something that most of us want to think about whether we eat meat or
not.
You obviously don't think much about the death toll behind your own
consumer choices.

It's minimal.
You don't know that, that is simply a self-serving assumption.

I do what I can.
No you don't, you do what is easy.

Nobody's perfect.
Yet you judge others as if you were.

Most people would rather go on eating their Big Macs and not think
about
where it came from or what had to be done to make it. If people had to
actually go out and do their own killing, there's be a lot more
vegetarians
around.
Because people are lazy and inept. If they had to grow their own, many
more would simply starve.
True, but that's an unrelated concept.
The truth is that people placed in a survival situation learn to fish,
hunt and trap small animals as well as find edible plants. The aversion
you speak of is not our basic nature, it is a learned domesticality.

This reminds me that the National Geographic channel on DISH network is
constantly running predator films about lions devouring zebras, alligators
crunching birds that stick their feet into the water, Orcas smashing seals,
sharks eating everyone in sight, whales eating krill by the million,
anacondas squeezing pigs, grizzly bears eating fruits and nuts and the
occasional human (maybe a fruit or a nut - in one case definitely a nut) and
ocopussessess unsealing oysters, and eating them raw, without even any
horseradish.

It is time to sue Mother Nature! She is responsible for this unacceptable
behaviour. Just because people say that it is in the nature of a predator
to hunt (because they cannot farm tofu) does not mean that we have to accept
this crass lifestyle, that is not in keeping with todays norms and mores and
other things with words too big for me to spell correctly. We must make up
some signs and picket these lions, sharks, orcas, whales, grizzleys, and
even the octopi (bet you thought I didn't know that word. I do, I was just
running out of pussess.

I'll try to help more, later.


This was probably intended to be absurd but I have heard
ARAs say that predatory animals were a mistake by God.

Billzz wrote:
"Dutch" wrote in message
...
"Fred" wrote in message
...
Dutch wrote:

"Fred" wrote
K wrote:
No, killing animals to eat them is not evidence of psychopathology.

Why don't they show it on television?
Because the process of slaughtering animals is messy and not
entertaining
to watch.

yes, because it's too horrific.

Why don't they give people tours of
the abattoirs? Why do people prefer not to see that going on? It's
not
something that most of us want to think about whether we eat meat or
not.
You obviously don't think much about the death toll behind your own
consumer choices.

It's minimal.
You don't know that, that is simply a self-serving assumption.

I do what I can.
No you don't, you do what is easy.

Nobody's perfect.
Yet you judge others as if you were.

Most people would rather go on eating their Big Macs and not think
about
where it came from or what had to be done to make it. If people had to
actually go out and do their own killing, there's be a lot more
vegetarians
around.
Because people are lazy and inept. If they had to grow their own, many
more would simply starve.
True, but that's an unrelated concept.
The truth is that people placed in a survival situation learn to fish,
hunt and trap small animals as well as find edible plants. The aversion
you speak of is not our basic nature, it is a learned domesticality.

This reminds me that the National Geographic channel on DISH network is
constantly running predator films about lions devouring zebras, alligators
crunching birds that stick their feet into the water, Orcas smashing seals,
sharks eating everyone in sight, whales eating krill by the million,
anacondas squeezing pigs, grizzly bears eating fruits and nuts and the
occasional human (maybe a fruit or a nut - in one case definitely a nut) and
ocopussessess unsealing oysters, and eating them raw, without even any
horseradish.

The so-called "ethical vegetarians" think they have an answer to that.
It's the idea of being a moral agent vs merely being a moral patient.
That is, a gazelle holds "rights" against a moral agent - humans - who
are presumed to know right from wrong; but they are thought to hold no
rights against moral patients, i.e. dumb animals, who have no concept of
right and wrong.

This is clearly nonsense. You have a clear right not to be assaulted by
a lunatic. The form that right takes, and the responsibilities the
right imposes on others, differ from what they would be regarding your
right not to be attacked by a mentally competent person; but the
implication of the right doesn't vary. Someone is supposed to be
responsible for lunatic humans who are moral patients, and if the human
moral patients do something wrong, those responsible are held liable.
But that isn't the case with wild beasts. A lion is always a moral
patient with respect to the gazelle: the lion isn't expected to know
that it is "wrong" to attack gazelles. Yet no one suggests that someone
is morally responsible for the lions, and will be held to account if
they attack gazelles. Clearly, the moral status of the attacker has no
bearing on whether or not the attacked has a "right" not to be attacked
- or more accurately, a right not to be attacked with no potential
consequence for the attacker or the moral agent responsible for the
attacker.

So-called "ethical vegetarians" simply have no coherent way to explain
the higher standard to which they hold humans. In a word, it's
"speciesist".



It is time to sue Mother Nature! She is responsible for this unacceptable
behaviour. Just because people say that it is in the nature of a predator
to hunt (because they cannot farm tofu) does not mean that we have to accept
this crass lifestyle, that is not in keeping with todays norms and mores and
other things with words too big for me to spell correctly. We must make up
some signs and picket these lions, sharks, orcas, whales, grizzleys, and
even the octopi (bet you thought I didn't know that word. I do, I was just
running out of pussess.

I'll try to help more, later.