 |
|
| Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 14:19:54 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> ><dh@.> wrote >> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:08:07 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >>> >>><dh@.> wrote >> >>>> You "ARAs" decide >>> >>>You know I'm not an ARA >> >> How could I even suspect that you might not be? >> All evidence I've got is that you are. > >You know I'm not an ARA ****wit, you know Jonathan Ball is not an ARA, you >know that our objections to your position have nothing to do with AR If you didn't lie then I might believe you. But you both lie, as your fellow "arFs" lie. To you lying is such a part of your life, that you believe that aspect is meaningless to everyone else. But it's very meaningful to me. I believe you and Goo are "ARAs". ONLY you and Goo and the more honest (lol) "arFs" have lied about what I believe. None of the very very few "AR" opponents who have disagreed with me have lied, from what I can remember. Only you, Goo, and other "arFs" have lied. So your arguments plus your actions cause me to believe you are "ARAs". In contrast, there is nothing that I've found on my own, or that you have presented, that gives me any reason to believe you're not an "ARA". And of course the same is true for Goo. I haven't seen him oppose "AR", but here are quite a few examples of him supporting it: __________________________________________________ _______ We're ONLY talking about deliberate human killing ONLY deliberate human killing deserves any moral consideration. You consider that it "got to experience life" to be some kind of mitigation of the evil of killing it people who consume animals justify the harm they inflict on the animals by believing that "giving" life to the animals somehow mitigates the harm. Fact: IF it is wrong to kill animals deliberately for food, then having deliberately caused them to live in the first place does not mitigate the wrong in any way "giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of their deaths It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense - unjust, in other words - if humans kill animals they don't need to kill, i.e. not in self defense. There's your answer humans deliberately killing animals for food is an immoral thing to do. Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it. People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans". And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would live in bad conditions. You invent some arbitrary line and head off in some other bizarre direction...all by yourself. [That "other bizarre direction" is the idea of deliberately providing decent AW for the animals we raise to eat] there is no moral loss if domesticated species go extinct. Since there is no moral loss to any animals, there is nothing for any human to take into consideration There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to exist as a step towards creating a more just world. ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 23 Sep 2005 06:14:45 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
> >dh@. wrote: > >> On 22 Sep 2005 09:25:40 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: >> >> > >> >dh@. wrote: >> > >> >> On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 11:09:00 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> >> ><dh@.> wrote >> >> >> On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 00:27:08 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >>>"larrylook" > wrote >> >> >>>>>>How do you know I don't care? >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> You can't, and you prove it. One example of the proof is your >> >> >>>>> opposition to >> >> >>>>> humans reducing cds by consuming grass raised--NOT GRAIN FED--animal >> >> >>>>> products. >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> I could have saved animal lives (by your logic) by eating my grandmother >> >> >>>> when she died. But I wasn't about to do it. I loved her and would find >> >> >>>> the act repulsive. Just like eating a chimp, dog or dolphin would be >> >> >>>> repugnant. >> >> >>> >> >> >>>So saving animal lives is not your main priority, >> >> >> >> >> >> You're not fooling me with this fake opposition Dutch. Veganism does >> >> >> nothing to help, provide better lives for, or save any animals. If you >> >> >> think >> >> >> it does, then explain how. But it does not, even if you make something up. >> >> > >> >> >Veganism contributes (marginally) to decreasing the number of animals who >> >> >are bred as livestock. It saves some animals from having to go through that >> >> >process. It doesn't "provide better lives" for animals, it doesn't claim to, >> >> >neither does the indiscriminate consumption of meat that you practice. >> >> > >> >> >>>it's aesthetics, so what >> >> >>>else is new? >> >> >> >> >> >> It's the same old shit it always has been. People can NOT save food >> >> >> animals by being vegan or by eating meat. >> >> > >> >> >Yes they can, I will use your own awkward imagery to explain. They can >> >> >prevent future animals from being born, >> >> >> >> Then they need to just say that and not pretend they're doing something >> >> to help animals. They help animals only as dead people help animals. >> >> >> >> >or as they see it, they *save* the >> >> >animals from being born into an abbreviated life >> >> >> >> · Since the animals we raise would not be alive if we >> >> didn't raise them, 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. >> > >> >None of the animals currently being commercially farmed were >> >created by humans. The lives of these farm animals >> >have an opportunity cost; the animals that would experience >> >life if the land was not being used by humans (eg to graze livestock). >> >> I have never seen grazing areas that were not home to wildlife. > >The point is that if the the land wasn't being used to support >cattle, or for some other human activity then it could be used to >support other forms of life. The grazing areas I've seen turned into something else have always supported fewer animals, not more. They have become housing areas, and businesses. >If you wish to take moral credit >for the cow's existence then you also have to accept moral >debit for these lives that are prevented from existing. Then do vegans have to take moral debit for the lives that are prevented too? >BTW have you ever been to a woodland area and compared the amount >of wildlife living there with a grassland area? When you have, come >back and tell me that people who clear a forest so cattle can graze >there deserve moral credit for enabling more cattle to exist! · 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 in order to be successful: Tires, Surgical sutures, Matches, Soaps, Photographic film, Cosmetics, Shaving cream, Paints, Candles, Crayon/Chalk, Toothpaste, Deodorants, Mouthwash, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides, Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen, Heparin, Insulin, Pancreatin, Thrombin, Vasopressin, Vitamin B-12, Asphalt, auto and jet lubricants, outboard engine oil, brake fluid, contact-lens care products, glues, sunscreens and sunblocks, dental floss, hairspray, inks, Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides, Gelatin Capsules, Bandage Strips, Combs and Toothbrushes, Emery Boards and Cloth, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products, Plywood and Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane Wrap and Tape, Adhesive Tape, Abrasivesl, 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. 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. · >> >Your failure to take these facts into consideration >> >is the real distortion of reality. >> >> I most certainly take them into consideration. > >So why do you wish to give farmers moral credit for the existence >of animals that are perfectly capable of reproducing without >human help? · 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 begin 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. · >> I've pointed out >> more than once that in all the experiences I've had with it, and >> have heard of, wildlife are more welcome in grazing areas than in >> crop filds. > >That is probably true. I wouldn't know but in any case you are >considering the wrong eqaution. I consider more than one. >If some of the land used to graze >cattle was used to grow an equivalent amount of calories in >crop fields and the rest was left to nature, that would probably >result in more wildlife in total. That's not how it goes. When the land isn't grazed it is used to grow crops resulting in less wildlife, or paved over and built on resulting in even less. Since that's how it goes, that's how I think about it. >YMMD. > >> I have also more than once asked: why should we only >> contribute to life and death for wildlife in crop fields, and not also >> life and death for wildlife and livestock in grazing areas? > >I agree that the two are not qualitatively different in any >ethically significant way but this is not relevant to your >premise that the life of a farm animal should be treated as a >loan to its farmer. I think of decent lives as decent lives, including the lives of humans, domestic animals and wildlife. For some reason other people don't do it that way, but that's how I do it, and so far no one has suggested a better way yet. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 18:48:34 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >"Derek" > wrote >> Harrison and myself are right when we say you're an >> [A]nimal [R]ights [A]dvocate, liar Ditch; > >No, I'm not, not in the way he means it, i.e. I do NOT advocate the >elimination of animal farming. You are an "ARA" in "the way" that you would rather see people become vegans, than see them deliberately contribute to decent lives for livestock. That makes you not only an "ARA", but an opponent of AW. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
dh@. wrote: > On 23 Sep 2005 06:14:45 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: > > > > >dh@. wrote: > > > >> On 22 Sep 2005 09:25:40 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: > >> > >> > > >> >dh@. wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 11:09:00 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> ><dh@.> wrote > >> >> >> On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 00:27:08 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>>"larrylook" > wrote > >> >> >>>>>>How do you know I don't care? > >> >> >>>>> > >> >> >>>>> You can't, and you prove it. One example of the proof is y= our > >> >> >>>>> opposition to > >> >> >>>>> humans reducing cds by consuming grass raised--NOT GRAIN FED-= -animal > >> >> >>>>> products. > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>> I could have saved animal lives (by your logic) by eating my g= randmother > >> >> >>>> when she died. But I wasn't about to do it. I loved her and = would find > >> >> >>>> the act repulsive. Just like eating a chimp, dog or dolphin w= ould be > >> >> >>>> repugnant. > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>>So saving animal lives is not your main priority, > >> >> >> > >> >> >> You're not fooling me with this fake opposition Dutch. Vegani= sm does > >> >> >> nothing to help, provide better lives for, or save any animals. = If you > >> >> >> think > >> >> >> it does, then explain how. But it does not, even if you make som= ething up. > >> >> > > >> >> >Veganism contributes (marginally) to decreasing the number of anim= als who > >> >> >are bred as livestock. It saves some animals from having to go thr= ough that > >> >> >process. It doesn't "provide better lives" for animals, it doesn't= claim to, > >> >> >neither does the indiscriminate consumption of meat that you pract= ice. > >> >> > > >> >> >>>it's aesthetics, so what > >> >> >>>else is new? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> It's the same old shit it always has been. People can NOT sav= e food > >> >> >> animals by being vegan or by eating meat. > >> >> > > >> >> >Yes they can, I will use your own awkward imagery to explain. They= can > >> >> >prevent future animals from being born, > >> >> > >> >> Then they need to just say that and not pretend they're doing s= omething > >> >> to help animals. They help animals only as dead people help animals. > >> >> > >> >> >or as they see it, they *save* the > >> >> >animals from being born into an abbreviated life > >> >> > >> >> =B7 Since the animals we raise would not be alive if we > >> >> didn't raise them, 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. > >> > > >> >None of the animals currently being commercially farmed were > >> >created by humans. The lives of these farm animals > >> >have an opportunity cost; the animals that would experience > >> >life if the land was not being used by humans (eg to graze livestock). > >> > >> I have never seen grazing areas that were not home to wildlife. > > > >The point is that if the the land wasn't being used to support > >cattle, or for some other human activity then it could be used to > >support other forms of life. > > The grazing areas I've seen turned into something else have > always supported fewer animals, not more. They have become > housing areas, and businesses. I fundamentally dislike the attitude that land is simply an economic resource to be appropriated by humans. To me it is the lifeblood of the planet, which we should be thrifty with. > >If you wish to take moral credit > >for the cow's existence then you also have to accept moral > >debit for these lives that are prevented from existing. > > Then do vegans have to take moral debit for the lives that > are prevented too? If they take moral credit for the lives created as part of their lifestyle as you are doing. > > >BTW have you ever been to a woodland area and compared the amount > >of wildlife living there with a grassland area? When you have, come > >back and tell me that people who clear a forest so cattle can graze > >there deserve moral credit for enabling more cattle to exist! > > =B7 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, True but what does this have to do with the issue at hand? > but even then they would have > to avoid the following in order to be successful: > > Tires, Surgical sutures, Matches, Soaps, Photographic film, > Cosmetics, Shaving cream, Paints, Candles, Crayon/Chalk, > Toothpaste, Deodorants, Mouthwash, Paper, Upholstery, > Floor waxes, Glass, Water Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, > Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides, Insulation, Linoleum, > Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen, Heparin, Insulin, > Pancreatin, Thrombin, Vasopressin, Vitamin B-12, Asphalt, > auto and jet lubricants, outboard engine oil, brake fluid, > contact-lens care products, glues, sunscreens and sunblocks, > dental floss, hairspray, inks, Solvents, Biodegradable > Detergents, Herbicides, Gelatin Capsules, Bandage Strips, > Combs and Toothbrushes, Emery Boards and Cloth, Adhesive Tape, > Laminated Wood Products, Plywood and Paneling, Wallpaper and > Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane Wrap and Tape, Adhesive Tape, > Abrasivesl, Steel Ball Bearings It is possible to get vegan soaps, cosmetics, toothpaste, deoderants, biodegradable detergents, vitamin B12, sunscreens and probably most of the other items on that list. At best it is out of date. At worst, it is totally fraudulent. What animal products are used in the manufacture of paper, plastic, ceramics and glass? > The meat industry provides life for the animals that it > slaughters, A calf is created as a result of a bull and a cow mating. No human intervention is necessary for this process to occur. > 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. > 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. =B7 This may be true but a link Larry recently provided calls this into question. http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob.../leastharm.htm "Davis estimates that only 7.5 animals of the field per hectare die in ruminant-pasture. If we were to convert half of the 120 million hectares of U.S. cropland to ruminant-pasture and half to growing vegetables, Davis claims we could feed the U.S. population on a diet of ruminant meat and crops and kill only 1.35 billion animals annually in the process. Thus, Davis concludes his omnivorous proposal would save the lives of 450 million animals each year (p. 6-7). Davis mistakenly assumes the two systems-crops only and crops with ruminant-pasture-using the same total amount of land, would feed identical numbers of people (i.e., the U.S. population). In fact, crop and ruminant systems produce different amounts of food per hectare -- the two systems would feed different numbers of people. To properly compare the harm caused by the two systems, we ought to calculate how many animals are killed in feeding equal populations-or the number of animals killed per consumer. Davis suggests the number of wild animals killed per hectare in crop production (15) is twice that killed in ruminant-pasture (7.5). If this is true, then as long as crop production uses less than half as many hectares as ruminant-pasture to deliver the same amount of food, a vegetarian will kill fewer animals than an omnivore. In fact, crop production uses less than half as many hectares as grass-fed dairy and one-tenth as many hectares as grass-fed beef to deliver the same amount of protein. In one year, 1,000 kilograms of protein can be produced on as few as 1.0 hectares planted with soy and corn, 2.6 hectares used as pasture for grass-fed dairy cows, or 10 hectares used as pasture for grass-fed beef cattle (Vandehaar 1998; UNFAO 1996). As such, to obtain the 20 kilograms of protein per year recommended for adults, a vegan-vegetarian would kill 0.3 wild animals annually, a lacto-vegetarian would kill 0.39 wild animals, while a Davis-style omnivore would kill 1.5 wild animals. Thus, correcting Davis's math, we see that a vegan-vegetarian population would kill the fewest number of wild animals, followed closely by a lacto-vegetarian population." I would be interested to read your response. > >> >Your failure to take these facts into consideration > >> >is the real distortion of reality. > >> > >> I most certainly take them into consideration. > > > >So why do you wish to give farmers moral credit for the existence > >of animals that are perfectly capable of reproducing without > >human help? > > =B7 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 begin their particular existence. The pairing of sperm and egg occurs as a result of sexual activities that do not require human intervention. > 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. =B7 The numbers of animals born to these other groups and the numbers of animals raised for food purposes are not seperate, independent variables > > >> I've pointed out > >> more than once that in all the experiences I've had with it, and > >> have heard of, wildlife are more welcome in grazing areas than in > >> crop filds. > > > >That is probably true. I wouldn't know but in any case you are > >considering the wrong eqaution. > > I consider more than one. OK. > > >If some of the land used to graze > >cattle was used to grow an equivalent amount of calories in > >crop fields and the rest was left to nature, that would probably > >result in more wildlife in total. > > That's not how it goes. When the land isn't grazed it is used to > grow crops resulting in less wildlife, or paved over and built on > resulting in even less. Since that's how it goes, that's how I think > about it. The way I think about it is rather like voting. On the individual level it makes little difference but on the collective level it matters a great deal. The attitude I have is that we should be thrifty with our land use and allow nature her fair share. > >YMMD. > > > >> I have also more than once asked: why should we only > >> contribute to life and death for wildlife in crop fields, and not also > >> life and death for wildlife and livestock in grazing areas? > > > >I agree that the two are not qualitatively different in any > >ethically significant way but this is not relevant to your > >premise that the life of a farm animal should be treated as a > >loan to its farmer. > > I think of decent lives as decent lives, including the lives of > humans, domestic animals and wildlife. For some reason other > people don't do it that way, but that's how I do it, and so far no > one has suggested a better way yet. It is a very good way of doing things. What I take issue with is the idea that the cows owe their lives to the farmer. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Derek" > wrote
> stop wasting our time. Stop whining about other people's time being wasted, it's none of your business how people use their time. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sorry if the format of this post comes out a little strange. My server
crashed just before I had finished composing it and I had to copy-paste the whole thing into word and then back again. Derek wrote: > On 24 Sep 2005 07:03:21 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: > >Derek wrote: > >> On 24 Sep 2005 05:53:27 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: > >> >Derek wrote: > >> >> On 24 Sep 2005 05:22:15 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: > >> >> >Derek wrote: > >> >> >> On 24 Sep 2005 03:34:54 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: > >> >> >> >Derek wrote: > >> >> >> >> On 24 Sep 2005 02:45:04 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: > >> >> >> >> >Derek wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> On 23 Sep 2005 06:20:47 -0700, in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian you wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >I was just wondering the same question. Derek did go very quiet on > >> >> >> >> >> >us when we demonstrated that the animal deaths associated with > >> >> >> >> >> >meat production were per accidens using the definitions he > >> >> >> >> >> >provided didn't he? > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> If I remember correctly, you argued that they weren't > >> >> >> >> >> per accidens, dummy. I made my case by defining the > >> >> >> >> >> terms accurately and clearly. > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >Viz: > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >"According to Aristotle's essence vs. accident distinction > >> >> >> >> >(per se vs. per accidens), when a property of something > >> >> >> >> >is classified as "essence" it means that that property is > >> >> >> >> >always absolutely necessary for that object's existence." > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >Meat can be sourced from animals that have died of natural > >> >> >> >> >causes. Therefore the killing of animals is not absolutely > >> >> >> >> >necessaryn for the existence of meat. Gotcha! > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Far from it, and you've shown once again what > >> >> >> >> I've been trying to tell you all along, that you still > >> >> >> >> don't understand these terms. As I said before > >> >> >> >> when road-kill and natural deaths were considered, > >> >> >> >> the meat from these animals doesn't have the same > >> >> >> >> property that meat sourced from livestock farming > >> >> >> >> does. The meat from livestock farming carries a > >> >> >> >> property that is always absolutely necessary for that > >> >> >> >> meat's existence: intentional slaughter by us; > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >No it doesn't. You can theoretically allow the livestock > >> >> >> >you farm to die of natural causes before you eat them. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Meat from livestock farming is always slaughtered, > >> >> >> and as such, the death associated with that meat is > >> >> >> per se. > >> >> > > >> >> >Not according to the definitions you gave. > >> >> > >> >> Yes, according to the definition I gave. > >> > >> That's settled then. > > > >"Yes, according to the definition I gave" > > No, according to the definition I gave and which > you clearly don't understand. Note the unannotated snippage. > > >> >> >The slaughtering > >> >> >of animals is not always absolutely necessary for the > >> >> >production of farmed meat. > >> >> > >> >> Yes, it is. You don't get meat from farmed animals > >> >> without first slaughtering those farmed animals. > >> > > >> >But theoretically you could do. > >> > >> No, you cannot source meat from farmed animals > >> without first slaughtering those farmed animals. > > > >Of course you can. Simply wait for the farm animal > >to die from natural causes. > > Meat from animals that have died from natural causes > isn't supplied by livestock farmers. This still doesn't imply that the property (animal being slaughtered) is always absolutely necessary for the product we were discussing (meat from farmed animals) . > > > >Therefore the killing > >> >is not an *absolutely* necessary part of meat production. > >> > >> It is if you source your meat from farmed animals > >> because they are always slaughtered intentionally. > > > >Irrelevant. > > No, it is not irrelevant. You cannot source farmed > meat from farmed animals that have died from natural > causes; they are slaughtered intentionally for their meat. OK. I see you wish to be more specific about the product we were discussing. The slaughter of animals is a per-accidens property of meat that comes from livestock. It is a per-se property of meat that a consumer can buy over the counter. However this redefining exposes a massive hole in your ethics. Suppose that butchers and supermarkets did start buying meat from animals that died naturally. In that case the slaughter of animals would become a per-accidens property of meat that can be bought over the counter and hence, according to your ethics become, in essence, perfectly ethcial even if the particular piece of meat you purchased came from an animal that had been slaughtered. It doesn't make sense! > >> Meat sourced from animals that have died from > >> natural causes or from road kill isn't supplied by > >> livestock farming. > > > >Livestock animals can die of natural causes or become > >road kill. > > Yes, but those animals are not sold onto consumers. > All farmed meat is sourced from slaughtered farm > animals. I have nothing to add to my reply to your previous point. > >> >> >> >> that > >> >> >> >> property is classified as per se. Meat sourced from > >> >> >> >> road kill, or animals that have died from natural > >> >> >> >> causes doesn't carry that property of intentional > >> >> >> >> slaughter, and so the property of that meat is always > >> >> >> >> classified as per accidens. Learn these terms and > >> >> >> >> stop wasting our time. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >I have learned the meaning of these terms as you defined > >> >> >> >them. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> No, you clearly haven't understood them at all, else > >> >> >> you wouldn't keep making the same mistake. I'm not > >> >> >> here to teach you, so I suggest you do some reading > >> >> >> of your own on the subject. > >> >> > > >> >> >It is you who is making the mistake > >> >> > >> >> No, unfortunately for you, it is you who is making > >> >> the mistake, and it's because of this mistake that > >> >> you'll never get to understand the distinction. > >> > >> I'm glad to see that you finally agree, though tacitly. > > > >You weren't putting forward an argument. > > Being that I used the term "because", my statement > was indeed an argument, and while you fail to > respond to that argument I can only take that as > tacit agreement with it. I stand by everything I have said to you in this thread. I already understand the distinction between per-se and per-accidens. My contribution to the thread, demonstrates this. > >> >> >> >It's too bad that you haven't! > >> >> >> > >> >> >> I understand the distinction perfectly. > >> >> > > >> >> >You obviously don't. > >> >> > >> >> I obviously do. > >> > >> If you understood the terms you would not be > >> making the same mistake. > > > >This is not an argument and therefore doesn't require > >a response. > > Are you going to try this little dodge with every statement > I make, time-waster? Only when you present opinions that do nothing to further the discussion like "You don't understand the terms". I shall continue my policy of responding only to arguments and constructive statements. > >> >> >> >> >> If you still have a problem > >> >> >> >> >> understanding the distinction between them I suggest you > >> >> >> >> >> go back to my original post and review it, time-waster. > >> >> >> >> >> Why have you dropped the stupid nym 'pesco-vegan', > >> >> >> >> >> dummy? Couldn't carry it, eh? > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >There is nothing stupid about the nym 'Pesco-vegan'. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> You may not see the stupidity in it, but I can. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >When I decided that "eat no meat or dairy" was too > >> >> >> >> >simplistic a rule then the nym no longer seemed > >> >> >> >> >appropriate for me. That is all. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> You dropped it because you were told that it > >> >> >> >> was self-contradictory, and if you had any sense > >> >> >> >> at all you wouldn't have used it in the first place. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Your lack of a response here tells I'm right: you > >> >> >> dropped the nym AFTER it was shown to be > >> >> >> self-contradictory. > >> >> > >> >> Thank you. > >> > > >> >What for? I forgot to respond > >> > >> One lack of a response might be seen as forgetful, > >> but two in a row, especially after being told that > >> you had failed to respond the first time is a tacit > >> admission. > > > >I have already responded to this exact point. > > You failed to respond twice in a row, even after being > reminded that you had failed to respond, so for you to > now say that you did respond is an obvious lie. I did respond. Here's the proof: http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt...7487edd?hl=en& |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Dave" > wrote in message oups.com... snippage... It is possible to get vegan soaps, cosmetics, toothpaste, deoderants, biodegradable detergents, vitamin B12, sunscreens and probably most of the other items on that list. At best it is out of date. At worst, it is totally fraudulent. What animal products are used in the manufacture of paper, plastic, ceramics and glass? =============================== Mammals, birds, reptiles, fish and amphibians. Unless you like to count bugs too. Just because the end product MAY not contain bits of animals, it doesn't mean that they don't die. They do, and very brutally and inhumanely. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Derek wrote: > On 24 Sep 2005 06:44:45 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: > >Derek wrote: > >> On 24 Sep 2005 05:36:41 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: > >> >Derek wrote: > >> >> On 24 Sep 2005 03:39:28 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: > >> >> >Derek wrote: > >> >> >> On 24 Sep 2005 03:01:41 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: > >> >> >> >Derek wrote: > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> On 23 Sep 2005 06:20:47 -0700, in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian you wrote: > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >I was just wondering the same question. Derek did go very quiet on > >> >> >> >> >us when we demonstrated that the animal deaths associated with > >> >> >> >> >meat production were per accidens using the definitions he > >> >> >> >> >provided didn't he? > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> If I remember correctly, you argued that they weren't > >> >> >> >> per accidens, dummy. I made my case by defining the > >> >> >> >> terms accurately and clearly. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >Viz: "According to Aristotle's essence vs. accident distinction > >> >> >> >(per se vs. per accidens), when a property of something > >> >> >> >is classified as "essence" it means that that property is > >> >> >> >always absolutely necessary for that object's existence." > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >Meat can be sourced from animals who have died of natural > >> >> >> >causes and therefore the killing of animals is not always > >> >> >> >absolutely necessary for the existence of meat. Gotcha! > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Far from it, and you've shown once again what > >> >> >> I've been trying to tell you all along, that you still > >> >> >> don't understand these terms. As I said before > >> >> >> when road-kill and natural deaths were considered, > >> >> >> the meat from these animals doesn't have the same > >> >> >> property that meat sourced from livestock farming > >> >> >> does. The meat from livestock farming carries a > >> >> >> property that is always absolutely necessary for that > >> >> >> meat's existence: intentional slaughter by us; that > >> >> >> property is classified as per se. Meat sourced from > >> >> >> road kill, or animals that have died from natural > >> >> >> causes doesn't carry that property of intentional > >> >> >> slaughter, and so the property of that meat is always > >> >> >> classified as per accidens. Learn these terms and > >> >> >> stop wasting our time. > >> >> > >> >> Well, pesco-vegan - cat got your tongue? > >> > > >> >Not at all. I have responded to this point elswhere in the > >> >thread and do not see the point of doing so twice. > >> > >> Being that your other response failed to demonstrate > >> that you understand this distinction, I can understand > >> why you wouldn't to demonstrate that same failure > >> again. > > > >Whatever. > > That's a lazy non-response and shows that I am not going to waste my time responding to unconstructive comments that do nothing to move the debate forward. > >> >> >> >> If you still have a problem > >> >> >> >> understanding the distinction between them I suggest you > >> >> >> >> go back to my original post and review it, time-waster. > >> >> >> >> Why have you dropped the stupid nym 'pesco-vegan', > >> >> >> >> dummy? Couldn't carry it, eh? > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >There is stupid about using the nym 'Pesco-vegan'. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> You may not see the stupidity in it, but I can. > >> >> > >> >> Well, pesco-vegan - nothing to say? > >> > > >> >"You may not see the stupidity in it, but I can." is not > >> >an argument > >> > >> It wasn't intended as one; it's an observation. > >> > >> >and as such does not require a response. > >> >You should know that. > >> > >> If you've nothing to explain your self-contradictory > >> nym away, then it's easy to see why you wouldn't > >> want to comment on my observation. > > > >I have nothing to explain. Pesco-vegan was a perfectly > >valid nym to use. > > You've already conceded that "It is oxymoronic.", yet > now you're trying to claim that it's a perfectly VALID > nym to use. You're all over the place. It was oxymoronic *and* appropriate. > >> >> >> >When I decided that "eat no meat or dairy" was too > >> >> >> >simplistic a rule then the nym no longer seemed > >> >> >> >appropriate for me. That is all. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> You dropped it because you were told that it > >> >> >> was self-contradictory, > >> >> > > >> >> >The term is no more self-contradictory than pesco-vegetarian. > >> >> > >> >> Which doesn't get away from the fact that the nym > >> >> "pesco-vegan" IS self-contradictory, now does it? > >> > > >> >It is an easily interpreted term that gave a clear indication > >> >of what I ate and what I didn't. It is oxymoronic. > >> > >> At last! > >> > >> >So sue me! > >> > >> No thank you. > >> > >> >> >> and if you had any sense > >> >> >> at all you wouldn't have used it in the first place. > >> >> > > >> >> >I have no regrets about using the nym. > >> >> > >> >> Which is why you've dropped it like a hot potato, > >> >> yeah right. > >> > > >> >I have already explained why I dropped the term. > >> > >> You have now; "It is oxymoronic.", but you needed > >> that explained to you first before dropping the nym. > > > >I always knew the name was oxymoronic but that > >didn't matter and still doesn't. > > It did matter, and that's why you've dropped it. I have explained why I dropped the nym more than once now. If you want to delude yourself that I dropped the nym because your objections to it were unanswerable, so be it. > >> >> >It accurately described my position at the time. > >> >> > >> >> Exactly: self-contradictory. You've even admitted > >> >> it, but when I asked what you find so uneasy > >> >> about you conflicting, self-contradictory principles > >> >> you cut and ran for the door without replying. > >> > > >> >My principles aren't and never were self-contradictory. > >> > >> You've admitted that they are below this line. Also, > >> you're on record stating; > >> "My consumer habits are influenced by AR principles > >> if that's what you mean." > >> Pesco-vegan (Dave) Sep 3 2005 http://tinyurl.com/bnbsd > >> > >> Yet you eat fish, and that on it's own is a massive > >> contradiction to what you've stated in that quote > >> above. > > > >No it isn't. I said my consumer habits were influenced > >by AR principles > > Yet you eat fish: animals. It is practically impossible to be a consumer without supporting animal rights abuses in a society that does not recognize said rights. Destroying rainforest to plant soya beans could be described as an infringement of AR and spraying insecticide over your crops sure as hell is! Fish are animals but to my way of thinking, they are not in the same league as birds or mammals. > >- not dictated by them. > > Not if you don't live by your stated principles, and > that's what I'm taking you to task over. Your > principles are as contradictory I don't see the contradiction. > as the nym you > dropped, and that wont do while you continue to > insist that your principles aren't contradictory. You > need to sort yourself out and decide what principles > you're going to stick with if you want to avoid being > seen as a hypocrite. I'll stand by all the remarks I've made since entering these newsgroups except those that I have explicitly retracted. You are welcome to take me to task over any pair of statements I have made that appear contradictory and I shall either retract one of them or defend both. > >> Fish are animals, and if your consumer > >> habits are influenced by AR principles, then you > >> aren't living up to your stated principles. You're > >> contradicting yourself. There is no contradiction because I never claimed to endorse a wholesale application of AR principles that applies to all animal products, including fish and insects but tends towards turning a blind eye to the animal abuses that occur in non-animal agriculture. > >> >> >> [start - me to you] > >> >> >> His > >> >> >> comments are valid, and if you had any coherent > >> >> >> reason for stopping where you do with fish, you > >> >> >> would put it on the table for discussion instead > >> >> >> of cutting and running for the door as you did. > >> >> [you] > >> >> >I don't think Rudy was talking about fish but I shall > >> >> >answer your question anyway. Think of it as an > >> >> >uneasy compromize between conflicting principles > >> >> [me] > >> >> Tell me what you find so uneasy about your > >> >> conflicting principles, pesco-vegan. > >> >> [end] > >> >> Derek http://tinyurl.com/chjqc > >> >> > >> >> Go to the link and see where you cut and ran, pesco-vegan. > >> > > >> >Here are some of the "principles" I was referring to: > >> > > >> >Be thrifty concerning land usage. > >> >Eat a healthy, tasty and balanced diet. > >> >Respect animal life. > >> > > >> >Sometimes there is conflict between these principles but > >> >they are certainly not self-contradictory. > >> > >> They are if you're eating animals which you claim > >> hold rights against you; > >> > >> "My consumer habits are influenced by AR principles > >> if that's what you mean." > >> Pesco-vegan (Dave) Sep 3 2005 http://tinyurl.com/bnbsd > >> > >> You eat fish, yet you also claim that your consumer > >> habits are influenced by AR principles. That alone > >> is a massive contradiction. > > > >My consumer habits are influenced by AR ideas > > "principles" is what you wrote, not "ideas", and you > aren't living by your stated principles which you've > hitherto insisted influence your consumer habits. See above. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Dave" > wrote in message oups.com...
<..> >> Suppose that butchers and supermarkets did start buying meat >> from animals that died naturally. Strictly prohibited. 'Death from natural causes or accident 27(1) A person shall not take into an abattoir an animal that has died from natural causes or because of an accident. http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/acts376?opendocument 'FOOD SAFETY State and Federal Standards and Regulations ... It is unlawful to handle, skin, butcher, cut up, dress or prepare for the making of fertilizers, animal feeding, or other uses, any animal, or the meat or other parts of an animal, that died from natural causes, disease, or accident, in any room of an establishment where animals are slaughtered, dressed, and prepared for human food. http://www.nasda-hq.org/nasda/nasda/...nnsylvania.pdf |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
I have been thinking about this discussion a bit more since
replying and I have a few more things to say about it. Firstly that it is nice to be able to have a civil conversation, rather than playing insult tennis, for a change so thank you for that, dhld. If everyone switched to a vegan diet, I believe a lot more land would become available. Some of that would inevitably become buildings and offices, which as you rightly point out, support much less life than cattle grazing areas. Some of it would become gardens, which is probably no bad thing. I reckon some of it would end up being left wild. There would be also be less pressure on the rainforest habitat as demand for soya would drop and demand for beef would cease altogether. Feeding the world would be easier but B12 deficiencies might become endemic amongst those populations too poor to afford supplements. >From the above perspectives, the addition of handline-caught fish, forest game meat, wild birds eggs and honey can be justified in moderation. Possibly there are also some marginal lands that would be better used for animals than for crops. I am still open-minded about humanely reared farm animals. They do seem to represent a rather inefficient way of extracting land from food but of course they provide wool and leather as well. Anything else? Also in mixed agriculture systems animals can be used to weed, plough and fertilize the land. Ducks can also help control slugs in an environmentally responsible manner. At the moment I have far more questions than answers. I am basically thinking out loud. One thing that has just occured to me about GFCs is that, unless I am mistaken, they eat hay during the winter. Did Mr Davis consider the deaths caused by the harvesting and storage of this hay? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
rick wrote: > "Dave" > wrote in message > oups.com... > > snippage... > > > It is possible to get vegan soaps, cosmetics, toothpaste, > deoderants, > biodegradable detergents, vitamin B12, sunscreens and probably > most > of the other items on that list. At best it is out of date. At > worst, > it is totally fraudulent. What animal products are used in the > manufacture > of paper, plastic, ceramics and glass? > =============================== > Mammals, birds, reptiles, fish and amphibians. Unless you like > to count bugs too. > Just because the end product MAY not contain bits of animals, it > doesn't mean that they don't die. They do, and very brutally and > inhumanely. That does not answer my question. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
pearl wrote:
> "Dave" > wrote in message oups.com... > <..> > >> Suppose that butchers and supermarkets did start buying meat > >> from animals that died naturally. > > Strictly prohibited. Hi Pearl, the point is that according to Derek's ridiculous application of Arsitotle's per-se versus per-accidens distinction, all meat would be ethical to eat if it was not illegal for butchers and supermarkets to do buy meat from animals that died naturally or accidently. > 'Death from natural causes or accident > 27(1) A person shall not take into an abattoir an > animal that has died from natural causes or because > of an accident. > http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/acts376?opendocument > > 'FOOD SAFETY > State and Federal Standards and Regulations > .. > It is unlawful to handle, skin, butcher, cut up, dress > or prepare for the making of fertilizers, animal feeding, > or other uses, any animal, or the meat or other parts > of an animal, that died from natural causes, disease, > or accident, in any room of an establishment where > animals are slaughtered, dressed, and prepared for > human food. > http://www.nasda-hq.org/nasda/nasda/...nnsylvania.pdf |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Dave" > wrote in message ups.com...
<..> > Destroying rainforest to plant soya beans could be described > as an infringement of AR 'Paving The Amazon With Soy... ... The sprawling state of Mato Grosso, in central west Brazil, could be thought a paradise of sorts, at least from a distance. The lush rainforest of the Amazon basin, often called the "lungs of the world," straddles the state, as does the grassy Brazilian savanna or cerrado. Parrots, jaguars and pumas are just a few of the abundant species found in the savanna, considered one of the most biodiverse in the world, along with endangered species like the maned wolf, anteater and river-dwelling giant otter. The landscape, however, is rapidly being altered as vast fields of soybeans and cattle ranches replace grasslands and forests. Soy rules Mato Grosso and it's not the soy that much of the world associates with the ostensibly eco-friendly, vegetarian diet, either. In the wake of the Mad Cow disease scare, soy producers have benefited from increased demand in affluent countries for meat from cows that are fed soy meal, rather than animal-based feed. ..........' http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/20793/ > and spraying insecticide over your crops sure as hell is! 'Surveys by the ministry of agriculture and the British Trust for Ornithology have shown the beneficial effects of organic farming on wildlife. It's not difficult to see why: the pesticides used in intensive agriculture kill many soil organisms, insects and other larger species. They also kill plants considered to be weeds. That means fewer food sources available for other animals, birds and beneficial insects and it also destroys many of their habitats. http://tinyurl.com/d4bm4 '..This comprehensive European-wide literature review provides evidence on the whole range of environmental benefits of organic farming. It concludes that, in comparison with non-organic farming, organic farming tends to support greater biodiversity, conserves soil fertility and stability better, does not pose any risk of water pollution from pesticides, results in 40-60% lower carbon dioxide emissions per hectare, nitrous oxide and ammonia emission potential appears to be lower, energy consumption is usually lower, and energy efficiency is usually higher. ...' http://tinyurl.com/8anxd 'The independent research quoted in this report found substantially greater levels of both abundance and diversity of species on the organic farms, as outlined below: Plants: Five times as many wild plants in arable fields, 57% more species, and several rare and declining wild arable species found only on organic farms. Birds: 25% more birds at the field edge, 44% more in-field in autumn/winter; 2.2 times as many breeding skylarks and higher skylark breeding rates. Invertebrates: 1.6 times as many of the arthropods that comprise bird food; three times as many non-pest butterflies in the crop areas; one to five times as many spider numbers and one to two times as many spider species. Crop pests: Significant decrease in aphid numbers; no change in numbers of pest butterflies. Distribution of the biodiversity benefits: Though the field boundaries had the highest levels of wildlife, the highest increases were found in the cropped areas of the fields. Quality of the habitats: Both the field boundary and crop habitats were more favourable on the organic farms. The field boundaries had more trees, larger hedges and no spray drift. ...' http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/pn48/pn48p15b.htm > Fish are animals but to my way of thinking, they are not in the same > league as birds or mammals. ' 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). ... The learning processes shown by fish include observational (McGregor et al. 2001), interactive (Topál and Csányi 1999), Pavlovian (Hollis 1984) and avoidance (Zerbolio and Royalty 1983). Current work shows that learning processes demonstrated by fish are multifaceted phenomenon that have clear fitness implications to fish species at various developmental stages (Brown and Laland 2003; Griffiths 2003; Hoare and Krause 2003; Kelley and Magurran 2003; Odling-Smee and Braithwaite 2003). ... All teleost fish have elaborate forebrains (Butler and Hodos 1996), and the degree of forebrain development is correlated with social behaviour, communication abilities and other environmental factors that may require integrative cognitive capacities (Kotrschal et al. 1998). Fish have evolved to exploit diverse environmental niches, and show concomitant development within all relevant brain areas. This brain development may consist of increases or decreases in brain stem, cerebellar, optic, olfactory, diencephalic and telencephalic structural mass or complexity (Kotrschal et al. 1998). The morphological changes that may comprise the representative brain for any given species are diverse, and contrary to Rose's generalized assumption, some phylogenetic radiations(e.g. actinoperygians) show a shift in brain mass from primary sensory areas towards higher order integration centres (Kotrschal et al. 1998). In addition, the integration of cerebellar, optic and telencephalic functions to produce cognitive responses to the environment may be similar in fish and mammals (Broglio et al. 2003). ....' http://www.aquanet.ca/English/resear...erspective.pdf [" Humans - who enslave, castrate, experiment on, and fillet other animals - have had an understandable penchant for pretending animals do not feel pain. A sharp distinction between humans and "animals" is essential if we are to bend them to our will, make them work for us, wear them, eat them - without any disquieting tinges of guilt or regret. It is unseemly of us, who often behave so unfeelingly toward other animals, to contend that only humans can suffer. The behaviour of other animals renders such pretensions specious. They are just too much like us." -- Dr. Carl Sagan & Dr. Ann Druyan, Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors, 1992 ] > > >> >Here are some of the "principles" I was referring to: > > >> > > > >> >Be thrifty concerning land usage. Variety of ocean's fish down by half, study says Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post July 29, 2005 FISH0729 WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The variety of species in the world's oceans has dropped by as much as 50 percent in the past 50 years, according to a paper published today in the journal Science. A combination of overfishing, habitat destruction and climate change has narrowed the range of fish across the globe, wrote biologists Boris Worm and Ransom Myers of Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia and three other scientists. In some areas, such as the ocean off northwest Australia where a wide variety of tuna and billfish used to thrive, diversity has declined precipitously. "Where you used to put out a fishing line 50 years ago and catch 10 species, now you catch five species for the same amount of effort," Worm said Thursday. "That's a recipe for ecological collapse and disaster." The study, which marks the first worldwide mapping of predatory fish diversity, identified five remaining spots that still have a rich variety of species, two of them in U.S. waters: the east coast of Florida, south of Hawaii, near Australia's Great Barrier Reef, near Sri Lanka and in the South Pacific. "These areas are really of global significance," Worm said. "It's really important to protect them now, because 20 years from now they may not be there." The total catch for tuna and billfish has increased as much as tenfold over the past 50 years, prompting fish diversity to plummet, researchers said. Overfishing is the main reason, but inadvertent catches of other fish also factors in, Worm said. The study also found that, in the Pacific, the variety of fish increased when the weather pattern known as El Niño swept in and brought warmer surface water, but then contracted when temperatures dropped. Predatory fish appear to like medium temperatures around 77 degrees Fahrenheit, Myers said. "Like Goldilocks and the three bears, ocean animals don't like it too hot or too cold, they like it just right." To conduct the study, Worm and Myers -- along with Marcel Sandow and Andreas Oschlies of Germany's Leibniz Institute for Marine Science and Heike Lotze of Britain's National Oceanography Centre -- used data from Japanese long-line fisheries going back to the 1950s, which they cross-referenced with scientific observer data from the United States and Australia. The researchers determined that tuna and billfish are indicators of wider ocean diversity and that these species are disappearing in many areas. Mid-size predators -- snake mackerel and pelagic stingrays -- are taking their place. Worm compared the diminishing range of species to a poorly distributed stock portfolio that's ill-equipped to respond to economic and environmental shifts. "As [fishing] markets change, as the climate changes, you have nothing to fall back on," he said. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...072801752.html ' Two years ago, he and Mr. Worm used the same data to show that commercial fishing had depleted the world's oceans of 90 per cent of the overall abundance of big fish that flourished 50 years ago. .....' http://www.seaotters.org/CurrentIssu....cfm?DocID=279 THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND ECONOMIC COSTS OF DEPLETING THE WORLD'S OCEANS ............. http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/ite...ijee/somma.htm > > >> >Eat a healthy, tasty and balanced diet. 'Brenda C Davis and Penny M Kris-Etherton, Achieving optimal essential fatty acid status in vegetarians: current knowledge and practical implications. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 78, No. 3, 640S-646S, September 2003 .... Given the rate of conversion of ALA to EPA and DHA, it has been suggested that a safe and adequate ratio for the vegetarian and vegan populations would be in the range of 2:1-4:1 (22). This can best be achieved by increasing ALA in the diet and decreasing LA, if indicated (see below). ... ... it is important to ensure that there are sufficient amounts of ALA, which is necessary for the production of EPA and DHA. Most healthy vegetarians would be well advised to double their intake of ALA, providing 1% of energy from n-3 fatty acids or 1.1 g/1000 cal. For those with increased needs or decreased capacity to convert, an intake of 2% of energy or 2.2 g/1000 cal may be necessary. The primary sources of ALA are selected seeds, nuts, and legumes (flaxseed, hempseed, canola, walnuts, and soy) and the green leaves of plants, including phytoplankton and algae. ... Practical guidelines for achieving optimal EFA intake in vegetarians are as follows. 1) Make a wide variety of whole plant foods the foundation of the diet. 2) Get most fat from whole foods-nuts, seeds, olives, avocados, and soy foods. 3) If using concentrated fats and oils, select those rich in monounsaturated fats, such as olive, canola, or nut oils. n-3-Rich oils can also be used but should not be heated. Moderate use of n-6-rich oils is recommended. 4) Limit intake of processed foods and deep-fried foods rich in trans and n-6 fatty acids. 5) Reduce intake of foods rich in saturated fat and cholesterol. 6) Include foods rich in n-3 fatty acids in the daily diet. Aim for 2-4 g ALA/d. 7) Consider using a direct source of DHA. Aim for 100-300 mg/d. ... ... a DHA-rich microalgae that provides 10-40% DHA by dry weight .. is currently available in supplement form. ....' http://tinyurl.com/65xn7 > > >> >Respect animal life. Yes. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Dave" > wrote in message oups.com...
> pearl wrote: > > > "Dave" > wrote in message oups.com... > > <..> > > >> Suppose that butchers and supermarkets did start buying meat > > >> from animals that died naturally. > > > > Strictly prohibited. > > Hi Pearl, the point is that according to Derek's ridiculous application of > Arsitotle's per-se versus per-accidens distinction, all meat would be > ethical to eat if it was not illegal for butchers and supermarkets to > do buy meat from animals that died naturally or accidently. As it is not legal, Derek's application of it is perfectly valid. > > 'Death from natural causes or accident > > 27(1) A person shall not take into an abattoir an > > animal that has died from natural causes or because > > of an accident. > > http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/acts376?opendocument > > > > 'FOOD SAFETY > > State and Federal Standards and Regulations > > .. > > It is unlawful to handle, skin, butcher, cut up, dress > > or prepare for the making of fertilizers, animal feeding, > > or other uses, any animal, or the meat or other parts > > of an animal, that died from natural causes, disease, > > or accident, in any room of an establishment where > > animals are slaughtered, dressed, and prepared for > > human food. > > http://www.nasda-hq.org/nasda/nasda/...nnsylvania.pdf > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
dh@. wrote: .... Maybe > you agree with him, but to me these "ARAs" are incredible > freaks. Worse than that they are scum, even though their intent may be good. And no I dont agree with any concept which has no basis in *reality*. eg animal rights, in reality animals dont have rights, animal rights are the invention of communist inspired fools. Humans have rights animals dont. How an animal is treated is up to the owner of that animal. If dh@. wants to care for animals, then dh@. ought buy the ones he wants to care for and then claim a property right on them, so as that he and he alone an determine how they are treated. My personal view on the treatment of humans and other animals is, I dont like to see humans treated like animals and or the same reason I dont like seeing animals treated like humans. The fact is, the more society treats animals like humans the closer that society is getting to treating humans like animals. eg witness socialism. Michael Gordge |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote: > dh@. wrote: > ... Maybe > > you agree with him, but to me these "ARAs" are incredible > > freaks. > > Worse than that they are scum, even though their intent may be good. > > And no I dont agree with any concept which has no basis in *reality*. > eg animal rights, in reality animals dont have rights, animal rights > are the invention of communist inspired fools. > > Humans have rights animals dont. How an animal is treated is up to the > owner of that animal. > > If dh@. wants to care for animals, then dh@. ought buy the ones he > wants to care for and then claim a property right on them, so as that > he and he alone an determine how they are treated. > > My personal view on the treatment of humans and other animals is, I > dont like to see humans treated like animals and or the same reason I > dont like seeing animals treated like humans. > > The fact is, the more society treats animals like humans the closer > that society is getting to treating humans like animals. eg witness > socialism. > > > Michael Gordge appologies dh@. you do realise I was referring to the animal rights clown. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress
can be judged by the way its animals are treated." - Mahatma Gandhi (Also, evidently, an individual's moral progress...) > wrote in message ups.com... > > wrote: > > dh@. wrote: > > ... Maybe > > > you agree with him, but to me these "ARAs" are incredible > > > freaks. > > > > Worse than that they are scum, even though their intent may be good. > > > > And no I dont agree with any concept which has no basis in *reality*. > > eg animal rights, in reality animals dont have rights, animal rights > > are the invention of communist inspired fools. > > > > Humans have rights animals dont. How an animal is treated is up to the > > owner of that animal. > > > > If dh@. wants to care for animals, then dh@. ought buy the ones he > > wants to care for and then claim a property right on them, so as that > > he and he alone an determine how they are treated. > > > > My personal view on the treatment of humans and other animals is, I > > dont like to see humans treated like animals and or the same reason I > > dont like seeing animals treated like humans. > > > > The fact is, the more society treats animals like humans the closer > > that society is getting to treating humans like animals. eg witness > > socialism. > > > > > > Michael Gordge > > appologies dh@. you do realise I was referring to the animal rights > clown. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
pearl wrote: > "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress > can be judged by the way its animals are treated." > - Mahatma Gandhi He's from India right? the poorest, the most backward, and of course the largest democracy on earth, a country that treats cows like humans. What better reason to ignore the stupid old ****ed in the head git. Michael Gordge |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> wrote > > Dutch wrote: >> > Really? so you'd lock a cat in jail for eating a mouse? man you are >> > weird. >> >> No, that's not what I mean. I mean, for example, that a domestic animal >> has >> a right to be fed and sheltered and protected from abuse. > > Oh really, so where do you draw the line? Surely *death* is the > ultimate *abuse*!! No it isn't, since we are omnivorous animals it is not per se abusive to kill other animals for food. > eg Framer Brown raises cattle, sheep, poultry, fish for the purpose of > human consumption? ie for humans to eat. > > What happens to your so called *rights of animals* when it comes time > for the farmer to sell his stock to be slaughtered? They still exist right up until the time they are slaughtered, i.e. those animals have a moral right, that is, we have a moral obligation to ensure that those animals are killed in the most humane way we can manage. http://www.grandin.com/ > ie I am asking you to define the difference between your *animal > rights* and the rights of humans? I think I already have, animal rights are mainly centred on the assurance of humane care. > why not let humans be killed for > other humans to eat as well? Why not indeed? Why *would* we contemplate such a thing? You seem to be labouring under the misconception that since we grant domestic animals the right to be treated humanely we must grant them some other rights also, such as not to be used as food. That kind of fuzzy thinking is what leads ARAs to the fanatical position they occupy. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> You seem to be
> labouring under the misconception that since we grant domestic animals the > right to be treated humanely There is NO *WE* sunshine, YOU speak ONLY for YOU. I dont grant nor do I claim to grant rights, (human or otherwise) nor do I agree with any such thing as animal rights. The person who claims an abilty to *grant* rights (to animals or humans) is the same person who will claim a right to take them away, at any time. Rights apply ONLY to human beings, because human beings are the only animal capable of upholding them and of understanding them. A *right* granted to an animal MUST come at the expense of a human right, I could never sanction such an act. If you want to *care* for an animal's welfare, then the ONLY MORAL course of action available to you is, to purchase that animal, or peacefully persuade the owner to let you have it, and then claim a property right on it, so as you can then treat it any way you like. Michael Gordge BTW I used to donate to RSPCA because in general they do an excellent job. I am first and foremost a human being and I dont like to see ANY animal human or otherwise suffer. HOWEVER because of the inflitration of the communist agenda now in that organisation, I no longer do. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Dave" > wrote in message oups.com... > > rick wrote: > >> "Dave" > wrote in message >> oups.com... >> >> snippage... >> >> >> It is possible to get vegan soaps, cosmetics, toothpaste, >> deoderants, >> biodegradable detergents, vitamin B12, sunscreens and probably >> most >> of the other items on that list. At best it is out of date. At >> worst, >> it is totally fraudulent. What animal products are used in the >> manufacture >> of paper, plastic, ceramics and glass? >> =============================== >> Mammals, birds, reptiles, fish and amphibians. Unless you >> like >> to count bugs too. >> Just because the end product MAY not contain bits of animals, >> it >> doesn't mean that they don't die. They do, and very brutally >> and >> inhumanely. > > That does not answer my question. =========================== Yes, it does. There may not be not pieces of animals in the end product, but animals were 'used' in the production. > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Dave" > wrote > > Derek wrote: >> On 23 Sep 2005 06:20:47 -0700, in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian you >> wrote: >> > >> >I was just wondering the same question. Derek did go very quiet on >> >us when we demonstrated that the animal deaths associated with >> >meat production were per accidens using the definitions he >> >provided didn't he? >> >> If I remember correctly, you argued that they weren't >> per accidens, dummy. I made my case by defining the >> terms accurately and clearly. > > Viz: > > "According to Aristotle's essence vs. accident distinction > (per se vs. per accidens), when a property of something > is classified as "essence" it means that that property is > always absolutely necessary for that object's existence." > > Meat can be sourced from animals that have died of natural > causes. Therefore the killing of animals is not absolutely > necessary for the existence of meat. Gotcha! Absolutely correct, and to illustrate vegan hypocrisy, note that they regularly attempt to argue that consuming plant-based products is morally superior because it is (supposedly) theoretically possible to obtain plant foods without killing any animals, even though very few of them actually do. >> If you still have a problem >> understanding the distinction between them I suggest you >> go back to my original post and review it, time-waster. >> Why have you dropped the stupid nym 'pesco-vegan', >> dummy? Couldn't carry it, eh? > > There is nothing stupid about the nym 'Pesco-vegan'. > When I decided that "eat no meat or dairy" was too > simplistic a rule then the nym no longer seemed > appropriate for me. That is all. Note that this attack is coming from a person who claims to abhor vehemently the practice of attacking the person rather than the argument. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
You know that we're not ARAs ****wit, deal with that first, then we'll talk. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
<dh@.> wrote in message ... > On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 18:48:34 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >>"Derek" > wrote > >>> Harrison and myself are right when we say you're an >>> [A]nimal [R]ights [A]dvocate, liar Ditch; >> >>No, I'm not, not in the way he means it, i.e. I do NOT advocate the >>elimination of animal farming. > > You are an "ARA" in "the way" that you would rather see > people become vegans, Then why have I been telling people for the last five years that "veganism" is a flawed idea? > than see them deliberately contribute > to decent lives for livestock. That makes you not only an "ARA", > but an opponent of AW. No, if people eat meat THEN they should "contribute to decent lives for livestock", if they don't then the advice does not apply to them. I have absolutely no preference as to whether people are vegetarians or meat eaters, it's none of my business. The fact that you do makes you a fool. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> wrote >> You seem to be >> labouring under the misconception that since we grant domestic animals >> the >> right to be treated humanely > > There is NO *WE* sunshine, YOU speak ONLY for YOU. I beg to differ_Mikey, there *is* indeed a we, it's called "society". It has laws, social sanctions, taboos, common ideals, and all sorts of good stuff. We are part of it, whether we like it or not. In fact if we all just spoke for ourselves then there wouldn't be much point to any of this, get my drift? Laws that protect domestic animals are de facto evidence of rights. > I dont grant nor do I claim to grant rights, (human or otherwise) Yes you do, every functioning member of the social contract does, you are a "moral agent". If you weren't you'd be in jail pretty quick. The fact that you can walk the street in peace is the social contract in action. > nor > do I agree with any such thing as animal rights. So it's fine with you if get my jollies by beating on my little dog? > The person who claims > an abilty to *grant* rights (to animals or humans) is the same person > who will claim a right to take them away, at any time. Society grants rights and takes them away, no individual does that. > Rights apply ONLY to human beings, because human beings are the only > animal capable of upholding them and of understanding them. Animals can be "moral patients", in a similar way as minor children or people in comas. They can hold rights against us, but we can't hold rights against them. > A *right* granted to an animal MUST come at the expense of a human > right, I could never sanction such an act. So you demand the right to abuse animals? Why? > If you want to *care* for an animal's welfare, then the ONLY MORAL > course of action available to you is, to purchase that animal, or > peacefully persuade the owner to let you have it, and then claim a > property right on it, so as you can then treat it any way you like. Well you can **** up a rope Mikey, because in most jurisdictions animal abuse is indictable offense, as it should be. If I had my way people who abused animals would be bound, whipped, and have the same treatment done to them that they inflicted on a helpless animal. > Michael Gordge > > > BTW I used to donate to RSPCA because in general they do an excellent > job. I am first and foremost a human being and I dont like to see ANY > animal human or otherwise suffer. HOWEVER because of the inflitration > of the communist agenda now in that organisation, I no longer do. That's your business, I nearly stopped donating because of corruption in our local SPCA, but for the sake of the animals in their care I carry on. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> wrote > My personal view on the treatment of humans and other animals is, I > dont like to see humans treated like animals and or the same reason I > dont like seeing animals treated like humans. That's kind of circular isn't it? If we didn't mistreat animals it wouldn't make sense. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Dave" > wrote >I have been thinking about this discussion a bit more since > replying and I have a few more things to say about it. Firstly > that it is nice to be able to have a civil conversation, rather > than playing insult tennis, for a change so thank you for that, dhld. > > If everyone switched to a vegan diet, I believe a lot more > land would become available. Some of that would inevitably become > buildings and offices, which as you rightly point out, support > much less life than cattle grazing areas. Some of it would become > gardens, which is probably no bad thing. I reckon some of it would > end up being left wild. There would be also be less pressure on > the rainforest habitat as demand for soya would drop and demand for > beef would cease altogether. Feeding the world would be easier but > B12 deficiencies might become endemic amongst those populations too > poor to afford supplements. > >>From the above perspectives, the addition of handline-caught fish, > forest game meat, wild birds eggs and honey can be justified in > moderation. Possibly there are also some marginal lands that would > be better used for animals than for crops. There is marginal land in great abundance all over theworld. > I am still open-minded about humanely reared farm animals. They > do seem to represent a rather inefficient way of extracting land > from food but of course they provide wool and leather as well. > Anything else? Also in mixed agriculture systems animals can be used > to weed, plough and fertilize the land. Ducks can also help control > slugs in an environmentally responsible manner. At the moment I have > far more questions than answers. I am basically thinking out loud. > > One thing that has just occured to me about GFCs is that, unless > I am mistaken, they eat hay during the winter. Did Mr Davis consider > the deaths caused by the harvesting and storage of this hay? The Davis studies more than anything demonstrate the fact that agriculture of all kinds is bloody, and that the narrow vegan focus on domestics is misguided. Do you really want to get down to counting dead animals, ALL of them? I have a square mile of stubble with a few million little dead frogs on it, we can start counting right away... |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dutch wrote: > Society grants rights and takes them away, no individual does that. So explain, if *no individual* can grant any rights, then where does a mob of individuals get their authority to grant rights from? and who gave them the authority and where did they get it from and where.... Stop making things up, in objective reality, rights can ONLY ever be taken, they can never be given. Robinson has no need of rights until Friday turns up, either party can only take the rights of the other. > > A *right* granted to an animal MUST come at the expense of a human > > right, I could never sanction such an act. > > So you demand the right to abuse animals? Why? That is not what I said and no such inferrence can be taken from ANYthing I have said on this subject, so far. However the answer to your question is YES. WHY? BECAUSE MY animals are MINE. However, I have also said that I do not have any desire to abuse animals, especially not the human kind, WHY? because I am NOT a ****en sadistical socialist. > ... If I had my way people who > abused animals would be bound, whipped, and have the same treatment done to > them that they inflicted on a helpless animal. So you would **** a human if they buggered their pet? Michael Gordge |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dutch wrote: > > wrote > > > My personal view on the treatment of humans and other animals is, I > > dont like to see humans treated like animals and or the same reason I > > dont like seeing animals treated like humans. > > That's kind of circular isn't it? Whoooooosh went right over your head didn't it? Or are you pretending to be an idiot? > If we didn't mistreat animals it wouldn't > make sense. There is no *we* sunshine, only individuals exist, although it is true that the chances of a sadistical socialist, who love beating up on humans, would also be high suspects on beating animals, are you one Dutch? Michael Gordge |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> wrote in message ups.com...
> > pearl wrote: > > "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress > > can be judged by the way its animals are treated." > > - Mahatma Gandhi (Also, evidently, an individual's moral progress...) > He's from India right? the poorest, the most backward, and of course > the largest democracy on earth, a country that treats cows like humans. 'It is important to note that amongst all the conquered and colonized civilizations of the Old World, India is unique in the following respect: Its wealth was industrial and created by its workers' ingenuity and labor. In all other instances, such as the Native Americans, the plunder by the colonizers was mainly of land, gold and other natural assets. But in India's case, the colonizers had a windfall of extraordinary profit margins from control of India's exports, taxation of India's economic production, and eventually the transfer of technology and production to the colonizer's home. This comprised the immense transfer of wealth out of India. From being the world's major exporting economy (along with China), India was reduced to an importer of goods; from being the source of much of the economic capital that funded Britain's Industrial revolution, it became one of the biggest debtor nations; from its envied status as the wealthiest nation, it became a land synonymous with poverty; and from the nation with a large number of prestigious centers of higher education that attracted the cream of foreign students from Eurasia, it became the land with the highest number of illiterate persons. This remains a major untold story. The education system's subversion of India's TKS [Traditional Knowledge Systems] in its history and social studies curricula is a major factor for the stereotyping about India. Even when told of these things, few westerners and elitist Indians are willing to believe them, as the prejudices about India are too deeply entrenched. .... http://www.infinityfoundation.com/ma...s_overview.htm > What better reason to ignore the stupid old ****ed in the head git. -> > Michael Gordge 'Back in the South Pacific, we move on to New Zealand, world-renowned for its sheep. With about 100,000 square miles, 80 million sheep, and 8 million cattle, New Zealand has the world's highest livestock density -equivalent to about 1200 sheep per square mile. Much of the island nation is steep, rugged, densely forested, or otherwise unproductive for livestock, so density in areas actually grazed approaches 2000 sheep per square mile! Were New Zealand not well-watered and lushly vegetated, it could not support even a fraction of these animals. However, environmental damage here can only be described as extreme. About half of the country now resembles an immense golf course covered chiefly with exotic vegetation. Forests that once blanketed most of the islands have been reduced to 5% of their original coverage. In large portions of the North Island "slips" -- or huge sections of topsoil -- are sliding off the overgrazed hills. In the worst areas, former subtropical and temperate forest is now virtual desert. Most of New Zealand's unique animal life is gone, and some species are extinct or in danger of extinction, due largely to livestock grazing and ranching practices. On this biologically isolated island realm - where bats are the only native mammals -- the impact of nearly 100 million large, hooved quadrupeds is understandably profound. ... http://www.wasteofthewest.com/Chapter6.html |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> wrote > > Dutch wrote: >> Society grants rights and takes them away, no individual does that. > > So explain, if *no individual* can grant any rights, then where does a > mob of individuals get their authority to grant rights from? and who > gave them the authority and where did they get it from and where.... The history of civilization is long story... > Stop making things up, in objective reality, rights can ONLY ever be > taken, they can never be given. How can rights be taken if they aren't first granted? > Robinson has no need of rights until Friday turns up, either party can > only take the rights of the other. They can violate them, not take them. >> > A *right* granted to an animal MUST come at the expense of a human >> > right, I could never sanction such an act. >> >> So you demand the right to abuse animals? Why? > > That is not what I said and no such inferrence can be taken from > ANYthing I have said on this subject, so far. No? You said that any right of an animal must come at the price of the right of a human. The only right I proposed that animals hold is protection from abuse, therefore the right you are defending is the right for humans to abuse animals. The only logical conclusion is that you are a scumbag animal abuser or you are defending them. > However the answer to your question is YES. WHY? BECAUSE MY animals are > MINE. There's more evidence that you are a scumbag animal abuser. > However, I have also said that I do not have any desire to abuse > animals, Then why do you need the right to do it? Why does anyone? > especially not the human kind, Why especially not humans? Humans deserve abuse more often than an animal ever would. > WHY? because I am NOT a ****en > sadistical socialist. You're a throwback to ****in McCarthyism. > >> ... If I had my way people who >> abused animals would be bound, whipped, and have the same treatment done >> to >> them that they inflicted on a helpless animal. > > So you would **** a human if they buggered their pet? Yea, with a hot poker, bend over. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> wrote > > Dutch wrote: >> > wrote >> >> > My personal view on the treatment of humans and other animals is, I >> > dont like to see humans treated like animals and or the same reason I >> > dont like seeing animals treated like humans. >> >> That's kind of circular isn't it? > > Whoooooosh went right over your head didn't it? Or are you pretending > to be an idiot? So if animals are well treated you don't want humans to be well-treated? >> If we didn't mistreat animals it wouldn't >> make sense. > > > There is no *we* sunshine, only individuals exist, Individuals don't draft men into the army or throw criminals like scumbag animal abusers in jail Mikey, the "system" does it. Sorry to burst your bubble, but there's a "we" all right. > although it is true > that the chances of a sadistical socialist, who love beating up on > humans, would also be high suspects on beating animals, are you one > Dutch? You have it reversed Mikey, it's people who want the right to beat up on animals who are more likely to commit violence towards people. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"I care for no mans religion that does not benefit his dog and cat."
Abraham Lincoln He was an American, are you going to ignore him too. The in-ability to feel empathy for those who suffer (human or not) shows a lack of something. By the way, in most of the states in the United States children are considered property. Does that give parents the right to beat, kill, harm, or otherwise do them wrong? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Diogenes" > wrote > "I care for no mans religion that does not benefit his dog and cat." > Abraham Lincoln > > He was an American, are you going to ignore him too. It may be the Google threading, you MUST be addressing these comments to Mikey. >The in-ability to > feel empathy for those who suffer (human or not) shows a lack of > something. Yes, empathy. > By the way, in most of the states in the United States > children are considered property. I thought they were citizens with the same basic rights as adults. > Does that give parents the right to > beat, kill, harm, or otherwise do them wrong? Technically yes, that's my complaint with the definition of sentient beings as simply property. New legislation in some countries recognizes that animals are more than just property. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dutch wrote: > > You have it reversed Mikey, it's people who want the right to beat up on > animals who are more likely to commit violence towards people. It matters not a monkey's toss, people who beat up on animals are also most likely to be socialists ie beat up on people, its a power thing. Not all those who abuse animals are socialists of course, but all socialists do abuse humans. Socialism is impotent without the legislated ability to abuse humans eg taxation. Socialists love the idea of power, they dont care if its animals or humans they have power over. If you want to know where the nonsense of animal rights come from, you need look no further than socialism. Animal rights come at the expense of human rights. You cant enforce so called animal rights without violating the property rights of humans. Granting animal rights is to take power over those animals and to take power over the individuals who own them. Explain Dutch, HOW does a mob of you grant yourselves something you dont have as individuals? Rights apply ONLY to humans, rights can only ever be taken, eg when something already exists, eg life, then that life can only be taken. Life exists long BEFORE rights. Michael Gordge |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> wrote > > Dutch wrote: >> >> You have it reversed Mikey, it's people who want the right to beat up on >> animals who are more likely to commit violence towards people. > > It matters not a monkey's toss, people who beat up on animals are also > most likely to be socialists ie beat up on people, its a power thing. It's virtually always the case that abuse of animals precedes violence towards humans, it's simply an opportunity thing. > Not all those who abuse animals are socialists of course, but all > socialists do abuse humans. Socialism is impotent without the > legislated ability to abuse humans eg taxation. > > Socialists love the idea of power, they dont care if its animals or > humans they have power over. > > If you want to know where the nonsense of animal rights come from, you > need look no further than socialism. Shut up about socialists for ****'s sake, I don't give a shit about your political ranting. > Animal rights come at the expense of human rights. You cant enforce so > called animal rights without violating the property rights of humans. Nobody needs the right to abuse animals, and animals certainly need the protection from abusers. > Granting animal rights is to take power over those animals and to take > power over the individuals who own them. Good. > Explain Dutch, HOW does a mob of you grant yourselves something you > dont have as individuals? That question makes no sense. The social contract grants rights to individuals. There is no mob involved. > Rights apply ONLY to humans, That's an assertion not borne out by the evidence. Laws and sanctions protect the rights of animals to be free from abuse. > rights can only ever be taken, eg when > something already exists, eg life, then that life can only be taken. > Life exists long BEFORE rights. Rights are not inherent, they are the function of a social order. In that sense you have rights before you are born, i.e. they await your conception and are granted to you on birth. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dutch wrote: > Shut up about socialists for ****'s sake, I don't give a shit about your > political ranting. What? !! Indeed, what and you reckon rabbiting on about animal rights is not political ranting? FFS give me a break. Politics are *the ethics by which a society lives* YOU are trying to FORCE through legislation, YOUR morals, YOUR choices, YOUR values, onto those who may not choose them for themselves, and that sunshine, whether you like it or not IS what poilitics is all about. You're the one who started all the *we* *society* shit, the social contract bullshit. Sunshine read my lips, you can only breath your air, you can only digest your food, YOUR actios are not possible without YOUR thoughts. If you dont live according to YOUR values, then you are living according to the values chosen by others. You may not like the choices of others, HOWEVER unless their actions cause or threaten to cause you or YOUR property physical harm, unless the life of another human being is being threatened or harmed, then you have no *moral* choice but to do NO MORE than try and persuade that person *peacefully* to accept YOUR morals. To not do so is to make YOUR actions no better than theirs. If animals had rights in nature, then the mouse could tell the cat to **** off. > Nobody needs the right to abuse animals, and animals certainly need the > protection from abusers. That is a moral position you hold, if you want others to accept those morals, then you have no choice but to use peaceful means, otherwise YOUR actions are no better. > > > Granting animal rights is to take power over those animals and to take > > power over the individuals who own them. > > Good. Hitler thought it was good to control people too. Michael Gordge |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> wrote > > Dutch wrote: >> Shut up about socialists for ****'s sake, I don't give a shit about your >> political ranting. > > What? !! Indeed, what and you reckon rabbiting on about animal rights > is not political ranting? Everything isn't dependent on socialists coming out of the woodwork, you sound like a ****ing Rip van Winkle from the Cold War. > FFS give me a break. > > Politics are *the ethics by which a society lives* YOU are trying to > FORCE through legislation, YOUR morals, YOUR choices, YOUR values, onto > those who may not choose them for themselves, and that sunshine, > whether you like it or not IS what poilitics is all about. Which value don't you like? The only one I have mentioned is the issue of abusing animals. It already is illegal in all western countries anyway, the law only needs tightening up and tweaking, and it's arguably an issue that galvanizes more public opinion than any other. > You're the one who started all the *we* *society* shit, the social > contract bullshit. Yea, what's bullshit about it? What world do you live in? > Sunshine read my lips, you can only breath your air, you can only > digest your food, YOUR actios are not possible without YOUR thoughts. > > If you dont live according to YOUR values, then you are living > according to the values chosen by others. > > You may not like the choices of others, HOWEVER unless their actions > cause or threaten to cause you or YOUR property physical harm, unless > the life of another human being is being threatened or harmed, then you > have no *moral* choice but to do NO MORE than try and persuade that > person *peacefully* to accept YOUR morals. Sounds like animal abuser apologist bullshit to me. Why are you defending anyone's right to abuse an animal? > To not do so is to make YOUR actions no better than theirs. Bullshit. > If animals had rights in nature, then the mouse could tell the cat to > **** off. I'm not talking about "nature" I'm talking about human civilization. There are no morals in nature. >> Nobody needs the right to abuse animals, and animals certainly need the >> protection from abusers. > > That is a moral position you hold, if you want others to accept those > morals, then you have no choice but to use peaceful means, otherwise > YOUR actions are no better. It's a moral position held by a vast majority of people, in the western world at least. It's already entrenched in law, if sometimes poorly enforced. Animal welfare officers in some jurisdictions have powers of investigation and arrest beyon that of police. Most jurisdictions have some beefed up 'animal rights' legislation in some state of pending. That makes it a majority position, not only MINE. >> > Granting animal rights is to take power over those animals and to take >> > power over the individuals who own them. >> >> Good. > > Hitler thought it was good to control people too. Everybody thinks is necessary to control people to some extent or another. Do you advocate uncontrolled behaviour by any whacko? I happen to believe that robust animal protection laws are a worthwhile and necessary component of that control. btw you just commited the cardinal sin of usenet debate, playing the Hitler card. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dutch wrote: > > Everything isn't dependent on socialists coming out of the woodwork, Animal rights, social contract, we, the greater good etal, are ALL scummy socialist terms. > Which value don't you like? ALL those which require the *initiation of force* (VICE) or the *threatened* initiation of physical force to comply with, eg animal rights and ANY and ALL THINGS socialist, how about you Dutch? FREEDOM, requires NO FORCE, one can only violate another human beings FREEDOM. Do you understand that Dutch? FREEDOM to choose and live according to YOUR own values and allowing others to choose and live according to their own values, what is wrong, what is bad, what is not practical, what is immoral about that Dutch? I regard *human life* as the standard of moral value, how about you Dutch? What is your standard of moral value Dutch? HOW do YOU know, how to YOU judge, determinem if, the values and actions you choose for yourself, are *moral*? ONLY YOU exist Dutch, ONLY YOU can choose YOUR actions. Michael Gordge |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dutch wrote: > No? You said that any right of an animal must come at the price of the right > of a human. I said, to enforce a so called animal right, requires the violation of property rights of humans. THINK about this Dutch. You are alone on a desert Island, your name is Robinson, one day you look over the hill and see another human being, you name him Friday, you note over a period of time, that Friday has some excellent ideas and has in his posession items that would benefit your life substanially, indeed may even save your life. HOWEVER one day you find Friday beating the living shit out of his dog. Problem, what are you going to do to stop him, while at the same time trying not to upset him, because you know he may never share his ideas with you, he may leave and take all his possessions with him, after all, it IS his dog? Michael Gordge |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| So WHY aren't you all over on RFC? | General Cooking | |||
| More gay Republican hypocrites to be outed! | General Cooking | |||
| OT Hypocrites; | General Cooking | |||
| Hypocrites; | General Cooking | |||
| Health-Hype Hypocrites on PCBs, Mercury, and Lead | General Cooking | |||
Linear Mode
