wife swap vegan episode
Glorfindel wrote:
>>>>>> Veganism's sense of ethics IS an absolute. > >>>>> false. > >>>> Ipse dixit. > >>> No more so than your ipse dixit. For one thing, you cannot >>> speak for all vegans -- nor can I -- and for another, any >>> reading of major authors who support AR/veganism will show >>> they mention many areas where ethics cannot be absolute. > >> Please give me an instance of a "major AR/vegan author" supporting >> animal research, animals for food (generally speaking, not in dire >> emergencies), or fur being fashionable. > > Why should they? I asked YOU to provide me an example showing a sense of their moral flexibility, open-mindedness, or tolerance. Your attempt to dodge the issue is noted. The authors you named do not make exceptions. For example, Regan has written, ...[i]t is easy to understand why the philosophy of animal rights is uncompromising in its response to each and every injustice other animals are made to suffer. It is not larger, cleaner cages that justice demands in the case of animals used in science, for example, but empty cages; not “traditional” animal agriculture, but a complete end to all commerce in the flesh of dead animals; not “more humane” hunting and trapping, but the total eradication of these barbarous practices. http://www.justiceforanimals.co.za/a...posistion.html Their ethical position (singular AR position -- for goodness sake, don't start your usual hair-splitting sophistry to distinguish their inane peculiarities from one another) is rigid and dogmatic. As a rule, they're intolerant of opposing positions which allow for any use of animals; in some cases, that even extends to keeping pets. <...> >>>> I really haven't spent much time worrying about how bees are >>>> affected by my lifestyle aside from making sure I don't get stung. > >>> But animal rights supporters have. > >> I suspect that extremists turn to animal rights from a lack of >> the more worthwhile causes of the past, like nuclear >> disarmament. >> -- Stephen Hawking > > Why do you assume animal rights supporters never support or work > for nuclear disarmament? That's not the point. Dr Hawking's suggesting that AR is simply the "next" bandwagon that the fringe have jumped upon -- or the next windmill they're tilting at -- having given up on laudable issues that would provide more benefits for the world. >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> I posted links to pics of typical farms. You snipped them and dodged >> invitations to respond to what you see. Did you even look? > > No. I knew you wouldn't. Chickenshit. > I knew you would post links to situations which are not > typical of modern animal production. They *are* typical. The grotesque images you and other ARAs perversely seek and show are of isolated cases of abuse. In many instances, the images and videos the ARAs peddle were used to prosecute abusive producers. >> Why should humans respond any differently from any other animal in >> nature? > > Because we have unique power over other beings, The lion has a "unique power" over wildebeasts, zebras, hares, etc. So does the tiger. So does the hyena. Every predator has its prey. > and ethical obligations not to abuse it. *Artificial* obligations. You've yet to make a reasoned or reasonable case that *all* use of other animals constitutes abuse. I'm not asking you to condemn the horrible conditions shown in AR propaganda -- society has already condemned it via animal welfare laws AND prosecution of such abuses. <...> >>>> No, people who eat meat have NO objections to the deaths of animals. > >>> But they often have objections to the *suffering* of animals >>> in the process. > >> They put their objections aside when it comes to a good sale price. > > Often true, and a shameful comment on humanity in general. I don't think it's necessarily shameful that other people have their own priorities in life. I sure as hell won't blame people for trying to save money when they can. > I cannot believe you make such attacks on humanity in general, I don't. You're the misanthrope, Karen; you're the one with an axe to grind. > yet seem to see nothing wrong in such behavior. There's nothing wrong with being frugal. People enjoy meat. Why should I be concerned when they choose to buy it at 99-cents a pound instead of $1.99 a pound? > Surely such people should be ashamed of themselves, Why? > and you ashamed of them. Why? <...> > If they made a conscious decision to avoid > products they were raised to use, they changed their behavior > for some reason. I disagree people are "raised" to use certain products. Familiarity certainly plays a role in consumption, but someone can choose Miller over Budweiser or Skip over Jiffy or Coke over Pepsi for far less than a conscientious decision. That also applies to veganism. One can be gullible enough to believe a set of distortions and lies, but that doesn't make her conscientious or caring -- just gullible. > That means they were aware of alternatives, > considered them, and chose them for a reason. And any such reason can be based on falsehoods, making any resulting "gesture" as bogus as the underlying basis for it. Animals don't benefit in the aggregate from people "going vegan." They continue to suffer and die, and at higher rates depending on the choices made. It's specious and disingenuous to claim that brazen lies peddled by ARAs create consumer awareness. > That means they > were more aware than others who simply continued what their > families had always done. Non sequitur, as established above. <...> >> You've not explained why anything is wrong, just that it is. > > You would not accept any explanation I gave. Your mind is > completely closed. My mind is open, Karen. I'll hear you out. The question is, Can you hear me out? >>> Then it was good that those producers were eliminated, and >>> no others encouraged to set up production. > >> They slaughtered even their sows to avoid having to deal with the >> amendment when it went into effect. Happy? > > No. That created two wrongs instead of one. It was a direct consequence of the ridiculous measure. > It was not the fault of the law, It was the fault of the morons who devised that amendment, which wasn't required because of rampant abuses in the jurisdiction where it passed. Why did they not try to pass it in states with significant pork production (Florida was 30th among states in pork production when the measure went to voters) or where gestation crates were used more widely (as opposed to being applicable to just two farms in Florida)? Face it, that amendment was an empty gesture -- just like veganism is. It's accomplished nothing of substance -- just like veganism. It had undesired consequences at odds with the goals of its supporters -- just like veganism and CDs. > I do watch "Animal Cops Miami" I don't care what you watch on television. I do care about your extremist authoritarian agenda, whether we're discussing how you'd force your views on people who eat meat or wear fur or leather or how you're so openly willing to tear apart your church. <...> |
wife swap vegan episode
Seeker wrote: > "Glorfindel" > wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>You are trying to move from one example to another. The question of the >>ethics of using animals for food in extreme circumstances (as in the >>Arctic in winter for local subsistence hunters, vs consumers of factory >>farmed meat in a Western industrialized society) was an example of >>AR not being absolute. > It indicates to me that the so-called "principle" behind AR is not coherent. It is coherent, but not absolute. The same is true in the case of ethics related to humans, although they don't usually relate to using humans as food. There are a wide variety of situations in which most ethical systems permit the killing of humans. > You have attempted to draw a direct analogy between "using" animals without > their consent and using humans in the same way, thereby extending the > principle of self-determination from humans to animals. Yet I can't kill and > eat a human no matter what the circumstances. If humans are not permitted to > kill animals to eat them *by moral principle* then there must be no > exceptions. That is not reasonable. Real life *always* includes exceptions to general principles in certain situations. Ethics is not an absolute science, and always includes gray areas. > People in the Arctic must move south. If they feel subsistence hunting is unethical, so they should. Try suggesting that, however, and anti-vegans will immediately accuse you of racism or cultural imperialism. > Furthermore, you you have > chosen two extremes, Arctic hunters and factory farmed meat, what about > hunters who are not in the Arctic but who make an economic decision to > supplement their diet by hunting or fishing? Not ethical under most circumstances, because other options *are* available. > Where do you draw the line? > What about an urban dweller who consumes meat that is *not* "factory > farmed", such as organic grass-fed beef? Not ethical. A jar of peanut butter provides many meals and good levels of protein, and is certainly cheaper and more convenient than tracking down the semi-mythical "organic grass-fed beef" which is as rare as the unicorn in most urban areas. >>The issue of using animals in research is >>different: it never involves an absolute necessity to use *this* animal >>at *this* time, > Actually it does, animals are used in medical research because there are no > adequate alternatives. If there is no alternative, they must still not be used, any more than humans. The "no alternative" claim is always suspect, in any case. >>and it never has a *direct* effect on the survival of >>any individual human or animal. Its potential benefits, if any, are >>always hypothetical; its direct harm is always real. > The benefits of using animals in research are evidenced in every safe, > effective medication and medical procedure in existence. The fact that they > are immediate is not relevant. Of course it is. The benefits are never certain, and they never are direct or apply directly to any existing person. We can never be sure that some other solution would not have been found if use of animals had not been allowed. The benefits are always hypothetical and potential; the harms direct, real, and specific. Not a good ethical trade-off >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > I would hope that you are able to think the idea through from start to > finish without resorting to the "logic" of people like Francione. All of us develop our ideas from existing ideas available in our culture. As C.S. Lewis once noted, a completely original morality would be highly suspect. :) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>That is what you would like to claim, but you are wrong. In an >>extreme case, one must make an either-or choice: if one person >>or being is saved, the other must be killed, and *all* his >>interests sacrificed in favor of the other. This is extremely >>uncommon in real life situations. > It's not uncommon at all. Every day I am faced with the moral dilemma, > should I spend my money on unecessary items for my family like vacations, > Branded clothing and I-Pods, or should I spend it on strangers who are > starving. The world is a metaphorical sinking ship for many, many people, > and for the most part, I choose my family. Again, it is not a specific life-or-death situation; it is hypothetical and partial. You can send some money to an organization to help starving people elsewhere, reduce your vacation plans somewhat, and still avoid starvation for your family, while respecting the interests and rights of others. Real life is compromise, not absolute either-or situations in the vast majority of cases. >>In most real situations, such >>as buying products in our society, the interests of all can be >>respected by making limited modifications in behavior. > That's where you're dead wrong, by choosing different products you are not > respecting "the interests of all", you are choosing a different group of > victims. You can still respect the interests of all. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>instance, the major interest of a cow or chicken in her life, or >>her major interest in welfare, can be respected by not buying >>meat at all, or by not buying factory-farmed meat. The interest >>of the consumer in avoiding starvation is completely respected, >>at the very minor cost of choosing a somewhat less attractive >>form of food, or one slightly more inconvenient. > You can't draw any conclusions about that equation unless you measure the > impact of the food you substitute in place of the meat. Every calorie you > consume has a price. Certainly, but one must make choices on the basis of one's ethical principles and choose the best balance of interests on that basis as one sees it. It is not black-and-while or absolute. I consider farming of animals for food to be a major evil, a major violation of my ethical principles, and so I choose options which avoid that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>There are also differences between members >>of our own species and/or community (herd, pack, flock) and >>members of other species. > Yes! Keep that thought. This whole idea that all animals are "equal" is pure > nonsense, it's politics and ethics gone right off the rails. Beings are equal (as a general principle) insofar as their interests are equal. A cow has an equal interest in life _per se_ to my interest in life. A cow does not have an equal interest _per se_ in a college education to my interest in an education. >>Most higher animals have stronger >>inhibitions against killing members of their own social group >>than members of other social groups or species. That is a >>function of biological survival. > > Not if I'm starving, in that case the opposite is true. If you were starving, your species would have a greater biological interest in you killing a human to eat him than in you killing a cow to eat her? Hmmm.... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>So are you saying that you would not be morally permitted to kill and eat >>>an animal even if you were starving? >>It would not be ethical, > It would not be ethical to kill an animal and eat it if I were starving.. I > find that a disturbing statement. No doubt. >>but it would be less unethical than to >>kill one for convenience when other options are available. >>That is not a choice anyone posting on the newsgroup is likely to >>face. > You are killing animals indirectly by using the hydro grid to run your > computer, something completely unecessary. That may be an extreme example, > but there are many more that are more obvious. Every product and service you > consume beyond what is absolutely necessary for your survival should be > considered unethical by your formula. To a degree, that is true. We should try to live as simply as possible, but few of us do so ( myself included). I admire St Francis, but even beggars depend on the unethical actions of those who give them food and clothing in the way those people acquired enough surplus to give some away. There is no rational reason to single > out meat or other "animal products" in this respect. There are many rational reasons, most of which you know already. >>>Not at all, what is absurd is to say that it is unethical to use animals >>>without their consent. Animals cannot give consent, it's a foreign >>>concept to an animal. >>Which is a major reason why it is unethical to use them in >>research (other than observation in the wild, which does not >>usually harm them). > That is begging the question. You have not established that consent is > necessary in order to use animals. It is an established principle of ethics that humans cannot be used without their consent. If animals are also beings with rights and moral standing, neither can they. >>>You may as well say it's unethical to pick flowers without their consent. >>Flowers are not sentient or conscious, so they have no interests >>as individuals, > Plants have mechanisms to survive and propagate that are similar to those of > animals. They are not conscious, so they do not have interests as individuals. >>and also picking a flower does not permanently >>harm the plant. > Weeding does. You didn't specify weeding. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>How do you know what is typical? Where are you getting your information? >>>>A variety of sources: books, documentaries, personal >>>>observation, government data (always suspect). >> >>>As am I, and I conclude that mistreatment of animals is the rare >>>exception, not the rule. >> >>You conclude incorrectly. I conclude mistreatment of animals in modern >>farming is almost universal and very severe. > Your conclusions are extremely biased by your misguided belief in the > incoherent principles of "AR". Yours are biased by your misguided belief that AR principles are incorrect and incoherent. According to Farm Sanctuary, more than 90 per cent of egg-laying hens in the U.S. are raised in factory-farm confinement cages, More than two-thirds of sows in the U.S. are confined in factory-farm crates, A report on farm animal welfare can be obtained from them at www.farmsanctuary.org. Dueling statistics, anyone? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>Why should humans respond any differently from any other animal in >>>>>>>nature? >>>>>>Because we have unique power over other beings, and ethical >>>>>>obligations not to abuse it. >>>>>The power to kill and eat other animals is far from unique, every >>>>>species since the big bang has had it. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>How would a worm kill other animals? > By digesting them. Did you think that soil was not jam-packed with animals? Aw, come on :) Tiny organisms in the soil are not what we think of as "animals" and worms are not predators. >>>>But we are the only species capable of >>>>domesticating other animals, farming them, and keeping >>>>them in large numbers >>>You have not given a coherent reason why that is necessarily immoral. >>It is a violation of their individual freedom in the larger >>sense, according to AR theory. > You can't use "AR theory" to support your claim, that is circular reasoning. No, it's not circular: it is the reason. We can proceed to examining why that is part of AR theory, but that is something else. Take it in steps. :) > "AR theory" is what you are trying to defend. Yes. >>By itself, it may not be a >>a violation of their welfare, but it usually is in modern >>farming. > You haven't shown that either. I've suggested sources of information which show it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>Note: you asked why humans should *respond differently* >>than other animals, not why what they do/did is immoral. I >>answer that they should respond differently because they have a >>unique amount of power over other animals, and an ethical sense >>which is probably unique in the animal kingdom. > That's quite true, we are moral beings, but that does not mean that AR is a > rational set of ideas. It does not mean AR is not. > We still live in a real world where our actions have > all sorts of necessary consequences whether we like it or not. Those things > must be factored into our thinking. Certainly. I do not deny that. I have done so in my own choices. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>We have not been like "every other animal" since we invented >>>>weapons which kill at a distance and domestic animal breeds. >>>Neither of those things change of the essential nature of what we do. >>They do. It is a difference in degree which is so great it >>becomes a difference in kind. > No it doesn't. If you kill an animal by shooting it, clubbing it, or running > over it with a tractor it's still dead. There reason you do it, the pursuit > of food, is the essense, and that does not change. However, the methods we use as a society, as a species, have changed in ways which are so different from other animals that we cannot be compared with them. An animal predator only interacts with another individual prey animal at the moment of hunting; the other animal's whole life is under his own control at all other times. Humans control their domestic animals from before birth to after death. Predator and prey species do affect each other under natural conditions, but they do so without much ability by individual animals to change conditions, while humans have tremendous ability to modify conditions for both themselves and the rest of the environment. We have a unique amount of power over other animals and unique abilities to decide how to use it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>I credit anyone who is a strict vegetarian with advancing animal rights >>and welfare in practice, whatever his philosophical or health reason >>for doing so. > Those are two different issues, you should keep them separate. The effect is similar in the case of strict vegetarians, no matter what the reason. >>>>>>>>> > The issue I am raising is that AR does not address cds in any way, It does -- and you and others have noted that it does by claiming CDs affect AR. > and as it > is presently structured it cannot because AR/vegan adherents would lose much > of their motivation to continue. The motivation is not affected in any way by the issue of CDs. They are primarily an irrelevant attempt at diversion by anti-vegans to avoid dealing with the central issues of animal rights. Over the years, anti-vegans have indeed seen that direct attack on animal rights theory gets them nowhere. They cannot refute AR principles in ways that animal rights supporters or ethical vegetarians find convincing. They certainly have not convinced me. So they have latched on to an obsessive concentration on the *supposed* effect of CDs on animal rights/vegan thought. It only works on people who do not have a firm grasp on the basics of AR theory. It will not make vegans become meat-eaters; that is against their basic principles. It may encourage vegans to search for better sources of vegetables, and that is all to the good. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have a good Thanksgiving and think about sponsoring a rescued turkey. |
wife swap vegan episode
Glorfindel wrote:
>>>>> Animals on concrete. > >>>> It has benefits. > >>> Only to the producer. > >> Also to the livestock. > > No. Yes. >> Hard surfaced floors are easier to clean and disinfect and provide a >> more hygienic surface than dirt, straw, etc. > > They also create leg and foot problems, up to and including > crippling, if animals are kept on them continually. Turkeys -- sticking to the issue at hand -- live 14-20 weeks, which, generally speaking, isn't long enough for them to become crippled. <...> >>>> 1. Easier to clean and disinfect. > >>> Which would not be necessary if the animals were not overcrowded. > >> They're not overcrowded. > > They are. No, they have plenty of room. >> It would still be necessary for sanitation and hygiene. > > No. Yes. > Many keepers of companion animals PETS. They're called PETS, Karen. > and small-scale farmers Most farms aren't small-scale. You can bitch and moan about the "good old days" all you want, but that won't change the fact that consumers benefit immensely when agriculture, like any other successful industry, benefits from economies of scale. > demonstrate it is not, by using bedding for their > animals. Niche producers can cater to those with sensitivities such as yours (well, not yours, _per se_, since yours are pretty out there), but they cannot reach the economy of scale that most consumers find more appealing. >>>> 2. No loss of topsoil when cleaning wastes, so it's >>>> environmentally-friendly. > >>> Which would not be an issue if the vast numbers of animals >>> kept in an area did not create waste far beyond the amount >>> which can be disposed of in ecologically appropriate ways. > >> It's "ecologically appropriate" to wash down a floor whether one or >> one-thousand birds have been raised on it. > > After the manure has been removed with the dirty bedding. > It only becomes a problem when very large amounts of manure > are produced. And even then, there's a variance depending on the local conditions of a certain farm. I concede some farms are too big given their surrounding environments. I also concede some states and counties should toughen environmental regulations so that very large farms face severe penalties for polluting. I also think they can be given incentives to increase their capacities for treating the effluents from their farms. >>> Traditional farms > >> The images I linked to ARE traditional farms. > > Nope. Yes, they are traditional farms. > I looked at them. They are not. They're far more typical of traditional farming than what prevailed on British farms during WWII -- as you foolishly suggest was "normal." > Take a look > at some of the pictures in James Herriot's books > on life in rural Yorkshire to see what traditional farms > looked like as recently as the 1940's. The 1940s aren't recent, nor were the conditions in Yorkshire similar to what you'd find in the US during or after WWII -- remember, rationing in the UK continued through 1954 (July 4th, no less). http://tinyurl.com/dl4vk >> You have romantic, idyllic notions that may prevail in communities >> with lots of New Age-y airheads (SF bay area, Santa Fe) but are far >> from reality. Established by your silly comparison. >>> used animal waste as fertilizer for their >>> crops. > >> That's still done in areas where subsistence farming is the norm. > > I.e., where traditional farms still exist. Subsistence farming isn't traditional, except in impoverished regions. It also isn't exactly profitable (by definition): Subsistence farming is a mode of agriculture in which a plot of land produces only enough food to feed the family working it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsistence_farming >>> It was an ecologically sound system. Modern factory >>> farms create massive environmental pollution. > >> Not universally, > > usually Ipse dixit. You're painting with a very broad brush. Most intensive farming operations don't create "massive environmental pollution" and, increasingly, operators are adopting abatement measures to significantly reduce the amount of effluents discharged into regional waterways. >> and not to the scale of environmental degradation which has already >> occurred in monoculture cropping (especially considering erosion). > > Ipse dixit. http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-67786 > Who says agribusiness monocropping is ecologically > sound either? Even the small organic farmers from whom you make your token purchases are "agribusiness" -- and perhaps more so considering the inflated premiums they charge. The point is, vegans don't distinguish between agricultural models. They generalize and say that eating meat is bad, but refuse to get into consuming specific foods that reduce animal harm. Eating certain kinds of meat causes less animal harm than eating a generalized diet consisting of commercially-grown grains and legumes, and this extends to claims about veganism being better for the environment. The effect of consuming such grains and legumes mitigates any "good" done for animals by merely not eating them; many more die, the environment is degraded, etc. > You frequently accuse vegans of being unethical by claiming > they are simply not as bad as others. It's not an accusation, it's a fact. Vegans ultimately start from the position that they're better, and when shown the errors of their assumptions, they start playing a counting game. > Here you have used the > same argument: factory farming is O.K. because it is not as bad > as agribusiness monocropping. I haven't used the same argument. I'm saying it's ironic that global veganism would require significantly more monocropping than currently exists -- more dead animals, more pollution, etc. Everything vegans promote would give them more of what they don't want in the first place. <...> >>> Read the Farm Sanctuary website for information > >> You mean DISinformation. > > No, Yes. They promote distortions. They do not tell the truth. They have an agenda. They're not unbiased. > Send them a donation No. >>> They cannot even breed by themselves, >>> because their breasts are too big. > >> Turkeys have been bred to produce meat (especially the much preferred >> white meat) quickly. Turkeys are one of the poultry species with a >> penis; they're not bred so that their genitals are proportional to >> their breast size, but well-endowed toms conceivably (no pun intended) >> would have a greater chance of passing on genes for such a trait if >> they reproduced. It's irrelevant because turkeys go to slaughter long >> before they reach sexual maturity. Birds go to slaughter between 14-20 >> weeks; they become sexually mature in a year. > > My point exactly. You support my argument that the turkeys > have been deliberately crippled and deformed for human > convenience. No, I don't support that viewpoint. Your argument is a non sequitur. Turkeys don't breed naturally because they go to slaughter long before they're sexually mature. They're not bred to have willies in proportion to the rest of their anatomy. > No animal should be bred so that he is *incapable* > of carrying out normal biological functions for his species, > such as reproduction. Why not? > No animal should be slaughtered before > even reaching maturity. Turkeys are mature when slaughtered; they're just not sexually mature. >>>> those two farmers slaughtered all their >>>> sows. Is that the effect you want "animal rights" laws to have, dummy? > >>> "Look what you made me do." No one over two years old should >>> find that a convincing argument. > >> Leftists are like to make meaningless gestures, but seldom consider >> any unintended consequences of their specious positions. > > Any action can have unintended consequences. Look at the unintended consequences of leftist policies: War on poverty - more poverty. Compulsory public education - kids can't read or write. Comprehensive sex education - more teen pregnancy. Raise taxes on the rich - less tax revenues. Amendment against gestation crates - sows get slaughtered. Etc. -- I could go on. You're not concerned about the results. You're concerned only about having "noble" intentions even if they turn out to be meaningless gestures that only give you more of what you say you don't want. >> The amendment in question was a thoroughly meaningless measure. The >> amendment's consequences haven't yielded any of the desired results, > > Presumably, it has prevented other (legal) factory-farm pig > production starting up. Your presumption is baseless. There's no evidence farmers wanted to move operations into Florida in the first place. |
wife swap vegan episode
"Beach Runner" > wrote > > > Dutch wrote: >> "Glorfindel" > wrote >> >> >>>Aside from the personal attack on me, you are correct. Efforts >>>should be made to decrease the number of collateral deaths in >>>large-scale vegetable farming also. Both are a side-effect >>>of modern technological methods in agriculture. >> >> >> Yet "veganism" addresses only one of these so-called "problems" while >> remaining utterly mute on the other. I can raise a section of wheat, >> including ploughing (or not), seeding, spraying for weeds and pests, >> harvesting, transportation, storage and processing. My field can support >> hundreds of thousands of small animals like mice, moles and toads, not to >> mention grasshoppers and spiders, *many* of which are killed off by my >> intrusions into their domain. Vegans gladly consume the products made >> from these processes with nary a whimper. Yet if I raise one animal and >> slaughter it, the shrill howls of protest go up. Murderer! Where is the >> logic in this way of thinking? + > > There are different forms of farming. Read square foot gardening for > example. So what? There's Polyface too http://www.ecofriendly.com/index.cfm?section=11&page=43 that doesn't change anything I said. |
wife swap vegan episode
usual suspect wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> Hard surfaced floors are easier to clean and disinfect and provide a >>> more hygienic surface than dirt, straw, etc. >> They also create leg and foot problems, up to and including >> crippling, if animals are kept on them continually. > Turkeys -- sticking to the issue at hand You didn't specify only turkeys. >-- live 14-20 weeks, No, they are killed by humans after 14-20 weeks. > which, > generally speaking, isn't long enough for them to become crippled. Some of them manage to do so, however. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > No, they have plenty of room. Ipse dixit. Not from the pictures. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> and small-scale farmers > Most farms aren't small-scale. That is a major part of the problem. There simply are too many animals for the number of people to care for properly, let alone humanely. > You can bitch and moan about the "good > old days" all you want, but that won't change the fact that consumers > benefit immensely when agriculture, like any other successful industry, > benefits from economies of scale. That doesn't help the animals, however. When they are regarded as no more than economic units, they suffer badly. The cost to the animals far outweighs the limited benefit to consumers of slightly lower prices for a luxury product. >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> After the manure has been removed with the dirty bedding. >> It only becomes a problem when very large amounts of manure >> are produced. > And even then, there's a variance depending on the local conditions of a > certain farm. I concede some farms are too big given their surrounding > environments. I also concede some states and counties should toughen > environmental regulations so that very large farms face severe penalties > for polluting. I also think they can be given incentives to increase > their capacities for treating the effluents from their farms. Thank you. >> Take a look >> at some of the pictures in James Herriot's books >> on life in rural Yorkshire to see what traditional farms >> looked like as recently as the 1940's. > The 1940s aren't recent, nor were the conditions in Yorkshire similar to > what you'd find in the US during or after WWII -- remember, rationing in > the UK continued through 1954 (July 4th, no less). The 1940's are quite recent -- within the memory of people still living The conditions on those farms in general were similar to conditions on traditional farms everywhere in the Western world up until factory farming technology took over. What about them do you claim was not common on traditional farms? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> used animal waste as fertilizer for their >>>> crops. >>> That's still done in areas where subsistence farming is the norm. >> I.e., where traditional farms still exist. > Subsistence farming isn't traditional, except in impoverished regions. It's traditional through most of human history. The farmer usually produced to feed himself, and often some amount to sell if he was lucky or owned a lot of land. That could vary greatly. Giant plantation systems *have* existed from the time of the Roman latifundia, but they were never the norm. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> It was an ecologically sound system. Modern factory >>>> farms create massive environmental pollution. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Ipse dixit. You're painting with a very broad brush. Most intensive > farming operations don't create "massive environmental pollution" and, > increasingly, operators are adopting abatement measures to significantly > reduce the amount of effluents discharged into regional waterways. How nice. From what I've read, I don't believe your claim. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Even the small organic farmers from whom you make your token purchases > are "agribusiness" Not as the term is generally used. They are farmers. >-- and perhaps more so considering the inflated > premiums they charge. The point is, vegans don't distinguish between > agricultural models. That is the kind of general claim you can't support. What did I just do beside distinguish between them? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > I haven't used the same argument. I'm saying it's ironic that global > veganism would require significantly more monocropping than currently > exists Again, you can't support that. (Nor is it likely any time soon). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> Read the Farm Sanctuary website for information >>> You mean DISinformation. >> No, > Yes. They promote distortions. They do not tell the truth. They have an > agenda. They're not unbiased. They have just produced a report on animal welfare in production of animal products. What in it specifically do you claim is inaccurate, and why? Yes, they have an agenda, the same one as humane organizations everywhe to promote humane conditions for animals, and to rescue individual abused animals. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> They cannot even breed by themselves, >>>> because their breasts are too big. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> My point exactly. You support my argument that the turkeys >> have been deliberately crippled and deformed for human >> convenience. > No, I don't support that viewpoint. Your argument is a non sequitur. > Turkeys don't breed naturally because they go to slaughter long before > they're sexually mature. They're not bred to have willies in proportion > to the rest of their anatomy. Exactly. Both inhumane and unethical. >> No animal should be bred so that he is *incapable* >> of carrying out normal biological functions for his species, >> such as reproduction. > Why not? If it isn't obvious to you, I am sorry for you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> The amendment in question was a thoroughly meaningless measure. The >>> amendment's consequences haven't yielded any of the desired results, >> Presumably, it has prevented other (legal) factory-farm pig >> production starting up. > Your presumption is baseless. There's no evidence farmers wanted to move > operations into Florida in the first place. Well, now they can't if they did want to, which is a plus for the potential victims. Let's hope the example of Florida shows other states what they can do when their people care about abused animals. It has happened in other countries. Europe is far ahead of the U.S when it comes to humane treatment of animals in farming. |
wife swap vegan episode
"Glorfindel" > wrote > > Seeker wrote: > >> "Glorfindel" > wrote > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>You are trying to move from one example to another. The question of the >>>ethics of using animals for food in extreme circumstances (as in the >>>Arctic in winter for local subsistence hunters, vs consumers of factory >>>farmed meat in a Western industrialized society) was an example of >>>AR not being absolute. > >> It indicates to me that the so-called "principle" behind AR is not >> coherent. > > It is coherent, but not absolute. It's incoherent, primarily because AR focuses narrowly on imagined political rights of 5% of animals and ignores the other 95% of animals harmed by human activity. >The same is true in the case of > ethics related to humans, although they don't usually relate to > using humans as food. They never do, and that's primarily what we are talking about. > There are a wide variety of situations in which > most ethical systems permit the killing of humans. The analogy fails utterly, and there is NOT "a wide variety of situations", in most countries there is one, sometimes two. >> You have attempted to draw a direct analogy between "using" animals >> without their consent and using humans in the same way, thereby extending >> the principle of self-determination from humans to animals. Yet I can't >> kill and eat a human no matter what the circumstances. If humans are not >> permitted to kill animals to eat them *by moral principle* then there >> must be no exceptions. > > That is not reasonable. Real life *always* includes exceptions to > general principles in certain situations. Ethics is not an > absolute science, and always includes gray areas. That is BULLshit. Moral principles allow rare and unusual exceptions, not systematic and widespread violations. The killing of animals in every agricultural-related business is widespread and systematic, yet the only ones objected to by vegans are the ones that result in animal "products". >> People in the Arctic must move south. > > If they feel subsistence hunting is unethical, so they should. What kind of moral directive is that? If I feel that it's unethical to molest kids I should stop? What if I don't? > Try suggesting that, however, and anti-vegans will immediately > accuse you of racism or cultural imperialism. Well cry me a river! Vegans ARE attempting to impose a highly artificial and poorly thought-out regime on all of us. *I* accuse you of cultural imperialism. >> Furthermore, you you have chosen two extremes, Arctic hunters and >> factory farmed meat, what about hunters who are not in the Arctic but who >> make an economic decision to supplement their diet by hunting or fishing? > > Not ethical under most circumstances, because other options *are* > available. So what??? FFS! There are plenty of options available to vegans that would cause less animal death and suffering than their current lifestyles, they aren't pursuing all of them. Some of those options could include consuming animal products instead of manufactured meat substitutes. >> Where do you draw the line? What about an urban dweller who consumes meat >> that is *not* "factory farmed", such as organic grass-fed beef? > > Not ethical. A jar of peanut butter provides many meals and good > levels of protein, and is certainly cheaper and more convenient > than tracking down the semi-mythical "organic grass-fed beef" which > is as rare as the unicorn in most urban areas. I eat grass-fed beef and I live in a mid-sized city. Have you measured how much animal death and suffering is associated with that a jar of peanut butter? Then how can you say it is less than the d&s associated with the same amount of grass-fed beef? Where do you derive the moral authority to tell anyone that their choices are unethical when you have not even attempted to measure the death and suffering that your own consumerism causes? In other words, you have got a lot of gall. >>>The issue of using animals in research is >>>different: it never involves an absolute necessity to use *this* animal >>>at *this* time, > >> Actually it does, animals are used in medical research because there are >> no adequate alternatives. > > If there is no alternative, they must still not be used, any more > than humans. The "no alternative" claim is always suspect, in any > case. You are not qualified to make that statement, in fact it is an ignorant one. >>>and it never has a *direct* effect on the survival of >>>any individual human or animal. Its potential benefits, if any, are >>>always hypothetical; its direct harm is always real. > >> The benefits of using animals in research are evidenced in every safe, >> effective medication and medical procedure in existence. The fact that >> they are immediate is not relevant. > > Of course it is. Of course it is NOT. Safe and effective are essential properties of medical treatments, whether they are determined today, five years ago, or next year. > The benefits are never certain, and they never are > direct or apply directly to any existing person. We can never be > sure that some other solution would not have been found if use of > animals had not been allowed. The benefits are always hypothetical and > potential; the harms direct, real, and specific. Not a good ethical > trade-off Then I suggest you abstain from all use of medical treatment. That way your precious ethics will be safe. You won't do that though, you will think of some glib, self-serving reason to take advantage of every possible medical advantage. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> I would hope that you are able to think the idea through from start to >> finish without resorting to the "logic" of people like Francione. > > All of us develop our ideas from existing ideas available in our > culture. As C.S. Lewis once noted, a completely original > morality would be highly suspect. :) Very good. I was talking about using your own "logic", not your own morals. As a matter of fact, take another look at that quote. Veganism in fact proposes something like an "original morality", certainly more so that the typical morality that has developed over eons of human societies. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>That is what you would like to claim, but you are wrong. In an >>>extreme case, one must make an either-or choice: if one person >>>or being is saved, the other must be killed, and *all* his >>>interests sacrificed in favor of the other. This is extremely >>>uncommon in real life situations. > >> It's not uncommon at all. Every day I am faced with the moral dilemma, >> should I spend my money on unecessary items for my family like vacations, >> Branded clothing and I-Pods, or should I spend it on strangers who are >> starving. The world is a metaphorical sinking ship for many, many people, >> and for the most part, I choose my family. > > Again, it is not a specific life-or-death situation; it is hypothetical > and partial. You can send some money to an organization to help > starving people elsewhere, reduce your vacation plans somewhat, and > still avoid starvation for your family, while respecting the interests > and rights of others. Real life is compromise, not absolute either-or > situations in the vast majority of cases. Every single frivolous or selfish expenditure we make is made at the expense of people who are starving to death. That is the reality of living a comfortable western existence. When you buy vegetables at the local supermarket you buy the history of that food from the time it's planted until it appears on that shelf. There is no free lunch. This notion that "animal products" are evil is an absurd and soul-destroying idea that people like you propogate, and there are always willing dupes to follow, to make you feel important. You disgust me. >>>In most real situations, such >>>as buying products in our society, the interests of all can be >>>respected by making limited modifications in behavior. > >> That's where you're dead wrong, by choosing different products you are >> not respecting "the interests of all", you are choosing a different group >> of victims. > > You can still respect the interests of all. How are you respecting the interests of animals that are exterminated to protect the crops you ultimately consume? The field mice, frogs, toads, birds, etc etc.. not to mention crickets, spiders, bees, ants. Please explain. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>instance, the major interest of a cow or chicken in her life, or >>>her major interest in welfare, can be respected by not buying >>>meat at all, or by not buying factory-farmed meat. The interest >>>of the consumer in avoiding starvation is completely respected, >>>at the very minor cost of choosing a somewhat less attractive >>>form of food, or one slightly more inconvenient. > >> You can't draw any conclusions about that equation unless you measure the >> impact of the food you substitute in place of the meat. Every calorie you >> consume has a price. > > Certainly, but one must make choices on the basis of one's ethical > principles and choose the best balance of interests on that basis > as one sees it. It is not black-and-while or absolute. I consider > farming of animals for food to be a major evil, a major violation of > my ethical principles, and so I choose options which avoid that. Killing them by the billions to produce, fruit, grains, rice, vegetables, beans, cotton, etc.. is not a violation of their interests? Can you understand that I do not attach political significance to the killing of animals? If they're dead they're dead, that's all that matters to them, and therefore me. If I kill one animal to eat it, I have done better then you if you killed two to produce a similiar quantity of food, THAT is a coherent equation. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>There are also differences between members >>>of our own species and/or community (herd, pack, flock) and >>>members of other species. > >> Yes! Keep that thought. This whole idea that all animals are "equal" is >> pure nonsense, it's politics and ethics gone right off the rails. > > Beings are equal (as a general principle) insofar as their interests > are equal. So you say, but it's just rhetoric. > A cow has an equal interest in life _per se_ to my > interest in life. I disgree, a human being has a far greater understanding of life, of mortality, the meaning of existence, and has a far longer lifespan. A cow is a relative automaton with no concept like "I want to live x number of years", or even that it's life is limited by nature. You may as well say that a cow has as much life interests as a plant than to say that a human has as much as a cow. > A cow does not have an equal interest _per se_ > in a college education to my interest in an education. *YOU* have an interest in education? That is at once alarming but not surprising. >>>Most higher animals have stronger >>>inhibitions against killing members of their own social group >>>than members of other social groups or species. That is a >>>function of biological survival. >> >> Not if I'm starving, in that case the opposite is true. > > If you were starving, your species would have a greater biological > interest in you killing a human to eat him than in you killing > a cow to eat her? Hmmm.... No, if I were starving I would have a greater biological interest in eating a member of my own species than to respect a taboo against it. I may have a stronger moral inhibition than my biological interest though. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>So are you saying that you would not be morally permitted to kill and >>>>eat an animal even if you were starving? > >>>It would not be ethical, > >> It would not be ethical to kill an animal and eat it if I were starving.. >> I find that a disturbing statement. > > No doubt. I imagine you derive a kind of adolescent gratification from disturbing people, while feeling that you have attained a moral plateau above them. >>>but it would be less unethical than to >>>kill one for convenience when other options are available. >>>That is not a choice anyone posting on the newsgroup is likely to >>>face. > >> You are killing animals indirectly by using the hydro grid to run your >> computer, something completely unecessary. That may be an extreme >> example, but there are many more that are more obvious. Every product and >> service you consume beyond what is absolutely necessary for your survival >> should be considered unethical by your formula. > > To a degree, that is true. We should try to live as simply as > possible, but few of us do so ( myself included). Big surprise, yet you still find it within your prerogative to insult good people by proclaiming that they are unethical for doing what comes naturally to animals. > I admire > St Francis, but even beggars depend on the unethical actions > of those who give them food and clothing in the way those > people acquired enough surplus to give some away. Yeah, you're a real gem. > There is no rational reason to single >> out meat or other "animal products" in this respect. > > There are many rational reasons, most of which you know already. There are NONE. The excuses I have heard from the likes of you are sophistry. The reason you single out meat is that it is an easy step you make without inconveniencing yourself too much, yet it allows you to look down haughtily on others, something in your makeup finds that satisfying. >>>>Not at all, what is absurd is to say that it is unethical to use animals >>>>without their consent. Animals cannot give consent, it's a foreign >>>>concept to an animal. > >>>Which is a major reason why it is unethical to use them in >>>research (other than observation in the wild, which does not >>>usually harm them). > >> That is begging the question. You have not established that consent is >> necessary in order to use animals. > > It is an established principle of ethics that humans cannot be used > without their consent. If animals are also beings with rights and > moral standing, neither can they. That is begging the question. Look it up. >>>>You may as well say it's unethical to pick flowers without their >>>>consent. > >>>Flowers are not sentient or conscious, so they have no interests >>>as individuals, > >> Plants have mechanisms to survive and propagate that are similar to those >> of animals. > > They are not conscious, so they do not have interests as individuals. Cows do not have the same degree of consciousness as humans either, although I wonder about vegans... >>>and also picking a flower does not permanently >>>harm the plant. > >> Weeding does. > > You didn't specify weeding. What are you doing here? Are you just here to waste my time, or are you genuinely searching for truth? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>How do you know what is typical? Where are you getting your >>>>>>information? > >>>>>A variety of sources: books, documentaries, personal >>>>>observation, government data (always suspect). >>> >>>>As am I, and I conclude that mistreatment of animals is the rare >>>>exception, not the rule. >>> >>>You conclude incorrectly. I conclude mistreatment of animals in modern >>>farming is almost universal and very severe. > >> Your conclusions are extremely biased by your misguided belief in the >> incoherent principles of "AR". > > Yours are biased by your misguided belief that AR principles are > incorrect and incoherent. According to Farm Sanctuary, more than 90 > per cent of egg-laying hens in the U.S. are raised in factory-farm > confinement cages, More than two-thirds of sows in the U.S. are > confined in factory-farm crates, A report on farm animal welfare > can be obtained from them at www.farmsanctuary.org. Dueling > statistics, anyone? Not with a vegan activist website. But even if it were true, the principle is what we are arguing. What if every farm were like Salatins? http://www.ecofriendly.com/index.cfm?section=11&page=43 You would still make your anti-meat arguments. So lets cut the crap and stick to the real issue, and that is the fundamental AR principle that says it's wrong to farm animals, and which is mute on the farming of plants with systematic collateral killing of animals. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>Why should humans respond any differently from any other animal in >>>>>>>>nature? > >>>>>>>Because we have unique power over other beings, and ethical >>>>>>>obligations not to abuse it. > >>>>>>The power to kill and eat other animals is far from unique, every >>>>>>species since the big bang has had it. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>How would a worm kill other animals? > >> By digesting them. Did you think that soil was not jam-packed with >> animals? > > Aw, come on :) Tiny organisms in the soil are not what we think of as > "animals" What do you call them? Why is size suddenly an issue? It wasn't an issue when vegans issued an edict against honey, or silk. > and worms are not predators. They kill animal life constantly, so do herbivores. These shifting political lines you keep drawing around the animal kingdom are irrational, that's what I keep trying to tell you. > >>>>>But we are the only species capable of >>>>>domesticating other animals, farming them, and keeping >>>>>them in large numbers > >>>>You have not given a coherent reason why that is necessarily immoral. > >>>It is a violation of their individual freedom in the larger >>>sense, according to AR theory. > >> You can't use "AR theory" to support your claim, that is circular >> reasoning. > > No, it's not circular: it is the reason. We can proceed to examining why > that is part of AR theory, but that is something else. Take it in steps. > :) I've been up those step, they lead up a staircase to a door that goes nowhere. There is nothing inherent in domesticating animals that is immoral. There are conditions that you could argue are immoral. >> "AR theory" is what you are trying to defend. > > Yes. I wish you would stop once in a while and step back from it, try to look at it objectively. I know it's unlikely that you are capable of doing that, but I never lose hope.. > >>>By itself, it may not be a >>>a violation of their welfare, but it usually is in modern >>>farming. > >> You haven't shown that either. > > I've suggested sources of information which show it. Biased sources concentrate on instances of abuse. I've shown credible sources that show that instances of animal suffering are very low. But every life contains some suffering, it's unreasonable to expect there to be none. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>Note: you asked why humans should *respond differently* >>>than other animals, not why what they do/did is immoral. I >>>answer that they should respond differently because they have a >>>unique amount of power over other animals, and an ethical sense >>>which is probably unique in the animal kingdom. > >> That's quite true, we are moral beings, but that does not mean that AR is >> a rational set of ideas. > > It does not mean AR is not. No, but you implied that it did. >> We still live in a real world where our actions have all sorts of >> necessary consequences whether we like it or not. Those things must be >> factored into our thinking. > > Certainly. I do not deny that. I have done so in my own choices. You haven't factored it in your thinking or you wouldn't be making the statements that you do. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>We have not been like "every other animal" since we invented >>>>>weapons which kill at a distance and domestic animal breeds. > >>>>Neither of those things change of the essential nature of what we do. > >>>They do. It is a difference in degree which is so great it >>>becomes a difference in kind. > >> No it doesn't. If you kill an animal by shooting it, clubbing it, or >> running over it with a tractor it's still dead. There reason you do it, >> the pursuit of food, is the essense, and that does not change. > > However, the methods we use as a society, as a species, have changed in > ways which are so different from other animals that we cannot be > compared with them. Wrong, we are still predators, our bodies have not changed significantly since we evolved from apes and began hunting in groups. > An animal predator only interacts with another > individual prey animal at the moment of hunting; the other animal's > whole life is under his own control at all other times. Humans control > their domestic animals from before birth to after death. Predator > and prey species do affect each other under natural conditions, but > they do so without much ability by individual animals to change > conditions, while humans have tremendous ability to modify conditions > for both themselves and the rest of the environment. We have a unique > amount of power over other animals and unique abilities to decide > how to use it. That's true, but it doesn't mean that veganism is either rational or necessary to have an ethical life. You're making intimations again that do not necessarily follow. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>I credit anyone who is a strict vegetarian with advancing animal rights >>>and welfare in practice, whatever his philosophical or health reason >>>for doing so. > >> Those are two different issues, you should keep them separate. > > The effect is similar in the case of strict vegetarians, no matter > what the reason. No it isn't. Animal rights adherents aka vegans abstain from consuming meat, no matter whether those choices benefit animals as a whole or not. Animal welfare advocates may or may not consume animal products, and may choose an animal product selectively over a commercially produced plant-based product, imported fruit, or grain that may have a worse or roughly equivalent case-history than the particular meat, fish or fowl. Someone who is simply a vegetarian will only eat plant products regardless. > >>>>>>>>> > > >> The issue I am raising is that AR does not address cds in any way, > > It does -- and you and others have noted that it does by claiming > CDs affect AR. The reality of cds is a dagger through the heart of AR/veganism as a philosphy, if that's what you mean. > >> and as it is presently structured it cannot because AR/vegan adherents >> would lose much of their motivation to continue. > > The motivation is not affected in any way by the issue of CDs. Not according you, now, at this point in your life. For many others it has been a key that opened the gate to a prison of their own creation. >They > are primarily an irrelevant attempt at diversion by anti-vegans to > avoid dealing with the central issues of animal rights. I find it amusing that you would call the issue of animal death and suffering irrelevant to the central issues of animal rights. > Over the > years, anti-vegans have indeed seen that direct attack on animal > rights theory gets them nowhere. They cannot refute AR principles > in ways that animal rights supporters or ethical vegetarians find > convincing. They certainly have not convinced me. That's because you're brainwashed, not because the arguments aren't valid. > So they have > latched on to an obsessive concentration on the *supposed* effect > of CDs on animal rights/vegan thought. I am quite aware that the issue has little effect on many ARAs, but that's not because it's not relevant. > It only works on people > who do not have a firm grasp on the basics of AR theory. It doesn't work on those who have drunk too deeply from The Chalice, it does work for people who are sympathetic to AR ideals but maintain a foundation of rationality. It will > not make vegans become meat-eaters; that is against their basic > principles. That's not its intent, but that very admission is telling. If I presented a source of meat that would guarantee of lower death toll than the current diet of a vegan, they would NOT consider it, because veganism is about the *appearance* of higher morality, not the achievement of it. It may encourage vegans to search for better sources > of vegetables, and that is all to the good. That'll be the day. > > Have a good Thanksgiving and think about sponsoring a rescued turkey. How many do you have in your back yard? |
wife swap vegan episode
usual suspect wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> Please give me an instance of a "major AR/vegan author" supporting >>> animal research, animals for food (generally speaking, not in dire >>> emergencies), or fur being fashionable. >> Why should they? > I asked YOU to provide me an example showing a sense of their moral > flexibility, open-mindedness, or tolerance. You already provided one above. There are others found in almost all writers on AR, but moral flexibility and open- mindedness do not depend on supporting the use of animals for food under ordinary conditions or the killing of animals for fur under ordinary conditions. "Flexibility" is not defined as "support's Usual's anti-AR views". Linzey notes: "The biblical case for vegetarianism does not rest on the view that killing may never be allowable in the eyes of God, rather on the view that killing is always a grave matter. When we have to kill to live we may do so, but when we do not, we should live otherwise." _Animal Theology_ Regan notes: "It sometimes happens that animals are in conditions of acute, untreatable suffering...To kill animals in these circumstances would seem clearly to be in their interests, for there are fates worse than death...."_Case for Animal Rights_ Sapontzis suggests that if hens are provided with all their needs and treated with respect, it is not unethical to use their unfertilized eggs. He also notes "...to have moral rights is not necessarily to have the same set of rights with other rights-holders, extending moral rights to those who have not enjoyed them before does not settle the matter of how we are to treat them. Rather it opens the door to questions...." _Morals, Reason, and Animals_ Even the generally uncompromising Francione says: "Moreover, humans have so commodified animals that it is virtually impossible to avoid animal exploitation completely...but the impossibility of avoiding all contact with animal exploitation does not mean that we cannot avoid the most obvious and serious forms of exploitation." _Introduction to Animal Rights_. I found these examples in ten minutes by opening the volumes almost literally at random. Major writers on AR present a much more nuanced analysis than you claim. Your attempt to dodge the > issue is noted. The authors you named do not make exceptions. For > example, Regan has written, > ...[i]t is easy to understand why the philosophy of animal > rights is uncompromising in its response to each and every > injustice other animals are made to suffer. It is not larger, > cleaner cages that justice demands in the case of animals used > in science, for example, but empty cages; not “traditional” > animal agriculture, but a complete end to all commerce in the > flesh of dead animals; not “more humane” hunting and trapping, > but the total eradication of these barbarous practices. > http://www.justiceforanimals.co.za/a...posistion.html > Their ethical position (singular AR position -- for goodness sake, don't > start your usual hair-splitting sophistry to distinguish their inane > peculiarities from one another) There are several AR philosophies, based on several philosophical positions, and this leads to a variety of conclusions in specific cases. You might as well talk about a "singular philosophical position" or a "singular religious position." There are certain ideas which are fairly common, but none that is universal, not even the idea that animals have rights _per se_. > is rigid and dogmatic. As a rule, > they're intolerant of opposing positions which allow for any use of > animals; in some cases, that even extends to keeping pets. See Sapontzis above. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > They *are* typical. The grotesque images you and other ARAs perversely > seek and show are of isolated cases of abuse. In many instances, the > images and videos the ARAs peddle were used to prosecute abusive producers. Yes, as in the case of the Silver Springs monkeys and the well-known head-trauma studies, among others. PETA does have a number of undercover people who take pictures and bring particularly egregious cases of abuse to light, and Farm Sanctuary has been active in getting laws passed to prevent sale of "downer" animals. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> Why should humans respond any differently from any other animal in >>> nature? >> Because we have unique power over other beings, > The lion has a "unique power" over wildebeasts, zebras, hares, etc. So > does the tiger. So does the hyena. Every predator has its prey. That is not the same kind of power we have over domesticated animals. The lion cannot pick out which prey animals should breed, or keep the herd in his territory when they decides to migrate. Why do you think lions lose so many cubs to starvation? >> and ethical obligations not to abuse it. > *Artificial* obligations. Yes, ethics is artificial to some degree; it is not instinctive in humans. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > There's nothing wrong with being frugal. People enjoy meat. Why should I > be concerned when they choose to buy it at 99-cents a pound instead of > $1.99 a pound? You should if the dollar a pound is saved at the cost of extreme suffering on the part of the animals who become it. That is simply unethical and barbarous, and most people, even those who are not animal rights supporters, consider it wrong on humane grounds. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> If they made a conscious decision to avoid >> products they were raised to use, they changed their behavior >> for some reason. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> That means they were aware of alternatives, >> considered them, and chose them for a reason. > And any such reason can be based on falsehoods It *can*, but that is not the point. The point is that they were *aware* of the option of choice and chose for some reason. They made a conscious decision, instead of simply going with the flow. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> They slaughtered even their sows to avoid having to deal with the >>> amendment when it went into effect. Happy? >> No. That created two wrongs instead of one. > It was a direct consequence of the ridiculous measure. >> It was not the fault of the law, > It was the fault of the morons who devised that amendment No, it was the *fault* of the producers who slaughtered the pigs. This is a common tactic with you: try to avoid blaming the obvious and direct actor, and instead blame some other person who doesn't agree with you. It's just silly. Don't blame the agribusiness producer who plows animals under; blame the vegan consumer. Don't blame the man who kills the pigs; blame the lawmakers who try to provide humane living conditions for pigs. It is a deliberately perverse approach and makes no sense. >, which wasn't > required because of rampant abuses in the jurisdiction where it passed. > Why did they not try to pass it in states with significant pork > production (Florida was 30th among states in pork production when the > measure went to voters) or where gestation crates were used more widely > (as opposed to being applicable to just two farms in Florida)? I don't know. Probably the voters in Florida were more open to the idea than those in some other states. It's a start. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |
wife swap vegan episode
"Glorfindel" > wrote
> Linzey notes: "The biblical case for vegetarianism does not rest on > the view that killing may never be allowable in the eyes of God, > rather on the view that killing is always a grave matter. When we > have to kill to live we may do so, but when we do not, we should live > otherwise." _Animal Theology_ This is the essence of veganism, to avoid "animal products" means "to live otherwise", just the fallacious reasoning that so many people fall for. This line of thought of course is extrapolated from moral behaviour towards humans, i.e. kill only in self-defense, where it actually makes sense. -- "Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it." Andre Gide (11/22/1869 - 02/19/1951) |
wife swap vegan episode
Karen Winter wrote:
>>>> Hard surfaced floors are easier to clean and disinfect and provide a >>>> more hygienic surface than dirt, straw, etc. > >>> They also create leg and foot problems, up to and including >>> crippling, if animals are kept on them continually. > >> Turkeys -- sticking to the issue at hand > > You didn't specify only turkeys. What's in those pics? What have we been discussing -- inability to screw because they're bred for breast meat? >> -- live 14-20 weeks, > > No Yes. They live 14-20 weeks. >> which, generally speaking, isn't long enough for them to become crippled. > > Some of them manage to do so, however. Typically only the ones stolen by "liberation" nitwits. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> No, they have plenty of room. > > Ipse dixit. Not from the pictures. The pictures all showed plenty of room for movement, and, contrary to the AR propaganda, they all were supporting their own weight. Go back and look at them again, Karen. Pay close attention to the one from Israel and note the bare floor in the bottom of the pic. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> and small-scale farmers > >> Most farms aren't small-scale. > > That is a major part of the problem. I don't consider it a problem, at least in general terms (I've addressed specific instances already, such as when farming operations are located adjacent to sensitive habitat, etc.). > There simply are > too many animals for the number of people to care for > properly, let alone humanely. Ipse dixit. The birds in the pics I linked appeared clean and healthy. >> You can bitch and moan about the "good old days" all you want, but >> that won't change the fact that consumers benefit immensely when >> agriculture, like any other successful industry, benefits from >> economies of scale. > > That doesn't help the animals, however. When they are regarded > as no more than economic units, they suffer badly. Non sequitur and ipse dixit. Producers comprehend the links between healthy animals and profits. http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/programs/ext...afety/cow.html http://www.grandin.com/meat/hand.stu...e.quality.html http://www.lmacmarkets.ca/handling.htm Etc. > The cost > to the animals far outweighs the limited benefit to consumers of > slightly lower prices for a luxury product. You understand nothing about economics or livestock production. See the links above. I found over 27,000 links relating to profitability of healthier livestock. http://grandin.com/welfare/economic.html <...> >> Ipse dixit. You're painting with a very broad brush. Most intensive >> farming operations don't create "massive environmental pollution" and, >> increasingly, operators are adopting abatement measures to >> significantly reduce the amount of effluents discharged into regional >> waterways. > > How nice. From what I've read, You mean leftwing propaganda from people who cling to Jeffersonian agrarian ideals and Utopian delusions. http://www.lewis-clark.org/content/c...ArticleID=1749 > I don't believe your claim. http://www.ijc.org/php/publications/.../breakout.html http://www.defra.gov.uk/erdp/schemes/default.htm Etc. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> Even the small organic farmers from whom you make your token purchases >> are "agribusiness" > > Not as the term is generally used. You mean by leftwing extremists like you. > They are farmers. They are agri(cultural)business(es). Agribusiness. <...> > Yes, they have an agenda, Established. >> No, I don't support that viewpoint. Your argument is a non sequitur. >> Turkeys don't breed naturally because they go to slaughter long before >> they're sexually mature. They're not bred to have willies in >> proportion to the rest of their anatomy. > > Exactly. Both inhumane and unethical. Turkey genitalia size isn't evidence of inhumane or unethical treatment of turkeys. >>> No animal should be bred so that he is *incapable* >>> of carrying out normal biological functions for his species, >>> such as reproduction. > >> Why not? > > If it isn't obvious to you, I am sorry for you. You can't answer the question. You have to accept the fact that they're bred for meat, not for shagging. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>> The amendment in question was a thoroughly meaningless measure. The >>>> amendment's consequences haven't yielded any of the desired results, > >>> Presumably, it has prevented other (legal) factory-farm pig >>> production starting up. > >> Your presumption is baseless. There's no evidence farmers wanted to >> move operations into Florida in the first place. > > Well, now they can't if they did want to, which is a plus for the > potential victims. There are no "potential victims," so the amendment was an empty, meaningless gesture. > Let's hope the example of Florida shows other > states what they can do when their people care about abused animals. The amendment did nothing to address animal cruelty in Florida. It was an empty, meaningless gesture by empty, meaningless people. |
wife swap vegan episode
Dutch wrote:
> "Glorfindel" > wrote >>Linzey notes: "The biblical case for vegetarianism does not rest on >>the view that killing may never be allowable in the eyes of God, >>rather on the view that killing is always a grave matter. When we >>have to kill to live we may do so, but when we do not, we should live >>otherwise." _Animal Theology_ > This is the essence of veganism, to avoid "animal products" means "to live > otherwise", As far as that specific behavior is concerned. Linzey is careful to note that even vegans do have a CD cost in their lives. He is well aware of *your* fallacious reasoning that if we will only start eating meat, we will somehow become virtuous -- or it won't matter to us any more. > just the fallacious reasoning that so many people fall for. This > line of thought of course is extrapolated from moral behaviour towards > humans, i.e. kill only in self-defense, where it actually makes sense. It makes sense in reference to non-humans also. |
wife swap vegan episode
usual suspect wrote:
Glorfindel: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> No animal should be bred so that he is *incapable* >>>> of carrying out normal biological functions for his species, >>>> such as reproduction. >>> Why not? >> If it isn't obvious to you, I am sorry for you. > You can't answer the question. I can answer the question, but your basic moral priorities are so different from those of normal people that the answer probably won't make sense to you. Animals are not ours. First, they are created by God ( or Nature) to be what they are and to fill a particular ecological niche. We cannot create them; we can only warp them out of their natural state in ways which -- in the case of these turkeys at least -- frustrate every ability required for them to survive as they were intended to do. We have taken God's creatures and mutilated and deformed them. Animals are not ours. As individual beings under God, just like humans, they belong to themselves. Their lives and their selves are their own. They have inherent value in themselves; they have consciousness and awareness, the ability to feel and suffer and enjoy their little lives. They are individuals, as we are, and we have a moral obligation to respect that basic individuality by treating them as beings with basic moral status, not just as things. We do not have a right, as God's stewards only, to do anything we want to others. We do not have a right, as moral beings, to create suffering and deformity for our trivial convenience. But, as I said, this will probably make no sense to you. For which, I pity you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |
wife swap vegan episode
Karen Winter wrote:
>>>> Please give me an instance of a "major AR/vegan author" supporting >>>> animal research, animals for food (generally speaking, not in dire >>>> emergencies), or fur being fashionable. > >>> Why should they? > >> I asked YOU to provide me an example showing a sense of their moral >> flexibility, open-mindedness, or tolerance. > > You already provided one above. It wasn't exactly an example of open-mindedness or tolerance. Regan advocates ending *all* farming, etc.: ...[i]t is easy to understand why the philosophy of animal rights is uncompromising in its response to each and every injustice other animals are made to suffer. It is not larger, cleaner cages that justice demands in the case of animals used in science, for example, but empty cages; not “traditional” animal agriculture, but a complete end to all commerce in the flesh of dead animals; not “more humane” hunting and trapping, but the total eradication of these barbarous practices. http://www.justiceforanimals.co.za/a...posistion.html Note "empty cages," "a complete end to all commerce in the flesh of dead animals," "the total eradication of these barbarous practices." > There are others found in almost > all writers on AR, but moral flexibility and open- mindedness > do not depend on supporting the use of animals for food under > ordinary conditions or the killing of animals for fur under > ordinary conditions. I asked for examples demonstrating some degree of *tolerance* for those who disagree with ARAs. That request was based on what you said previously: For one thing, you cannot speak for all vegans -- nor can I -- and for another, any reading of major authors who support AR/veganism will show they mention many areas where ethics cannot be absolute. I still want an example demonstrating some kind of ethical wiggle room -- tolerance, open-mindedness, etc. -- on the part of ARAs since you contend they're not absolutists. > "Flexibility" is not defined as "support's > Usual's anti-AR views". Strawman: you know that was NOT my suggestion. > Linzey notes: "The biblical case for vegetarianism There isn't one. Vegetarianism -- specifically, veganism and AR -- are at odds with the Bible. Jesus helped fishermen: When he had finished speaking, he said to Simon, "Put out into deep water, and let down the nets for a catch." Simon answered, "Master, we've worked hard all night and haven't caught anything. But because you say so, I will let down the nets." When they had done so, they caught such a large number of fish that their nets began to break. So they signaled their partners in the other boat to come and help them, and they came and filled both boats so full that they began to sink. When Simon Peter saw this, he fell at Jesus' knees and said, "Go away from me, Lord; I am a sinful man!" For he and all his companions were astonished at the catch of fish they had taken... Luke 5:4-9 (cp. John 21 for similar post-resurrection account) He fed fish to hungry followers: Jesus called his disciples to him and said, "I have compassion for these people; they have already been with me three days and have nothing to eat. I do not want to send them away hungry, or they may collapse on the way." His disciples answered, "Where could we get enough bread in this remote place to feed such a crowd?" "How many loaves do you have?" Jesus asked. "Seven," they replied, "and a few small fish." He told the crowd to sit down on the ground. Then he took the seven loaves and the fish, and when he had given thanks, he broke them and gave them to the disciples, and they in turn to the people. They all ate and were satisfied. Afterward the disciples picked up seven basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over. -- Mathew 15:32-37 He ate fish himself: When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, "Do you have anything here to eat?" They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate it in their presence. -- Luke 24:40-43 Christ's disciples weren't ARAs, they were fishermen. Christ went out to fish with them. He told them where and when to find fish. He fed fish to others. He ate fish himself. Consider the Passover seder: On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb, Jesus' disciples asked him, "Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you to eat the Passover?" So he sent two of his disciples, telling them, "Go into the city, and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him. Say to the owner of the house he enters, 'The Teacher asks: Where is my guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?' He will show you a large upper room, furnished and ready. Make preparations for us there." The disciples left, went into the city and found things just as Jesus had told them. So they prepared the Passover. -- Mark 14:12-16 Did Jesus forbid the killing and eating the lamb? No, he and his disciples partook in the custom of killing and eating a lamb on Pesach. Jesus also commanded animal sacrifices: A man with leprosy came to him and begged him on his knees, "If you are willing, you can make me clean." Filled with compassion, Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. "I am willing," he said. "Be clean!" Immediately the leprosy left him and he was cured. Jesus sent him away at once with a strong warning: "See that you don't tell this to anyone. But go, show yourself to the priest and offer the sacrifices that Moses commanded for your cleansing, as a testimony to them." Mark 1:40-44 Mary and Joseph offered animal sacrifices upon the birth of Jesus. Jesus was NOT vegetarian, nor did he do anything consistent with the animal rights or "vegan" position. Furthermore, the OT is filled with examples of meat-eating and animal sacrifices. Cain and Esau are described as hunters. The OT laws prescribe methods of slaughter, rules for how meat should and shouldn't be prepared, etc. Jesus said it's not what goes into a man's mouth that makes him unclean, but what comes out of it (Matthew 15). Matthew wrote that Jesus offended the Pharisees when he said that; it still offends people like you who think people are ethical, virtuous, etc., on the basis of following rules nearly 2000 years later. St Paul also addressed the issue by writing that Christians should not judge one another over diet, particularly over the consumption of meat; he also wrote (1 Timothy 4) that the commmand to abstain from certain foods (which includes meat) is a doctrine of devils. Yet you judge people according to what they eat and command (or at least request) others abstain from certain foods to be more ethical, holy, etc. There is *NO* Biblical case for vegetarianism. Vegetarianism -- particularly the AR/vegan zealotry kind you seek to infect the world through proselytization -- is antithetical to the Bible. > does not rest on > the view that killing may never be allowable in the eyes of God, > rather on the view that killing is always a grave matter. When we > have to kill to live we may do so, but when we do not, we should live > otherwise." _Animal Theology_ This is nothing but regurgitating and Biblicizing the lame argument that people shouldn't eat meat because they don't have to. Worse, the Bible doesn't split hairs between "have to kill to live" and "kill to eat something." God allowed Cain and Esau to hunt, and he told Noah and his sons after the flood, "Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood." God didn't tell them they could only eat it when in dire circumstances, like when they ran out of tofu or wheat; that's YOUR and Linzey's command -- the command of man. > Regan notes: "It sometimes happens that animals are in conditions of > acute, untreatable suffering...To kill animals in these circumstances > would seem clearly to be in their interests, for there are fates worse > than death...."_Case for Animal Rights_ See Regan above. Your quotation pertains to mercy killing for the animals' sake rather than instances where it benefits man. > Sapontzis suggests that if hens are provided with all their needs and > treated with respect, it is not unethical to use their unfertilized > eggs. Why would it be unethical to take fertilized eggs? And why would it be "wrong" to consume a hen after she'd received such care? > He also notes "...to have moral rights is not necessarily to have > the same set of rights with other rights-holders, extending moral rights > to those who have not enjoyed them before does not settle the matter of > how we are to treat them. Rather it opens the door to questions...." > _Morals, Reason, and Animals_ That quote fails to address the issue I raised. > Even the generally uncompromising Francione says: "Moreover, humans have > so commodified animals that it is virtually impossible to avoid animal > exploitation completely...but the impossibility of avoiding all contact > with animal exploitation does not mean that we cannot avoid the most > obvious and serious forms of exploitation." _Introduction to Animal > Rights_. Also fails to address the issue. > I found these examples in ten minutes by opening the volumes almost > literally at random. Major writers on AR present a much more > nuanced analysis than you claim. No, Karen, you've given me examples that don't address the issue I asked you about. Any "nuance" these writes have is overshadowed by the fact that as a rule they oppose people eating animals, wearing fur or leather, or conducting research that uses animals as subjects in experiments. >> Your attempt to dodge the >> issue is noted. The authors you named do not make exceptions. For >> example, Regan has written, >> ...[i]t is easy to understand why the philosophy of animal >> rights is uncompromising in its response to each and every >> injustice other animals are made to suffer. It is not larger, >> cleaner cages that justice demands in the case of animals used >> in science, for example, but empty cages; not “traditional” >> animal agriculture, but a complete end to all commerce in the >> flesh of dead animals; not “more humane” hunting and trapping, >> but the total eradication of these barbarous practices. >> http://www.justiceforanimals.co.za/a...posistion.html > >> Their ethical position (singular AR position -- for goodness sake, >> don't start your usual hair-splitting sophistry to distinguish their >> inane peculiarities from one another) > > There are several AR philosophies, based on several philosophical > positions, and this leads to a variety of conclusions in specific > cases. You might as well talk about a "singular philosophical > position" or a "singular religious position." There are certain > ideas which are fairly common, but none that is universal, The idea that animals shouldn't be owned, be food, be worn, or be experimented upon is universal in AR and veganism. <...> >> is rigid and dogmatic. As a rule, they're intolerant of opposing >> positions which allow for any use of animals; in some cases, that even >> extends to keeping pets. > > See Sapontzis above. Are you suggesting he's an exception to that rule? >> They *are* typical. The grotesque images you and other ARAs perversely >> seek and show are of isolated cases of abuse. In many instances, the >> images and videos the ARAs peddle were used to prosecute abusive >> producers. > > Yes, as in the case of the Silver Springs monkeys Read this and we can discuss it. http://www.nationalreview.com/smithw...0402100912.asp > and the well-known head-trauma studies, among others. Edward Taub was fully vindicated in the Silver Springs example you raised, which more than anything shows us the despicable tactics of PETA. So have others involved in head-trauma studies. > PETA does have a number of > undercover people who take pictures and bring particularly egregious > cases of abuse to light, Even when they're personally responsible for making the cases egregious, eh. <...> >>> and ethical obligations not to abuse it. > >> *Artificial* obligations. > > Yes, ethics is artificial to some degree In general; specifically, veganism and AR are artificial. <...> >> There's nothing wrong with being frugal. People enjoy meat. Why should >> I be concerned when they choose to buy it at 99-cents a pound instead >> of $1.99 a pound? > > You should if the dollar a pound is saved at the cost of extreme > suffering on the part of the animals who become it. Non sequitur. You cannot demonstrate that the extra dollar buys protection for animals, nor can you demonstrate an association between costs and cruelty. It comes from your desire to compare apples and oranges -- "factory farms" which you deem as all bad to "family farms" which you deem as all good (or inherently better). > That is simply unethical and barbarous, and most people, even those who > are not animal rights supporters, consider it wrong on humane > grounds. Ipse dixit. >>> That means they were aware of alternatives, >>> considered them, and chose them for a reason. > >> And any such reason can be based on falsehoods > > It *can*, but that is not the point. It *IS* the point. > The point is that they > were *aware* of the option of choice and chose for some > reason. Awareness based on a lie is still false awareness. > They made a conscious decision, instead of simply > going with the flow. They're only changing streams -- they still flow. Veganism is all about conformity. Vegans go with a different, marginal flow; it has nothing to do with awareness, but with marginal identification. >>>> They slaughtered even their sows to avoid having to deal with the >>>> amendment when it went into effect. Happy? > >>> No. That created two wrongs instead of one. > >> It was a direct consequence of the ridiculous measure. > >>> It was not the fault of the law, > >> It was the fault of the morons who devised that amendment > > No, Yes. It was an empty, meaningless gesture. >> , which wasn't required because of rampant abuses in the jurisdiction >> where it passed. Why did they not try to pass it in states with >> significant pork production (Florida was 30th among states in pork >> production when the measure went to voters) or where gestation crates >> were used more widely (as opposed to being applicable to just two >> farms in Florida)? > > I don't know. I do: because vegans and ARAs are gutless cowards who pretend they're making a difference in the world. > Probably the voters in Florida were more open to the > idea than those in some other states. Then so much for your suggestion that consumers are universally appalled by "inhumane" conditions -- particularly in the places where such "inhumane" conditions are more likely to prevail. > It's a start. A start of what? It did nothing substantive or relevant to the issue it addresses in the jurisdiction where it passed. |
wife swap vegan episode
Karen Winter wrote:
>>>>> No animal should be bred so that he is *incapable* >>>>> of carrying out normal biological functions for his species, >>>>> such as reproduction. > >>>> Why not? > >>> If it isn't obvious to you, I am sorry for you. > >> You can't answer the question. > > I can answer the question, You haven't yet. > but your basic moral priorities are > so different from those of normal people that the answer > probably won't make sense to you. How are my views out of step with the mainstream? > Animals are not ours. Ipse dixit. > First, they are created by God ( or Nature) > to be what they are and to fill a particular ecological niche. Let's see what God says about them. Jesus helped fishermen: When he had finished speaking, he said to Simon, "Put out into deep water, and let down the nets for a catch." Simon answered, "Master, we've worked hard all night and haven't caught anything. But because you say so, I will let down the nets." When they had done so, they caught such a large number of fish that their nets began to break. So they signaled their partners in the other boat to come and help them, and they came and filled both boats so full that they began to sink. When Simon Peter saw this, he fell at Jesus' knees and said, "Go away from me, Lord; I am a sinful man!" For he and all his companions were astonished at the catch of fish they had taken... Luke 5:4-9 (cp. John 21 for similar post-resurrection account) He fed fish to hungry followers: Jesus called his disciples to him and said, "I have compassion for these people; they have already been with me three days and have nothing to eat. I do not want to send them away hungry, or they may collapse on the way." His disciples answered, "Where could we get enough bread in this remote place to feed such a crowd?" "How many loaves do you have?" Jesus asked. "Seven," they replied, "and a few small fish." He told the crowd to sit down on the ground. Then he took the seven loaves and the fish, and when he had given thanks, he broke them and gave them to the disciples, and they in turn to the people. They all ate and were satisfied. Afterward the disciples picked up seven basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over. -- Mathew 15:32-37 He ate fish himself: When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, "Do you have anything here to eat?" They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate it in their presence. -- Luke 24:40-43 Christ's disciples weren't ARAs, they were fishermen. Christ went out to fish with them. He told them where and when to find fish. He fed fish to others. He ate fish himself. Consider the Passover seder: On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb, Jesus' disciples asked him, "Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you to eat the Passover?" So he sent two of his disciples, telling them, "Go into the city, and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him. Say to the owner of the house he enters, 'The Teacher asks: Where is my guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?' He will show you a large upper room, furnished and ready. Make preparations for us there." The disciples left, went into the city and found things just as Jesus had told them. So they prepared the Passover. -- Mark 14:12-16 Did Jesus forbid the killing and eating the lamb? No, he and his disciples partook in the custom of killing and eating a lamb on Pesach. Jesus also commanded animal sacrifices: A man with leprosy came to him and begged him on his knees, "If you are willing, you can make me clean." Filled with compassion, Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. "I am willing," he said. "Be clean!" Immediately the leprosy left him and he was cured. Jesus sent him away at once with a strong warning: "See that you don't tell this to anyone. But go, show yourself to the priest and offer the sacrifices that Moses commanded for your cleansing, as a testimony to them." Mark 1:40-44 Mary and Joseph offered animal sacrifices upon the birth of Jesus. Jesus was NOT vegetarian, nor did he do anything consistent with the animal rights or "vegan" position. Furthermore, the OT is filled with examples of meat-eating and animal sacrifices. Cain and Esau are described as hunters. The OT laws prescribe methods of slaughter, rules for how meat should and shouldn't be prepared, etc. Jesus said it's not what goes into a man's mouth that makes him unclean, but what comes out of it (Matthew 15). Matthew wrote that Jesus offended the Pharisees when he said that; it still offends people like you who think people are ethical, virtuous, etc., on the basis of following rules nearly 2000 years later. St Paul also addressed the issue by writing that Christians should not judge one another over diet, particularly over the consumption of meat; he also wrote (1 Timothy 4) that the commmand to abstain from certain foods (which includes meat) is a doctrine of devils. Yet you judge people according to what they eat and command (or at least request) others abstain from certain foods to be more ethical, holy, etc. There is *NO* Biblical case for vegetarianism. Vegetarianism -- particularly the AR/vegan zealotry kind you seek to infect the world through proselytization -- is antithetical to the Bible. > We cannot create them; Some scientists are trying to. Indeed, we create hybrids of everything else. Why not animals? > we can only warp them out of their natural > state in ways which -- in the case of these turkeys at least -- > frustrate every ability required for them to survive as they > were intended to do. They're not released into the wild. They're grown for meat, not for bigger turkey dicks. > We have taken God's creatures and mutilated > and deformed them. No, we've adapted them to our tastes. > Animals are not ours. Tautology: you said this above. > As individual beings under God, just like > humans, they belong to themselves. Not according to God. See above. If you invoke God, I will go to see what God reportedly says. > Their lives and their selves > are their own. Not according to God. See above. So long as you invoke God, I will go to see what God reportedly says about the issue. > They have inherent value in themselves; they have > consciousness and awareness, the ability to feel and suffer and > enjoy their little lives. They are individuals, as we are, and > we have a moral obligation to respect that basic individuality by > treating them as beings with basic moral status, not just as things. > We do not have a right, as God's stewards only, to do anything we > want to others. We do not have a right, as moral beings, to create > suffering and deformity for our trivial convenience. Not according to God. See above. If you continue to invoke God, I will continue to show you what God reportedly says about the issue. > But, as I said, this will probably make no sense to you. You've still not made a case for why an animal shouldn't even be bred if it can't reproduce. What's your position on mules? Should they be outlawed simply because they're sterile (turkeys in the above discussion *aren't* sterile) hybrids? > For which, I pity you. Probably as much as I pity you, Karen, so that makes us even. Now try to make a case for why turkeys and mules shouldn't be bred, and lay off the emotive crap about "their little lives" and their "basic individuality" and try to leave God out of it (because you can't pull the wool -- or some vegan-approved synthetic -- over my eyes on that one). |
"Glorfindel" (bleagh) is tired old Karen Winter ( wife swap veganepisode)
Karen Winter lied:
> usual suspect wrote: > > > Glorfindel: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>> No animal should be bred so that he is *incapable* >>>>> of carrying out normal biological functions for his species, >>>>> such as reproduction. > > >>>> Why not? > > >>> If it isn't obvious to you, I am sorry for you. > > >> You can't answer the question. > > > I can answer the question, but your basic moral priorities are > so different from those of normal people that the answer > probably won't make sense to you. You are not remotely close to a normal person, so that statement makes no sense at all. |
"Glorfindel" (bleagh) is tired old Karen Winter ( wife swapvegan episode)
S. Maizlich wrote:
> Karen Winter lied: > >> usual suspect wrote: >> >> >> Glorfindel: >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>> No animal should be bred so that he is *incapable* >>>>>> of carrying out normal biological functions for his species, >>>>>> such as reproduction. >> >> >> >>>>> Why not? >> >> >> >>>> If it isn't obvious to you, I am sorry for you. >> >> >> >>> You can't answer the question. >> >> >> >> I can answer the question, but your basic moral priorities are >> so different from those of normal people that the answer >> probably won't make sense to you. > > > You are not remotely close to a normal person, so that statement makes > no sense at all. Wasn't that funny? |
wife swap vegan episode
"Glorfindel" > wrote in message ... > Dutch wrote: >> "Glorfindel" > wrote > >>>Linzey notes: "The biblical case for vegetarianism does not rest on >>>the view that killing may never be allowable in the eyes of God, >>>rather on the view that killing is always a grave matter. When we >>>have to kill to live we may do so, but when we do not, we should live >>>otherwise." _Animal Theology_ > >> This is the essence of veganism, to avoid "animal products" means "to >> live otherwise", > > As far as that specific behavior is concerned. Linzey is careful to > note that even vegans do have a CD cost in their lives. I am fully aware that AR writers are skilled sophists. > He is well > aware of *your* fallacious reasoning that if we will only start eating > meat, we will somehow become virtuous That is a strawman, I have never argued that eating meat makes one virtuous. I have also never argued that NOT eating meat makes one less virtuous, what I am telling you and explaining clearly, is that the AR reasoning which concludes that eating meat makes one less virtuous is fallacious. -- or it won't matter to us any > more. What won't matter? It already doesn't matter to vegans that their food and other consumer goods are linked to systematic harm to animals, all vegans care about is keeping firmly focused on "animal products" so they can maintain the false sense of moral superiority to which they become addicted. >> just the fallacious reasoning that so many people fall for. This line of >> thought of course is extrapolated from moral behaviour towards humans, >> i.e. kill only in self-defense, where it actually makes sense. > > It makes sense in reference to non-humans also. It makes no sense when applied to animals because we kill animals with everything we do. As we discussed earlier even worms kill animals when they eat soil. Animal life is ubiquitous, it is destroyed and recreated constantly. The AR ethic is anthropomorphic politics run amok. |
wife swap vegan episode
usual suspect wrote:
Glorfindel: > >>>>>> No animal should be bred so that he is *incapable* >>>>>> of carrying out normal biological functions for his species, >>>>>> such as reproduction. >> but your basic moral priorities are >> so different from those of normal people that the answer >> probably won't make sense to you. > How are my views out of step with the mainstream? Mainstream ethics does not support seriously inhumane treatment of animals *even* when it is to the benefit of humans. Normal, mainstream people support SPCAs and welfare organizations and the prosecution of people who abuse animals in the ways producers in factory farms do. When they are *made aware* of the treatment in factory farm meat production, they support laws to change it. Laws against the production of foie gras, laws against the sale of downer animals, laws against close-confinement in swine facilities and egg production facilities are being passed in many areas, particularly in Europe -- passed by ordinary, non-AR voters, many of whom are not even vegetarian. The secrets are out, and your cruel views are rapidly becoming history. >> Animals are not ours. > Ipse dixit. I, and many others, do say so. >> First, they are created by God ( or Nature) >> to be what they are and to fill a particular ecological niche. > Let's see what God says about them. The Bible -- which is not, BTW, God -- nowhere supports the kind of inhumane treatment found in factory farms. The first diet of humans in Eden was vegetarian; it was the diet God intended for us, the proper diet for humans, even as seen by the ancient Hebrews who recorded the origin myth of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity -- and were probably meat-eaters themselves. There is no way whatever that you can use the Bible to support factory farming. It is not good stewardship of God's animals, and no amount of sophistry on your part will make it so. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Jesus said it's not what goes into a man's mouth that makes him unclean, > but what comes out of it (Matthew 15). > Matthew wrote that Jesus offended > the Pharisees when he said that; it still offends people like you who > think people are ethical, virtuous, etc., on the basis of following > rules nearly 2000 years later. > St Paul also addressed the issue by writing that Christians should not > judge one another over diet, particularly over the consumption of meat; Which, of course, had nothing to do with the issues around animal rights or vegetarianism in general. It had to do with Jewish religious ritual and relates to debates in the early Church over which Jewish practices should be required of gentile converts. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > There is *NO* Biblical case for vegetarianism. Linzey makes one in several of his books, as do several other pro-vegetarian Christian writers. Pro-factory-farm people can't claim to "own" the Bible any more than right-wing fandamentalists in general can. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> For which, I pity you. > Probably as much as I pity you, Karen, so that makes us even. Now try to > make a case for why turkeys and mules shouldn't be bred, and lay off the > emotive crap about "their little lives" and their "basic individuality" > and try to leave God out of it (because you can't pull the wool -- or > some vegan-approved synthetic -- over my eyes on that one). I thought you wouldn't understand what I was saying. Sad indeed. God bless you anyway. |
wife swap vegan episode
Dutch wrote:
> "Glorfindel" > wrote in message > ... *Yawn* |
wife swap vegan episode
"Glorfindel" > wrote > usual suspect wrote: > > Glorfindel: >> >>>>>>> No animal should be bred so that he is *incapable* >>>>>>> of carrying out normal biological functions for his species, >>>>>>> such as reproduction. > >>> but your basic moral priorities are >>> so different from those of normal people that the answer >>> probably won't make sense to you. > >> How are my views out of step with the mainstream? > > Mainstream ethics does not support seriously inhumane treatment > of animals *even* when it is to the benefit of humans. Normal, > mainstream people support SPCAs and welfare organizations and > the prosecution of people who abuse animals in the ways producers > in factory farms do. When they are *made aware* of the treatment > in factory farm meat production, they support laws to change it. > Laws against the production of foie gras, laws against the sale > of downer animals, laws against close-confinement in swine > facilities and egg production facilities are being passed in > many areas, particularly in Europe -- passed by ordinary, non-AR > voters, many of whom are not even vegetarian. The secrets are > out, and your cruel views are rapidly becoming history. That has nothing to do with radical AR per se, it's serious Animal Welfare, and it *is* indeed on the move, and it can't go fast enough. >>> Animals are not ours. > >> Ipse dixit. > > I, and many others, do say so. It's irrelevant what you say, we are animals ourselves and there is nothing inherent in our nature that disallows us from exploiting nature to the best of our abilities as every animal does. That does not mean being cruel. >>> First, they are created by God ( or Nature) >>> to be what they are and to fill a particular ecological niche. > >> Let's see what God says about them. > > The Bible -- which is not, BTW, God -- nowhere supports the > kind of inhumane treatment found in factory farms. The > first diet of humans in Eden was vegetarian; it was the diet > God intended for us, the proper diet for humans, even as seen > by the ancient Hebrews who recorded the origin myth of > Judaism, Islam, and Christianity -- and were probably meat-eaters > themselves. There is no way whatever that you can use the > Bible to support factory farming. It is not good stewardship > of God's animals, and no amount of sophistry on your part will > make it so. There's nothing in the desire for elimination of abuse that says that humans are disallowed from using animals per se. Stop pretending that your ilk are the only ones who want better conditions for animals, most of the contributions to PeTA I submit, are not from vegans. >> Probably as much as I pity you, Karen, so that makes us even. Karen? |
wife swap vegan episode
"Glorfindel" > wrote > Dutch wrote: >> "Glorfindel" > wrote in message >> ... > > *Yawn* Sorry if I'm keeping you up, have a nap then let me know when you think of something worthwhile to contribute. |
wife swap vegan episode
usual suspect wrote:
Glorfindel: >> There are others found in almost >> all writers on AR, but moral flexibility and open- mindedness >> do not depend on supporting the use of animals for food under >> ordinary conditions or the killing of animals for fur under >> ordinary conditions. > I asked for examples demonstrating some degree of *tolerance* for those > who disagree with ARAs. There is tolerance for those who disagree with ARAs as people. You cannot expect ARAs to be tolerant of ideas which violate the basic ethical principles of animal rights. You have no tolerance for some ideas. Does that make you an absolutist? > That request was based on what you said previously: > For one thing, you cannot speak for all vegans -- nor can I -- > and for another, any reading of major authors who support > AR/veganism will show they mention many areas where ethics > cannot be absolute. > I still want an example demonstrating some kind of ethical wiggle room > -- tolerance, open-mindedness, etc. -- on the part of ARAs since you > contend they're not absolutists. I have given you several quotes which demonstrate that. There is tolerance, open-mindedness, a clear statement that ethics are not absolute. >> "Flexibility" is not defined as "supports >> Usual's anti-AR views". > Strawman: you know that was NOT my suggestion. It certainly appears to be your definition of flexibility. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > When we >> have to kill to live we may do so, but when we do not, we should live >> otherwise." _Animal Theology_ > This is nothing but regurgitating and Biblicizing the lame argument that > people shouldn't eat meat because they don't have to. A good, valid argument. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>. >> Regan notes: "It sometimes happens that animals are in conditions of >> acute, untreatable suffering...To kill animals in these circumstances >> would seem clearly to be in their interests, for there are fates worse >> than death...."_Case for Animal Rights_ > See Regan above. Your quotation pertains to mercy killing for the > animals' sake rather than instances where it benefits man. Yes. It shows Regan does not support an absolute prohibition of killing animals under all circumstances. >> Sapontzis suggests that if hens are provided with all their needs and >> treated with respect, it is not unethical to use their unfertilized >> eggs. > Why would it be unethical to take fertilized eggs? Some vegans might consider that killing an animal, just as some "pro-life" people consider not allowing the fertilized egg to implant to be killing a human. It is a very absolutist position which Sapontzis is opposing. ( I agree with him on this one). > And why would it be > "wrong" to consume a hen after she'd received such care? That *would* be killing an animal. >> He also notes "...to have moral rights is not necessarily to have >> the same set of rights with other rights-holders, extending moral rights >> to those who have not enjoyed them before does not settle the matter of >> how we are to treat them. Rather it opens the door to questions...." >> _Morals, Reason, and Animals_ > That quote fails to address the issue I raised. I answers it. >> Even the generally uncompromising Francione says: "Moreover, humans have >> so commodified animals that it is virtually impossible to avoid animal >> exploitation completely...but the impossibility of avoiding all contact >> with animal exploitation does not mean that we cannot avoid the most >> obvious and serious forms of exploitation." _Introduction to Animal >> Rights_. > Also fails to address the issue. Likewise; it answers it. >> I found these examples in ten minutes by opening the volumes almost >> literally at random. Major writers on AR present a much more >> nuanced analysis than you claim. > No, you've given me examples that don't address the issue I asked > you about. Any "nuance" these writes have is overshadowed by the fact > that as a rule they oppose people eating animals, wearing fur or > leather, or conducting research that uses animals as subjects in > experiments. Yes, they certainly do. That does not make the ethical absolutists. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> Their ethical position (singular AR position -- for goodness sake, >>> don't start your usual hair-splitting sophistry to distinguish their >>> inane peculiarities from one another) >> There are several AR philosophies, based on several philosophical >> positions, and this leads to a variety of conclusions in specific >> cases. You might as well talk about a "singular philosophical >> position" or a "singular religious position." There are certain >> ideas which are fairly common, but none that is universal, > The idea that animals shouldn't be owned, be food, be worn, or be > experimented upon is universal in AR and veganism. Indeed it is, under ordinary circumstances. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Yes, as in the case of the Silver Springs monkeys > Read this and we can discuss it. > http://www.nationalreview.com/smithw...0402100912.asp I've read a lot about the case. >>> There's nothing wrong with being frugal. People enjoy meat. Why >>> should I be concerned when they choose to buy it at 99-cents a pound >>> instead of $1.99 a pound? >> You should if the dollar a pound is saved at the cost of extreme >> suffering on the part of the animals who become it. > Non sequitur. To the point, and you know it. It is what we have been talking about. > You cannot demonstrate that the extra dollar buys > protection for animals, nor can you demonstrate an association between > costs and cruelty. It comes from your desire to compare apples and > oranges -- "factory farms" which you deem as all bad to "family farms" > which you deem as all good (or inherently better). Factory farms are indeed all bad, but family farms can be good or bad, depending on the individual farm. Some "family farms" are pretty horrible. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> Probably the voters in Florida were more open to the >> idea than those in some other states. > Then so much for your suggestion that consumers are universally appalled > by "inhumane" conditions I didn't say they were *universally* appalled. > -- particularly in the places where such > "inhumane" conditions are more likely to prevail. It's always harder to reform areas where people have a major economic interest in unethical practices. >> It's a start. > A start of what? It did nothing substantive or relevant to the issue it > addresses in the jurisdiction where it passed. It's still a start. It shows other states that voters do see a value in humane treatment of animals, even when those animals are "food" animals instead of companion animals. It will also show that inhumane methods are not necessary. |
wife swap vegan episode
Dutch wrote:
> "Glorfindel" > wrote <...> >>>Probably as much as I pity you, Karen, so that makes us even. > > Karen? Yes, as in Karen Winter. "Rat." "Cynomis." Etc. |
wife swap vegan episode
"usual suspect" > wrote
> Dutch wrote: >> "Glorfindel" > wrote > <...> >>>>Probably as much as I pity you, Karen, so that makes us even. >> >> Karen? > > Yes, as in Karen Winter. "Rat." "Cynomis." Etc. Oh shit, I wouldn't have wasted my time. |
wife swap vegan episode
Dutch wrote:
> "Glorfindel" > wrote >>Mainstream ethics does not support seriously inhumane treatment >>of animals *even* when it is to the benefit of humans. Normal, >>mainstream people support SPCAs and welfare organizations and >>the prosecution of people who abuse animals in the ways producers >>in factory farms do. When they are *made aware* of the treatment >>in factory farm meat production, they support laws to change it. >>Laws against the production of foie gras, laws against the sale >>of downer animals, laws against close-confinement in swine >>facilities and egg production facilities are being passed in >>many areas, particularly in Europe -- passed by ordinary, non-AR >>voters, many of whom are not even vegetarian. The secrets are >>out, and your cruel views are rapidly becoming history. > That has nothing to do with radical AR per se, it's serious Animal Welfare, > and it *is* indeed on the move, and it can't go fast enough. So here we agree, and that is good. Usual does *not* agree, and that is where I submit that his views differ from the mainstream. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |
wife swap vegan episode
Karen Winter wrote:
>>>>>>> No animal should be bred so that he is *incapable* >>>>>>> of carrying out normal biological functions for his species, >>>>>>> such as reproduction. > >>> but your basic moral priorities are >>> so different from those of normal people that the answer >>> probably won't make sense to you. > >> How are my views out of step with the mainstream? > > Mainstream ethics does not support seriously inhumane treatment > of animals *even* when it is to the benefit of humans. Neither do I. > Normal, mainstream people support SPCAs and welfare organizations So do I. Perhaps you missed all those threads back when you were still "Rat" about my work with feral cats. > and the prosecution of people who abuse animals in the ways producers > in factory farms do. This is where you leap to the extreme, Karen. Most people don't accept the position that "factory farms," as a rule, are abusive. The mainstream approves of "factory farming," especially on days like today. You're confusing issues you usually split hairs over -- animal rights, which is NOT mainstream, and animal welfare. You're not an animal welfarist; you don't think that goes far enough. You're the radical, far outside the mainstream, who approves of everything that you deem counter to the culture -- animal rights, pedophilia, bestiality, etc. If you go back to the first post I made when starting this thread, I pointed out the vegan on Wife Swap was so focused on things out of her control that she'd lost interest in the things within her control. You're the same way, Karen, and perhaps worse than Jackie in that regard. You left your family to go pursue things like dress-up communes, *******ism, and shampooing stray cats. I raise this again because I think it's germane to distinguishing between mainstream and radicalism. You're not mainstream at all, you're very unconventional (anti-conventional even). <...> >>> Animals are not ours. > >> Ipse dixit. > > I, and many others, do say so. Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant. The prevailing laws in our nation, and in others, address ownership of animals. >>> First, they are created by God ( or Nature) >>> to be what they are and to fill a particular ecological niche. > >> Let's see what God says about them. > > The Bible -- which is not, BTW, God -- nowhere supports the > kind of inhumane treatment found in factory farms. It also doesn't proscribe eating meat, research, or leather or fur. It allows for all of them. It addresses treatment of animals, but it does not say everyone has to be a vegan. Linzey lies, and so do you. > The first diet of humans in Eden was vegetarian; Irrelevant. We were evicted from Eden. > it was the diet God intended for us, Ipse dixit. Go ahead and quote the Bible so I can repeat what you wrote above to distinguish the Bible from God. > the proper diet for humans, even as seen > by the ancient Hebrews who recorded the origin myth of > Judaism, Islam, and Christianity -- and were probably meat-eaters > themselves. There is no way whatever that you can use the > Bible to support factory farming. You also cannot use it to make a blanket condemnation of factory farming, only those instances of abuse which are forbidden in scripture. > It is not good stewardship of God's animals, Ipse dixit. You haven't established that it's not "good stewardship" or that the animals are "God's." > and no amount of sophistry on your part will > make it so. Rich coming from you. >> There is *NO* Biblical case for vegetarianism. > > Linzey makes one No. He feebly Biblicizes AR positions -- much as others do when they say the Bible addresses modern issues that aren't addressed in the Bible. > in several of his books, as do several other > pro-vegetarian Christian writers. Same issue above: they're picking and choosing verses to suggest endorsement of a position that cannot be reasonably gleaned from scripture. There are passages that can be used to support an AW position -- passages dealing with the care and treatment of livestock -- but NOT vegan or AR positions because those same passages deal with the slaughter and consumption of those same livestock, as well as how their hides are to be worn. >>> For which, I pity you. > >> Probably as much as I pity you, Karen, so that makes us even. Now try >> to make a case for why turkeys and mules shouldn't be bred, and lay >> off the emotive crap about "their little lives" and their "basic >> individuality" and try to leave God out of it (because you can't pull >> the wool -- or some vegan-approved synthetic -- over my eyes on that >> one). > > I thought No, you don't think. I asked you to make a case for why turkeys and mules shouldn't be bred. |
wife swap vegan episode
"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> There is *NO* Biblical case for vegetarianism. Genesis 1:29 And Elohim said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. Leviticus 11:42 42Whatsoever goeth upon the belly, and whatsoever goeth upon all four, or whatsoever hath more feet among all creeping things that creep upon the earth, them ye shall not eat; Jeremiah Chapter 7 21 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: Add your burnt-offerings unto your sacrifices, and eat ye flesh. 22 For I spoke not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices; Isaiah Chapter 1 15 And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide Mine eyes from you; yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear; your hands are full of blood. 16 Wash you, make you clean, put away the evil of your doings from before Mine eyes, cease to do evil; 17 Learn to do well; seek justice, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. Isaiah Chapter 11 9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea. Isaiah Chapter 66 3 He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as if he broke a dog's neck; he that offereth a meal-offering, as if he offered swine's blood; he that maketh a memorial-offering of frankincense, as if he blessed an idol; according as they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations; "I shall be contented with the testimony of Philo on the present occasion, which he has given about the matter which I am here explaining in many passages of his treatises. And now do you take that work which he has written in defence of the Jewish nation, and read the following sentences in it. [Essenes: the name] (11.1) But our lawgiver (Moses) trained an innumerable body of his pupils to partake in those things, who are called Essenes, being, as I imagine, honoured with this appellation because of their exceeding holiness [Greek hosioteta = osiothta]. (EGM 75) There is a portion of those people called Essenes, in number something more than four thousand in my opinion, who derive their name from their piety [Greek hosiotetos = osiothtoV], though not according to any accurate form of the Grecian dialect, because they are above all men devoted to the service [therapeutai] of God, not sacrificing living animals, but studying rather to preserve their own minds in a state of holiness and purity. ... http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/cou...9/hypothet.htm 'Nasaraeans, meaning, "rebels," who forbid all flesh-eating, and do not eat living things at all. They have the holy names of patriarchs which are in the Pentateuch, up through Moses and Joshua the son of Nun, and they believe in them-(2) I mean Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the earliest ones, and Moses himself, and Aaron, and Joshua. But they hold that the scriptures of the Pentateuch were not written by Moses, and maintain that they have others. (Epiphanius, Panarion 1:19) ... "The Nasaraeans - they were jews by nationality - originally from Gileaditis (where the early followers of Yeshu-Maria fled after the martyrdom of James the Lord's brother), Bashanitis and the Transjordon . . . They acknowledged Moses and believed that he had received laws - not this law, however, but some other. And so, they were jews who kept all the Jewish observances, but they would not offer sacrifice or eat meat. They considered it unlawful to eat meat or make sacrifices with it. They claim that these Books are fictions, and that none of these customs were instituted by the fathers. This was the difference between the Nasaraeans and the others. . . (Epiphanius, Panarion 1:18) ..... http://essenes.net/sz17.htm Matthew 2:23 "He shall be called a Nazarene." ['Versions of the word "Nazarene" Matthew 2:23 uses the Greek word Nazoraios to refer to Jesus; in English this has traditionally (e.g. in the King James Bible) been translated as "Nazarene" (plural "Nazarenes"). However Mark 1:24 refers to Jesus as Nazarenos; in English this has traditionally (e.g. in the King James Bible) been translated as "of Nazareth"; however, because the correct Greek form of "of Nazareth" would be Nazarethenos or Nazarethaios, most modern translators prefer "Nazarene" here as well. "Nazarene" is also spelled in a variety of ways, including "Nazarean", "Nasarean", "Nazorean", "Nasorean", "Nazaraean", "Nasaraean" (plural "Nazarean", "Nasareans", "Nazoreans", "Nasoreans", "Nazaraeans", "Nasaraeans"). Modern groups which relate the Greek words Nazoraios and Nazarenos to the Hebrew Netzer (branch or shoot) prefer to use the transliteration Netzarim, the plural form of Netzer. A common Arabic word for "Christian" is Nasrani, believed to be derived from the same root as Nazorean, ultimately Nozrim. http://bibleocean.com/OmniDefinition/Nazarene ] "They [the Ebionites] say that Christ was not begotten of God the Father, but created as one of the archangels .... that he rules over the angels and all the creatures of the Almighty, and that he came and declared, as their Gospel, which is called Gospel according to Matthew, or Gospel According to the Hebrews" reports: "I am come to do away with sacrifices, and if you cease not sacrificing, the wrath of God will not cease from you." (Epiphanius, Panarion 30.16,4-5 ) ... http://www.answers.com/topic/gospel-of-the-hebrews ['The Gospel according to the Hebrews was a Gospel which was once used by the Nazarenes and Ebionites. Eusebius said that GH was "the especial delight of those of the Hebrews who have accepted Messiah" (Eccl. Hist. 3:25:5). When speaking of the Ebionites, Epiphanius calls GH "their Gospel" (Pan. 30:16:4-5) and Jerome refers to GH as "the Gospel which the Nazarenes and Ebionites use" (On Mat. 12:13). ... While there is no reason to presume that there were three different Gospels called the Gospel according to the Hebrews, it is certainly clear that Nazarenes and Ebionites used different versions of GH. Epiphanius describes the version of GH used by the Ebionites as "called 'according to Matthew', which however is not wholly complete but falsified and mutilated" (Pan. 30:13:2) however in speaking of the Nazarenes he refers to the "Gospel of Matthew quite complete in Hebrew. preserved. as it was first written, in Hebrew letters" (Pan. 29:9:4). So it would appear that the Ebionite version of GH was "not wholly complete but falsified and mutilated" while the Nazarene version was "quite complete. preserved. as it was first written.". http://www.jios.org/The%20Synoptic%20Solution_jt.html ] '8. He also said, I am come to end the sacrifices and feasts of blood, and if ye cease not offering and eating of flesh and blood, the wrath of God shall not cease from you, even as it came to your fathers in the wilderness, who lusted for flesh, and they eat to their content, and were filled with rottenness, and the plague consumed them. http://reluctant-messenger.com/essen...htm#Lection210 |
wife swap vegan episode
Thank you, Pearl. As you show, there are Biblical verses which support vegetarianism, as there are Biblical verses which talk about meat-eating and animal sacrifices. Individual verses can be pulled out of the Bible, and it is useful to quote verses which support the position someone takes, of course. The Bible is the basis for Christian and Jewish ethics, and the Old Testament for Muslim ethics as well. However, Christians who are not Biblical fundamentalists or literalists go more on the *meaning* of the Bible as a whole, and it is clear to me, as to other Christian vegetarians, that the Biblical message, especially of Jesus, is about service, self-sacrifice, and mercy. Animal liberation/rights and ethical vegetarianism are more in keeping with Christian ethics than use of animal products as they are produced today in most cases. Have you read Linzey at all? He is excellent on Christian support for rights of animals and Christian reasons for vegetarianism. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pearl wrote: > "usual suspect" > wrote in message ... >>There is *NO* Biblical case for vegetarianism. > Genesis > 1:29 And Elohim said, Behold, I have given you every > herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, > and every tree, which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; > to you it shall be for meat. > Leviticus 11:42 > 42Whatsoever goeth upon the belly, and whatsoever > goeth upon all four, or whatsoever hath more feet > among all creeping things that creep upon the earth, > them ye shall not eat; > Jeremiah Chapter 7 > 21 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: > Add your burnt-offerings unto your sacrifices, and eat > ye flesh. 22 For I spoke not unto your fathers, nor > commanded them in the day that I brought them out of > the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices; > Isaiah Chapter 1 > 15 And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide > Mine eyes from you; yea, when ye make many prayers, > I will not hear; your hands are full of blood. 16 Wash > you, make you clean, put away the evil of your doings > from before Mine eyes, cease to do evil; 17 Learn to do > well; seek justice, relieve the oppressed, judge the > fatherless, plead for the widow. > Isaiah Chapter 11 > 9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain; > for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, > as the waters cover the sea. > Isaiah Chapter 66 > 3 He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man; he that > sacrificeth a lamb, as if he broke a dog's neck; he that > offereth a meal-offering, as if he offered swine's blood; > he that maketh a memorial-offering of frankincense, as > if he blessed an idol; according as they have chosen their > own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |
wife swap vegan episode
Dutch wrote:
>>Yes, as in Karen Winter. "Rat." "Cynomis." Etc. > Oh shit, I wouldn't have wasted my time. I thought you were interested in the discussion, Dutch. You only have Usual's claim that I am "Karen Winter." I am Glorfindel. |
wife swap vegan episode
usual suspect wrote:
>>> How are my views out of step with the mainstream? Glorfindel: >> Mainstream ethics does not support seriously inhumane treatment >> of animals *even* when it is to the benefit of humans. > Neither do I. You do if you support factory farming, which is always inhumane. >> Normal, mainstream people support SPCAs and welfare organizations > So do I. Pleased to hear it. >> and the prosecution of people who abuse animals in the ways producers >> in factory farms do. > This is where you leap to the extreme. Most people don't accept > the position that "factory farms," as a rule, are abusive. Ipse dixit. When the vast majority of ordinary, mainstream people are shown how animals are treated in factory farms, they agree it is abusive. > The > mainstream approves of "factory farming," especially on days like today. > You're confusing issues you usually split hairs over -- animal rights, > which is NOT mainstream, and animal welfare. Factory farming qualifies as abusive under both. > You're not an animal > welfarist; you don't think that goes far enough. No, I don't think it goes far enough, but I *am* an animal welfarist. Most issues at the extreme level of factory farming are clearly abusive under animal welfare criteria, and can be addressed by mainstream ethics approved by most normal people in our Western culture. By supporting factory farming, you are clearly at the extreme. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > If you go back to the first post I made when starting this thread, I > pointed out the vegan on Wife Swap was so focused on things out of her > control that she'd lost interest in the things within her control. I didn't see the episode, so I can't comment on it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> Animals are not ours. >>> Ipse dixit. >> I, and many others, do say so. > Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant. The prevailing laws in our > nation, and in others, address ownership of animals. That is not something I agree with, but our mainstream culture *also* has established the principle that ownership of animals does not give the owners blanket permission to treat them in inhumane ways. Laws concerning companion animals and enforcement of them by SPCAs and animal control organizations reflect this. More recent laws on care of research animals and against downer animals, etc., also reflect this. Ownership of animals is not an absolute. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> First, they are created by God ( or Nature) >>>> to be what they are and to fill a particular ecological niche. >>> Let's see what God says about them. >> The Bible -- which is not, BTW, God -- nowhere supports the >> kind of inhumane treatment found in factory farms. > It also doesn't proscribe eating meat, research, or leather or fur. It > allows for all of them. Research on animals as we know it today didn't exist in Biblical times, nor did modern methods of factory farming. If producers went back to the methods used in Biblical times, then we could apply Biblical norms to them. Otherwise, we can't. Reread Pearl's Biblical verses also: again, the Bible does not say our "ownership" of animals is absolute. > It addresses treatment of animals, but it does > not say everyone has to be a vegan. Linzey lies, and so do you. Linzey does not say everyone has to be a vegan, and neither do I. >> The first diet of humans in Eden was vegetarian; > Irrelevant. We were evicted from Eden. Which explains why we are not all still vegetarians. >> it was the diet God intended for us, > Ipse dixit. That's what the Bible says in Genesis, as Pearl quoted. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> There is *NO* Biblical case for vegetarianism. >> Linzey makes one > No. He feebly Biblicizes AR positions Your opinion only. > -- much as others do when they say > the Bible addresses modern issues that aren't addressed in the Bible. That's what *you* are doing by quoting the Bible in support of animal husbandry methods certainly not found in Biblical times. Proof-texting on either side is not good use of the Bible. Linzey and I both appeal to the *meaning* of the Bible and our modern interpretation of it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> I thought > No, you don't think. I asked you to make a case for why turkeys and > mules shouldn't be bred. As I said, I thought you wouldn't understand it. |
wife swap vegan episode
"Glorfindel" > wrote > Dutch wrote: >>>Yes, as in Karen Winter. "Rat." "Cynomis." Etc. > >> Oh shit, I wouldn't have wasted my time. > > I thought you were interested in the discussion, Dutch. I am, but it's it's not worth my time talking to someone who I know for a fact is not the least bit interested in considering my point of view. It's one thing to toss off two minute replies to ****wit, but it takes a lot longer to compose responses to a staunch ARA. There are many other demands on my time that are more attractive than beating my head against a brick wall. > You only have Usual's claim that I am "Karen Winter." > I am Glorfindel. Fine, how are you different from Karen? |
wife swap vegan episode
"Glorfindel" > wrote
> usual suspect wrote: >>> Mainstream ethics does not support seriously inhumane treatment >>> of animals *even* when it is to the benefit of humans. > >> Neither do I. > > You do if you support factory farming, which is always inhumane. What is your definition of factory farming? Size? A farm could house a lot of animals and still be designed to minimize suffering. A farm could be small and be humane or not, depending on the operator. |
wife swap vegan episode
"Glorfindel" > wrote in message ... snippage... ....animals > are sacrificed for the producer's profit or convenience. ========================= What a coincidence, that's what YOU support for the production of your veggies, killer. Mono-culture crop production is far more 'factory' than many meat operations, hypocrite. Why the total lack of concern on your part about the animals that die for your convenience and entertainment? snippage... |
wife swap vegan episode
rick wrote:
> "Glorfindel" > wrote in message > ... > snippage... > ...animals >>are sacrificed for the producer's profit or convenience. > > ========================= > What a coincidence, that's what YOU support for the production of > your veggies, killer. Mono-culture crop production is far more > 'factory' than many meat operations, hypocrite. Why the total > lack of concern on your part about the animals that die for your > convenience and entertainment? You have a serious problem with this obsession, Rick. Perhaps you should seek counseling for this monomania of yours so that you can respond to the topic when posting. |
wife swap vegan episode
"Glorfindel" > wrote in message ... > rick wrote: >> "Glorfindel" > wrote in message >> ... > >> snippage... > >> ...animals > >>>are sacrificed for the producer's profit or convenience. >> >> ========================= >> What a coincidence, that's what YOU support for the production >> of your veggies, killer. Mono-culture crop production is far >> more 'factory' than many meat operations, hypocrite. Why the >> total lack of concern on your part about the animals that die >> for your convenience and entertainment? > > You have a serious problem with this obsession, Rick. Perhaps > you should seek counseling for this monomania of yours so > that you can respond to the topic when posting. ======================= LOL The constant bit of lys and ignorance comes from you, fool. The food you eat causes massive amounts of animal death and suffering. Too bad you're too hypocritical to actually DO anything to lessen your bloody footprints, killer. |
wife swap vegan episode
"Glorfindel" > wrote > Dutch wrote: >> "Glorfindel" > wrote > >>>usual suspect wrote: > >>>>>Mainstream ethics does not support seriously inhumane treatment >>>>>of animals *even* when it is to the benefit of humans. > >>>>Neither do I. > >>>You do if you support factory farming, which is always inhumane. > >> What is your definition of factory farming? > > Mainly, an operation in which the basic biological needs, > including psychological or emotional needs, of animals > are sacrificed for the producer's profit or convenience. You have defined factory farming as inhumane, no wonder you think it is. I would have thought that an objective definition would be by number of animals. > For example, a bare floor may be easier to clean, but > turkeys don't naturally live on bare concrete. They > don't naturally live in enclosed buildings full of thousands > of other turkeys. They need bedding and places to roost, > and the ability to escape if threatened by other turkeys. > Producers, besides not breeding birds who can't even > reproduce by themselves, need to observe wild turkeys in > the wild, and give domestic turkeys the kind of living > conditions turkeys choose for themselves. > >> Size? A farm could house a lot of animals and still be designed to >> minimize suffering. > > Yes, it could, *if* there were enough space and other > provisions, and enough people, to provide what the animal, > as a member of his/her species, needs to be comfortable > and healthy. That includes things like fresh air, grazing, > opportunities to dustbathe and scratch for chickens, small > enough groups within the whole for the animals to form > natural social groupings and avoid over-stress, enough > human supervision to notice when an individual is starting > to get sick, or is being kept away from the food or water by > stronger animals, a chance for young animals to spend > some time with the parent(s), and so on. Factory farms > involve things like battery cages or masses of animals > in enclosed buildings, gestation crates for sows, and so on. > >> A farm could be small and be humane or not, depending on the operator. > > Yes, of course. So we should talk about "inhumane" farms and "humane" farms, that's really the important criterion. "Factory farms" just sounds like BS rhetoric. |
wife swap vegan episode
Dutch wrote:
>>What is your definition of factory farming? >>Mainly, an operation in which the basic biological needs, >>including psychological or emotional needs, of animals >>are sacrificed for the producer's profit or convenience. > You have defined factory farming as inhumane, no wonder you think it is. I > would have thought that an objective definition would be by number of > animals. Not so much number of animals _per se_ as the technological methods (like those of a factory) used to care for them. Numbers will have an effect. When you start getting thousands of chickens in one building, it's pretty much impossible to provide humane living conditions for them. But a small backyard flock can also be badly treated as a lower level of technology. The term "factory farming" is more specific: it refers to large-scale commercial production which is also inhumane in its methods. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>A farm could be small and be humane or not, depending on the operator. >>Yes, of course. > So we should talk about "inhumane" farms and "humane" farms, that's really > the important criterion. "Factory farms" just sounds like BS rhetoric. |
wife swap vegan episode
"Glorfindel" > wrote in message ... snippage... ....The term "factory farming" is more specific: > it refers to large-scale commercial production which is > also inhumane in its methods. =========================== Again, thanks for perfectly describing the vast majority of the foods you eat, hypocrite. That you continue to focus only on foods that YOU do not eat, your impact in that area means nothing! What it does mean is that you ignore the areas you do have a massive impact just so you can continue to spew your hate and delusions. snip. |
wife swap vegan episode
Dutch and I are discussing the definition of "factory farming" as it applies to animals, Rick. The term I would use for the equivalent in vegetable production is "Agribusiness". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |
wife swap vegan episode
"Glorfindel" > wrote in message ... > > Dutch and I are discussing the definition of "factory farming" > as it applies to animals, Rick. ========================== That's the point hypocrite, it does apply to animals that die very brutally, and far more inhumanely to produce your veggies. The term I would use for > the equivalent in vegetable production is "Agribusiness". ======================= Sounds sooo much nicer, eh killer? The fact remains that crop production is a far more factory farming than many animal operations. Too bad you dogma and delusions don't let you see that, eh? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |
wife swap vegan episode
rick wrote:
> "Glorfindel" > wrote in message > ... >>Dutch and I are discussing the definition of "factory farming" >>as it applies to animals, Rick. > ========================== > That's the point hypocrite, it does apply to animals that die > very brutally, and far more inhumanely to produce your veggies. That you don't know. It's an assumption on your part. > The term I would use for >>the equivalent in vegetable production is "Agribusiness". > ======================= > Sounds sooo much nicer, eh killer? No, not particularly. It simply allows for more precise discussion when terms are specific and defined. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:10 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter