If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
An introduction to bunny hugging
'An introduction to bunny hugging
We are kind to a select few animals, and horribly cruel to many others Posted By DANIEL WILSON Posted 1 day ago "All the arguments to prove man's superiority cannot shatter this hard fact: in suffering the animals are our equals." -- Peter Singer When little Claudio died in his mother's arms a few months ago, his mother behaved like any mother would upon losing her baby: she grieved. For several days, Gana, a gorilla at Germany's Muenster Zoo, carried and stroked her dead son, trying to revive him. Dr. Bill Sellers, a primatologist at Manchester University, says gorillas can experience pain and loss similar to humans, "but of course it's extremely difficult to prove scientifically." Still, a growing number of scientists are recognizing what pet owners have known all along -- that animals have feelings; perhaps not exactly like us, but they have them nonetheless. Some animals have demonstrated a wide range of emotions, including grief, guilt, revenge and even altruism. Elephants have risked their own lives to help other animals. People have witnessed buffaloes sliding across the ice, apparently for the sheer pleasure of it. Captive dolphins have been known to "get even" with abusive trainers and farmers tell of cows calling for days when their calves are taken away. Dogs are even prescribed anti-depressants these days; further evidence that animals have emotions. According to Marc Bekoff, a biology professor at the University of Colorado, "If we feel jealousy, then dogs and wolves and elephants and chimpanzees feel jealousy. Animal emotions are not necessarily identical to ours but there's no reason to think they should be. Their hearts and stomachs and brains also differ from ours, but this doesn't stop us from saying they have hearts, stomachs and brains. There's dog joy and chimpanzee joy and pig joy, and dog grief, chimpanzee grief and pig grief." So why aren't we nicer to animals? If they share many of the same feelings that we do, wouldn't they want to avoid pain, suffering and death, like we do? Of course most people will say they love animals. But our actions speak louder than our words. We're really only kind to a select few, and unspeakably cruel towards others. We hunt and kill animals for "sport," lock them in cages for our amusement and torture them for scientific curiosity. We even consume their flesh and wear their skins. If such atrocities were committed against our own kind, we would be repulsed and outraged, yet we have no problem doing these things to other sentient animals, provided we don't have to think too much about it. Enter the animal rights activists, those annoying bunny-huggers whose mission in life is to remind us of how barbaric and nasty we are to animals; always trying to make us feel guilty for enjoying our steaks, wearing our leather jackets and going to the circus. As you may know I'm one of those bunny-huggers, but my goal is not to make anyone feel bad. It's simply to try and end the suffering we humans have created. My hope is that by educating the public about how we treat animals, people will choose compassion over cruelty; that just because we can exploit and kill others doesn't mean we should. Live and let live. But discussing animal rights is a touchy subject. Some people get offended, even belligerent, when it's suggested the animals we use suffer as we do. Others argue that if you're defending animals, you've turned your back on your own kind. I don't see why we can't do both. A lot of animal rights people, including myself, support organizations aimed at reducing human suffering too. My circle of compassion is big enough to include humans AND animals. It doesn't have to be one or the other. A mother doesn't tell her children, "Sorry kids, but I can only love one of you," and neither should we. And it's not that I love animals more than people; I just don't want to see anyone suffer. A parent who stops his child from kicking the family cat doesn't love the cat more than the child, he just wants his child to grow up to be a kind, caring and compassionate human being. That's what I want too. I want us to be kinder than we currently are. Gandhi said, "The greatness of a nation, and its moral progress, can be judged by the way it treats its animals." The advances we've made as a species don't mean much if we still enslave, exploit and murder those that are weaker than us. I know we are better than this. I believe we can, and should, extend our circle of compassion to include the animals. Dan Wilson is a vegan, environmentalist, animal rights activist and public education director for the Niagara Centre for Animal Rights Awareness. He is a member of The Standard's community editorial board. Contact him at [...]. http://www.stcatharinesstandard.ca/A...aspx?e=1272893 |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Ethics
pearl wrote:
"Ron Hamilton" wrote in message m... From: Ron Hamilton User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.101.104.64 From: Rudy Canoza Reply-To: User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.101.104.64 Is fraud ethically permitted and morally correct behaviour, ball? I'm still working on the ipse dixit thing, so I have no clue about this. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
An introduction to bunny hugging
Actually, we aren't very nice to each other a lot of the time.
pearl wrote: | | So why aren't we nicer to animals? If they share many of the same | feelings that we do, wouldn't they want to avoid pain, suffering | and death, like we do? | |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
An introduction to bunny hugging
"FOB" wrote in message ...
pearl wrote: | | So why aren't we nicer to animals? If they share many of the same | feelings that we do, wouldn't they want to avoid pain, suffering | and death, like we do? Actually, we aren't very nice to each other a lot of the time. 'The Monstrosity of Animal Exploitation Published by cyrano2 at 7:14 pm under Animal Cruelty, Animal Liberation, Animal Rights, Brutality, Cruel Idiots, Meat Industrial Complex, Moral Blinders, Speciesism [!] (Seal - Fur - 26) More cleaning of bloody seal skins about ship. This is what we see when people wear fur. [Editor's Note: photo and caption credits go to All Creatures at www.all-creatures.org] "On The Monstrosity of Animal Exploitation and Abuse, and the Causation of Slavery, Genocide, and War" By David Irving SINCE THE ADVENT OF CIVILIZATION almost every nation from the smallest to the largest has struggled through periods of unbearable violence. Looking back the world finds its trail littered with the history of war and bloodshed. Almost everyone alive today has experienced nothing but war throughout their entire lives. Wherever we look it is there. World War I, World War II, Israel-Palestine, Korea, South Africa, Guatemala, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Khmer Rouge, El Salvador, Gulf War, Rwanda, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq. This list barely makes a dent in the number of wars fought in the 20th and early 21st Centuries. Over 160 million people are dead because of these wars. That is a staggering figure. And over it all hangs the fear of a massive nuclear conflagration. Just how much more does it take before the world stops long enough to ask how it all happened and what can be done about it? Isaac Bashevis Singer answered the latter part of the question most precisely when he wrote "as long as human beings will go on shedding the blood of animals, there will never be any peace. There will be no justice as long as man will stand with a knife or a gun and destroy those who are weaker than he is." The means for putting an end to war is, therefore, not easy but perfectly conceivable, if we would only avail ourselves of it, and has, in fact, been staring us in the face for centuries. The exploitation and abuse of animals must be stopped. That is the simple (but, admittedly not easy to implement) answer. And if it should seem all too simple, even simpletonian, then let us take a look at the impact on the world the abuse of animals has made. That should clarify the issue. [!] (Dolphin - Slaughter - 03) These Japanese fishermen haul the butchered bodies of these once free dolphins into their boat. They killed sixty of these beautiful living souls in one day. THE "NORMALIZATION" OF ABUSE Charles Patterson's well researched, thought-provoking book Eternal Treblinka: Our Treatment of Animals and the Holocaust illuminates the dark past out of which animal abuse and exploitation emerged. In the long march from the stone age to civilization early humans began to move from a life support system based on opportunistic hunting and gathering to one of domesticating plants and animals. Domestication was not, however, just a cooperative venture in which animals willingly complied. In order to bend animals to their will, humans had to use cunning and deception while resorting to some of their most brutal capabilities. To avoid overpopulation of their herds they would have needed to sterilize some of the males. As Patterson describes, they would likely have accomplished that in the same way some herders in various parts of the world are still doing it, by holding the male down and crushing his testicles. Other means by which herders controlled captive animals were whips, chains, shackles, and branding to show individual ownership. The domestication of animals changed the relationship with animals that people had previously established. Animals were no longer held in ancestral esteem, nor were they any longer regarded in the same light as everything else that lived, including the rocks, the trees, the earth itself, the sun, the moon, and the stars. These were all soul-possessing entities. But the domestication of animals brought a change in their status from one of respect (or fear) to one in which they were ruthlessly subjected to the selfish interests of the herders. As noted by Mr. Patterson, Sigmund Freud wrote that "in the course of his development towards culture man acquired a dominating position over his fellow-creatures in the animal kingdom. Not content with his supremacy, however, he began to place a gulf between his nature and theirs. He denied the possession of reason to them, and to himself he attributed an immortal soul, and made claims to a divine descent which permitted him to annihilate the bond of community between him and the animal kingdom." As the human desire for acquisition grew, the process of domesticating animals provided a model by which tribes could also acquire the wealth of their neighbors. They simply applied the same brutal techniques that had been used successfully to enslave animals: whipping, shackles, chains, castration of males, separation of females, branding, imprisonment, and murder. Over time, tribal battles and population growth expanded and evolved into full scale wars. The core ingredient in the process of one human group conquering another was that of dehumanization. Dehumanization meant mentally transforming the image of a respected neighbor with whom a tribe cooperated for each other's mutual benefit, to the image of some kind of "beast." The ideal was to select one that was particularly loathsome and repugnant to the tribe preparing for warfare. Once that was accomplished it was easy to rationalize the most atrocious and barbaric kind of treatment in accomplishing the conqueror's goals, including in the Nazi Holocaust where they herded their enemies naked (like animals are) into showers and gassed them. [!] (Rabbit - Meat - 13) The skin of the innocent rabbit is then slit along the legs and around the feet. Then the skin is pulled off his or her body, as seen here. The skin is then sold to make "cute bunny fur" clothing and trim for children, whose parents unwittingly condition them to be future fur buyers, instead of teaching them the truth about the horror and suffering that lines each piece of fur. ANIMALS IN THE SYMBOLOGY OF DOMINATION AND HATRED This has been the pattern of conquest throughout human history. Some examples include the massacres of the indigenous people of the American plains, the enslavement and brutalization of Africans by Europeans and Americans, the Nazi Holocaust, and the war in Vietnam. The conquerors mentally turn their victims into animals or insects, describing them as beasts, monkeys, gorillas, swine, pigs, whining curs, mad dogs, monkeys, and termites. Once the victims have been relegated to less than human status, they can be whipped, chained, raped, tortured, humiliated, blown up, and murdered as desired. Hutu leaders described Tutsis as cockroaches and snakes during the Rwanda massacres. In Nazi Germany, as has been well documented, the Nazis defined Jews as rats and pests, which, like animals, were without rights and worthy of life only at the discretion of the superior German master race. Certainly the connection between the enslavement of animals with that of human beings is there to be discerned. The follow-up, defined as war, is also clearly visible. How could it be otherwise? It is not likely that one group of human beings is going to sit idly by while another group subjugates and enslaves it. Unlike animals, humans have the means and the will to fight back and to seek revenge along the way. Patterson has shown that the whole process of slavery, genocide, and war got started when our ancestors began herding innocent animals together against their will. Herding constitutes animal slavery with a path leading towards human slavery, genocide, and war. As shown, that path had to include positive to negative image transference which could only have been forged after animals were rendered subservient and inferior to humans. Herding would certainly have destroyed the sense of kinship early human felt towards animals, opening the door to redefining their place in the new world over which humans were gradually taking ownership. From that point forward, it takes little imagination to envision our ancestors corralling and clubbing innocent animals to death whenever they felt a need. Is it any wonder that today workers club defenseless baby seals to death in Canada for economic gain? And we ask ourselves how anyone could be so ghastly cruel and inhumane? If we want to put on the brakes and come to a screeching halt when it comes to violence and war, maybe it is time to put a stop to activities like enslaving and abusing animals against their will! [!] (Fox - Hunting - 02) When dogs are trained to hunt in a pack, a frenzy results. If they catch the fox, which happens all too often, they all want a piece of the flesh and a taste of the blood. The result is that the fox is ripped to pieces. This is a well known result of fox hunting, and shows how depraved and ungodly the people are who engage in this so-called "sport." The enslavement and abuse of animals along with other ignoble activities like vivisection, trapping, hunting, slaughter, and other cruel abuses of animals are warfare's constant attendants. After centuries they have become the accepted norms and are ingrained in our culture often involving the "best" people. Women of privilege proudly display expensive furs at church, social, and cultural functions and show no concern about the cruelty required to obtain them: steel toothed traps that bite cruelly into whatever anatomical part they manage to snare is one method; anal electrocution, neck snapping, and gassing are other favorites in the mink trade. Why does a custom that causes such immense suffering to animals not cause us to question our sanity? Animal researchers who abuse animals during the week and then sit in the front pews of their churches on Sunday mornings or sit on the boards of directors of important companies and rake in enormous salaries, deserve the same question. It applies with equal force to leaders of commerce and culture who either are involved in, approve of, or cast a blind eye toward animal abuse in laboratories, then step forward proudly to accept civic honors from their communities for exceptional services rendered. And Presidents and Trustees as well as faculty sitting in lofty professorial chairs at universities which condone and approve animal research do not escape the question either. In the same spirit of acquiescence to habit, newspapers write editorials heralding the start of the hunting season and promote the sport of killing innocent animals with high powered rifles and telescopic sights. The loss of human character that results from something so spectacularly unfair and brutal merits little consideration by people intent on continuing the bully practice of destroying those "who are weaker" than they are, just as Isaac Bashevis Singer pointed out in the quote noted at the beginning of this article. Moreover, the seeds granting his government the right to enslave some weaker opponent are already planted in the soil of the hunter's mind, since he agrees with the fundamental concept of "might makes right," except for those few who come to their senses and rebel by refusing to hunt. Meanwhile, large sectors of the economy, like the pharmaceutical, meat and dairy industries, have as their foundation some form of animal abuse whether engaging in gruesome biologicalexperiments, cutting the feet off of cattle or ripping off their hides while they are still living, or turning cows into milk producing machines, and many, many other abuses that are abundantly documented by animal welfare workers. It is small wonder that these industries are conscienceless when they are confronted with their deeds. Animal abuse pervades everything. Why should they not profit economically and take comfort in the same platitudes governing our attitudes towards animals that permeate all the civilized world except for that Orwellian minority that has its eyes wide open? Today, eleven thousand years after the first domestication of animals, human beings have become totally dependent on animals for their existence. Even those who want no part of animal exploitation find it almost inescapable. Twenty-seven billion animals are killed each year in the United States alone just for food. An additional one hundred million animals are experimented upon in animal research laboratories internationally by the animal research industry annually. Dead animals and animal parts collected by rendering plants from slaughter houses, research laboratories, road kills, and every conceivable source are turned into by-products around the world for use in just about everything from cosmetics, soap, and plastics to the automobile tires that transport people from place to place. They are even used in film for moving pictures so that when people go to a movie their pleasure may in part be derived from the by-products of animals that may have been tortured in animal research laboratories. People are literally washing their clothing, cleaning their homes, and bathing themselves in dead animals unless they take care to use soap brands not made with by-products. For entertainment purposes animals are cruelly exploited in circuses, crammed into small cages in zoos, compelled to perform in small spaces in aquariums, forced to race against their will in horse and dog races, beaten into submission where most suffer lung damage in pulling sleds in Iditarods, and stalked mercilessly until they are killed by sadistic cowards in canned Safari hunts. Yet the overwhelming majority of people are unconcerned and the issue of animal slavery, their abuse and exploitation merits only a "ho-hum" unless an animal rights organization mounts an exhibit and attempts to show the world that the exploitation and abuse of animals is the core reason for slavery, genocide, and war. Then "ho-hum" becomes an outrage directed at the animal rights activists who dare to show the world what it is doing. Mainstream media organizations consistently refer to animal rights people in negative terms like "zealots" or "extremists" while the forces of commerce try to brainwash everyone into accepting the view that the rights of animals has no significance. After all, what is an animal? Just a thing to use as we see fit, undeserving of respect, certainly not to be confused with having anything to do with the high intellectual plateaus upon which human beings live out their lives, and certainly not to be compared to human beings in any way no matter how alike they may be in form, body, the ability to express emotion, or, as science is now beginning to discover, take an ethical position,. (See Animals at Play (Animals and Ethics), Marc Bekoff, University of Temple Press.) But one very important fact is beginning to take root in our consciousness. When we stop abusing and exploiting animals, we tend to stop abusing and exploiting our neighbors. We may then be open to finding new directions for channeling our energies, and those directions could lead towards a world able to function without slavery, genocide, and war. Abolitionists believed and lived by the magnificent concept that all people are equal. Animal rights people believe and live by the magnificent concept that the sanctity of life extends not just to human beings, but to all of life. It is a vision that has also been most eloquently expressed by Albert Einstein who said, "Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty." This vision has not only philosophical, ethical, and spiritual implications, it has immense practical value. Without its realization, society will be forever hindered from moving to those higher levels of integration towards which all progressive social movements strive. Without that our world of war will continue without end. Today the animal rights movement is gaining momentum exponentially. It is moving forward demanding that the enslavement, abuse, and torture of animals stop. History teaches well. Injustice and wrong can never survive over time. And those countries that rely on it are living on a cancer that will eventually devour them from the inside out. Nor can those societies withstand the forces of truth, conscience, compassion, and necessity. And these forces tell us that the exploitation and abuse of animals is inextricably bound with slavery, genocide, and war. It's quite likely, then, that when we stop shedding the blood of animals, we will stop shedding the blood of our fellow human beings and we may, at long last, find peace. David Irving is a Phi Beta Kappa, Magna Cum Laude graduate of Columbia University, class of 1980, School of General Studies. He subsequently obtained his Masters in Music Composition at Columbia and founded the new music organization Phoenix in New York City. http://www.bestcyrano.org/THOMASPAINE/?p=792 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
An introduction to bunny hugging
Gitmo, Abu Ghraib.
pearl wrote: | "FOB" wrote in message | ... || || pearl wrote: ||| ||| So why aren't we nicer to animals? If they share many of the same ||| feelings that we do, wouldn't they want to avoid pain, suffering ||| and death, like we do? || || Actually, we aren't very nice to each other a lot of the time. | | 'The Monstrosity of Animal Exploitation | |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
An introduction to bunny hugging
In article ,
"FOB" wrote: Crossposted ot crap. PLONK! I had fun brightlighting rabbits at night in the west Texas desert. An AR-15 decapitates them nicely, and gives me moving target practice. They are also delicious. -- Peace! Om "Love and compassion are necessities, not luxuries. Without them humanity cannot survive." -- Dalai Lama |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Ethics
"Hoots" wrote in message .. .
pearl wrote: "Ron Hamilton" wrote in message m... From: Ron Hamilton User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.101.104.64 From: Rudy Canoza Reply-To: User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.101.104.64 Is fraud ethically permitted and morally correct behaviour, ball? I'm still working on the ipse dixit thing, so I have no clue about this. 'ipsedixitism ... IN BRIEF: n. - An unsupported dogmatic assertion. ... Latin "Ipse dixit" ("Himself said [it]") .. ... Ipsedixitisms are given as though /absolutely no supporting argument/ is necessary. ... Modern dictionaries dramatically narrow the class by associating it with arbitrary, dogmatic belief, implying that the argument has been repeated after having been challenged2. ...' http://www.answers.com/topic/ipsedixitism 'dogmatic adj. ... Characterized by an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles. See synonyms at dictatorial. ...' http://www.answers.com/topic/dogmatic TSH. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
An introduction to bunny hugging
"Omelet" wrote in message news
In article , "FOB" wrote: Crossposted ot crap. PLONK! I had fun brightlighting rabbits at night in the west Texas desert. 'in·hu·man adj. 1. Lacking kindness, pity, or compassion; cruel. 2. Deficient in emotional warmth; cold. 3. Not suited for human needs: an inhuman environment. 4. Not of ordinary human form; monstrous. ... inhuman adj 1: without compunction or human feeling; "in cold blood"; "cold-blooded killing"; "insensate destruction" [syn: cold, cold-blooded, insensate] ...' http://dictionary.reference.com/search?qinhuman An AR-15 decapitates them nicely, and gives me moving target practice. 'AR-15 (for Armalite model 15, often mistaken for Automatic Rifle or Assault Rifle) is the common name for the widely-owned[9] semi-automatic rifle that was developed into the fully automatic M16 and M4 carbine assault rifles, which are currently in use by the United States military. AR-15 was the original name for what became the militarily designated M16, the assault rifle first used by the U.S. in the Vietnam War. ...' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15 They are also delicious. 'The big problem we have before us in the meat industry is to how to reduce the levels of fat in meat without leaving it dry and tasteless when we eat it. Fat contributes a lot of taste to meat, particularly those flavours that allow us to recognize one species from another. Without it, we may end up with just a bland, general meaty taste. ...' http://www.aps.uoguelph.ca/~swatland/ch2_4.htm "The combination of fat with sugar or fat with salt seems to have a very particular neurochemical effect on the brain," Ann Kelley, a professor at the University of Wisconsin (search) who co-authored the unpublished study, said on the Fox News Channel. "What that does is release certain chemicals that are similar to drugs, like heroin and morphine." ...' http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,93031,00.html -- Peace! Om "Love and compassion are necessities, not luxuries. Without them humanity cannot survive." -- Dalai Lama I'm guessing that has to be an automatically-generated sig'.. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
An introduction to bunny hugging
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 14:37:53 -0000, "pearl" wrote:
'An introduction to bunny hugging We are kind to a select few animals, and horribly cruel to many others Posted By DANIEL WILSON Posted 1 day ago "All the arguments to prove man's superiority cannot shatter this hard fact: in suffering the animals are our equals." -- Peter Singer When little Claudio died in his mother's arms a few months ago, his mother behaved like any mother would upon losing her baby: she grieved. For several days, Gana, a gorilla at Germany's Muenster Zoo, carried and stroked her dead son, trying to revive him. Dr. Bill Sellers, a primatologist at Manchester University, says gorillas can experience pain and loss similar to humans, "but of course it's extremely difficult to prove scientifically." No it's not. Watch them. Observe that they feel that way. Duh. Still, a growing number of scientists are recognizing what pet owners have known all along -- that animals have feelings; perhaps not exactly like us, but they have them nonetheless. Some animals have demonstrated a wide range of emotions, including grief, guilt, revenge and even altruism. Elephants have risked their own lives to help other animals. People have witnessed buffaloes sliding across the ice, apparently for the sheer pleasure of it. Captive dolphins have been known to "get even" with abusive trainers and farmers tell of cows calling for days when their calves are taken away. A hen carries on too when her cock is taken away. I'm sure there's frustration and sorrow involved but it's more of a call than anything else, imo. Dogs are even prescribed anti-depressants these days; further evidence that animals have emotions. According to Marc Bekoff, a biology professor at the University of Colorado, "If we feel jealousy, then dogs and wolves and elephants and chimpanzees feel jealousy. Animal emotions are not necessarily identical to ours but there's no reason to think they should be. Their hearts and stomachs and brains also differ from ours, but this doesn't stop us from saying they have hearts, stomachs and brains. There's dog joy and chimpanzee joy and pig joy, and dog grief, chimpanzee grief and pig grief." Since we know that many animals see, hear, smell, taste and feel better than we do, it would take an incredible amount of NOT thinking things through, not recognising the OBVIOUS, etc, in order for someone to be too stupid to understand that animals have feelings and emotions. Is it possible that there are families of people who can't understand that, and bring their kids up to be too stupid and ignorant to ever get a clue? People like: Goo? Yes, it may very stupidly well be. So why aren't we nicer to animals? Inconsideration by people who don't give a ****--which INCLUDES misnomer advocates like yourself BTW!--and deliberate intents to kill are the main reasons. Test it and see. I would guess those two things are responsibe for a very large percentage of human inflicted suffering...maybe 90% of it or more. If they share many of the same feelings that we do, wouldn't they want to avoid pain, suffering and death, like we do? Sure. They might even like experiencing their lives when they are of positive value, but misnomer advocates can't factor that part into their little ethical equation. Think about that in Rupert's case if you want a clear display of the absurd restrictivity imposed by the limitations of the misnomer. He would like to feel good about encouraging cage free egg production, but: His formula for calculating the ethics of human influence on animals DOESN'T INCLUDE THE LIVES OF THE ANIMALS HE'S PRETENDING TO WANT TO ENCOURAGE LIFE FOR! AND HE'S A MATH GUY!!! How can such absurdity be the case with a guy who might actually be getting somewhere near obtaining a PhD??? IN MATH????????????????????????????????????? For real. But! He's shown signs of being able to appreciate some tiny bit of the lives of some very few farm animals, maybe. That means he appears to be aware of the HUGE other universe of screamingly obvious things he's been refusing to take into consideration...he found some tiny crack through which he's been able to view a teensy glimpse...which I guess makes him a genius amoung misnomer advocates. But his "progress" toward an AW line of thinking is so slow that it doesn't appear to be moving at all, unless it's move backward. It's sad, so sad, it's a sad sad situation, and it's getting more and more absurd... Of course most people will say they love animals. But our actions speak louder than our words. We're really only kind to a select few, and unspeakably cruel towards others. We hunt and kill animals for "sport," Human hunting is more humane that the things misnomer advocates want to impose, but they inconsiderately don't give a damn. So there we see both reasons I pointed out before can be applied to this case: Some humans want to deliberately and humanely kill the animals for sport and more importantly to maintain the best sort of population size for the environment. Other humans don't give a damn but are disturbed to think about human hunting, and for that reason they would cause MUCH more suffering for those same animals AND OTHERS by allowing the population to increase so far beyond an acceptable size for the environment that it causes disaster to the wildlife which inhabit it. Or introduce nonhuman predators who would cause a LOT more suffering in more terrible ways, and the "best" that could come out of that would be eventual starvation for the nonhuman predators if they manage to survive and reproduce successfully enough to reach that point. lock them in cages for our amusement That's often a bad one. Catching wild animals and confining them is a lot different than raising them though, for reasons which are obvious but still misnomer advocates can't appreciate. They don't give a damn, again, we see. and torture them for scientific curiosity. All animals benefit from things learned through animal research, yet again we see that misnomer advocates are too inconsiderate to appreciate that fact even when it applies to themselves, their animals, their friends, and their families. We even consume their flesh and wear their skins. Animals that are dead when we eat their flesh and wear their skins don't suffer from it being done. If such atrocities were committed against our own kind, we would be repulsed and outraged, yet we have no problem doing these things to other sentient animals, provided we don't have to think too much about it. We provide billions of animals with life and habitat because we make use of animal products. Many of those animals--quite possibly the vast majority of them--have decent lives of positive value. Enter the animal rights activists, "animal rights" activist is a HORRIBLY DISHONEST misnomer when applied to domestic animals. It is a direct insult to the animals themselves that the misnomer advocates refer to themselves in such a horribly dishonest and contemtptible way, since they don't want to provide domestic animals with rigths or anything at all. those annoying bunny-huggers whose mission in life is to remind us of how barbaric and nasty we are to animals; · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does. What they try to avoid are products which provide life (and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have to avoid the following items containing animal by-products in order to be successful: Tires, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides, Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen, Heparin, Insulin, Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides, Gelatin Capsules, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products, Plywood, Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane Wrap and Tape, Abrasives, Steel Ball Bearings always trying to make us feel guilty for enjoying our steaks, wearing our leather jackets The meat industry provides life for the animals that it slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume animal products from animals they think are raised in decent ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by being vegan. From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. · and going to the circus. It's a safe bet that many and probably the vast majority of performing animals have decent lives of positive value, yet misnomer advocates are too inconsiderate to appreciate any of them. We see again that misnomer advocates don't give a damn. They are consistent in that. As you may know I'm one of those bunny-huggers, but my goal is not to make anyone feel bad. It's simply to try and end the suffering we humans have created. My hope is that by educating the public LOL!!! That almost certainly coming from someone who can't even appreciate the lives of dairy cattle is amusing in a most pathetic sort of way. about how we treat animals, people will choose compassion over cruelty; People who believe that ALL animal farming is wrong are incapable of making a distinction between which is and which is not, making their opinion NECESSARILY inferior to that of the VAAAAAAST majority of more normal humans who can think much more freely without the absurd restrictions imposed by the misnomer. Also, people who are unable to consider the animals lives are NECESSARILY unable to consider whether or not a practice is cruel TO THE ANIMALS. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
An introduction to bunny hugging
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 18:13:51 -0400, "FOB" wrote:
Actually, we aren't very nice to each other a lot of the time. True, but that's for a thread about human hugging. Changing the subject is a misnomer advocate trick. Misnomer advocates --or eliminationists--can not appreciate the fact that millions of livestock animals have decent lives of positive value. They're opposed to seeing it become popular for people to take that into consideration, because doing so suggests that providing decent animal welfare for livestock could be ethically equivalent to their elimination objective which they extremely dishonestly cloak withing the gross misnomer "animal rights" in order to create confusion...so people who are actually in favor of AW will sometimes contribute to eliminationist organizations by mistake. One misnomer advocate in these ngs was--astoundingly--honest enough to publically admit he believes the vast majority of contributors to PeTA are not in favor of the elimination objective. That same advocate also suggested I kill myself rather than point out the differences between AW and the misnomer. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Ethics (was: Who's "Him"?) | pearl | General Discussion | 47 | November 3rd, 2008 11:29 AM |
"Friends are born, not made." !!!! By: "Henry Brooks Adams" | [email protected] | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 0 | February 1st, 2007 04:27 PM |
Mark Twain's "Smoking is Good for You" , and "Being Fat Can SaveYour Life" | Jbuch | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 0 | January 20th, 2007 03:20 PM |
define "healthy" or "fit" or "athletic" | oregonchick | General Discussion | 7 | September 16th, 2006 12:30 AM |
Google "Aspartame" and you get "toxic diet soda" | [email protected] | General Discussion | 0 | May 5th, 2006 08:29 PM |