>On Jul 1, 8:11 am, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>> On Sunday, July 1, 2012 12:40:51 PM UTC+5:30, SolomonW wrote:
>> > On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 19:22:43 -0700 (PDT), Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:
>> > > What are the ethics involved to eating a LIVE?
>> > > For that example why eat PLANTs and ANIMALs? When we can always live 100% on fruits.
>> > > When living a life is concerned why do we have to live upon harming when living without harming is a better approach?
>> > You cannot live without eating plant and animal.
>> Not true, Have HUMANS tried in that direction? HUMANS landed on moon as they took serious efforts in that direction.
>> Had HUMANS collectively tested methods of GROWING FRUITS both PLANTS and ANIMALS we all killed would too have lived.
>You mean that if we didn't eat those animals their species would have
>benefited?
If we didn't breed the animals we do for food then those particular animals
would never have lived at all. They wouldn't have lived as different animals or
anything like that. Whether or not their lives are worth living TO THEM is
what's important since it's that or NOTHING for livestock, not that or something
else.
>> On Jul 1, 8:11 am, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On Sunday, July 1, 2012 12:40:51 PM UTC+5:30, SolomonW wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 19:22:43 -0700 (PDT), Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:
>>>>> What are the ethics involved to eating a LIVE?
>>>>> For that example why eat PLANTs and ANIMALs? When we can always live 100% on fruits.
>>>>> When living a life is concerned why do we have to live upon harming when living without harming is a better approach?
>>>> You cannot live without eating plant and animal.
>>> Not true, Have HUMANS tried in that direction? HUMANS landed on moon as they took serious efforts in that direction.
>>> Had HUMANS collectively tested methods of GROWING FRUITS both PLANTS and ANIMALS we all killed would too have lived.
>> You mean that if we didn't eat those animals their species would have
>> benefited?
> If we didn't breed the animals we do for food then those particular animals
> would never have lived at all.
Which is, of course, morally meaningless. "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit. Those animals that did exist did not receive any "benefit" merely from existing, and no "benefit" is "denied" to any animals if we stop breeding livestock.
> Whether or not their lives are worth living TO THEM is
> what's important
> >> On Jul 1, 8:11 am, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, July 1, 2012 12:40:51 PM UTC+5:30, SolomonW wrote:
> >>>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 19:22:43 -0700 (PDT), Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:
> >>>>> What are the ethics involved to eating a LIVE?
> >>>>> For that example why eat PLANTs and ANIMALs? When we can always live 100% on fruits.
> >>>>> When living a life is concerned why do we have to live upon harming when living without harming is a better approach?
> >>>> You cannot live without eating plant and animal.
> >>> Not true, Have HUMANS tried in that direction? HUMANS landed on moon as they took serious efforts in that direction.
> >>> Had HUMANS collectively tested methods of GROWING FRUITS both PLANTS and ANIMALS we all killed would too have lived.
> >> You mean that if we didn't eat those animals their species would have
> >> benefited?
> > If we didn't breed the animals we do for food then those particular animals
> > would never have lived at all.
> Which is, of course, morally meaningless. "Getting to experience life"
> is not a benefit. Those animals that did exist did not receive any
> "benefit" merely from existing, and no "benefit" is "denied" to any
> animals if we stop breeding livestock.
> > Whether or not their lives are worth living TO THEM is
> > what's important
> No. It has *ZERO* importance
The main issues are freedom and cruelty. Animals born for slaughter
have no freedom - the only "benefit" they may have over wild animals
is reasonably assured food and shelter for a short time.
Compromising freedom in any way, works to the detriment of freedom in
general and is thus responsible for the chains (visible or invisible)
the human race has to wear.
>>>> On Jul 1, 8:11 am, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, July 1, 2012 12:40:51 PM UTC+5:30, SolomonW wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 19:22:43 -0700 (PDT), Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:
>>>>>>> What are the ethics involved to eating a LIVE?
>>>>>>> For that example why eat PLANTs and ANIMALs? When we can always live 100% on fruits.
>>>>>>> When living a life is concerned why do we have to live upon harming when living without harming is a better approach?
>>>>>> You cannot live without eating plant and animal.
>>>>> Not true, Have HUMANS tried in that direction? HUMANS landed on moon as they took serious efforts in that direction.
>>>>> Had HUMANS collectively tested methods of GROWING FRUITS both PLANTS and ANIMALS we all killed would too have lived.
>>>> You mean that if we didn't eat those animals their species would have
>>>> benefited?
>>> If we didn't breed the animals we do for food then those particular animals
>>> would never have lived at all.
>> Which is, of course, morally meaningless. "Getting to experience life"
>> is not a benefit. Those animals that did exist did not receive any
>> "benefit" merely from existing, and no "benefit" is "denied" to any
>> animals if we stop breeding livestock.
>>> Whether or not their lives are worth living TO THEM is
>>> what's important
>> No. It has *ZERO* importance
> The main issues are freedom and cruelty. Animals born for slaughter
> have no freedom - the only "benefit" they may have over wild animals
> is reasonably assured food and shelter for a short time.
> Compromising freedom in any way, works to the detriment of freedom in
> general and is thus responsible for the chains (visible or invisible)
> the human race has to wear.
That's baloney. Animals don't yearn for freedom. Only humans do.
> >>>> On Jul 1, 8:11 am, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, July 1, 2012 12:40:51 PM UTC+5:30, SolomonW wrote:
> >>>>>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 19:22:43 -0700 (PDT), Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:
> >>>>>>> What are the ethics involved to eating a LIVE?
> >>>>>>> For that example why eat PLANTs and ANIMALs? When we can always live 100% on fruits.
> >>>>>>> When living a life is concerned why do we have to live upon harming when living without harming is a better approach?
> >>>>>> You cannot live without eating plant and animal.
> >>>>> Not true, Have HUMANS tried in that direction? HUMANS landed on moon as they took serious efforts in that direction.
> >>>>> Had HUMANS collectively tested methods of GROWING FRUITS both PLANTS and ANIMALS we all killed would too have lived.
> >>>> You mean that if we didn't eat those animals their species would have
> >>>> benefited?
> >>> If we didn't breed the animals we do for food then those particular animals
> >>> would never have lived at all.
> >> Which is, of course, morally meaningless. "Getting to experience life"
> >> is not a benefit. Those animals that did exist did not receive any
> >> "benefit" merely from existing, and no "benefit" is "denied" to any
> >> animals if we stop breeding livestock.
> >>> Whether or not their lives are worth living TO THEM is
> >>> what's important
> >> No. It has *ZERO* importance
> > The main issues are freedom and cruelty. Animals born for slaughter
> > have no freedom - the only "benefit" they may have over wild animals
> > is reasonably assured food and shelter for a short time.
> > Compromising freedom in any way, works to the detriment of freedom in
> > general and is thus responsible for the chains (visible or invisible)
> > the human race has to wear.
> That's baloney. Animals don't yearn for freedom. Only humans do.
I don't think so. Rather it is humans who yearn for slavery, both as
master and slave, for the comforts of slavery. Animals can do without
all the things that humans need slavery to provide for them. Of
course, when animals are domesticated over time, they are enslaved and
are nothing like free animals.
Jack London explores such issues in his novels, which were very
popular in his time when there was natural jungle around as opposed to
the moden concrete jungles.
Humans in the state of nature, value freedom most as they cannot think
in terms of making jails and living in jails. So much is evident from
those acquainted with tribal cultures.
>>>>>> On Jul 1, 8:11 am, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, July 1, 2012 12:40:51 PM UTC+5:30, SolomonW wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 19:22:43 -0700 (PDT), Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:
>>>>>>>>> What are the ethics involved to eating a LIVE?
>>>>>>>>> For that example why eat PLANTs and ANIMALs? When we can always live 100% on fruits.
>>>>>>>>> When living a life is concerned why do we have to live upon harming when living without harming is a better approach?
>>>>>>>> You cannot live without eating plant and animal.
>>>>>>> Not true, Have HUMANS tried in that direction? HUMANS landed on moon as they took serious efforts in that direction.
>>>>>>> Had HUMANS collectively tested methods of GROWING FRUITS both PLANTS and ANIMALS we all killed would too have lived.
>>>>>> You mean that if we didn't eat those animals their species would have
>>>>>> benefited?
>>>>> If we didn't breed the animals we do for food then those particular animals
>>>>> would never have lived at all.
>>>> Which is, of course, morally meaningless. "Getting to experience life"
>>>> is not a benefit. Those animals that did exist did not receive any
>>>> "benefit" merely from existing, and no "benefit" is "denied" to any
>>>> animals if we stop breeding livestock.
>>>>> Whether or not their lives are worth living TO THEM is
>>>>> what's important
>>>> No. It has *ZERO* importance
>>> The main issues are freedom and cruelty. Animals born for slaughter
>>> have no freedom - the only "benefit" they may have over wild animals
>>> is reasonably assured food and shelter for a short time.
>>> Compromising freedom in any way, works to the detriment of freedom in
>>> general and is thus responsible for the chains (visible or invisible)
>>> the human race has to wear.
>> That's baloney. Animals don't yearn for freedom. Only humans do.
> >>>>>> On Jul 1, 8:11 am, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sunday, July 1, 2012 12:40:51 PM UTC+5:30, SolomonW wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 19:22:43 -0700 (PDT), Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> What are the ethics involved to eating a LIVE?
> >>>>>>>>> For that example why eat PLANTs and ANIMALs? When we can always live 100% on fruits.
> >>>>>>>>> When living a life is concerned why do we have to live upon harming when living without harming is a better approach?
> >>>>>>>> You cannot live without eating plant and animal.
> >>>>>>> Not true, Have HUMANS tried in that direction? HUMANS landed on moon as they took serious efforts in that direction.
> >>>>>>> Had HUMANS collectively tested methods of GROWING FRUITS both PLANTS and ANIMALS we all killed would too have lived.
> >>>>>> You mean that if we didn't eat those animals their species would have
> >>>>>> benefited?
> >>>>> If we didn't breed the animals we do for food then those particular animals
> >>>>> would never have lived at all.
> >>>> Which is, of course, morally meaningless. "Getting to experience life"
> >>>> is not a benefit. Those animals that did exist did not receive any
> >>>> "benefit" merely from existing, and no "benefit" is "denied" to any
> >>>> animals if we stop breeding livestock.
> >>>>> Whether or not their lives are worth living TO THEM is
> >>>>> what's important
> >>>> No. It has *ZERO* importance
> >>> The main issues are freedom and cruelty. Animals born for slaughter
> >>> have no freedom - the only "benefit" they may have over wild animals
> >>> is reasonably assured food and shelter for a short time.
> >>> Compromising freedom in any way, works to the detriment of freedom in
> >>> general and is thus responsible for the chains (visible or invisible)
> >>> the human race has to wear.
> >> That's baloney. Animals don't yearn for freedom. Only humans do.
> > I don't think so.
> You have no basis for thinking that.
If my basis is simply ignored, all that proves is that I am not you
and you are not I.
>>>>>>>> On Jul 1, 8:11 am, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, July 1, 2012 12:40:51 PM UTC+5:30, SolomonW wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 19:22:43 -0700 (PDT), Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> What are the ethics involved to eating a LIVE?
>>>>>>>>>>> For that example why eat PLANTs and ANIMALs? When we can always live 100% on fruits.
>>>>>>>>>>> When living a life is concerned why do we have to live upon harming when living without harming is a better approach?
>>>>>>>>>> You cannot live without eating plant and animal.
>>>>>>>>> Not true, Have HUMANS tried in that direction? HUMANS landed on moon as they took serious efforts in that direction.
>>>>>>>>> Had HUMANS collectively tested methods of GROWING FRUITS both PLANTS and ANIMALS we all killed would too have lived.
>>>>>>>> You mean that if we didn't eat those animals their species would have
>>>>>>>> benefited?
>>>>>>> If we didn't breed the animals we do for food then those particular animals
>>>>>>> would never have lived at all.
>>>>>> Which is, of course, morally meaningless. "Getting to experience life"
>>>>>> is not a benefit. Those animals that did exist did not receive any
>>>>>> "benefit" merely from existing, and no "benefit" is "denied" to any
>>>>>> animals if we stop breeding livestock.
>>>>>>> Whether or not their lives are worth living TO THEM is
>>>>>>> what's important
>>>>>> No. It has *ZERO* importance
>>>>> The main issues are freedom and cruelty. Animals born for slaughter
>>>>> have no freedom - the only "benefit" they may have over wild animals
>>>>> is reasonably assured food and shelter for a short time.
>>>>> Compromising freedom in any way, works to the detriment of freedom in
>>>>> general and is thus responsible for the chains (visible or invisible)
>>>>> the human race has to wear.
>>>> That's baloney. Animals don't yearn for freedom. Only humans do.
>>> I don't think so.
>> You have no basis for thinking that.
> If my basis is simply ignored, all that proves is that I am not you
> and you are not I.
> >>>>>>>> On Jul 1, 8:11 am, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, July 1, 2012 12:40:51 PM UTC+5:30, SolomonW wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 19:22:43 -0700 (PDT), Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> What are the ethics involved to eating a LIVE?
> >>>>>>>>>>> For that example why eat PLANTs and ANIMALs? When we can always live 100% on fruits.
> >>>>>>>>>>> When living a life is concerned why do we have to live upon harming when living without harming is a better approach?
> >>>>>>>>>> You cannot live without eating plant and animal.
> >>>>>>>>> Not true, Have HUMANS tried in that direction? HUMANS landed on moon as they took serious efforts in that direction.
> >>>>>>>>> Had HUMANS collectively tested methods of GROWING FRUITS both PLANTS and ANIMALS we all killed would too have lived.
> >>>>>>>> You mean that if we didn't eat those animals their species would have
> >>>>>>>> benefited?
> >>>>>>> If we didn't breed the animals we do for food then those particular animals
> >>>>>>> would never have lived at all.
> >>>>>> Which is, of course, morally meaningless. "Getting to experience life"
> >>>>>> is not a benefit. Those animals that did exist did not receive any
> >>>>>> "benefit" merely from existing, and no "benefit" is "denied" to any
> >>>>>> animals if we stop breeding livestock.
> >>>>>>> Whether or not their lives are worth living TO THEM is
> >>>>>>> what's important
> >>>>>> No. It has *ZERO* importance
> >>>>> The main issues are freedom and cruelty. Animals born for slaughter
> >>>>> have no freedom - the only "benefit" they may have over wild animals
> >>>>> is reasonably assured food and shelter for a short time.
> >>>>> Compromising freedom in any way, works to the detriment of freedom in
> >>>>> general and is thus responsible for the chains (visible or invisible)
> >>>>> the human race has to wear.
> >>>> That's baloney. Animals don't yearn for freedom. Only humans do.
> >>> I don't think so.
> >> You have no basis for thinking that.
> > If my basis is simply ignored, all that proves is that I am not you
> > and you are not I.
> That was not a meaningful statement.
It was adequate to your response to my earlier statements.
>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 1, 8:11 am, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, July 1, 2012 12:40:51 PM UTC+5:30, SolomonW wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 19:22:43 -0700 (PDT), Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What are the ethics involved to eating a LIVE?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> For that example why eat PLANTs and ANIMALs? When we can always live 100% on fruits.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When living a life is concerned why do we have to live upon harming when living without harming is a better approach?
>>>>>>>>>>>> You cannot live without eating plant and animal.
>>>>>>>>>>> Not true, Have HUMANS tried in that direction? HUMANS landed on moon as they took serious efforts in that direction.
>>>>>>>>>>> Had HUMANS collectively tested methods of GROWING FRUITS both PLANTS and ANIMALS we all killed would too have lived.
>>>>>>>>>> You mean that if we didn't eat those animals their species would have
>>>>>>>>>> benefited?
>>>>>>>>> If we didn't breed the animals we do for food then those particular animals
>>>>>>>>> would never have lived at all.
>>>>>>>> Which is, of course, morally meaningless. "Getting to experience life"
>>>>>>>> is not a benefit. Those animals that did exist did not receive any
>>>>>>>> "benefit" merely from existing, and no "benefit" is "denied" to any
>>>>>>>> animals if we stop breeding livestock.
>>>>>>>>> Whether or not their lives are worth living TO THEM is
>>>>>>>>> what's important
>>>>>>>> No. It has *ZERO* importance
>>>>>>> The main issues are freedom and cruelty. Animals born for slaughter
>>>>>>> have no freedom - the only "benefit" they may have over wild animals
>>>>>>> is reasonably assured food and shelter for a short time.
>>>>>>> Compromising freedom in any way, works to the detriment of freedom in
>>>>>>> general and is thus responsible for the chains (visible or invisible)
>>>>>>> the human race has to wear.
>>>>>> That's baloney. Animals don't yearn for freedom. Only humans do.
>>>>> I don't think so.
>>>> You have no basis for thinking that.
>>> If my basis is simply ignored, all that proves is that I am not you
>>> and you are not I.
>> That was not a meaningful statement.
> It was adequate to your response to my earlier statements.
> >>>>>>>>>> On Jul 1, 8:11 am, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, July 1, 2012 12:40:51 PM UTC+5:30, SolomonW wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 19:22:43 -0700 (PDT), Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> What are the ethics involved to eating a LIVE?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> For that example why eat PLANTs and ANIMALs? When we can always live 100% on fruits.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> When living a life is concerned why do we have to live upon harming when living without harming is a better approach?
> >>>>>>>>>>>> You cannot live without eating plant and animal.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Not true, Have HUMANS tried in that direction? HUMANS landed on moon as they took serious efforts in that direction.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Had HUMANS collectively tested methods of GROWING FRUITS both PLANTS and ANIMALS we all killed would too have lived.
> >>>>>>>>>> You mean that if we didn't eat those animals their species would have
> >>>>>>>>>> benefited?
> >>>>>>>>> If we didn't breed the animals we do for food then those particular animals
> >>>>>>>>> would never have lived at all.
> >>>>>>>> Which is, of course, morally meaningless. "Getting to experience life"
> >>>>>>>> is not a benefit. Those animals that did exist did not receive any
> >>>>>>>> "benefit" merely from existing, and no "benefit" is "denied" to any
> >>>>>>>> animals if we stop breeding livestock.
> >>>>>>>>> Whether or not their lives are worth living TO THEM is
> >>>>>>>>> what's important
> >>>>>>>> No. It has *ZERO* importance
> >>>>>>> The main issues are freedom and cruelty. Animals born for slaughter
> >>>>>>> have no freedom - the only "benefit" they may have over wild animals
> >>>>>>> is reasonably assured food and shelter for a short time.
> >>>>>>> Compromising freedom in any way, works to the detriment of freedom in
> >>>>>>> general and is thus responsible for the chains (visible or invisible)
> >>>>>>> the human race has to wear.
> >>>>>> That's baloney. Animals don't yearn for freedom. Only humans do.
> >>>>> I don't think so.
> >>>> You have no basis for thinking that.
> >>> If my basis is simply ignored, all that proves is that I am not you
> >>> and you are not I.
> >> That was not a meaningful statement.
> > It was adequate to your response to my earlier statements.
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 1, 8:11 am, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, July 1, 2012 12:40:51 PM UTC+5:30, SolomonW wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 19:22:43 -0700 (PDT), Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What are the ethics involved to eating a LIVE?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For that example why eat PLANTs and ANIMALs? When we can always live 100% on fruits.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When living a life is concerned why do we have to live upon harming when living without harming is a better approach?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You cannot live without eating plant and animal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not true, Have HUMANS tried in that direction? HUMANS landed on moon as they took serious efforts in that direction.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Had HUMANS collectively tested methods of GROWING FRUITS both PLANTS and ANIMALS we all killed would too have lived.
>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean that if we didn't eat those animals their species would have
>>>>>>>>>>>> benefited?
>>>>>>>>>>> If we didn't breed the animals we do for food then those particular animals
>>>>>>>>>>> would never have lived at all.
>>>>>>>>>> Which is, of course, morally meaningless. "Getting to experience life"
>>>>>>>>>> is not a benefit. Those animals that did exist did not receive any
>>>>>>>>>> "benefit" merely from existing, and no "benefit" is "denied" to any
>>>>>>>>>> animals if we stop breeding livestock.
>>>>>>>>>>> Whether or not their lives are worth living TO THEM is
>>>>>>>>>>> what's important
>>>>>>>>>> No. It has *ZERO* importance
>>>>>>>>> The main issues are freedom and cruelty. Animals born for slaughter
>>>>>>>>> have no freedom - the only "benefit" they may have over wild animals
>>>>>>>>> is reasonably assured food and shelter for a short time.
>>>>>>>>> Compromising freedom in any way, works to the detriment of freedom in
>>>>>>>>> general and is thus responsible for the chains (visible or invisible)
>>>>>>>>> the human race has to wear.
>>>>>>>> That's baloney. Animals don't yearn for freedom. Only humans do.
>>>>>>> I don't think so.
>>>>>> You have no basis for thinking that.
>>>>> If my basis is simply ignored, all that proves is that I am not you
>>>>> and you are not I.
>>>> That was not a meaningful statement.
>>> It was adequate to your response to my earlier statements.
> >On Jul 1, 8:11 am, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
> >wrote:
> >> On Sunday, July 1, 2012 12:40:51 PM UTC+5:30, SolomonW wrote:
> >> > On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 19:22:43 -0700 (PDT), Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:
> >> > > What are the ethics involved to eating a LIVE?
> >> > > For that example why eat PLANTs and ANIMALs? When we can always live 100% on fruits.
> >> > > When living a life is concerned why do we have to live upon harming when living without harming is a better approach?
> >> > You cannot live without eating plant and animal.
> >> Not true, Have HUMANS tried in that direction? HUMANS landed on moon as they took serious efforts in that direction.
> >> Had HUMANS collectively tested methods of GROWING FRUITS both PLANTS and ANIMALS we all killed would too have lived.
> >You mean that if we didn't eat those animals their species would have
> >benefited?
> If we didn't breed the animals we do for food then those particular animals
> would never have lived at all. They wouldn't have lived as different animals or
> anything like that. Whether or not their lives are worth living TO THEM is
> what's important since it's that or NOTHING for livestock, not that or something
> else.
Fairness dictates that we balance eating animals with
eating humans. I have a leg of Scotsman in the
freezer left over since last Robert Burns Day if you'd
care for a nosh.
>>> On Jul 1, 8:11 am, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, July 1, 2012 12:40:51 PM UTC+5:30, SolomonW wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 19:22:43 -0700 (PDT), Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:
>>>>>> What are the ethics involved to eating a LIVE?
>>>>>> For that example why eat PLANTs and ANIMALs? When we can always live 100% on fruits.
>>>>>> When living a life is concerned why do we have to live upon harming when living without harming is a better approach?
>>>>> You cannot live without eating plant and animal.
>>>> Not true, Have HUMANS tried in that direction? HUMANS landed on moon as they took serious efforts in that direction.
>>>> Had HUMANS collectively tested methods of GROWING FRUITS both PLANTS and ANIMALS we all killed would too have lived.
>>> You mean that if we didn't eat those animals their species would have
>>> benefited?
>> If we didn't breed the animals we do for food then those particular animals
>> would never have lived at all. They wouldn't have lived as different animals or
>> anything like that. Whether or not their lives are worth living TO THEM is
>> what's important since it's that or NOTHING for livestock, not that or something
>> else.
> Fairness dictates that we balance eating animals with
> eating humans. I have a Scotsman's prick in the
> freezer left over since last Robert Burns Day if you'd
> care for a nosh.
> >>> On Jul 1, 8:11 am, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> On Sunday, July 1, 2012 12:40:51 PM UTC+5:30, SolomonW wrote:
> >>>>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 19:22:43 -0700 (PDT), Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:
> >>>>>> What are the ethics involved to eating a LIVE?
> >>>>>> For that example why eat PLANTs and ANIMALs? When we can always live 100% on fruits.
> >>>>>> When living a life is concerned why do we have to live upon harming when living without harming is a better approach?
> >>>>> You cannot live without eating plant and animal.
> >>>> Not true, Have HUMANS tried in that direction? HUMANS landed on moon as they took serious efforts in that direction.
> >>>> Had HUMANS collectively tested methods of GROWING FRUITS both PLANTS and ANIMALS we all killed would too have lived.
> >>> You mean that if we didn't eat those animals their species would have
> >>> benefited?
> >> If we didn't breed the animals we do for food then those particular animals
> >> would never have lived at all. They wouldn't have lived as different animals or
> >> anything like that. Whether or not their lives are worth living TO THEM is
> >> what's important since it's that or NOTHING for livestock, not that or something
> >> else.
> > Fairness dictates that we balance eating animals with
> > eating humans. I have a Scotsman's prick in the
> > freezer left over since last Robert Burns Day if you'd
> > care for a nosh.
>> >> On Jul 1, 8:11 am, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>> On Sunday, July 1, 2012 12:40:51 PM UTC+5:30, SolomonW wrote:
>> >>>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 19:22:43 -0700 (PDT), Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:
>> >>>>> What are the ethics involved to eating a LIVE?
>> >>>>> For that example why eat PLANTs and ANIMALs? When we can always live 100% on fruits.
>> >>>>> When living a life is concerned why do we have to live upon harming when living without harming is a better approach?
>> >>>> You cannot live without eating plant and animal.
>> >>> Not true, Have HUMANS tried in that direction? HUMANS landed on moon as they took serious efforts in that direction.
>> >>> Had HUMANS collectively tested methods of GROWING FRUITS both PLANTS and ANIMALS we all killed would too have lived.
>> >> You mean that if we didn't eat those animals their species would have
>> >> benefited?
>> > If we didn't breed the animals we do for food then those particular animals
>> > would never have lived at all.
>> Which is, of course, morally meaningless. "Getting to experience life"
>> is not a benefit. Those animals that did exist did not receive any
>> "benefit" merely from existing, and no "benefit" is "denied" to any
>> animals if we stop breeding livestock.
>> > Whether or not their lives are worth living TO THEM is
>> > what's important
>> No. It has *ZERO* importance
>The main issues are freedom and cruelty. Animals born for slaughter
>have no freedom - the only "benefit" they may have over wild animals
>is reasonably assured food and shelter for a short time.
>Compromising freedom in any way, works to the detriment of freedom in
>general and is thus responsible for the chains (visible or invisible)
>the human race has to wear.
>Cheers,
>Arindam Banerjee
Animals don't understand the concept of freedom. However, they do experience
suffering.
>> >>>> On Jul 1, 8:11 am, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>> On Sunday, July 1, 2012 12:40:51 PM UTC+5:30, SolomonW wrote:
>> >>>>>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 19:22:43 -0700 (PDT), Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:
>> >>>>>>> What are the ethics involved to eating a LIVE?
>> >>>>>>> For that example why eat PLANTs and ANIMALs? When we can always live 100% on fruits.
>> >>>>>>> When living a life is concerned why do we have to live upon harming when living without harming is a better approach?
>> >>>>>> You cannot live without eating plant and animal.
>> >>>>> Not true, Have HUMANS tried in that direction? HUMANS landed on moon as they took serious efforts in that direction.
>> >>>>> Had HUMANS collectively tested methods of GROWING FRUITS both PLANTS and ANIMALS we all killed would too have lived.
>> >>>> You mean that if we didn't eat those animals their species would have
>> >>>> benefited?
>> >>> If we didn't breed the animals we do for food then those particular animals
>> >>> would never have lived at all.
>> >> Which is, of course, morally meaningless. "Getting to experience life"
>> >> is not a benefit. Those animals that did exist did not receive any
>> >> "benefit" merely from existing, and no "benefit" is "denied" to any
>> >> animals if we stop breeding livestock.
>> >>> Whether or not their lives are worth living TO THEM is
>> >>> what's important
>> >> No. It has *ZERO* importance
>> > The main issues are freedom and cruelty. Animals born for slaughter
>> > have no freedom - the only "benefit" they may have over wild animals
>> > is reasonably assured food and shelter for a short time.
>> > Compromising freedom in any way, works to the detriment of freedom in
>> > general and is thus responsible for the chains (visible or invisible)
>> > the human race has to wear.
>> That's baloney. Animals don't yearn for freedom. Only humans do.
>I don't think so. Rather it is humans who yearn for slavery, both as
>master and slave, for the comforts of slavery. Animals can do without
>all the things that humans need slavery to provide for them. Of
>course, when animals are domesticated over time, they are enslaved and
>are nothing like free animals.
>Jack London explores such issues in his novels, which were very
>popular in his time when there was natural jungle around as opposed to
>the moden concrete jungles.
>Humans in the state of nature, value freedom most as they cannot think
>in terms of making jails and living in jails. So much is evident from
>those acquainted with tribal cultures.
>Cheers,
>Arindam Banerjee
Actually, there are animals who make other animals their slaves. Check out
Kleptoparasitism.
>> >On Jul 1, 8:11 am, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
>> >wrote:
>> >> On Sunday, July 1, 2012 12:40:51 PM UTC+5:30, SolomonW wrote:
>> >> > On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 19:22:43 -0700 (PDT), Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:
>> >> > > What are the ethics involved to eating a LIVE?
>> >> > > For that example why eat PLANTs and ANIMALs? When we can always live 100% on fruits.
>> >> > > When living a life is concerned why do we have to live upon harming when living without harming is a better approach?
>> >> > You cannot live without eating plant and animal.
>> >> Not true, Have HUMANS tried in that direction? HUMANS landed on moon as they took serious efforts in that direction.
>> >> Had HUMANS collectively tested methods of GROWING FRUITS both PLANTS and ANIMALS we all killed would too have lived.
>> >You mean that if we didn't eat those animals their species would have
>> >benefited?
>> If we didn't breed the animals we do for food then those particular animals
>> would never have lived at all. They wouldn't have lived as different animals or
>> anything like that. Whether or not their lives are worth living TO THEM is
>> what's important since it's that or NOTHING for livestock, not that or something
>> else.
>Fairness dictates that we balance eating animals with
>eating humans. I have a leg of Scotsman in the
>freezer left over since last Robert Burns Day if you'd
>care for a nosh.
Aye, and with a scraggly beard so you get enough roughage.
> >>>> On Jul 1, 8:11 am, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, July 1, 2012 12:40:51 PM UTC+5:30, SolomonW wrote:
> >>>>>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 19:22:43 -0700 (PDT), Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:
> >>>>>>> What are the ethics involved to eating a LIVE?
> >>>>>>> For that example why eat PLANTs and ANIMALs? When we can always live 100% on fruits.
> >>>>>>> When living a life is concerned why do we have to live upon harming when living without harming is a better approach?
> >>>>>> You cannot live without eating plant and animal.
> >>>>> Not true, Have HUMANS tried in that direction? HUMANS landed on moon as they took serious efforts in that direction.
> >>>>> Had HUMANS collectively tested methods of GROWING FRUITS both PLANTS and ANIMALS we all killed would too have lived.
> >>>> You mean that if we didn't eat those animals their species would have
> >>>> benefited?
> >>> If we didn't breed the animals we do for food then those particular animals
> >>> would never have lived at all.
> >> Which is, of course, morally meaningless. "Getting to experience life"
> >> is not a benefit. Those animals that did exist did not receive any
> >> "benefit" merely from existing, and no "benefit" is "denied" to any
> >> animals if we stop breeding livestock.
> >>> Whether or not their lives are worth living TO THEM is
> >>> what's important
> >> No. It has *ZERO* importance
> > The main issues are freedom and cruelty. Animals born for slaughter
> > have no freedom - the only "benefit" they may have over wild animals
> > is reasonably assured food and shelter for a short time.
> > Compromising freedom in any way, works to the detriment of freedom in
> > general and is thus responsible for the chains (visible or invisible)
> > the human race has to wear.
> That's baloney. Animals don't yearn for freedom. Only humans do.
Do you yearn for freedom from your abject stupidity, Goo?
> >> >>>> On Jul 1, 8:11 am, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
> >> >>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>> On Sunday, July 1, 2012 12:40:51 PM UTC+5:30, SolomonW wrote:
> >> >>>>>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 19:22:43 -0700 (PDT), Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:
> >> >>>>>>> What are the ethics involved to eating a LIVE?
> >> >>>>>>> For that example why eat PLANTs and ANIMALs? When we can always live 100% on fruits.
> >> >>>>>>> When living a life is concerned why do we have to live upon harming when living without harming is a better approach?
> >> >>>>>> You cannot live without eating plant and animal.
> >> >>>>> Not true, Have HUMANS tried in that direction? HUMANS landed on moon as they took serious efforts in that direction.
> >> >>>>> Had HUMANS collectively tested methods of GROWING FRUITS both PLANTS and ANIMALS we all killed would too have lived.
> >> >>>> You mean that if we didn't eat those animals their species would have
> >> >>>> benefited?
> >> >>> If we didn't breed the animals we do for food then those particular animals
> >> >>> would never have lived at all.
> >> >> Which is, of course, morally meaningless. "Getting to experience life"
> >> >> is not a benefit. Those animals that did exist did not receive any
> >> >> "benefit" merely from existing, and no "benefit" is "denied" to any
> >> >> animals if we stop breeding livestock.
> >> >>> Whether or not their lives are worth living TO THEM is
> >> >>> what's important
> >> >> No. It has *ZERO* importance
> >> > The main issues are freedom and cruelty. Animals born for slaughter
> >> > have no freedom - the only "benefit" they may have over wild animals
> >> > is reasonably assured food and shelter for a short time.
> >> > Compromising freedom in any way, works to the detriment of freedom in
> >> > general and is thus responsible for the chains (visible or invisible)
> >> > the human race has to wear.
> >> That's baloney. Animals don't yearn for freedom. Only humans do.
> >I don't think so. Rather it is humans who yearn for slavery, both as
> >master and slave, for the comforts of slavery. Animals can do without
> >all the things that humans need slavery to provide for them. Of
> >course, when animals are domesticated over time, they are enslaved and
> >are nothing like free animals.
> >Jack London explores such issues in his novels, which were very
> >popular in his time when there was natural jungle around as opposed to
> >the moden concrete jungles.
> >Humans in the state of nature, value freedom most as they cannot think
> >in terms of making jails and living in jails. So much is evident from
> >those acquainted with tribal cultures.
> >Cheers,
> >Arindam Banerjee
> Actually, there are animals who make other animals their slaves. Check out
> Kleptoparasitism.
More obviously humans sold other humans in the markets in highly
developed and religious societies till very recently, and I doubt if
K* could do that!
> >> >> On Jul 1, 8:11 am, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>> On Sunday, July 1, 2012 12:40:51 PM UTC+5:30, SolomonW wrote:
> >> >>>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 19:22:43 -0700 (PDT), Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:
> >> >>>>> What are the ethics involved to eating a LIVE?
> >> >>>>> For that example why eat PLANTs and ANIMALs? When we can always live 100% on fruits.
> >> >>>>> When living a life is concerned why do we have to live upon harming when living without harming is a better approach?
> >> >>>> You cannot live without eating plant and animal.
> >> >>> Not true, Have HUMANS tried in that direction? HUMANS landed on moon as they took serious efforts in that direction.
> >> >>> Had HUMANS collectively tested methods of GROWING FRUITS both PLANTS and ANIMALS we all killed would too have lived.
> >> >> You mean that if we didn't eat those animals their species would have
> >> >> benefited?
> >> > If we didn't breed the animals we do for food then those particular animals
> >> > would never have lived at all.
> >> Which is, of course, morally meaningless. "Getting to experience life"
> >> is not a benefit. Those animals that did exist did not receive any
> >> "benefit" merely from existing, and no "benefit" is "denied" to any
> >> animals if we stop breeding livestock.
> >> > Whether or not their lives are worth living TO THEM is
> >> > what's important
> >> No. It has *ZERO* importance
> >The main issues are freedom and cruelty. Animals born for slaughter
> >have no freedom - the only "benefit" they may have over wild animals
> >is reasonably assured food and shelter for a short time.
> >Compromising freedom in any way, works to the detriment of freedom in
> >general and is thus responsible for the chains (visible or invisible)
> >the human race has to wear.
> >Cheers,
> >Arindam Banerjee
> Animals don't understand the concept of freedom.
But they do understand the need to get out of enclosures, or bonds
that restrict their movements.
However, they do experience
> suffering.
Hurrah for progress, they certainly thought differently once.
>>>>>> On Jul 1, 8:11 am, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, July 1, 2012 12:40:51 PM UTC+5:30, SolomonW wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 19:22:43 -0700 (PDT), Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:
>>>>>>>>> What are the ethics involved to eating a LIVE?
>>>>>>>>> For that example why eat PLANTs and ANIMALs? When we can always live 100% on fruits.
>>>>>>>>> When living a life is concerned why do we have to live upon harming when living without harming is a better approach?
>>>>>>>> You cannot live without eating plant and animal.
>>>>>>> Not true, Have HUMANS tried in that direction? HUMANS landed on moon as they took serious efforts in that direction.
>>>>>>> Had HUMANS collectively tested methods of GROWING FRUITS both PLANTS and ANIMALS we all killed would too have lived.
>>>>>> You mean that if we didn't eat those animals their species would have
>>>>>> benefited?
>>>>> If we didn't breed the animals we do for food then those particular animals
>>>>> would never have lived at all.
>>>> Which is, of course, morally meaningless. "Getting to experience life"
>>>> is not a benefit. Those animals that did exist did not receive any
>>>> "benefit" merely from existing, and no "benefit" is "denied" to any
>>>> animals if we stop breeding livestock.
>>>>> Whether or not their lives are worth living TO THEM is
>>>>> what's important
>>>> No. It has *ZERO* importance
>>> The main issues are freedom and cruelty. Animals born for slaughter
>>> have no freedom - the only "benefit" they may have over wild animals
>>> is reasonably assured food and shelter for a short time.
>>> Compromising freedom in any way, works to the detriment of freedom in
>>> general and is thus responsible for the chains (visible or invisible)
>>> the human race has to wear.
>>> Cheers,
>>> Arindam Banerjee
>> Animals don't understand the concept of freedom.
> But they do understand the need to get out of enclosures, or bonds
> that restrict their movements.
No, they don't. Most animals remain quite happily within enclosures. Even a sow in farrowing crate or a gestation crate doesn't appear distressed or unhappy.
Why do you run your mouth about things of which you are entirely ignorant?
George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 7/5/2012 7:00 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Jul 5, 10:44 pm, Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-
> > doll...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 17:24:49 -0700 (PDT), Arindam Banerjee
> >> <banerjeeadda1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Jul 4, 2:53 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
[snip]
> >>>> No. It has *ZERO* importance
> >>> The main issues are freedom and cruelty. Animals born for
> >>> slaughter have no freedom - the only "benefit" they may have over
> >>> wild animals is reasonably assured food and shelter for a short
> >>> time.
> >>> Compromising freedom in any way, works to the detriment of
> >>> freedom in general and is thus responsible for the chains
> >>> (visible or invisible) the human race has to wear.
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Arindam Banerjee
> >> Animals don't understand the concept of freedom.
> > But they do understand the need to get out of enclosures, or bonds
> > that restrict their movements.
> No, they don't. Most animals remain quite happily within enclosures. > Even a sow in farrowing crate or a gestation crate doesn't appear > distressed or unhappy.
[snip]
That's partially true. It seems to depend partially on a combination of
the nature and personality of the animal.
There are many animals who don't like captivity, such as cats: Ever
try putting a cat in a cage (the bigger the better)? Most of them
dislike this experience very much as is made obvious by the fact that
not only do they make a fuss once while in the cage, they usually
resist being forced into it in the first place.
There are also some people who enjoy captivity under certain conditions
(this may seem strange to many people, but I know some people who are
like this).
-- Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Dogs have owners; cats have staff."
-- Don Kresch
<godd...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 08:14:27 -0700
> George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> > On 7/5/2012 7:00 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > On Jul 5, 10:44 pm, Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-
> > > doll...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > >> On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 17:24:49 -0700 (PDT), Arindam Banerjee
> > >> <banerjeeadda1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> On Jul 4, 2:53 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> [snip]
> > >>>> No. It has *ZERO* importance
> > >>> The main issues are freedom and cruelty. Animals born for
> > >>> slaughter have no freedom - the only "benefit" they may have over
> > >>> wild animals is reasonably assured food and shelter for a short
> > >>> time.
> > >>> Compromising freedom in any way, works to the detriment of
> > >>> freedom in general and is thus responsible for the chains
> > >>> (visible or invisible) the human race has to wear.
> > >>> Cheers,
> > >>> Arindam Banerjee
> > >> Animals don't understand the concept of freedom.
> > > But they do understand the need to get out of enclosures, or bonds
> > > that restrict their movements.
> > No, they don't. Most animals remain quite happily within enclosures.
> > Even a sow in farrowing crate or a gestation crate doesn't appear
> > distressed or unhappy.
> [snip]
> That's partially true. It seems to depend partially on a combination of
> the nature and personality of the animal.
> There are many animals who don't like captivity, such as cats: Ever
> try putting a cat in a cage (the bigger the better)? Most of them
> dislike this experience very much as is made obvious by the fact that
> not only do they make a fuss once while in the cage, they usually
> resist being forced into it in the first place.
> There are also some people who enjoy captivity under certain conditions
> (this may seem strange to many people, but I know some people who are
> like this).
> --
Goo is like that. He's a captive of his own stupidity......and he
loves it.
> On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 08:14:27 -0700
> George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 7/5/2012 7:00 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>> On Jul 5, 10:44 pm, Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-
>>> doll...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 17:24:49 -0700 (PDT), Arindam Banerjee
>>>> <banerjeeadda1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 4, 2:53 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> [snip]
>>>>>> No. It has *ZERO* importance
>>>>> The main issues are freedom and cruelty. Animals born for
>>>>> slaughter have no freedom - the only "benefit" they may have over
>>>>> wild animals is reasonably assured food and shelter for a short
>>>>> time.
>>>>> Compromising freedom in any way, works to the detriment of
>>>>> freedom in general and is thus responsible for the chains
>>>>> (visible or invisible) the human race has to wear.
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Arindam Banerjee
>>>> Animals don't understand the concept of freedom.
>>> But they do understand the need to get out of enclosures, or bonds
>>> that restrict their movements.
>> No, they don't. Most animals remain quite happily within enclosures.
>> Even a sow in farrowing crate or a gestation crate doesn't appear
>> distressed or unhappy.
> [snip]
> That's partially true. It seems to depend partially on a combination of
> the nature and personality of the animal.
> There are many animals who don't like captivity, such as cats: Ever
> try putting a cat in a cage (the bigger the better)? Most of them
> dislike this experience very much as is made obvious by the fact that
> not only do they make a fuss once while in the cage, they usually
> resist being forced into it in the first place.
That's not always true. When I take my cats to the vet, they're very unhappy going into the pet carriers to make the trip to the vet. Once they're at the vet, I can barely get them out of the carriers, and once the vet has finished with them, they can't wait to go back into them.
In any case, the animals in question are domestic livestock animals raised for human consumption. Cattle, pigs, sheep, poultry - none of them have a big problem with being confined in anything except the most restrictive enclosures.
> There are also some people who enjoy captivity under certain conditions
> (this may seem strange to many people, but I know some people who are
> like this).
