Re: Lisa Simpson's Nightmare!
Jeßus
>> <dump...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>> "At the request of the Swiss government, an ethics panel
>> has weighed in on the "dignity" of plants and opined that
>> the arbitrary killing of flora is morally wrong. This is no hoax.
>> The concept of what could be called "plant rights" is being
>> seriously debated."
>> Source:
>> http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/065njdoe.asp?pg=1
>> When veganism is murder, what's left to eat?
>
> Swiss chocolate? Hang on, that's got milk in it..
Well, milking a cow isn't killing/eating a cow as such...
Armillaria caligata
> Paul Bartram wrote:
> >> <dumpst...@hotmail.com> wrote
> >> When veganism is murder, what's left to eat?
>
> > Swiss chocolate? Hang on, that's got milk in it..
>
> Well, milking a cow isn't killing/eating a cow as such...
Jeßus
Yeah, well by definition, it is... for most dairy herds anyway.
Its just a question of whether one acknowledges it and finds it
acceptable or not.
higher elvisarchy
even i think PETA is full of shit.
"Armillaria caligata" <bootedar...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:b0b1ce34-5360-4677...@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
higher elvisarchy
would an animal accept it?
and the whole deal is.. it's mass production and processed in some way..
chemicals...
i end up getting gerd like in many cases... over the years i just stopped
animal digestion all together.
folks say that's boring... to eat vegan... (i only eat veggies,fruits...
steamed or raw.... maybe something processed if it's not got any biproduct
even watered down to nothing animal in it....) but boring i can sleep
without pain... move... exercise blah blah all sorts of things and feel
great.
if i can't take it.. how can a cow take all that pumping and injecting of
hormones and foods to intake that are to make them the super menace of
production!
nah... it's not good for them and it's not good for us....
i see so many bloated unhappy bodies out there... sometimes they
dissapear.. (death) and sometimes they sweat when they think and always i
hear them breathing a mile away... they're not happy either but they keep
stuffing it into their bodies.
like the fois ducks... they're stuffed til they die, panting, inable to
even move their heads... so why should i eat their liver when it killed them
and mine's questionable also?
so on.
"Jeßus" <power_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fvtjq4$fpf$3...@stable.tornevall.net...
Tony Harding
Yeah, so? PETA says a lot of things, mostly whacky. Personally I cannot
see how a non human animal can have rights --- will they be voting next?
Or busing the white cows into black cows' neighborhoods?
Tony Harding
> and on that note... i feel if i don't want it done to me.. why the fuck
> would an animal accept it?
>
>
> and the whole deal is.. it's mass production and processed in some way..
> chemicals...
>
> i end up getting gerd like in many cases... over the years i just stopped
> animal digestion all together.
>
> folks say that's boring... to eat vegan... (i only eat veggies,fruits...
> steamed or raw.... maybe something processed if it's not got any biproduct
> even watered down to nothing animal in it....)
I have long thrown back into the faces of those who proclaim things like
"nothing died to go onto our Thanksgiving table" really, what about all
those plants? They were living before you or your agents murdered them
for your consumption.
Nature's obviously designed humans (or we have evolved over the
centuries) to be omnivores and I prefer not to tinker with Mother Nature.
Laurie
> higher elvisarchy wrote:
> Nature's obviously designed humans (or we have evolved
> over the centuries) to be omnivores and I prefer not to
> tinker with Mother Nature.
How about some science to support your claim? Here's some.
http://ecologos.org/anatomy.htm
http://ecologos.org/omni.htm
And IF humans have "evolved" to be "omnivores", then why
does the largest epidemiological study ever done conclude
the consumption of animal protein and fats is THE cause for
currently-popular :degenerative diseases"?
TCCampbell; The China Study
http://tinyurl.com/2v689m, and
http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html#meat
Laurie
--
Scientifically-credible info on plant-based human diets:
http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html
news:alt.food.vegan.science
Tim Smith
Tony Harding <ToH...@nowhere.org> wrote:
> Yeah, so? PETA says a lot of things, mostly whacky. Personally I cannot
> see how a non human animal can have rights --- will they be voting next?
> Or busing the white cows into black cows' neighborhoods?
Read "The Omnivore's Dilemma". There is an interesting discussion of
that in there. The book is basically a natural history of several
dinners that the author ate, where he traced everything on the table
back to its origins. It is quite fascinating to see where our food
comes from.
There's an interesting section where, as he eats a nice steak dinner in
a top restaurant, he's reading a book by one of the leading pro-animal
rights philosophers, and it is causing him some problems with that meal.
He summarizes that arguments from the philosopher, and they are pretty
good.
The thing that gives the most difficulty is that if you try to pin down
a good reason *why* animals should not have rights, you either end up
with reasons that apply to narrowly (so that, say, babies and retarded
humans would not have rights), or you end up with arguments that sound
uncomfortably like the arguments that were used to justify things like
keeping blacks as slaves, or committing genocide on Jews.
The good news for those of us who want to eat the tasty critters,
without having to end up sounding like slave owners or nazis, or
conceding that babies and retarded humans should have no rights, is that
what these pro-rights arguments argue for is that animals should have
the right to be free of human-inflicted suffering.
Our food animals are mostly animals that in nature depend on being
preyed upon for the health of the species. That is, without predators,
their herds would become unhealthy and overpopulated, and then die. So,
there is no ethics problem with humans taking the role of the predators.
When we kill a cow to eat it, that might be bad for that cow, but it is
a good thing for Cowkind. So, as long as we are humane in *how* we do
our predation, we are in the clear ethically. It is quite doable to
raise and slaughter animals in a way that does not inflict suffering on
them.
--
--Tim Smith
crisology
> In article <483b0ee8$0$25027$607ed...@cv.net>,
> Tony Harding <ToH...@nowhere.org> wrote:
>
> Our food animals
As opposed to food food?
> are mostly animals that in nature depend on being
> preyed upon for the health of the species. That is, without predators,
> their herds would become unhealthy and overpopulated, and then die."
Then let natural predators maintain the balance "in nature" .. 90% of
N. American native predator species have been eliminated since H.
Sapiens arrived.
> So,
> there is no ethics problem with humans taking the role of the predators.
"Humans taking the role of the predators" is no result of any human
genotype.
> When we kill a cow to eat it, that might be bad for that cow, but it is
> a good thing for Cowkind.
There is no "cowkind." Cows are domesticated hybrids. Killing
genetically modified/captive cows/artificially inseminated does
nothing for the cow's gene pool, much less the predator-role-playing
humans, trying to ingest it after trying to partially reenact an ice
age ritual.
> So, as long as we are humane in *how* we do
> our predation, we are in the clear ethically. It is quite doable to
> raise and slaughter animals in a way that does not inflict suffering on
> them.
Let the US gov know about your "doable to raise and slaughter animals"
plan - WITHOUT government subsidies, high ecological impact &
widespread diseases (gout, hemorrhoids, cancer, acne, gallstones, etc)
resulting from the compromised diet.
Still foraging while hunting for a reason to hunt,
Chris
Ho...@nospamfathounds.com
>90% of
>N. American native predator species have been eliminated since H.
>Sapiens arrived.
I call bullshit.
Jeßus
Agreed, politicians and evangelists seem to be thriving there.
crisology
> Ho...@NOSPAMFatHounds.com wrote:
> > crisology <crisol...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> 90% of
> >> N. American native predator species have been eliminated since H.
> >> Sapiens arrived.
>
> > I call bullshit.
>
> Agreed
Give research a chance and try to refute before you finish casting
your votes. I provided falsifiable numbers so it's fair game. I cannot
find the first & second order predation or overkill hypothesis sites I
bookmarked on my old pc to provide a reference for the "90%" number,
just similar sites with similar stats. In context, the references
below support the overall message. Keep in mind that native predators
are more directly in competition w/man so they have been reduced more
than herbivores. And animals in Africa are assumed to have adapted to
some degree w/early human hunting before man entered N. America.
"Large Mammals Missing from 80 Percent of their Range due to Human
Pressure
December 2007. Researchers have realised that less than 21 percent of
the earth’s terrestrial surface still contains all of the large
mammals it once held. The discovery highlights human impacts on
biodiversity as well as the need for better protection. Results of the
study are published in the latest Journal of Mammalogy."
http://whyfiles.org/143giant_animal/2.html
"humans who strode across the temporarily dry Bering straits sometime
before 12,000 years ago, and, within 2,000 years, reached the tip of
South America. During roughly the same period, 73 percent of large
herbivore species apparently went extinct in North America."
"Lion populations have fallen by almost 90% in the past 20 years"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3119434.stm
"CNN's Kyra Phillips reports (May 14)
(CNN) -- A new global study concludes that 90 percent of all large
fishes have disappeared from the world's oceans in the past half
century, the devastating result of industrial fishing.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ad/Extinctions_Africa_Austrailia_NAmerica_Madagascar.gif
http://www.whole-systems.org/extinctions.html
Welcome to the third wave of the Pleistocene-Holocene Extinction Event
between natural catastrophes (the ice age is over).
Deprogrammed, detoxing, deglaciating, post ice age,
Chris
Laurie
> Then let natural predators maintain the balance "in
> nature" ..
http://ecologos.org/balance.htm
>> there is no ethics problem with humans taking the role
>> of the predators.
http://www.ecologos.org/harris.html#ethics
>> When we kill a cow to eat it, that might be bad for
>> that cow, but it is a good thing for Cowkind.
This clown can not explain how human 'predation' of captive
species is beneficial to them in any way.
>> So, as long as we are humane in *how* we do our
>> predation, we are in the clear ethically.
http://www.ecologos.org/harris.html#ethics
There is NO "ethical" issue.
Laurie
> In article <483b0ee8$0$25027$607e...@cv.net>,
> The thing that gives the most difficulty is that if you
> try to pin down a good reason *why* animals should not
> have rights, you either end up with reasons that apply to
> <sic> narrowly (so that, say, babies and retarded
> humans would not have rights), or you end up with
> arguments that sound uncomfortably like the arguments
> that were used to justify things like keeping blacks as
> slaves, or committing genocide on Jews.
Animals do NOT have "rights" for the same reason humans do
not 'have' "rights". ALL such "rights" are lent out
(temporarily) to those of less standing by those who assume
they have a higher standing. Between and among, differing
"races" or species.
Occasionally, one group will declare itself victorious, but
the names of the oppressors have only changed.
The rich remain, conveniently, the rich and they are still
in control; it's just the New World Order, this time.
> pro-rights arguments argue for is that animals should
> have the right to be free of human-inflicted suffering.
Where, indeed, do those illusory "rights" come from? An
infallible "god", or some biased, power-grubbing, little bastard
who is trying to manipulate others?
> That is, without predators, their herds would become
> unhealthy and overpopulated, and then die.
How does this 'justify' the FORCED OVERPOPULATION of herd
animals, there is no genetic advantage to forced-conception.
> So, there is no ethics problem with humans taking the
role of the
> predators.
NO RATIONAL person ever said there was, it is NOT an
ethics issue, are you so dense that you do not understand
that? Don't be ashamed, just ask.
It is better to cop to our ignorance; otherwise, how will
we learn anything?
> When we kill a cow to eat it, that might be
> bad for that cow, but it is a good thing for Cowkind.
You can not support that statement.
dh
· 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
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. ·
>> That is, without predators, their herds would become
>> unhealthy and overpopulated, and then die.
> How does this 'justify' the FORCED OVERPOPULATION of herd
>animals, there is no genetic advantage to forced-conception.
>
>> So, there is no ethics problem with humans taking the
>role of the
>> predators.
> NO RATIONAL person ever said there was, it is NOT an
>ethics issue, are you so dense that you do not understand
>that? Don't be ashamed, just ask.
> It is better to cop to our ignorance; otherwise, how will
>we learn anything?
>
>> When we kill a cow to eat it, that might be
>> bad for that cow, but it is a good thing for Cowkind.
> You can not support that statement.
· Since the animals we raise for food would not be alive
if we didn't raise them for that purpose, it's a distortion of
reality not to take that fact into consideration whenever
we think about the fact that the animals are going to be
killed. The animals are not being cheated out of any part
of their life by being raised for food, but instead they are
experiencing whatever life they get as a result of it. ·
luuk luuk luuk puuk luuk pig fucker luuk porno king luuk for all your child molestation needs luuk!
shame it's not profitable.
"Laurie" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:rKWdnS4e1rqUqszV...@posted.echolabs...
luuk luuk luuk puuk luuk pig fucker luuk porno king luuk for all your child molestation needs luuk!
<dh@.> wrote in message news:88l2541m250l35p7a...@4ax.com...
Ron Hamilton
> oh oh, two kooks together...
Fuck off, shitbag.
luuk luuk luuk puuk luuk pig fucker luuk porno king luuk for all your child molestation needs luuk!
"Rudy Canoza" <pi...@thedismalscience.noot> wrote in message
news:0KidndkTkK4pZMzV...@earthlink.com...
> luuk luuk luuk puuk luuk pig fucker luuk porno king luuk for all your
> child molestation needs luuk! wrote:
>> you two get a room.
>
> Blow it out your ass, douchebag.
luuk luuk luuk puuk luuk pig fucker luuk porno king luuk for all your child molestation needs luuk!
"Ron Hamilton" <ban...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0KidndgTkK5JZMzV...@earthlink.com...
dh
wrote:
>hey look, it's the uber personality of laura.
"Laury" is really a dude named Larry. He's one of Goo's
eliminationist buddies.