Speciesism' touted as topic for Grade 12 social justice course
pearl
Janet Steffenhagen, CanWest News Service
Published: Monday, September 25, 2006
VANCOUVER -- Arguing that "speciesism" is a prejudice
akin to racism and sexism, an animal activist is urging the
province to include the topic in the curriculum for a new
Grade 12 course on social justice.
"If we are going to discuss social justice concepts such as
oppression and exploitation, animals should be included,"
Lesley Fox of the Vancouver Humane Society said yesterday.
Fox was a surprise guest last week at a three-day meeting
of educators and social-justice experts organized by the
B.C. Education Ministry to brainstorm about the new course,
which is being developed as part of a deal the government
signed last spring with gay activists Murray and Peter Corren
to settle a human-rights complaint.
Speciesism is a relatively new term and involves assigning
values or rights to beings on the basis of their species. An
example, according to Fox, is the special status given to
dogs and cats in North America but not to cows, pigs and
chickens.
Fox, who was in the news last year after persuading the
Vancouver school board to become the first major Canadian
district to develop a policy allowing students to opt out of
animal dissections in science class, said she was thrilled to
be invited to the meeting.
She was also anxious that her point not be perceived as an
attempt to dilute the experiences of people who have suffered
discrimination.
"It isn't that humans are better than animals, or animals are
better than humans," she said in an interview. "When we talk
about oppression, we need to look at it as a whole and how
it is interlinked.
"How we treat animals says a lot about how we treat one another."
© Times Colonist (Victoria) 2006
http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?id=00372cbc-1ba5-4b25-9e02-54c9a62c864e&k=50989
dh
>Speciesism' touted as topic for Grade 12 social justice course
>Janet Steffenhagen, CanWest News Service
>Published: Monday, September 25, 2006
>
>VANCOUVER -- Arguing that "speciesism" is a prejudice
>akin to racism and sexism, an animal activist is urging the
>province to include the topic in the curriculum for a new
>Grade 12 course on social justice.
>
>"If we are going to discuss social justice concepts such as
>oppression and exploitation, animals should be included,"
>Lesley Fox of the Vancouver Humane Society said yesterday.
. . .
>"It isn't that humans are better than animals, or animals are
>better than humans," she said in an interview. "When we talk
>about oppression, we need to look at it as a whole and how
>it is interlinked.
I wonder if she wants people to keep in mind that animals
killed for food would not have any life at all if they weren't
raised for that purpose, but that wildlife killed in construction,
production of wood, paper, crops, electricity etc, would have
longer lives if they weren't killed in those processes. I doubt
very much she would want to examine that end of things,
don't you? She probably doesn't want to examine "speciesism"
to the point that people see how "aras" could be considered
LESS ethical than everyone else.
pearl
> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 14:16:05 +0100, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
>
> >Speciesism' touted as topic for Grade 12 social justice course
> >Janet Steffenhagen, CanWest News Service
> >Published: Monday, September 25, 2006
> >
> >VANCOUVER -- Arguing that "speciesism" is a prejudice
> >akin to racism and sexism, an animal activist is urging the
> >province to include the topic in the curriculum for a new
> >Grade 12 course on social justice.
> >
> >"If we are going to discuss social justice concepts such as
> >oppression and exploitation, animals should be included,"
> >Lesley Fox of the Vancouver Humane Society said yesterday.
> . . .
>
> >"It isn't that humans are better than animals, or animals are
> >better than humans," she said in an interview. "When we talk
> >about oppression, we need to look at it as a whole and how
> >it is interlinked.
>
> I wonder if she wants people to keep in mind that animals
> killed for food would not have any life at all if they weren't
> raised for that purpose,
'Wyoming state biologists have estimated that one cow eats
enough forage to support 6.9 bighorn sheep, 10.8 antelope,
7.8 deer or 2.1 elk.'
http://www.organicconsumers.org/corp/cattle_grazing.cfm
Rupert
Hopefully, she'll encourage the students to consider a number of
different points of view and come to their own conclusions. Your
argument that ARAs are less ethical than other people is incredibly
weak.
Dutch
"pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote
> Speciesism' touted as topic for Grade 12 social justice course
By one AR loon, it will NOT happen.
> Janet Steffenhagen, CanWest News Service
> Published: Monday, September 25, 2006
>
> VANCOUVER -- Arguing that "speciesism" is a prejudice
> akin to racism and sexism,
What rubbish.
> an animal activist is urging the
> province to include the topic in the curriculum for a new
> Grade 12 course on social justice.
She's barely out of her Grade 12 herself. Look at her
http://www.vancouverhumanesociety.bc.ca/about%20us_directors.html
> "If we are going to discuss social justice concepts such as
> oppression and exploitation, animals should be included,"
> Lesley Fox of the Vancouver Humane Society said yesterday.
I've given them money, I thought they were a legitimate Animal Welfare
organization. They better keep tabs on their young eager beaver program
directors that they don't go off the deep-end. The vast majority of their
supporters are regular people who want to see better treatment of animals,
not pie-eyed fanatics who imagine they are going to fundamentally
revolutionize society.
> Fox was a surprise guest last week at a three-day meeting
> of educators and social-justice experts organized by the
> B.C. Education Ministry to brainstorm about the new course,
> which is being developed as part of a deal the government
> signed last spring with gay activists Murray and Peter Corren
> to settle a human-rights complaint.
>
> Speciesism is a relatively new term and involves assigning
> values or rights to beings on the basis of their species.
A bullshit term that attempts to besmirch a legitimate part of thought.
Everyone assigns values or rights based on species.
An
> example, according to Fox, is the special status given to
> dogs and cats in North America but not to cows, pigs and
> chickens.
What a surprise, right off the hop vegan propaganda. What about rats, mice,
frogs, toads, snakes, lizards, rabbits, or any other animal killed
intentionall and collaterally by nearly every form of human activity?
> Fox, who was in the news last year after persuading the
> Vancouver school board to become the first major Canadian
> district to develop a policy allowing students to opt out of
> animal dissections in science class, said she was thrilled to
> be invited to the meeting.
I'm sure they were "thrilled" that they had to allow her to attend to spew
her disrespectful, presumptuous garbage.
> She was also anxious that her point not be perceived as an
> attempt to dilute the experiences of people who have suffered
> discrimination.
I'll bet she was, even though it does exactly that.
> "It isn't that humans are better than animals, or animals are
> better than humans," she said in an interview. "When we talk
> about oppression, we need to look at it as a whole and how
> it is interlinked.
>
> "How we treat animals says a lot about how we treat one another."
Equivocating between abuse and legitimate use.
> © Times Colonist (Victoria) 2006
> http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?id=00372cbc-1ba5-4b25-9e02-54c9a62c864e&k=50989
I wonder if she was up-front about her intent to dispense AR propaganda to
children.
pearl
>
> "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote
> > Speciesism' touted as topic for Grade 12 social justice course
>
> By one AR loon,
"How we treat animals says a lot about how we treat one another."
> it will NOT happen.
:) You're NOT a prophet, ditch.
> > Janet Steffenhagen, CanWest News Service
> > Published: Monday, September 25, 2006
> >
> > VANCOUVER -- Arguing that "speciesism" is a prejudice
> > akin to racism and sexism,
>
> What rubbish.
ar·bi·trar·y
adj.
1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity,
reason, or principle:
2. Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference:
..
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=arbitrary
con·tin·u·um
n. pl. con·tin·u·a (-tny-) or con·tin·u·ums
..
A continuous extent, succession, or whole, no part of which can be
distinguished from neighboring parts except by arbitrary division.
..
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=continuum
'Neurophysiologists have so far discovered no fundamental difference
between the structure or functions of neurons in men and other animals."
[19] Anthropomorphism he calls an obsolete straitjacket.
After I read Griffin's book, my quest for a context into which an
understanding of ocean mind might grow met with another stroke of
luck. At the 1980 Conference on Cetacean Intelligence in Washington
DC, I met psychologist Dr Michael Bossley of Magill University,
South Australia. Later he sent me an extraordinary unpublished
manuscript - his review of the scientific evidence for non-human mind,
which was a global survey of formal research into cognitive ethology
since Griffin had defined it. I read this with utter delight and suggested
a title, Continuum, which Dr Bossley accepted.
The implications of Bossley's survey could upset many. He insists
that an entirely new ethical system is required, and presents compelling
evidence for a continuity between human psychological processes and
those of other life forms. He urges our species to climb down from its
imaginary pedestal: 'Everything grades into everything else. We are part
of the natural world.' Much of the research Bossley examines is recent
and ongoing. For the most part it has appeared only in highly technical
literature accessible to specialised academics. It may be several
generations before the full implications are heeded. Like the Copernican
and Darwinian revolutions, it could alter the way we view our place on
this planet, how we treat other life forms and each other.
Legitimate evidence that five vital aspects of being human can be traced
to other animals exists in the published work of established scientists.
In each of five chapters, Bossley summarises that evidence.
..'
http://www.wadedoak.com/projectinterlock.htm
> > an animal activist is urging the
> > province to include the topic in the curriculum for a new
> > Grade 12 course on social justice.
>
> She's barely out of her Grade 12 herself. Look at her
> http://www.vancouverhumanesociety.bc.ca/about%20us_directors.html
Looks may be deceiving. Healthy people have a youthful appearance.
'Lesley Fox is the Humane Education Program Director for Power
of One and is a Certified Humane Education Specialist from the
National Association for Humane and Environmental Education.
She is also a former radio personality who has extensive experience
speaking to a wide variety of community groups, school groups,
media and government bodies
http://www.powerofonehumaneeducation.org/about.htm
> > "If we are going to discuss social justice concepts such as
> > oppression and exploitation, animals should be included,"
> > Lesley Fox of the Vancouver Humane Society said yesterday.
>
> I've given them money, I thought they were a legitimate Animal Welfare
> organization.
But you are not a legitimate animal welfare supporter, as has
been shown. Put your gut where your money is, hypocrite.
> They better keep tabs on their young eager beaver program
> directors that they don't go off the deep-end. The vast majority of their
> supporters are regular people who want to see better treatment of animals,
> not pie-eyed fanatics who imagine they are going to fundamentally
> revolutionize society.
Where do you draw the "better treatment" line? Nowhere at all.
> > Fox was a surprise guest last week at a three-day meeting
> > of educators and social-justice experts organized by the
> > B.C. Education Ministry to brainstorm about the new course,
> > which is being developed as part of a deal the government
> > signed last spring with gay activists Murray and Peter Corren
> > to settle a human-rights complaint.
> >
> > Speciesism is a relatively new term and involves assigning
> > values or rights to beings on the basis of their species.
>
> A bullshit term that attempts to besmirch a legitimate part of thought.
> Everyone assigns values or rights based on species.
.. or gender... or race... or religion.. Doesn't make any of it legitimate.
> > An example, according to Fox, is the special status given to
> > dogs and cats in North America but not to cows, pigs and
> > chickens.
>
> What a surprise, right off the hop vegan propaganda. What about rats, mice,
> frogs, toads, snakes, lizards, rabbits, or any other animal killed
What about the many humans who die so that a minority can eat meat??
> intentionall and collaterally by nearly every form of human activity?
Destructive and wasteful practices should be rejected; wise choices made.
'Students learn valuable lesson about ethical issues
What if the fast food sandwich you buy causes animal suffering? Or,
maybe the mp3 player you threw away is poisoning an African village.
Grade 10 and 11 students are learning how their consumer choices reverberate
around the planet in an innovative new program run by the humane society at
Langley secondary school.
Students are discussing animal suffering, factory farming and the ethical
treatment of animals, in addition to environmental issues and human rights.
Social science teacher Charles McGill invited Lesley Fox, humane education
program director for the Vancouver Humane Society, into his classroom to
wrap up a year-long discussion on humane treatment of animals and human rights.
The educational campaign for student activism included a student fundraiser
to build a primary school in Uganda, Africa.
"I've always been interested in humane issues," said McGill.
McGill received a notice from the humane society about free educational
programs for secondary school students to promote respect for animals,
environmental ethics and human rights.
The Power of One project begun by Fox explores what she refers to as the
"three pillars of social justice": animals, the environment and people. Fox says
even the disposal of a pocket-sized MP3 player can create enough pollution to
harm animals and humans.
McGill, a teacher for more than 20 years, sees Fox's presentation as an
opportunity for students to critically analyse the impact of buying must-have
gadgets.
"I am caught up in the same consumerism," said McGill. "But if we continue on
the path we are on today, we won't have the same earth in the future."
Fox believes consumer power comes from the ability to choose, but she says
students should learn to take responsibility for their consumer choices.
"Buying consumer goods is like voting," said Fox. "Choosing who you give your
money to is powerful. I want students to know what the true cost of consumer
goods are."
Fox hopes the Power of One project can be integrated into the social justice
course curriculum, a course recently accepted by the B.C. government.
GRAPHIC:
Colour Photo: Ian Smith, Vancouver Sun; Humane Society education program
director Lesley Fox will be teaching a workshop at Langley secondary school.
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
http://www.ultraviolet.co.uk/students-learn-valuable-lesson-about-eth.html
> > Fox, who was in the news last year after persuading the
> > Vancouver school board to become the first major Canadian
> > district to develop a policy allowing students to opt out of
> > animal dissections in science class, said she was thrilled to
> > be invited to the meeting.
>
> I'm sure they were "thrilled" that they had to allow her to attend to spew
> her disrespectful, presumptuous garbage.
Ms. Fox was invited. I'm sure everyone here is -not- "thrilled"
with your usual spew: disrespectful, presumptuous garbage.
> > She was also anxious that her point not be perceived as an
> > attempt to dilute the experiences of people who have suffered
> > discrimination.
>
> I'll bet she was, even though it does exactly that.
Let's hear from someone who has suffered discrimination:
From 'Jewsweek' - http://www.jewsweek.com/aande/156.htm
Exclusive Book Excerpt: Eternal Treblinka
One of the most powerful pro-animal voices of the twentieth
century was the Yiddish writer Isaac Bashevis Singer (1904-91),
winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1978. Although Singer
survived the Holocaust by following his older brother Joshua to
the United States in 1935, his mother, younger brother, and
many members of his extended family who remained in Poland
were killed.
..
Treblinka Was Everywhere
Singer's observation that "every man is a Nazi" when it comes
to animals is also found in Enemies, A Love Story, his first novel
set in America. Its protagonist, Herman Broder, is another Singer
character who has lost his entire family in the Holocaust and
sees the reality of might makes right triumphant all around him.
..
When Masha takes Herman to the Bronx Zoo, he sees it as a
depressing prison. The eyes of the lion "expressed the despondency
of those who are allowed neither to live nor to die" and the wolf
paced to and fro, circling his own madness." To Herman, the zoo
is a concentration camp. "The air here was full of longing -- for
deserts, hills, valleys, dens, families. Like the Jews, the animals
had been dragged here from all parts of the world, condemned to
isolation and boredom." Some of the animals cry out their woes,
while others remain silent. "Parrots demanded their rights with
raucous screeching. A bird with a banana-shaped beak turned
its head from right to left as if looking for the culprit who had
played this trick on him."
When Herman takes a trip to upstate New York with Masha,
he thinks he can hear the screeching of chickens and ducks.
"Somewhere on this lovely summer morning, fowl were being
slaughtered; Treblinka was everywhere." When flies, bees, and
butterflies fly in through the window of their bungalow, Herman
refuses to take action. "To Herman these were not parasites to
be driven away; he saw in each of these creatures the
manifestations of the eternal will to live, experience, comprehend."
Early one morning in Brooklyn, when Herman sees a sunlit bay
"filled with boats, many of them just returned from early-dawn
trips to the open sea," he thinks about the fish who had been
swimming in the water only a few hours before, but now lay on
the boat decks "with glassy eyes, wounded mouths, bloodstained
scales. The fishermen, well-to-do sportsmen, were weighing the
fish and boasting about their catches." It reminds him of the same
Nazi mind-set that killed his family. "As often as Herman had
witnessed the slaughter of animals and fish, he always had the
same thought: in their behavior toward creatures, all men were
Nazis. The smugness with which man could do with other species
as he pleased exemplified the most extreme racist theories, the
principle that might is right."
..
Singer concluded his foreword with a warning: as long as human
beings go on shedding the blood of animals, there will never be
any peace. "There is only one little step from killing animals to
creating gas chambers ŕ la Hitler and concentration camps ŕ la
Stalin..There will be no justice as long as man will stand with
a knife or with a gun and destroy those who are weaker than he is."
..
http://www.jewsweek.com/aande/156.htm
> > "It isn't that humans are better than animals, or animals are
> > better than humans," she said in an interview. "When we talk
> > about oppression, we need to look at it as a whole and how
> > it is interlinked.
> >
> > "How we treat animals says a lot about how we treat one another."
>
> Equivocating between abuse and legitimate use.
'Legitimate' in your lexicon means 'anything we choose to do'.
You've run away from the issue of systematic abuse repeatedly.
> > © Times Colonist (Victoria) 2006
> > http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?id=00372cbc-1ba5-4b25-9e02-54c9a62c864e&k=50989
>
> I wonder if she was up-front about her intent to dispense AR propaganda to
> children.
'Aim
The aim of Humane Education is to create a culture of empathy
and caring by stimulating the moral development of individuals to
form a compassionate, responsible and just society. It is a means
of introducing children to the reactions and emotions of animals,
as well as linking this to an understanding of environmental issues
and ecosystems.
Definition
Humane Education can be defined as "a process that
encourages an understanding of the need for compassion and
respect for people, animals and the environment and recognises
the interdependence of all living things."
Methods
Humane Education can be delivered in numerous different ways
including non-formal methods such as campaigning, or the more
obvious and more formal approach used in schools. Changes in
attitude and behaviour have been successfully achieved as a result
of powerful campaigns which are a way of bringing awareness to
specific issues relatively quickly. Because of its long-term
effectiveness, formal Humane Education in schools is especially
important since this is the way to develop caring attitudes for the
next generation of citizens.
The Link
The recognition of the importance of the link between animal
cruelty and criminal behaviour is currently drawing increased
attention to the humane movement.
http://worldanimal.net/humane-ed.html
It's not too late to get a sorely-needed education, ditch.
This is where you're at:
'in·hu·man
adj.
1. Lacking kindness, pity, or compassion; cruel. See Synonyms at 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] 2: belonging to or resembling something
nonhuman; "something dark and inhuman in form"; "a babel of
inhuman noises"
pearl
Thought by Many To Be the Most Powerful Animal Rights Book Ever
Written
Fri Sep 29, 8:00 AM ET
(PRWEB) September 29, 2006 -- The publishing house of Ryokufu in
Tokyo will publish the Japanese edition of Eternal Treblinka: Our
Treatment of Animals and the Holocaust in the spring of 2007.
The book's title comes from the Yiddish writer and Nobel Laureate,
Isaac Bashevis Singer, to whom the book is dedicated. He was the
first major modern author to describe the exploitation and slaughter
of animals in terms of the Holocaust. "In relation to them, all
people are Nazis," he wrote, "for animals it is an eternal
Treblinka." (Treblinka was the Nazi death camp north of Warsaw.)
Ryokufu Shuppan-sha (Ryokufu means "Green Wind") publishes
books about ecology, politics, war and peace, and social issues. The
Japanese edition of Eternal Treblinka will be the first animal rights
book Ryokufu has ever published.
Dr. Toda Kiyosi, Associate Professor of the Faculty of Environmental
Studies, Nagasaki University is working on the book's translation,
and Lydia Tanabe, representing Small Animals Support Association
(SASA), negotiated the terms of the book's publication. She is
writing the Introduction, and Dr. Toda will write the Afterword.
In addition to the Japanese edition, French, Spanish, and Portuguese
editions of Eternal Trelbinka will also be published in 2007.
Earlier in 2006 the Pardes Publishing House in Haifa, Israel published
the Hebrew edition of Eternal Treblinka (ISBN 965-7171-26-1).
The Hebrew translation by Oded Wolkstein was Eternal Treblinka's
sixth translation since Lantern Books published the English edition
(ISBN 1-930051-99-9) four years ago.
Eternal Treblinka had previously been translated and published in
Germany, Italy, Poland, Croatia, and the Czech Republic.
In February, 2004, a jury of 30 of the Germany's leading scholars and
media figures chose "Für die Tiere ist jeden Tag Treblinka" (ISBN 3-
6150-649-1), the German edition of Eternal Treblinka, as one of the
country's ten most important non-fiction books. It was honored
alongside books about Albert Einstein, Leonardo da Vinci, and World
War I.
Eternal Treblinka examines the common roots of animal and human
oppression and the similarities between how the Nazis treated their
victims and how modern society treats the animals it slaughters for
food.
The first part of the book describes the emergence of humans as
the "master species" and how we came to dominate the earth and its
other inhabitants. The second part examines the industrialization of
slaughter of both animals and humans in modern times, while the last
part of the book profiles Jewish and German animal advocates on both
sides of the Holocaust, including Isaac Bashevis Singer himself.
Praise From Around The World--
"The moral challenge posed by Eternal Treblinka turns it into a must
for anyone who seeks to delve into the universal lesson of the
Holocaust." --Maariv (Israeli newspaper)
"A thought-provoking masterpiece meticulously and brilliantly
articulated." --Dr. Ndubuisi Eke, Head, Department of Surgery,
University of Port Harcourt, Nigeria
"I believe, along with many others, that your book is one of the most
important books of the century." --Tanja Tuma, publisher, Ljubljana,
Slovenia
"Necessary reading matter...very thought-provoking."
--Süddeutsche Zeitung (Germany)
"A great book that catches the reader's attention right from the
beginning. Charles Patterson has found the right balance to make his
book perfect." --Dr. Guido P. Lombardi, anthropologist, historian,
Lima, Peru.
"Eternal Treblinka disturbs us because (inevitably though tactfully)
it holds up to us, its readers, a clear mirror to look at ourselves
anew....Kafka would have applauded Eternal Treblinka. It grips like a
thriller." --The Freethinker, UK
"Thank you, thank you for your book. Its strength will certainly
bring more light to the darker places of animal oppression." --Albie
Clemmer, Keflavik, Iceland
"Very well researched and written with great sensitivity...a
compelling, useful and informative book, which I strongly recommend
to others in sub-Saharan Africa." --Professor P S Igbigbi, Head,
Department of Anatomy, College of Medicine, University of Malawi
"Sure to provoke, stir the emotions, incite debate and perhaps after
the soul-searching is done lead to a more humane world." --Sukanya
Datta, journalist, India
"The book does a perfect and professional job of showing the
similarity between the mistreatment of people and of animals...
written with great sensitivity. Will no doubt be a valuable
addition to everyone's collection." --Dr. Vugar Huseynov, Baku,
Azerbaijan Republic.
"Exciting, passionate, and daring." --Tom Salsberg, Toronto, Canada
"A very important achievement for animals and humans alike. Most
probably your work will only be truly appreciated in years to come,
but this is the fate of nearly all original and independent
authors." --Christa Blanke, Freiburg, Germany
"It's one of the few books which totally grabs the reader, not only
while reading it, but afterwards also, and probably forever...it
profoundly disturbs, shocks and destroys." --Croatian philosopher
Hrvoje Juric, Zagreb, Croatia
"Very thrilling to read...one of the most important books I have ever
read." --Marianne Kristiansson, Stockholm, Sweden
"I have rarely read a book that made me cry. This one did. It truly
is one of those books that you cannot put down. The message is
haunting. The book is life changing. It has certainly changed my
life. I have not stopped talking about this book. It is truly a
superb work!" --John Williamson, UK
"You must read this carefully documented book." --La Stampa (Italian
national newspaper)
"Thanks a lot for your book, it is the greatest gift one could give
to animal rights movement." --Jayasimha N.G, Campaigns & Legal
Affairs, PETA, India
"Important may be an understatement when describing this book. It is
the literary equivalent of a swift kick to the head that will jar the
reader's perception of animal cruelty hopefully beyond their next few
meals." --Sara Singer, Bucharest, Romania
"It's wonderful how Eternal Treblinka is reaching so many people and
it's only the beginning. Your brave book will remain and be a strong
testimony when we're all long gone." --Patty Mark, Australia
"A thorough and thought-provoking book." --Ha'aretz (Israeli
newspaper)
"It is a book that will cause controversy, even outrage. But it will
shake the complacency of all who are involved with food production
and food consumption...an essential weapon in our struggle for a non-
violent world." --David Graham, UK
"An eye-opening, thought-provoking book that I highly recommend as
way of gaining additional insight into the psychology of the
Holocaust." --Michael Fein, Gantseh Megillah, Montreal, Canada
"The book that breaks all taboos. The book that fires up
controversies all over the world." --Prijatelji Zivotinja (Animal
Friends Croatia), Zagreb, Croatia
http://news.yahoo.com/s/prweb/20060929/bs_prweb/prweb443981_2
dh
>But you are not a legitimate animal welfare supporter,
He sure isn't. He--like you!--refuses to consider the animals' lives:
"I decline to "consider" the lives of animals" - Dutch
You and Dutch are the same.
. . .
>What about the many humans who die so that a minority can eat meat??
What do you think you're talking about, have you any idea at all?
If you try to "explain" it, present something to back it up.
dh
Not very likely if she's an "ara" or some sort of veg*n.
>Your
>argument that ARAs are less ethical than other people is incredibly
>weak.
They contribute to the same animal deaths that everyone
else does except for those of animals who would have no
life at all if they weren't raised for food. They don't avoid
contributing to killing--they avoid contributing to LIFE. That
can easily be viewed as less ethical even than people who
just don't care, and certainly as less ethical than people who
try to be conscientious consumers of animal products.
dh
It doesn't matter, or how many rabbits, or geese, or
grasshoppers...because by far the majority of the time no
one has any reason to raise animals like that INSTEAD
of cattle. One the rare occasions when they do, they do
it and it has nothing to do with what people buy at the
grocery store. They need to teach the 12 graders that is
part of the "whole and how it is interlinked", instead of
whatever the hell it was you were trying to do. Right?
Right!!!
pearl
So what? You argue that we should consider that animals
"have a life". What you are admitting is that your 'argument'
is simply a thinly-veiled and poor excuse for raising animals to
serve your 'purposes'; not due to any genuine consideration.
pearl
> On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 13:40:12 +0100, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
>
> >But you are not a legitimate animal welfare supporter,
>
> He sure isn't. He--like you!
UNLIKE me.
> --refuses to consider the animals' lives:
>
> "I decline to "consider" the lives of animals" - Dutch
Selective quoting which entirely changes the meaning.
"The only confusion is the one you are attempting to create, such as when I
decline to "consider" the lives of animals to be moral leverage against
vegans, you accuse me of being "in_considerate" towards those animals. It's
a transparent equivocation on the word "consider". The equivocation on the
word "life" is also peripheral to that equivocation, between life itself,
and the conditions of that life. "
http://groups.google.ie/group/alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/browse_frm/thread/c85604c643e5e878/7cf079ae606b16e6?lnk=st&q=&rnum=1&hl=
en#7cf079ae606b16e6
> You and Dutch are the same.
No, you and dutch are the same. You both turn a blind-eye to this:
'Each year in the United States, approximately ten billion land
animals are raised and slaughtered for human consumption.
....
The wild mouse lives free of confinement and is able to practice
natural habits like roaming, breeding,and foraging. In contrast,
the grass-fed cow, while able to roam some distance in a fenced
pasture, may suffer third-degree burns (branding), have holes
punched in his ears (tagging), be castrated, have his horns
scooped out of his head (dehorning), and be kept from breeding
naturally. Once reaching market weight, he can be transported up
to several hundred miles without food, water, or protection from
extreme heat or cold; then he is killed in a conventional
slaughterhouse. The conditions of slaughter-houses have been
described in detail elsewhere (Eisnitz, 1997).
....'
http://www.veganoutreach.org/spam/matheny.html
> >What about the many humans who die so that a minority can eat meat??
>
> What do you think you're talking about, have you any idea at all?
> If you try to "explain" it, present something to back it up.
'C: Third World Poverty Caused by the Animal Exploitation Industry.
The Animal exploitation industries have boosted third world poverty
in a number of ways:-
C.a) The Expropriation of Land.
A colossal part of the Earth's land surface has been devoted to pasture,
"A quarter of the earth's landmass is used as pasture for cattle and other
livestock .."55
['About 29 percent of the world's land surface is used for livestock
production, either by permanent pasture for grazing or croplands for
animal fodder and feed.
www.fao.org/ag/magazine/0511sp1.htm
'It is estimated that 73 percent of the world's grazing land has so
deteriorated that it has lost at least 25 percent of its animal carrying
capacity [3].
UNEP, Global Environment Outlook 2000, Earthscan, 1999. ]
Some of this land has been acquired through expropriation.
This is as true in the third world today as it was centuries ago in the
over-industrialized nations. Large numbers of poor people have been
imprisoned, made homeless, killed, or have starved as a result of big
landowners expropriating land for pasture. The same sort of
expropriation has occurred, although not on the same scale, to provide
grains for livestock Animals in the over-industrialized world. As has
been pointed out above 14% of the land in third world countries is being
used for cash crops although it is not known what proportion of this
land is being used to grow grains for the Animal exploitation industry.
C.b) The Expropriation of Food.
Large areas of pastureland in the disintegrating/industrializing countries
are used for livestock Animals which are exported to the
over-industrialized world. Huge numbers of people in these countries
go hungry even though they are surrounded by livestock Animals,
"Birds Eye Walls import 30,000 tonnes of beef from Brazil every year."
Although meat exports from third world countries continue to grow,
they are declining relative to meat exports from the over-industrialied
nations.
The same is also true as regards the crops which provide feed for
livestock Animals. Huge numbers of people are going hungry even
though third world countries are producing vast quantities of grains
which are exported to feed livestock in the over-industrialized nations,
"Although soybeans are consumed directly as tofu and soy sauce in
many countries, food use accounts for a small fraction of the world
harvest. Most of the world's soybeans are grown primarily for the
protein meal that is widely used in pork and poultry rations. Argentina
and Brazil .. crush most of their beans and export them largely as meal,
retaining much of the oil for domestic consumption."
The over-industrialized world cannot grow enough feed for its livestock
and have to import huge quantities of fodder from third world countries,
"Because of the large amounts of grain required to produce beef, the
geographic location of cattle herds can be misleading. Most industrial
countries do not have sufficient agricultural land to support their meat
consumption. Beef production is particularly land-intensive, because
one calorie of meat production requires 3 calories of grain inputs for
pork and 10 calories for beef. Land requirements can be up to 50 times
higher than for protein production from grain. As a result, a great deal
of the feed consumed in industrialized countries is not produced on
the home farm, but purchased from developing countries. For example,
Western Europe imports more than 40%, or 21 million tons per year, of
its feed grains from the Third World.";"Feeding the meat-eating (world)
class takes nearly 40% of the world's grain, grown on close to one-fifth
of the world's cropland."; "There has been a fundamental shift in world
agriculture this century from food grains to feed grains, and cattle now
compete with people for food. A third of the world's fish catch and
more than a third of the world's total grain output is fed to livestock."61
Huge numbers of third world peoples are starving because the crops
grown in their country are exported to fatten Animals in the
over-industrialized nations, "More people are hungry now than ever
before. Many states where hunger is prevalent are net exporters of food."
Even during times of famine, grains continue to be exported from third
world countries to the over-industrialized world, "In addition, about
two-thirds of the total domestic grain crop goes to feed-lots. The
agribusiness production of grains for foreign exchange-earning exports
to the industrialized region is one among several factors in the
displacement of the rural poor in the Third world onto marginal,
ecologically sensitive land. The magnitude of the food value involved
in this trade is significant: the 500 million people suffering starvation
could find relief from this condition if they had the cash to buy the
grains exported to industrial country feedlots. In that sense, the present
level of meat consumption in the wealthy industrialized countries is
directly related to starvation in the poor countries of the world."
C.c) The Expropriation of Resources.
Third world elites devote huge quantities of resources, from water,
minerals, and fossil fuels to the Animal exploitation industry when
these resources could be used to alleviate third world poverty,
"While it takes, on average, 25 gallons of water (113 litres) to produce
a pound of wheat in modern Western farming systems, it requires an
astounding 2,500 gallons (11,250 litres) of water to produce a pound
of meat."
C.d) Third world Elites Exploiting their own People for the sake of Meat.
Animals are a major export earner in many third world countries ..
"African export earnings from this source (live animals, meat, hides and
skins) exceed those from tobacco, tea or bauxite." Just as was the case
with exports of cash crops and raw materials for the car industries, the
wealth generated by Animal exports is expropriated by third world elites.
Third world elites, like consumers in the over-industrialized nations, are
meat eaters, and some of their countries' export earnings are used to
sustain a carnivorous diet. Third world elites would rather spend money
on buying meat for their own consumption rather than alleviating poverty.
They are therefore responsible for some of the poverty caused by the
Animal exploitation industry.
C.e) Rich in Meat, Poor in Wealth.
There is a general rule about the Animal exploitation industry in third
world countries and this is that the greater the wealth generated by
Animal exports the greater the scale of poverty. For example .. "meat
exporting countries are among Africa's poorest and most drought stricken:
Chad, Sudan, Niger, Somalia, Mali, Botswana and Namibia." There are a
number of reasons for this:- Firstly, because third world countries' export
earnings are confiscated by third world elites rather than disbursed
throughout the population;
Secondly, the Animal exploitation industry is such a land extensive
enterprise that little land left for the development of local agriculture or
other industries;
Thirdly, the Animal exploitation industry uses only a small workforce,
thereby further limiting the spread of wealth throughout the population;
and,
Finally, the Animal exploitation industry is a capital intensive industry
which means that little capital is left for other industries.
As a consequence, "No other agro-export has contributed less to the
welfare of the Guatemalan population than beef. Cattle ranching has
displaced hundreds of small farmers and employed very few workers.
Moreover, Guatemala was no exception to the process common
throughout central America by which countries of the region rapidly
increased beef exports to the united states to meet the demands of fast
food chains like MacDonalds, while per capita domestic consumption
declined."
C.f) The Oppression of World Trade related to the Animal Exploitation
Industry.
It was pointed out above that the over-industrialized nations cannot
produce enough grains to feed their own livestock Animals and need to
import huge quantities of grains from third world countries. The injustices
of this situation are compounded by the oppression of world trade. The
over-industrialized countries prevent third world countries from subsidizing
their agricultural products whilst at the same time giving huge subsidies to
their own pharmers. As a consequence of these subsidies the
over-industrialized pharmers produce huge food mountains which are then
dumped on third world countries ruining their agricultural industry because
the grains from over-industrialized nations are cheaper than locally produced
third world grains - even though the former has often been transported half
way around the world. Furthermore the over-industrialized nations prevent
third world countries from blocking the importation of subsidized agricultural
products from the over-industrialized nations, "The grain imports required to
compensate for this shift of agricultural land further undermines the self
reliance of developing countries: Grain exports from industrialized countries
to Third World countries are routinely subsidized." The injustices of world
trade exacerbate the injustices caused by the Animal exploitation industries
in third world countries.
C.g) The Animal Exploitation Industry exacerbates Global Warming which
will Increase Third World Poverty.
The Animal exploitation industry is the biggest contributor to global warming.
It boosts global warming through Animal flatulence, the consumption of fossil
fuels to help run the Animal exploitation industries, and through the destruction
of the Earth's Phytosynthetic capacity e.g. the destruction of Forests. The
ecological devastation caused by the Animal exploitation industry is enormous:-
Firstly, a quarter of the Earth's land surface is now used for pasture and much
of this has been created by razing Forests, "In Mexico alone, 37 million acres
of forest have been destroyed since 1987 to provide grazing land for cattle.";
Secondly, some of the land used to provide fodder for livestock has also been
created by razing Forests; and,
Thirdly, huge numbers of people who have been chucked off their land by
Animal exploiters invade the Forests in order to grow crops. They use primitive
slash/burn techniques which entails setting fire to the Forests to provide fertiliser
ash for crops. Due to the increasing numbers of slash/burn farmers the Forests
no longer have the time to recover.
Most of the damage resulting from the Animal exploitation industry is caused
by the over-industrialized countries but the third world also contributes to the
damage. Once again it is likely that third world countries not only benefit least
from the Animal exploitation industry, but will suffer the most from the climatic
disasters caused by this industry.
C.h) Conclusions.
There are a number of conclusions to be drawn from this sketch of the poverty
caused by the Animal exploitation industry:-
Firstly, the Animal exploitation industry causes more poverty in third world
countries than any other industry. It is by far and away the biggest cause of
third world poverty.
Secondly, the Animal exploitation industry causes more poverty in third world
countries than all the cash crop industries combined - e.g. coffee/tea.
Thirdly, third world poverty will never be abolished until some of the land
currently being used by the Animal exploitation industry is distributed to the
poor in order to abolish global poverty.
Fourthly, most livestock Animals are consumed in the over-industrialized
world, "Most people in the world live on a substantially vegetarian diet.
Meat eating is a habit largely peculiar to the affluent West."; "Per capita meat
consumption is currently six times higher in the industrialized countries than
in the developing world (78kg/cap-yr compared to 14 kg/cap-yr). Moreover,
while industrial country per capita consumption has risen by another 20% in
the last 15 years, it has stagnated in the Third World."
Finally, it is impossible for everyone in third world countries to eat as much
meat as consumers in the over-industrialized nations. Despite the fact that
china now produces as much meat as america, it has a far larger population
than america and will never be able to produce the same level of per capita
meat consumption, "China and the United States now dominate world meat
production. Somewhat surprisingly, surging pork production in China in
recent years has made it the world's leading consumer of red meat. Its output
of red meat in 1992 totalled 31.6 million tons, compared with 18.6 million tons
in the United States. When poultry is included, total meat production in China
is nearly 37 million tons versus 31 million tons in the United States."72;
"The major producers of poultry in 1993 were the United States at 12.5 million
tons, China at 5.1mt, Brazil at 3.2mt, and France at 2 mt. Together, these four
countries accounted for over half of world poultry output."
INTERESTINGLY NEITHER OXFAM NOR THIRD WORLD FIRST,
WHO HAVE BOTH BEEN CAMPAIGNING AGAINST THIRD WORLD
EXPLOITATION FOR OVER A QUARTER OF A CENTURY, HAVE
NEVER CAMPAIGNED AGAINST THE CAR AND ANIMAL
EXPLOITATION INDUSTRIES EVEN THOUGH BOTH CAUSE
EXTENSIVE THIRD WORLD POVERTY. WHY IS THIS?
...'
http://www.geocities.com/carbonomics/MCsppub/11sp12/11sp12b.html
Dutch
"pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote
>>
>> "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote
>> > Speciesism' touted as topic for Grade 12 social justice course
>>
>> By one AR loon,
>
> "How we treat animals says a lot about how we treat one another."
Non-sequitur.
>> it will NOT happen.
>
> :) You're NOT a prophet, ditch.
I am in this instance.
>
>> > Janet Steffenhagen, CanWest News Service
>> > Published: Monday, September 25, 2006
>> >
>> > VANCOUVER -- Arguing that "speciesism" is a prejudice
>> > akin to racism and sexism,
>>
>> What rubbish.
>
> ar·bi·trar·y
Not arbitrary. Species clearly defines the limitations of animals within it.
>> > an animal activist is urging the
>> > province to include the topic in the curriculum for a new
>> > Grade 12 course on social justice.
>>
>> She's barely out of her Grade 12 herself. Look at her
>> http://www.vancouverhumanesociety.bc.ca/about%20us_directors.html
>
> Looks may be deceiving. Healthy people have a youthful appearance.
She ought to have a youthful appearance, she's barely out of diapers.
> 'Lesley Fox is the Humane Education Program Director for Power
> of One and is a Certified Humane Education Specialist from the
> National Association for Humane and Environmental Education.
> She is also a former radio personality who has extensive experience
> speaking to a wide variety of community groups, school groups,
> media and government bodies
> http://www.powerofonehumaneeducation.org/about.htm
I would expect people of that age to be wooly-headed idealists.
>> > "If we are going to discuss social justice concepts such as
>> > oppression and exploitation, animals should be included,"
>> > Lesley Fox of the Vancouver Humane Society said yesterday.
>>
>> I've given them money, I thought they were a legitimate Animal Welfare
>> organization.
>
> But you are not a legitimate animal welfare supporter
Yes I am, stop trying to pump yourself up by insulting others.
>> They better keep tabs on their young eager beaver program
>> directors that they don't go off the deep-end. The vast majority of their
>> supporters are regular people who want to see better treatment of
>> animals,
>> not pie-eyed fanatics who imagine they are going to fundamentally
>> revolutionize society.
>
> Where do you draw the "better treatment" line?
There's no need to draw any lines.
[..]
>> > Speciesism is a relatively new term and involves assigning
>> > values or rights to beings on the basis of their species.
>>
>> A bullshit term that attempts to besmirch a legitimate part of thought.
>> Everyone assigns values or rights based on species.
>
> .. or gender... or race... or religion.. Doesn't make any of it
> legitimate.
Discrimination is not necessarily illegitimate. Discrimination on the basis
of species is just part of rational thinking.
>> > An example, according to Fox, is the special status given to
>> > dogs and cats in North America but not to cows, pigs and
>> > chickens.
>>
>> What a surprise, right off the hop vegan propaganda. What about rats,
>> mice,
>> frogs, toads, snakes, lizards, rabbits, or any other animal killed
>
> What about the many humans who die so that a minority can eat meat??
More disinformation, there is no human endeavour except war where humans are
targetted and human lives destroyed willy-nilly as animals are and must be
in agriculture.
>> intentionall and collaterally by nearly every form of human activity?
>
> Destructive and wasteful practices should be rejected; wise choices made.
All forms of agriculture are destructive.
> 'Students learn valuable lesson about ethical issues
>
> What if the fast food sandwich you buy causes animal suffering?
Or the banana?
> Or,
> maybe the mp3 player you threw away is poisoning an African village.
>
> Grade 10 and 11 students are learning how their consumer choices
> reverberate
> around the planet in an innovative new program run by the humane society
> at
> Langley secondary school.
>
> Students are discussing animal suffering, factory farming and the ethical
> treatment of animals, in addition to environmental issues and human
> rights.
>
> Social science teacher Charles McGill invited Lesley Fox, humane education
> program director for the Vancouver Humane Society, into his classroom to
> wrap up a year-long discussion on humane treatment of animals and human
> rights.
>
> The educational campaign for student activism included a student
> fundraiser
> to build a primary school in Uganda, Africa.
>
> "I've always been interested in humane issues," said McGill.
>
> McGill received a notice from the humane society about free educational
> programs
Free = come-on.
>> > Fox, who was in the news last year after persuading the
>> > Vancouver school board to become the first major Canadian
>> > district to develop a policy allowing students to opt out of
>> > animal dissections in science class, said she was thrilled to
>> > be invited to the meeting.
>>
>> I'm sure they were "thrilled" that they had to allow her to attend to
>> spew
>> her disrespectful, presumptuous garbage.
>
> Ms. Fox was invited.
I highly doubt that her pie-eyed idea of fundamentally rewriting human
morality is going to be welcomed. Highly presumptuous coming from a
twenty-something kid.
>> > She was also anxious that her point not be perceived as an
>> > attempt to dilute the experiences of people who have suffered
>> > discrimination.
>>
>> I'll bet she was, even though it does exactly that.
>
> Let's hear from
Great, more AR propaganda.
>> > "It isn't that humans are better than animals, or animals are
>> > better than humans," she said in an interview. "When we talk
>> > about oppression, we need to look at it as a whole and how
>> > it is interlinked.
>> >
>> > "How we treat animals says a lot about how we treat one another."
>>
>> Equivocating between abuse and legitimate use.
>
> 'Legitimate' in your lexicon means 'anything we choose to do'.
Legitimate use, like all moral precepts is defined by millenia of moral
evolution.
> You've run away from the issue of systematic abuse repeatedly.
You have repeatedly equivocated between abuse and use. You consider them to
be synonymous, so does Ms. Fox. She's an idealistic child, what's your
excuse?
So the answer is no. She is being devious in promoting her goal to demonize
and undermine legitimate animal use by hiding it within a general approach
to humane education.
> http://worldanimal.net/humane-ed.html
>
> It's not too late to get a sorely-needed education, ditch.
> This is where you're at:
>
> 'in·hu·man
> adj.
> 1. Lacking kindness, pity, or compassion; cruel. See Synonyms at 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] 2: belonging to or resembling something
> nonhuman; "something dark and inhuman in form"; "a babel of
> inhuman noises"
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?qinhuman
Stop trying to pump yourself up by insulting others.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:nf10i2d97b8aore37...@4ax.com...
>
>>But you are not a legitimate animal welfare supporter,
>
> He sure isn't. He--like you!--refuses to consider the animals' lives:
The Logic of the Larder is dead. let it R.I.P fuckwit.
Rupert
They greatly reduce their contribution to the wrongful infliction of
suffering and premature death.
Rupert
Dutch wrote:
> "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote
> > Speciesism' touted as topic for Grade 12 social justice course
>
> By one AR loon, it will NOT happen.
>
> > Janet Steffenhagen, CanWest News Service
> > Published: Monday, September 25, 2006
> >
> > VANCOUVER -- Arguing that "speciesism" is a prejudice
> > akin to racism and sexism,
>
> What rubbish.
>
It's not rubbish.
<snip>
> I'm sure they were "thrilled" that they had to allow her to attend to spew
> her disrespectful, presumptuous garbage.
>
It's not disrespectful or presumptuous to express an ethical view. You
don't know what her views are or what her arguments for them are so you
have no basis for criticizing her.
pearl
>
> "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote
> > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote
> >>
> >> "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote
> >> > Speciesism' touted as topic for Grade 12 social justice course
> >>
> >> By one AR loon,
> >
> > "How we treat animals says a lot about how we treat one another."
>
> Non-sequitur.
Sure it does. You lack respect for both animals and people.
> >> it will NOT happen.
> >
> > :) You're NOT a prophet, ditch.
>
> I am in this instance.
We'll see.
> >> > Janet Steffenhagen, CanWest News Service
> >> > Published: Monday, September 25, 2006
> >> >
> >> > VANCOUVER -- Arguing that "speciesism" is a prejudice
> >> > akin to racism and sexism,
> >>
> >> What rubbish.
> >
> > ar·bi·trar·y
adj.
1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity,
reason, or principle:
2. Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference:
..
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=arbitrary
>
> Not arbitrary. Species clearly defines the limitations of animals within it.
No. Dietary adaptations more than anything else define characteristics.
> >> > an animal activist is urging the
> >> > province to include the topic in the curriculum for a new
> >> > Grade 12 course on social justice.
> >>
> >> She's barely out of her Grade 12 herself. Look at her
> >> http://www.vancouverhumanesociety.bc.ca/about%20us_directors.html
> >
> > Looks may be deceiving. Healthy people have a youthful appearance.
>
> She ought to have a youthful appearance, she's barely out of diapers.
Ipse dixit.
> > 'Lesley Fox is the Humane Education Program Director for Power
> > of One and is a Certified Humane Education Specialist from the
> > National Association for Humane and Environmental Education.
> > She is also a former radio personality who has extensive experience
> > speaking to a wide variety of community groups, school groups,
> > media and government bodies
> > http://www.powerofonehumaneeducation.org/about.htm
>
> I would expect people of that age to be wooly-headed idealists.
Ad hominem, which is all we can expect from dirty disinformationists.
> >> > "If we are going to discuss social justice concepts such as
> >> > oppression and exploitation, animals should be included,"
> >> > Lesley Fox of the Vancouver Humane Society said yesterday.
> >>
> >> I've given them money, I thought they were a legitimate Animal Welfare
> >> organization.
> >
> > But you are not a legitimate animal welfare supporter, as has
been shown. Put your gut where your money is, hypocrite.
>
> Yes I am, stop trying to pump yourself up by insulting others.
No you are not. Stop trying to pump yourself up by insulting others.
> >> They better keep tabs on their young eager beaver program
> >> directors that they don't go off the deep-end. The vast majority of their
> >> supporters are regular people who want to see better treatment of animals,
> >> not pie-eyed fanatics who imagine they are going to fundamentally
> >> revolutionize society.
> >
> > Where do you draw the "better treatment" line? Nowhere at all.
>
> There's no need to draw any lines.
So on a slippery scale between 1 to 10, -- one, being mutilated and
confined then killed when very young, and ten, living a wild, free life,
you'll be satisfied with 1 or 1.2, or worse. That's pie on your face.
> [..]
> > Fox was a surprise guest last week at a three-day meeting
> > of educators and social-justice experts organized by the
> > B.C. Education Ministry to brainstorm about the new course,
> > which is being developed as part of a deal the government
> > signed last spring with gay activists Murray and Peter Corren
> > to settle a human-rights complaint.
> >> > Speciesism is a relatively new term and involves assigning
> >> > values or rights to beings on the basis of their species.
> >>
> >> A bullshit term that attempts to besmirch a legitimate part of thought.
> >> Everyone assigns values or rights based on species.
> >
> > .. or gender... or race... or religion.. Doesn't make any of it legitimate.
>
> Discrimination is not necessarily illegitimate. Discrimination on the basis
> of species is just part of rational thinking.
Those supporting other forms of discrimination thought that they
were thinking rationally as well. We're very good at 'rationalising'.
"Humans - who enslave, castrate, experiment on, and fillet other
animals - have had an understandable penchant for pretending
animals do not feel pain. A sharp distinction between humans
and "animals" is essential if we are to bend them to our will, make
them work for us, wear them, eat them - without any disquieting
tinges of guilt or regret. It is unseemly of us, who often behave
so unfeelingly toward other animals, to contend that only humans
can suffer. The behavior of other animals renders such pretensions
specious. They are just too much like us." -- Dr. Carl Sagan
& Dr. Ann Druyan, Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors, 1992
'Taking Animals Seriously Mental Life and Moral Status
by David DeGrazia
<review>
Most people who approach Taking Animals Seriously will share an
unspoken presupposition. This is that animal activists take animals too
seriously. They lack a sense of proportion. It's not that gratuitous cruelty
to members of other species is morally defensible. Surely it isn't. If
pressed, then all but the amoral, sociopathic or philosophically bewitched
are likely to grant that wanton animal-abuse is best discouraged. Instead,
the pervasive assumption is simply that animal suffering doesn't really
matter much compared to the things that happen to human beings - to us.
They, after all, are only animals: objects rather than our fellow subjects.
Animal consciousness, insofar as it exists at all, is minimal and
uninteresting.
Contrast one's likely reaction on learning that the infant or toddler next
door is being abused. Let's suppose that the abuse is being inflicted for
fun or profit - or, more broadly, for purposes that can be described only
as frivolous. In such a case, then one's intuitions are equally clear. The
suffering of the victim has to be taken very seriously. One has a duty
actively to prevent it. The interests of the child take precedence over the
wishes of the abuser. In extreme cases, the adults involved in persistent
abuse may need to be legally restrained or even locked up. Indeed, it is
cases of failure on our part to take action to prevent it - or failure to take
action by the social services or child-protection agencies - that demand
justification. To treat the suffering caused by child-abuse lightly would be
to show a sense of disproportion when confronted with the nature of the
practices involved - and our capacity to do something about them.
Yet here lies the crux.
After Darwin, a huge and accumulating convergence of physiological,
behavioural, genetic and evolutionary evidence suggests - but cannot
prove - an appalling possibility. This is that hundreds of millions of the
non-human victims of our actions are functionally akin - intellectually,
emotionally and in their capacity to suffer - to very young humans. In
the light of what we're doing to our victims, the consequences of their
also being ethically akin to human babies or toddlers would be awful;
in fact, almost too ghastly to think about.
When we're confronted with such an emotive parallel, all sorts of
psychological denial and defence-mechanisms are likely to kick in.
Undoubtedly, too, animal-exploitation makes our lives so much
more convenient. Not surprisingly, in view of what we're doing to
them, there is a powerful incentive for us as humans to rationalise
our actions.
Numerous pretexts and rationalisations aimed at legitimating animal
exploitation are certainly available; most of them seek to magnify the
gulf between "us" and "them". Intellectually, however, they prove on
examination to be surprisingly thin.
...
http://www.hedweb.com/animals/degrazia.htm
> >> > An example, according to Fox, is the special status given to
> >> > dogs and cats in North America but not to cows, pigs and
> >> > chickens.
> >>
> >> What a surprise, right off the hop vegan propaganda. What about rats,
> >> mice, frogs, toads, snakes, lizards, rabbits, or any other animal killed
> >
> > What about the many humans who die so that a minority can eat meat??
>
> More disinformation,
That's all that can be expected from you and your ilk.
> there is no human endeavour except war where humans are
> targetted and human lives destroyed willy-nilly as animals are
There is. Read again what you have been running away from.
Land expropriated - taken from humans, by humans. For meat.
Food exported when people are starving, and dying. For meat.
> and must be in agriculture.
Needn't be. Shouldn't be.
> >> intentionall and collaterally by nearly every form of human activity?
> >
> > Destructive and wasteful practices should be rejected; wise choices made.
>
> All forms of agriculture are destructive.
False. Where's the destruction here?
'Cornell Ph.D. student works the land by hand at Bison Ridge
Farming in harmony with nature
By Lauren Cahoon
Special to The Journal
August 4, 2006
VAN ETTEN - What if every farmer decided to turn off his machinery and
go without fossil fuels once and for all? And along with that, what if they
all stopped putting pesticides, herbicides and chemical fertilizers on
their fields?
What if every gardener stopped pulling out their weeds and tilling their
soil? Chaos, you say? Mass shortages in crops and foods, gardens choked
with weeds? Perhaps so. But Rob Young, a Ph.D. student and lecturer at
Cornell University, has done all of the above with his small farm - and
the business, like the crops, is growing.
"We just got a new client who's running a restaurant in one of the local
towns - we brought them some of our lettuce and they went crazy over it
.... our lettuce just knocked them over, it's so good."
Young's Bison Ridge farm, located in Van Etten, runs almost completely
without the use of fossil fuels, fossil fuel-derived fertilizers, or
pesticides.
The land has been farmed since the 1850s. Young and his wife, Katharine,
purchased the farm in 1989. Before that, Young worked as the Sustainable
Business Director for New Jersey governor Christine Todd Whitman. When
he discovered Bison Ridge, Young started working the land even while he
was still living in New Jersey. Eventually, Young and his wife moved to the
Ithaca area so they could start their graduate program at Cornell.
"We started doing a little gardening... then added more and more fields
.... at first, we just wanted it to be an organic farm" Rob explained.
Running an organic farm is admirable enough, but at some point, Young
took it a step farther.
"I had an epiphany," he said. "I was transplanting beets after a spring
rain, and I noticed how the land felt all hot and sticky - almost like
when you wipe out on your bike and you get a brush burn. I know it sounds
cheesy, but I could feel how that (farmed) land had gotten a 'brush burn'
when it was cleared and plowed.
"That's when I decided, I want to work with this land rather than against it."
After that, Young started throwing common farming practices out the
window. He reduced weeding, adding copious amounts of composted
mulch instead and, because of the life teeming in the healthy soils and fields
around the farm, Young lets natural predators get rid of any insect pests.
No mechanized machinery is used except for the primary plowing of new
fields. In fact, except for driving to and from the farm (in a hybrid car,
no less), no fossil fuels are used in any part of production. Irrigation
of crops is either gravity-fed from an old stone well dug in the 1800s or
through pumps driven by solar energy. Super-rich compost is used on all
of the crops along with clover, which fixes nitrogen and adds organic matter
to the soil. Crops are grown in multi-species patches, to mimic natural
communities (insect pests wreak less havoc when they're faced with diverse
types of vegetation).
In addition, the farm has a large greenhouse where most of the crops are
grown as seedlings during the late winter/early spring to get a head
start. The entire structure is heated by a huge bank of compost, whose
microbial activity keeps the growing beds at a toasty 70 degrees. During
the spring and summer, most of the plants are grown in outdoor raised
beds - which yield about three times as much per square meter as a regular
field.
"When people visit the farm, they comment on how we're not using a lot
of the land - they don't realize we're producing triple the amount of crops
from less land," Young said. "It is labor intensive, but you can target
your fertility management, and the produce is so good."
Young's passion for earth-friendly farming has proved to be infectious.
As a student, teaching assistant and teacher at Cornell, Young has had the
chance to tell many people in the community about Bison Ridge, which
is how Marion Dixon, a graduate student in developmental sociology, got
involved with the whole endeavor.
"I had wanted to farm forever - and was always telling myself, 'I'll do it
when I'm not in school,'" she said. But when she heard Young give a
speech about recycling and sustainable living at her dining hall, she knew
she had found her chance to actually get involved.
Dixon and Young now work the farm cooperatively, each contributing
their time and effort into the land.
"I've had a lot of ideas," Young said, "but the work has been done by a
lot of people - it's a community of people who have made his happen."
He said that because of Dixon's input, they now have a new way of
planting lettuce that has doubled production.
Although Young and Dixon are the only ones currently running the farm,
during the summer there are always several people who contribute, from
undergrads to graduate students to local people in the community - all
united by a common desire to work with the land.
"There's personal satisfaction in working the soil, being on the land and
outdoors," Dixon said. "You get to work out, and get that sense of
community - plus there's the quality, healthy food. ... It's about believing
in a localized economy, believing in production that's ecologically and
community-based."
The combination of working with the earth's natural systems and community
involvement has paid off. Over the course of several seasons, Bison Ridge
has grown a variety of vegetables, maple syrup, wheat as well as eggs from
free-range chickens. They have a range of clients, including a supermarket
and several restaurants, and have delivered produce to many families in
CSA (Community Sponsored Agriculture) programs.
Although small, Bison Ridge Farm has prospered due to its independence
from increasingly expensive fossil fuel. Young said that, since little if any
of their revenue is spent on gas, advertising or transportation, it makes
the food affordable to low-income people, another goal that Young and
Dixon are shooting for with their farming.
Although Young and Dixon are happy about the monetary gains the farm is
producing, they have the most passion and enthusiasm for the less tangible
goods the farm provides.
"It's such a delight to work with," Dixon said. "You feel alive when
you're there."
http://www.theithacajournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article%3FAID%3D/20060804/NEWS01/608040306/1002
> > 'Students learn valuable lesson about ethical issues
> >
> > What if the fast food sandwich you buy causes animal suffering?
>
> Or the banana?
How so?
> > Or, maybe the mp3 player you threw away is poisoning an African village.
> >
> > Grade 10 and 11 students are learning how their consumer choices reverberate
> > around the planet in an innovative new program run by the humane society
> > at Langley secondary school.
> >
> > Students are discussing animal suffering, factory farming and the ethical
> > treatment of animals, in addition to environmental issues and human
> > rights.
> >
> > Social science teacher Charles McGill invited Lesley Fox, humane education
> > program director for the Vancouver Humane Society, into his classroom to
> > wrap up a year-long discussion on humane treatment of animals and human
> > rights.
> >
> > The educational campaign for student activism included a student fundraiser
> > to build a primary school in Uganda, Africa.
> >
> > "I've always been interested in humane issues," said McGill.
> >
> > McGill received a notice from the humane society about free educational
> > programs for secondary school students to promote respect for animals,
environmental ethics and human rights
>
> Free = come-on.
You'd be complaining if they were charging for it, you poor simpleton.
Such education is most important, and required. Currently neglected.
'
The Power of One project begun by Fox explores what she refers to as the
"three pillars of social justice": animals, the environment and people. Fox says
even the disposal of a pocket-sized MP3 player can create enough pollution to
harm animals and humans.
McGill, a teacher for more than 20 years, sees Fox's presentation as an
opportunity for students to critically analyse the impact of buying must-have
gadgets.
"I am caught up in the same consumerism," said McGill. "But if we continue on
the path we are on today, we won't have the same earth in the future."
Fox believes consumer power comes from the ability to choose, but she says
students should learn to take responsibility for their consumer choices.
"Buying consumer goods is like voting," said Fox. "Choosing who you give your
money to is powerful. I want students to know what the true cost of consumer
goods are."
Fox hopes the Power of One project can be integrated into the social justice
course curriculum, a course recently accepted by the B.C. government.
GRAPHIC:
Colour Photo: Ian Smith, Vancouver Sun; Humane Society education program
director Lesley Fox will be teaching a workshop at Langley secondary school.
DOCUMENT-TYPE: News
http://www.ultraviolet.co.uk/students-learn-valuable-lesson-about-eth.html
> >> > Fox, who was in the news last year after persuading the
> >> > Vancouver school board to become the first major Canadian
> >> > district to develop a policy allowing students to opt out of
> >> > animal dissections in science class, said she was thrilled to
> >> > be invited to the meeting.
> >>
> >> I'm sure they were "thrilled" that they had to allow her to attend to spew
> >> her disrespectful, presumptuous garbage.
> >
> > Ms. Fox was invited. I'm sure everyone here is -not- "thrilled"
with your usual spew: disrespectful, presumptuous garbage.
>
> I highly doubt that her pie-eyed idea of fundamentally rewriting human
> morality is going to be welcomed. Highly presumptuous coming from a
> twenty-something kid.
'Rewriting' human morality? Highly presumptuous coming from you!
humane
adj
Definition: kind, compassionate
Antonyms: cruel, fierce, inhumane, merciless, uncivilized,
uncompassionate, unkind, unsympathetic, violent
..'
http://www.answers.com/humane&r=67
> >> > She was also anxious that her point not be perceived as an
> >> > attempt to dilute the experiences of people who have suffered
> >> > discrimination.
> >>
> >> I'll bet she was, even though it does exactly that.
> >
> Great, more AR propaganda.
Predictably, more ad hominem evasion from the anti AR propagandist.
Great, right in your face, ditch.. <splat>
http://news.yahoo.com/s/prweb/20060929/bs_prweb/prweb443981_2
> >> > "It isn't that humans are better than animals, or animals are
> >> > better than humans," she said in an interview. "When we talk
> >> > about oppression, we need to look at it as a whole and how
> >> > it is interlinked.
> >> >
> >> > "How we treat animals says a lot about how we treat one another."
> >>
> >> Equivocating between abuse and legitimate use.
> >
> > 'Legitimate' in your lexicon means 'anything we choose to do'.
>
> Legitimate use, like all moral precepts is defined by millenia of moral
> evolution.
You've a lot of catching-up to do, savage.
humane
adj
Definition: kind, compassionate
Antonyms: cruel, fierce, inhumane, merciless, uncivilized,
uncompassionate, unkind, unsympathetic, violent
..'
http://www.answers.com/humane&r=67
> > You've run away from the issue of systematic abuse repeatedly.
>
> You have repeatedly equivocated between abuse and use. You consider them to
> be synonymous, <pathetic slanderous remarks snipped>
The 'use' and abuse is inseparable, and you don't object to it.
'Each year in the United States, approximately ten billion land
animals are raised and slaughtered for human consumption.
....
The wild mouse lives free of confinement and is able to practice
natural habits like roaming, breeding,and foraging. In contrast,
the grass-fed cow, while able to roam some distance in a fenced
pasture, may suffer third-degree burns (branding), have holes
punched in his ears (tagging), be castrated, have his horns
scooped out of his head (dehorning), and be kept from breeding
naturally. Once reaching market weight, he can be transported up
to several hundred miles without food, water, or protection from
extreme heat or cold; then he is killed in a conventional
slaughterhouse. The conditions of slaughter-houses have been
described in detail elsewhere (Eisnitz, 1997).
....'
http://www.veganoutreach.org/spam/matheny.html
> >> > © Times Colonist (Victoria) 2006
humane
adj
Definition: kind, compassionate
Antonyms: cruel, fierce, inhumane, merciless, uncivilized,
uncompassionate, unkind, unsympathetic, violent
..'
http://www.answers.com/humane&r=67
> > http://worldanimal.net/humane-ed.html
> >
> > It's not too late to get a sorely-needed education, ditch.
> > This is where you're at:
> >
> > 'in·hu·man
> > adj.
> > 1. Lacking kindness, pity, or compassion; cruel. See Synonyms at 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] 2: belonging to or resembling something
> > nonhuman; "something dark and inhuman in form"; "a babel of
> > inhuman noises"
> >
> > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?qinhuman
>
> Stop trying to pump yourself up by insulting others.
It's fact. Stop trying to pump yourself up by insulting others.
dh
They contribute to that in most of the same ways that everyone
else does. As I pointed out before, they don't avoid contributing to
killing--they avoid contributing to LIFE.
>> That
dh
><dh@.> wrote in message news:nf10i2d97b8aore37...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 13:40:12 +0100, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
>>
>> >But you are not a legitimate animal welfare supporter,
>>
>> He sure isn't. He--like you!
>
>UNLIKE me.
>
>> --refuses to consider the animals' lives:
>>
>> "I decline to "consider" the lives of animals" - Dutch
>
>Selective quoting which entirely changes the meaning.
>
>"The only confusion is the one you are attempting to create, such as when I
>decline to "consider" the lives of animals to be moral leverage against
>vegans, you accuse me of being "in_considerate" towards those animals.
That's BECAUSE declining to consider the lives of animals, is BEING
inconsiderate towards those animals. DUH!!!
>It's
>a transparent equivocation on the word "consider". The equivocation on the
>word "life" is also peripheral to that equivocation, between life itself,
>and the conditions of that life. "
>http://groups.google.ie/group/alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/browse_frm/thread/c85604c643e5e878/7cf079ae606b16e6?lnk=st&q=&rnum=1&hl=
>en#7cf079ae606b16e6
>
>> You and Dutch are the same.
>
>No,
Yes you are. You both feel exactly the same way about
consideration of the lives of livestock. EXACTLY!
>you and dutch are the same. You both turn a blind-eye to this:
>
>'Each year in the United States, approximately ten billion land
>animals are raised and slaughtered for human consumption.
That's certainly as blatant a lie as I've ever seen told in
these ngs. Congratulations, you're right up there with Goo.
I guess you people must take some sort of pride in that.
. . .
>Large areas of pastureland in the disintegrating/industrializing countries
>are used for livestock Animals which are exported to the
>over-industrialized world. Huge numbers of people in these countries
>go hungry even though they are surrounded by livestock Animals,
. . .
>Third world elites devote huge quantities of resources, from water,
>minerals, and fossil fuels to the Animal exploitation industry when
>these resources could be used to alleviate third world poverty,
. . .
It doesn't matter. The elites aren't going to help those starving
people, regardless of whether they make money raising livestock
or raising vegetables. Similarly, if the elites *were* going to help
those starving people they *would* do it regardless of whether
they make money raising livestock or raising vegetables. It really
does seem like you should be able to understand that much.
dh
LOL. I mean: So obviously by far the majority of the time
there isn't any reason to raise animals like that INSTEAD
of cattle
>You argue that we should consider that animals "have a life".
Yes, because they don't just "have a death" but they also
DO have a life.
>What you are admitting is that your 'argument'
>is simply a thinly-veiled and poor excuse for raising animals to
>serve your 'purposes'; not due to any genuine consideration.
That's just another lie, and another blatant and completely
useless one. Why do you lie, have you any idea? What if you
stuck with the truth and DID consider the animals' lives? What
horror are you afraid of that prompts you to lie, DO YOU have
any idea? Or are you afraid to even think that far into it?
Dutch
"pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
news:efr1o2$vom$1...@reader01.news.esat.net...
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:12i0nh1...@news.supernews.com...
>>
>> "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote
>> > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote
>> >>
>> >> "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote
>> >> > Speciesism' touted as topic for Grade 12 social justice course
>> >>
>> >> By one AR loon,
>> >
>> > "How we treat animals says a lot about how we treat one another."
>>
>> Non-sequitur.
>
> Sure it does. You lack respect for both animals and people.
That was a disrespectful thing to say. Your whole approach shows a profound
disrespect for people.
>
>> >> it will NOT happen.
>> >
>> > :) You're NOT a prophet, ditch.
>>
>> I am in this instance.
>
> We'll see.
>
>> >> > Janet Steffenhagen, CanWest News Service
>> >> > Published: Monday, September 25, 2006
>> >> >
>> >> > VANCOUVER -- Arguing that "speciesism" is a prejudice
>> >> > akin to racism and sexism,
>> >>
>> >> What rubbish.
>> >
>> > ar搓i暗rar暄
> adj.
> 1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity,
> reason, or principle:
> 2. Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference:
> ..
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=arbitrary
>>
>> Not arbitrary. Species clearly defines the limitations of animals within
>> it.
>
> No. Dietary adaptations more than anything else define characteristics.
When you know the species to which an animal belongs to you have an
extremely accurate list of the millions of characteristics of that animal,
and a clearly defined set of limitations of that animal's capabilities. No
chimps can fly, no non-human animals can read Chaucer. Dietary adaptations
are simply localized evolutionary variations, they can be similar among
vastly different species and vary within a species.
[..]
>> > Where do you draw the "better treatment" line? Nowhere at all.
>>
>> There's no need to draw any lines.
>
> So on a slippery scale between 1 to 10, -- one, being mutilated and
> confined then killed when very young
Like the male chicks in egg production.
> and ten, living a wild, free life,
Where animals are often mutilated and killed when very young.
> you'll be satisfied with 1 or 1.2, or worse. That's pie on your face.
Ever eat pie? That's an indulgence that has animal suffering in it's roots.
[..]
>
>> > Fox was a surprise guest last week at a three-day meeting
>> > of educators and social-justice experts organized by the
>> > B.C. Education Ministry to brainstorm about the new course,
>> > which is being developed as part of a deal the government
>> > signed last spring with gay activists Murray and Peter Corren
>> > to settle a human-rights complaint.
>
>> >> > Speciesism is a relatively new term and involves assigning
>> >> > values or rights to beings on the basis of their species.
>> >>
>> >> A bullshit term that attempts to besmirch a legitimate part of
>> >> thought.
>> >> Everyone assigns values or rights based on species.
>> >
>> > .. or gender... or race... or religion.. Doesn't make any of it
>> > legitimate.
>>
>> Discrimination is not necessarily illegitimate. Discrimination on the
>> basis
>> of species is just part of rational thinking.
>
> Those supporting other forms of discrimination thought that they
> were thinking rationally as well.
My point was that "discrimination" per se is a positive quality, same root
"discriminating", the ability to discern and make nice (correct or rational)
distinctions. Your are referring to making incorrect, irrational, or unjust
distinctions.
> We're very good at 'rationalising'.
'Rationalizing' is another misunderstood word. In it's purest form it means
"to make rational or conformable to reason, to remove unreasonable elements
from".
There is good discrimination and rationalization we do when seeing the
distinction between humans and other animals.
> "Humans - who enslave, castrate, experiment on, and fillet other
> animals - have had an understandable penchant for pretending
> animals do not feel pain. A sharp distinction between humans
> and "animals" is essential if we are to bend them to our will, make
> them work for us, wear them, eat them - without any disquieting
> tinges of guilt or regret. It is unseemly of us, who often behave
> so unfeelingly toward other animals, to contend that only humans
> can suffer. The behavior of other animals renders such pretensions
> specious. They are just too much like us." -- Dr. Carl Sagan
> & Dr. Ann Druyan, Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors, 1992
I have never supported the notion that non-human animals cannot suffer.
We circumsize male infants without anaesthetic.
In
> the light of what we're doing to our victims, the consequences of their
> also being ethically akin to human babies or toddlers would be awful;
> in fact, almost too ghastly to think about.
Like all the victims of agriculture, especially those affected by slow
poisoning.
>
> When we're confronted with such an emotive parallel, all sorts of
> psychological denial and defence-mechanisms are likely to kick in.
> Undoubtedly, too, animal-exploitation makes our lives so much
> more convenient. Not surprisingly, in view of what we're doing to
> them, there is a powerful incentive for us as humans to rationalise
> our actions.
Animal "exploitation" is a sneaky non-sequitur here. It represents only a
tiny percentage of the animals harmed by human activity, and a group which
probably fares comparatively well relative the larger group, those chewed
up, displaced and poisoned by us. DeGrazia in fact in classic ARA fashion is
trying to rationalize his own actions, by segregating and targetting this
group, this activity and ignoring all others.
> Numerous pretexts and rationalisations aimed at legitimating animal
> exploitation are certainly available; most of them seek to magnify the
> gulf between "us" and "them". Intellectually, however, they prove on
> examination to be surprisingly thin.
He promotes the pretext that there is an actual gulf between the actions
that "exploit" and the actions that simply *destroy*. This is a standard AR
ploy to target their victims.
> ...
> http://www.hedweb.com/animals/degrazia.htm
>
>> >> > An example, according to Fox, is the special status given to
>> >> > dogs and cats in North America but not to cows, pigs and
>> >> > chickens.
>> >>
>> >> What a surprise, right off the hop vegan propaganda. What about rats,
>> >> mice, frogs, toads, snakes, lizards, rabbits, or any other animal
>> >> killed
>> >
>> > What about the many humans who die so that a minority can eat meat??
>>
>> More disinformation,
>
> That's all that can be expected from you and your ilk.
You said it. Humans die in every industry.
>> there is no human endeavour except war where humans are
>> targetted and human lives destroyed willy-nilly as animals are
>
> There is. Read again what you have been running away from.
Your imagination is running away from you.
> Land expropriated - taken from humans, by humans. For meat.
> Food exported when people are starving, and dying. For meat.
Your selective targetting is transparent.
>> and must be in agriculture.
>
> Needn't be. Shouldn't be.
Need be and should be, in *this reality*.
>> >> intentionall and collaterally by nearly every form of human activity?
>> >
>> > Destructive and wasteful practices should be rejected; wise choices
>> > made.
>>
>> All forms of agriculture are destructive.
>
> False. Where's the destruction here?
>
> 'Cornell Ph.D. student works the land by hand at Bison Ridge
> Farming in harmony with nature
> http://www.theithacajournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article%3FAID%3D/20060804/NEWS01/608040306/1002
The link would have been sufficient. This kind of agriculture necessarily
comprises a miniscule part, just as Salatin-type animal farming does.
>> > 'Students learn valuable lesson about ethical issues
>> >
>> > What if the fast food sandwich you buy causes animal suffering?
>>
>> Or the banana?
>
> How so?
Don't be obtuse.
[..]
>> > McGill received a notice from the humane society about free educational
>> > programs for secondary school students to promote respect for animals,
> environmental ethics and human rights
>>
>> Free = come-on.
>
> You'd be complaining if they were charging for it, you poor simpleton.
Is that you Fuckwit?
> Such education is most important, and required. Currently neglected.
Ethics is an important topic, AR should be included, but it should not be
taught by ARAs.
[..]
>> I highly doubt that her pie-eyed idea of fundamentally rewriting human
>> morality is going to be welcomed. Highly presumptuous coming from a
>> twenty-something kid.
>
> 'Rewriting' human morality?
Yes, rewriting human morality, and highly presumptuous, not mention silly to
proclaim that the use of animals is unethical.
<snip insanity>
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote
> On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 21:02:48 +0100, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
>>> "I decline to "consider" the lives of animals" - Dutch
>>
>>Selective quoting which entirely changes the meaning.
>>
>>"The only confusion is the one you are attempting to create, such as when
>>I
>>decline to "consider" the lives of animals to be moral leverage against
>>vegans, you accuse me of being "in_considerate" towards those animals.
>
> That's BECAUSE declining to consider the lives of animals, is BEING
> inconsiderate towards those animals. DUH!!!
You actually can't see that is an equivocation?
pearl
> On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 21:02:48 +0100, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
>
> ><dh@.> wrote in message news:nf10i2d97b8aore37...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 13:40:12 +0100, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
> >>
> >> >But you are not a legitimate animal welfare supporter,
> >>
> >> He sure isn't. He--like you!
> >
> >UNLIKE me.
> >
> >> --refuses to consider the animals' lives:
> >>
> >> "I decline to "consider" the lives of animals" - Dutch
> >
> >Selective quoting which entirely changes the meaning.
> >
> >"The only confusion is the one you are attempting to create, such as when I
> >decline to "consider" the lives of animals to be moral leverage against
> >vegans, you accuse me of being "in_considerate" towards those animals.
>
> That's BECAUSE declining to consider the lives of animals, is BEING
> inconsiderate towards those animals. DUH!!!
By 'lives' you are referring to existence, not animals' quality of life, or lives.
> >It's
> >a transparent equivocation on the word "consider". The equivocation on the
> >word "life" is also peripheral to that equivocation, between life itself,
> >and the conditions of that life. "
>
>http://groups.google.ie/group/alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/browse_frm/thread/c85604c643e5e878/7cf079ae606b16e6?lnk=st&q=&rnum=1&hl
=
> >en#7cf079ae606b16e6
> >
> >> You and Dutch are the same.
> >
> >No,
>
> Yes you are. You both feel exactly the same way about
> consideration of the lives of livestock. EXACTLY!
BS!
> >you and dutch are the same. You both turn a blind-eye to this:
> >
> >'Each year in the United States, approximately ten billion land
> >animals are raised and slaughtered for human consumption.
>
> That's certainly as blatant a lie as I've ever seen told in
> these ngs. Congratulations, you're right up there with Goo.
> I guess you people must take some sort of pride in that.
(Another troll implodes. Jolly good show and all that.)
Why don't you post some evidence to disprove it, goof.
That's certainly as blatant an evasion as I've ever seen in
these ngs. Congratulations, you're right down there with
ditch. I guess you people have no sense of shame at all.
--restore--
The wild mouse lives free of confinement and is able to practice
natural habits like roaming, breeding,and foraging. In contrast,
the grass-fed cow, while able to roam some distance in a fenced
pasture, may suffer third-degree burns (branding), have holes
punched in his ears (tagging), be castrated, have his horns
scooped out of his head (dehorning), and be kept from breeding
naturally. Once reaching market weight, he can be transported up
to several hundred miles without food, water, or protection from
extreme heat or cold; then he is killed in a conventional
slaughterhouse. The conditions of slaughter-houses have been
described in detail elsewhere (Eisnitz, 1997).
....'
http://www.veganoutreach.org/spam/matheny.html
--end restore--
> . . .
> >Large areas of pastureland in the disintegrating/industrializing countries
> >are used for livestock Animals which are exported to the
> >over-industrialized world. Huge numbers of people in these countries
> >go hungry even though they are surrounded by livestock Animals,
> . . .
> >Third world elites devote huge quantities of resources, from water,
> >minerals, and fossil fuels to the Animal exploitation industry when
> >these resources could be used to alleviate third world poverty,
> . . .
>
> It doesn't matter. The elites aren't going to help those starving
> people, regardless of whether they make money raising livestock
> or raising vegetables. Similarly, if the elites *were* going to help
> those starving people they *would* do it regardless of whether
> they make money raising livestock or raising vegetables. It really
> does seem like you should be able to understand that much.
'the Animal exploitation industry is such a land extensive
enterprise that little land left for the development of local
agriculture or other industries;'
'Large numbers of poor people have been imprisoned, made
homeless, killed, or have starved as a result of big landowners
expropriating land for pasture. The same sort of expropriation
has occurred, although not on the same scale, to provide
grains for livestock Animals in the over-industrialized world. '
'third world poverty will never be abolished until some of the
land currently being used by the Animal exploitation industry
is distributed to the poor in order to abolish global poverty.'
I can't make it any clearer. Even you should understand that.
pearl
SO WHAT?
> >You argue that we should consider that animals "have a life".
>
> Yes, because they don't just "have a death" but they also
> DO have a life.
So consider that many more lives of wild animals instead.
> >What you are admitting is that your 'argument'
> >is simply a thinly-veiled and poor excuse for raising animals to
> >serve your 'purposes'; not due to any genuine consideration.
>
> That's just another lie, and another blatant and completely
> useless one. Why do you lie, have you any idea? What if you
> stuck with the truth and DID consider the animals' lives? What
> horror are you afraid of that prompts you to lie, DO YOU have
> any idea? Or are you afraid to even think that far into it?
It is no lie. Your pants are down, and you just fell onto yer ass.
pearl
>
> "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
> news:efr1o2$vom$1...@reader01.news.esat.net...
> > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> > news:12i0nh1...@news.supernews.com...
> >>
> >> "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote
> >> > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote
> >> >>
> >> >> "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote
> >> >> > Speciesism' touted as topic for Grade 12 social justice course
> >> >>
> >> >> By one AR loon,
> >> >
> >> > "How we treat animals says a lot about how we treat one another."
> >>
> >> Non-sequitur.
> >
> > Sure it does. You lack respect for both animals and people.
>
> That was a disrespectful thing to say. Your whole approach shows a profound
> disrespect for people.
"By one AR loon" was a disrespectful thing to say. Your
"..... Man appears to be formed to nourish himself chiefly on
roots, fruits and the succulent parts of vegetables. His hands
make it easy for him to gather them; the shortness and moderate
strength of his jaws, the equal length of his canine teeth with the
others, and the tubular character of his molars, permit him neither
to graze, nor to devour flesh, unless such food is first prepared
by cooking."
-- Georges Cuvier (1769-1832), Regne Animal, Vol 1, p73
In The Natural Diet of Man, Dr. John Harvey Kellogg observes:
"Man is neither a hunter nor a killer. Carnivorous animals are
provided with teeth and claws with which to seize, rend, and
devour their prey. Man possesses no such instruments of
destruction and is less well qualified for hunting than is a horse
or a buffalo. When a man goes hunting, he must take a dog
along to find the game for him, and must carry a gun with which
to kill his victim after it has been found. Nature has not equipped
him for hunting."
> [..]
> >> > Where do you draw the "better treatment" line? Nowhere at all.
> >>
> >> There's no need to draw any lines.
> >
> > So on a slippery scale between 1 to 10, -- one, being mutilated and
> > confined then killed when very young
>
> Like the male chicks in egg production.
Like the vast majority of livestock.
> > and ten, living a wild, free life,
>
> Where animals are often mutilated and killed when very young.
Where many animals live well into maturity and beyond.
> > you'll be satisfied with 1 or 1.2, or worse. That's pie on your face.
>
> Ever eat pie? That's an indulgence that has animal suffering in it's roots.
That would depend of how the ingredients are produced.
> [..]
> >
> >> > Fox was a surprise guest last week at a three-day meeting
> >> > of educators and social-justice experts organized by the
> >> > B.C. Education Ministry to brainstorm about the new course,
> >> > which is being developed as part of a deal the government
> >> > signed last spring with gay activists Murray and Peter Corren
> >> > to settle a human-rights complaint.
> >
> >> >> > Speciesism is a relatively new term and involves assigning
> >> >> > values or rights to beings on the basis of their species.
> >> >>
> >> >> A bullshit term that attempts to besmirch a legitimate part of
> >> >> thought. Everyone assigns values or rights based on species.
> >> >
> >> > .. or gender... or race... or religion.. Doesn't make any of it
> >> > legitimate.
> >>
> >> Discrimination is not necessarily illegitimate. Discrimination on the
> >> basis of species is just part of rational thinking.
> >
> > Those supporting other forms of discrimination thought that they
> > were thinking rationally as well.
>
> My point was that "discrimination" per se is a positive quality, same root
> "discriminating", the ability to discern and make nice (correct or rational)
> distinctions. Your are referring to making incorrect, irrational, or unjust
> distinctions.
You are.
"Everyone assigns values or rights based on species."
"Discrimination on the basis of species is just part of
rational thinking."
You are referring to definition (3) 'Treatment or consideration
based on class or category... '
dis搾rim搏搖a暗ion
n.
1. The act of discriminating.
2. The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions;
discernment.
3. Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather
than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination;
discrimination against foreigners.
http://www.answers.com/discrimination&r=67
> > We're very good at 'rationalising'.
>
> 'Rationalizing' is another misunderstood word. In it's purest form it means
> "to make rational or conformable to reason, to remove unreasonable elements
> from".
ra暗ion戢l搏ze
v.tr.
1. To make rational.
2. To interpret from a rational standpoint.
3. To devise self-satisfying but incorrect reasons for (one's behavior):
http://www.answers.com/topic/rationalize
> There is good discrimination and rationalization we do when seeing the
> distinction between humans and other animals.
? In english?
> > "Humans - who enslave, castrate, experiment on, and fillet other
> > animals - have had an understandable penchant for pretending
> > animals do not feel pain. A sharp distinction between humans
> > and "animals" is essential if we are to bend them to our will, make
> > them work for us, wear them, eat them - without any disquieting
> > tinges of guilt or regret. It is unseemly of us, who often behave
> > so unfeelingly toward other animals, to contend that only humans
> > can suffer. The behavior of other animals renders such pretensions
> > specious. They are just too much like us." -- Dr. Carl Sagan
> > & Dr. Ann Druyan, Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors, 1992
>
> I have never supported the notion that non-human animals cannot suffer.
So you've always supported the notion that non-human animals
can suffer.. giving real meaning to this past utterance of yours:
"I buy what is readily available, and I assume a lot of it comes
from factory farms. I don't support the concept "philosophically",
I support it in real terms.
- Dutch Mon, 15 Dec 2003 http://tinyurl.com/2cdgk
'MGM (Male Genital Mutilation) is a cruel, painful, mutilating,
torturous, violative act without valid medical benefit that not
only contravenes the UN Charter but also violates every principle
of human kindness and medical ethics in every civilized country
in the world. The very foundation of modern medicine is "First,
do no harm." Yet, circumcision does just that.
The American Medical Association, the American Academy of
Pediatrics and equivalent organizations in Canada all state that
routine circumcision is not medically justified.
Growing up, we heard the same myths that all of you have heard
- it's just a snip, it doesn't hurt. Lies! They have attached EKGs
and EEGs to babies during circumcision. Their blood pressure
rises, their brain waves go off the chart, they writhe in pain, and
they go into shock. It hurts, trust me.
Circumcision removes healthy, erogenous tissue. It has been
estimated by Canadian researchers that up to 80% of a male's
erogenous tissue is amputated during a circumcision.
..'
http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/
> > In
> > the light of what we're doing to our victims, the consequences of their
> > also being ethically akin to human babies or toddlers would be awful;
> > in fact, almost too ghastly to think about.
>
> Like all the victims of agriculture, especially those affected by slow
> poisoning.
Like all the victims of your meat habit. We are against poisons too.
> > When we're confronted with such an emotive parallel, all sorts of
> > psychological denial and defence-mechanisms are likely to kick in.
> > Undoubtedly, too, animal-exploitation makes our lives so much
> > more convenient. Not surprisingly, in view of what we're doing to
> > them, there is a powerful incentive for us as humans to rationalise
> > our actions.
>
> Animal "exploitation" is a sneaky non-sequitur here. It represents only a
> tiny percentage of the animals harmed by human activity, and a group which
> probably fares comparatively well relative the larger group, those chewed
> up, displaced and poisoned by us.
According to Davis, 120 million ha of cropland is harvested in
the USA each year, and if all of that land was used to produce
industrially farmed (plowing, disking, harrowing, planting,
cultivating, applying herbicides and pesticides as well as
harvesting) crops to support a vegan diet, 1.8 billion wild
animals would be killed annually.
'Each year in the United States, approximately ten billion land
animals are raised and slaughtered for human consumption.'
Add to that ghastly holocaust the wild animals killed..
'Davis suggests the number of wild animals killed per hectare in
crop production (15) is twice that killed in ruminant-pasture (7.5).
If this is true, then as long as crop production uses less than half
as many hectares as ruminant-pasture to deliver the same amount
of food, a vegetarian will kill fewer animals than an omnivore. In
fact, crop production uses less than half as many hectares as
grass-fed dairy and one-tenth as many hectares as grass-fed beef to
deliver the same amount of protein. In one year, 1,000 kilograms of
protein can be produced on as few as 1.0 hectares planted with soy
and corn, 2.6 hectares used as pasture for grass-fed dairy cows, or
10 hectares used as pasture for grass-fed beef cattle (Vandehaar,
1998;UNFAO, 1996). As such, to obtain the 20 kilograms of protein
per year recommended for adults, a vegan-vegetarian would kill 0.3
wild animals annually, a lacto-vegetarian would kill 0.39 wild animals,
while a Davis-style omnivore would kill 1.5 wild animals. Thus,
correcting Davis's math, we see that a vegan-vegetarian population
would kill the fewest number of wild animals, followed closely by a
lacto-vegetarian population.'
http://web.archive.org/web/20050217071128/www.veganoutreach.org/enewsletter/matheny.html
> DeGrazia in fact in classic ARA fashion is
> trying to rationalize his own actions, by segregating and targetting this
> group, this activity and ignoring all others.
The attitude and consideration implied is all-encompassing.
> > Numerous pretexts and rationalisations aimed at legitimating animal
> > exploitation are certainly available; most of them seek to magnify the
> > gulf between "us" and "them". Intellectually, however, they prove on
> > examination to be surprisingly thin.
>
> He promotes the pretext that there is an actual gulf between the actions
> that "exploit" and the actions that simply *destroy*. This is a standard AR
> ploy to target their victims.
No, he isn't. You are. This is a standard anti-AR ploy to mislead.
> > ...
> > http://www.hedweb.com/animals/degrazia.htm
> >
> >> >> > An example, according to Fox, is the special status given to
> >> >> > dogs and cats in North America but not to cows, pigs and
> >> >> > chickens.
> >> >>
> >> >> What a surprise, right off the hop vegan propaganda. What about rats,
> >> >> mice, frogs, toads, snakes, lizards, rabbits, or any other animal
> >> >> killed
> >> >
> >> > What about the many humans who die so that a minority can eat meat??
> >>
> >> More disinformation,
> >
> > That's all that can be expected from you and your ilk.
>
> You said it. Humans die in every industry.
500 million people suffering from starvation.
> >> there is no human endeavour except war where humans are
> >> targetted and human lives destroyed willy-nilly as animals are
> >
> > There is. Read again what you have been running away from.
>
> Your imagination is running away from you.
"Fuck off, I'm not interested in your childish games." ring a bell?
> > Land expropriated - taken from humans, by humans. For meat.
> > Food exported when people are starving, and dying. For meat.
>
> Your selective targetting is transparent.
And again. Your evasion is shocking.
> >> and must be in agriculture.
> >
> > Needn't be. Shouldn't be.
>
> Need be and should be, in *this reality*.
Absolutely needn't be and shouldn't be in *this reality*.
> >> >> intentionall and collaterally by nearly every form of human activity?
> >> >
> >> > Destructive and wasteful practices should be rejected; wise choices
> >> > made.
> >>
> >> All forms of agriculture are destructive.
> >
> > False. Where's the destruction here?
> >
> > 'Cornell Ph.D. student works the land by hand at Bison Ridge
> > Farming in harmony with nature
> > http://www.theithacajournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article%3FAID%3D/20060804/NEWS01/608040306/1002
>
> The link would have been sufficient. This kind of agriculture necessarily
> comprises a miniscule part, just as Salatin-type animal farming does.
Why "necessarily"? That is how it should be done everywhere.
OTOH, any animal 'farming' for meat necessarily involves killing.
> >> > 'Students learn valuable lesson about ethical issues
> >> >
> >> > What if the fast food sandwich you buy causes animal suffering?
> >>
> >> Or the banana?
> >
> > How so?
>
> Don't be obtuse.
Me? I'm not. Are you going to answer the question?
> [..]
>
> >> > McGill received a notice from the humane society about free educational
> >> > programs for secondary school students to promote respect for animals,
> > environmental ethics and human rights
> >>
> >> Free = come-on.
> >
> > You'd be complaining if they were charging for it, you poor simpleton.
>
> Is that you Fuckwit?
What?
> > Such education is most important, and required. Currently neglected.
>
> Ethics is an important topic, AR should be included, but it should not be
> taught by ARAs.
You're a laugh a minute.
> [..]
Sooo much snipped.
> >> I highly doubt that her pie-eyed idea of fundamentally rewriting human
> >> morality is going to be welcomed. Highly presumptuous coming from a
> >> twenty-something kid.
> >
> > 'Rewriting' human morality? Highly presumptuous coming from you!
>
> Yes, rewriting human morality, and highly presumptuous, not mention silly to
> proclaim that the use of animals is unethical.
humane
adj
Definition: kind, compassionate
Antonyms: cruel, fierce, inhumane, merciless, uncivilized,
uncompassionate, unkind, unsympathetic, violent
..'
http://www.answers.com/humane&r=67
'Each year in the United States, approximately ten billion land
animals are raised and slaughtered for human consumption.
....
The wild mouse lives free of confinement and is able to practice
natural habits like roaming, breeding,and foraging. In contrast,
the grass-fed cow, while able to roam some distance in a fenced
pasture, may suffer third-degree burns (branding), have holes
punched in his ears (tagging), be castrated, have his horns
scooped out of his head (dehorning), and be kept from breeding
naturally. Once reaching market weight, he can be transported up
to several hundred miles without food, water, or protection from
extreme heat or cold; then he is killed in a conventional
slaughterhouse. The conditions of slaughter-houses have been
described in detail elsewhere (Eisnitz, 1997).
....'
http://www.veganoutreach.org/spam/matheny.html
> <snip insanity>
Lots more evasion.
Dutch
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:12i2qpd...@news.supernews.com...
>>
>> "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
>> news:efr1o2$vom$1...@reader01.news.esat.net...
>> > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
>> > news:12i0nh1...@news.supernews.com...
>> >>
>> >> "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote
>> >> > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote
>> >> >> > Speciesism' touted as topic for Grade 12 social justice course
>> >> >>
>> >> >> By one AR loon,
>> >> >
>> >> > "How we treat animals says a lot about how we treat one another."
>> >>
>> >> Non-sequitur.
>> >
>> > Sure it does. You lack respect for both animals and people.
>>
>> That was a disrespectful thing to say. Your whole approach shows a
>> profound
>> disrespect for people.
>
> "By one AR loon" was a disrespectful thing to say. Your
> whole approach shows a profound disrespect for people.
I don't disrespect almost the entire human race, you do. Calling her a loon
is a mild form of criticism, you think people who eat meat are monsters. You
are a parrot.
All righty then Ms Parrothead
[..]
>> >> >> > Speciesism is a relatively new term and involves assigning
>> >> >> > values or rights to beings on the basis of their species.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> A bullshit term that attempts to besmirch a legitimate part of
>> >> >> thought. Everyone assigns values or rights based on species.
>> >> >
>> >> > .. or gender... or race... or religion.. Doesn't make any of it
>> >> > legitimate.
>> >>
>> >> Discrimination is not necessarily illegitimate. Discrimination on the
>> >> basis of species is just part of rational thinking.
>> >
>> > Those supporting other forms of discrimination thought that they
>> > were thinking rationally as well.
>>
>> My point was that "discrimination" per se is a positive quality, same
>> root
>> "discriminating", the ability to discern and make nice (correct or
>> rational)
>> distinctions. You are referring to making incorrect, irrational, or
>> unjust
>> distinctions.
>
> You are.
>
> "Everyone assigns values or rights based on species."
> "Discrimination on the basis of species is just part of
> rational thinking."
>
> You are referring to definition (3) 'Treatment or consideration
> based on class or category...
No, it's 2. The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions;
discernment.
>
> dis搾rim搏搖a暗ion
> n.
> 1. The act of discriminating.
> 2. The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions;
> discernment.
> 3. Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather
> than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination;
> discrimination against foreigners.
>
> http://www.answers.com/discrimination&r=67
You are not discriminating enough to understand that species is a valid
reason to discriminate.
>> > We're very good at 'rationalising'.
>>
>> 'Rationalizing' is another misunderstood word. In it's purest form it
>> means
>> "to make rational or conformable to reason, to remove unreasonable
>> elements
>> from".
>
> ra暗ion戢l搏ze
> v.tr.
> 1. To make rational.
> 2. To interpret from a rational standpoint.
> 3. To devise self-satisfying but incorrect reasons for (one's behavior):
>
> http://www.answers.com/topic/rationalize
>
>> There is good discrimination and rationalization we do when seeing the
>> distinction between humans and other animals.
>
> ? In english?
It's good enough, try harder.
>> > "Humans - who enslave, castrate, experiment on, and fillet other
>> > animals - have had an understandable penchant for pretending
>> > animals do not feel pain. A sharp distinction between humans
>> > and "animals" is essential if we are to bend them to our will, make
>> > them work for us, wear them, eat them - without any disquieting
>> > tinges of guilt or regret. It is unseemly of us, who often behave
>> > so unfeelingly toward other animals, to contend that only humans
>> > can suffer. The behavior of other animals renders such pretensions
>> > specious. They are just too much like us." -- Dr. Carl Sagan
>> > & Dr. Ann Druyan, Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors, 1992
>>
>> I have never supported the notion that non-human animals cannot suffer.
>
> So you've always supported the notion that non-human animals
> can suffer.. giving real meaning to this past utterance of yours:
>
> "I buy what is readily available, and I assume a lot of it comes
> from factory farms. I don't support the concept "philosophically",
> I support it in real terms.
> - Dutch Mon, 15 Dec 2003 http://tinyurl.com/2cdgk
So does almost every vegetarian in large urban centres buy "factory farmed"
food.
>> > 'Taking Animals Seriously Mental Life and Moral Status
>> > by David DeGrazia
>> Like all the victims of agriculture, especially those affected by slow
>> poisoning.
>
> Like all the victims of your
YOUR consumptive lifestyle. YOU constantly make compromises based on your
own balancing of your own interests and other-interests, so do I. You decide
which compromises you make, I decide the ones I make. I make a point of not
allowing looney-birds who believe in <sic> little green men to influence my
decisions.
>> > When we're confronted with such an emotive parallel, all sorts of
>> > psychological denial and defence-mechanisms are likely to kick in.
>> > Undoubtedly, too, animal-exploitation makes our lives so much
>> > more convenient. Not surprisingly, in view of what we're doing to
>> > them, there is a powerful incentive for us as humans to rationalise
>> > our actions.
>>
>> Animal "exploitation" is a sneaky non-sequitur here. It represents only a
>> tiny percentage of the animals harmed by human activity, and a group
>> which
>> probably fares comparatively well relative the larger group, those chewed
>> up, displaced and poisoned by us.
[..]
>> DeGrazia in fact in classic ARA fashion is
>> trying to rationalize his own actions, by segregating and targetting this
>> group, this activity and ignoring all others.
>
> The attitude and consideration implied is all-encompassing.
Have you read his book? Lke all ARAs he focuses almost completely on animal
"exploitation" to the exclusion of 99% of the harm humans do to animals.
>> > Numerous pretexts and rationalisations aimed at legitimating animal
>> > exploitation are certainly available; most of them seek to magnify the
>> > gulf between "us" and "them". Intellectually, however, they prove on
>> > examination to be surprisingly thin.
>>
>> He promotes the pretext that there is an actual gulf between the actions
>> that "exploit" and the actions that simply *destroy*. This is a standard
>> AR
>> ploy to target their victims.
>
> No, he isn't. You are.
Yes he does, he does the same thing that your little tweety in BC does. I
consider all harm to animals to be of the same value, stripping away the
phoney politicizing.
> This is a standard anti-AR ploy to mislead.
I am leading the misled back to reality.
>> > http://www.hedweb.com/animals/degrazia.htm
>> >
>> >> >> > An example, according to Fox, is the special status given to
>> >> >> > dogs and cats in North America but not to cows, pigs and
>> >> >> > chickens.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What a surprise, right off the hop vegan propaganda. What about
>> >> >> rats,
>> >> >> mice, frogs, toads, snakes, lizards, rabbits, or any other animal
>> >> >> killed
>> >> >
>> >> > What about the many humans who die so that a minority can eat meat??
>> >>
>> >> More disinformation,
>> >
>> > That's all that can be expected from you and your ilk.
>>
>> You said it. Humans die in every industry.
>
> 500 million people suffering from starvation.
Meat isn't causing that. There is enough uncultivated land in the world to
grow food for those people a hundred times over. The problems are logistics,
economics and politics.
>> >> there is no human endeavour except war where humans are
>> >> targetted and human lives destroyed willy-nilly as animals are
>> >
>> > There is. Read again what you have been running away from.
>>
>> Your imagination is running away from you.
>
> "Fuck off, I'm not interested in your childish games." ring a bell?
Definitely, you should do that.
>
>> > Land expropriated - taken from humans, by humans. For meat.
>> > Food exported when people are starving, and dying. For meat.
>>
>> Your selective targetting is transparent.
>
> And again. Your evasion is shocking.
And again, your disrespect, your dishonesty, your selective targetting is
appalling.
>
>> >> and must be in agriculture.
>> >
>> > Needn't be. Shouldn't be.
>>
>> Need be and should be, in *this reality*.
>
> Absolutely needn't be and shouldn't be in *this reality*.
Polly want a cracker?
>> >> >> intentionall and collaterally by nearly every form of human
>> >> >> activity?
>> >> >
>> >> > Destructive and wasteful practices should be rejected; wise choices
>> >> > made.
>> >>
>> >> All forms of agriculture are destructive.
>> >
>> > False. Where's the destruction here?
>> >
>> > 'Cornell Ph.D. student works the land by hand at Bison Ridge
>> > Farming in harmony with nature
>> > http://www.theithacajournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article%3FAID%3D/20060804/NEWS01/608040306/1002
>>
>> The link would have been sufficient. This kind of agriculture necessarily
>> comprises a miniscule part, just as Salatin-type animal farming does.
>
> Why "necessarily"? That is how it should be done everywhere.
But it's not, at all, and never will, and could not. There are too many
people in the world with not enough money to pay for hand-raised vegetables.
> OTOH, any animal 'farming' for meat necessarily involves killing.
I'm OK with that. You cause animals to be killed, whinge about it but do it
anyway. I accept it, I embrace my role as a predator.
>> >> > 'Students learn valuable lesson about ethical issues
>> >> >
>> >> > What if the fast food sandwich you buy causes animal suffering?
>> >>
>> >> Or the banana?
>> >
>> > How so?
>>
>> Don't be obtuse.
>
> Me?
LOL! Who else, Miss Innocentia?
> I'm not.
Yes you are.
Are you going to answer the question?
http://www.bananalink.org.uk/documents/Current_Environmental_Impact_by_Y_Astorga.doc
From the beginning of the 1980s, massive effects on the human population in
the banana areas, brought about by the high use of agrochemicals and
consequent inhibition of cholinesterase, were reported (20). In 1979, the
use of the nematicide DBCP (Di-Bromo-Chloro-Propane 1,2,3) was suspended
owing to evidence of toxic sterility amongst the DBCP operatives. This
substance was introduced into Costa Rica in 1965 for use in the banana
plantations (21). Thousands of banana workers who suffer from sterility and
reduced sperm-count as a result of exposure to DBCP have been seeking
compensation through the United States courts (21, 22, 23).
The proportion of poisoning incidents in banana cultivation is 59.5% and
63.9% in 1995 and 1996 respectively, out of the total number of incidents in
Costa Rica agriculture. The level of intoxication in these zones is at least
six times greater than in the rest of the country (63 per 1000), and the
incidence of death from the same poisonings is greater (4.8 per 100.000)
than for the entire country (2.6 per 100.000) (23, 24).
I wonder how the diverse animal populations of Costa Rica are making out?
>> [..]
>>
>> >> > McGill received a notice from the humane society about free
>> >> > educational
>> >> > programs for secondary school students to promote respect for
>> >> > animals,
>> > environmental ethics and human rights
>> >>
>> >> Free = come-on.
>> >
>> > You'd be complaining if they were charging for it, you poor simpleton.
>>
>> Is that you Fuckwit?
>
> What?
DUH! as Fuckwit says, he likes to insert "you poor simpleton" at the end of
his statements to prop his arguments.
>> > Such education is most important, and required. Currently neglected.
>>
>> Ethics is an important topic, AR should be included, but it should not be
>> taught by ARAs.
>
> You're a laugh a minute.
Glad to hear it. AR should be taught as an aberration in moral theory.
[..]
> Lots more evasion.
Snipping reams of non-responsive crap is no more evasion than pasting it.
pearl
>
> "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
> news:efs7dk$ei8$1...@reader01.news.esat.net...
> > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> > news:12i2qpd...@news.supernews.com...
> >>
> >> "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
> >> news:efr1o2$vom$1...@reader01.news.esat.net...
> >> > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:12i0nh1...@news.supernews.com...
> >> >>
> >> >> "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote
> >> >> > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote
> >> >> >> > Speciesism' touted as topic for Grade 12 social justice course
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> By one AR loon,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "How we treat animals says a lot about how we treat one another."
> >> >>
> >> >> Non-sequitur.
> >> >
> >> > Sure it does. You lack respect for both animals and people.
> >>
> >> That was a disrespectful thing to say. Your whole approach shows a
> >> profound
> >> disrespect for people.
> >
> > "By one AR loon" was a disrespectful thing to say. Your
> > whole approach shows a profound disrespect for people.
>
> I don't disrespect almost the entire human race,
You show disrespect for all those who hold differing views.
>you do.
False.
> Calling her a loon is a mild form of criticism,
Hardly.
You've tried every which way to demean and undermine.
'Attacking the Person (argumentum ad hominem)
Definition:
The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the
argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the
person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked.
Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to
gain from a favourable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be
attacked by association, or by the company he keeps.
There are three major forms of Attacking the Person:
(1) ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion,
the argument attacks the person who made the assertion.
(2) ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an
assertion the author points to the relationship between the
person making the assertion and the person's circumstances.
(3) ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the
person notes that a person does not practise what he preaches. '
> you think people who eat meat are monsters.
I think that most people are woefully misinformed and addicted.
I think that you are a monster, dutch, and this is the root cause:
'Imagine - if you can - not having a conscience, none at all,
no feelings of guilt or remorse no matter what you do, no
limiting sense of concern for the well-being of strangers,
friends, or even family members. Imagine no struggles with
shame, not a single one in your whole life, no matter what
kind of selfish, lazy, harmful, or immoral action you had taken.
...
The high incidence of sociopathy in human society has a
profound effect on the rest of us who must live on this
planet, too, even those of us who have not been clinically
traumatized. The individuals who constitute this 4 percent
drain our relationships, our bank accounts, our
accomplishments, our self-esteem, our very peace on earth.
...'
http://www.cassiopaea.com/cassiopaea/psychopath.htm
> You are a parrot.
"A favored technique is to debilitate your identity
[personally, I hate the term self-esteem] by levelling
false accusations and/or questioning your honesty,
fidelity, trustworthiness, your "true" motivations,
your "real" character, your sanity and judgement."
http://www.cassiopaea.com/cassiopaea/psychopath.htm
<..>
> > Dietary adaptations more than anything else define characteristics.
>
> All righty then Ms Parrothead
Good doggy.
So you're assigning values or rights based on "fine distinctions"?
Must be pretty hefty "fine distinctions". What are they exactly?
> > dis·crim·i·na·tion
> > n.
> > 1. The act of discriminating.
> > 2. The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions;
> > discernment.
> > 3. Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather
> > than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination;
> > discrimination against foreigners.
> >
> > http://www.answers.com/discrimination&r=67
>
> You are not discriminating enough to understand that species is a valid
> reason to discriminate.
There you go- 3. Treatment or consideration based on class or category.
What 'power of discrimination' of yours determines who to cherish or kill?
> >> > We're very good at 'rationalising'.
> >>
> >> 'Rationalizing' is another misunderstood word. In it's purest form it
> >> means
> >> "to make rational or conformable to reason, to remove unreasonable
> >> elements
> >> from".
> >
> > ra·tion·al·ize
> > v.tr.
> > 1. To make rational.
> > 2. To interpret from a rational standpoint.
> > 3. To devise self-satisfying but incorrect reasons for (one's behavior):
> >
> > http://www.answers.com/topic/rationalize
> >
> >> There is good discrimination and rationalization we do when seeing the
> >> distinction between humans and other animals.
> >
> > ? In english?
>
> It's good enough, try harder.
Well, you'll need to expound on that now.
> >> > "Humans - who enslave, castrate, experiment on, and fillet other
> >> > animals - have had an understandable penchant for pretending
> >> > animals do not feel pain. A sharp distinction between humans
> >> > and "animals" is essential if we are to bend them to our will, make
> >> > them work for us, wear them, eat them - without any disquieting
> >> > tinges of guilt or regret. It is unseemly of us, who often behave
> >> > so unfeelingly toward other animals, to contend that only humans
> >> > can suffer. The behavior of other animals renders such pretensions
> >> > specious. They are just too much like us." -- Dr. Carl Sagan
> >> > & Dr. Ann Druyan, Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors, 1992
> >>
> >> I have never supported the notion that non-human animals cannot suffer.
> >
> > So you've always supported the notion that non-human animals
> > can suffer.. giving real meaning to this past utterance of yours:
>
> >
> > "I buy what is readily available, and I assume a lot of it comes
> > from factory farms. I don't support the concept "philosophically",
> > I support it in real terms.
> > - Dutch Mon, 15 Dec 2003 http://tinyurl.com/2cdgk
>
> So does almost every vegetarian in large urban centres buy "factory farmed"
> food.
You KNOW that an animal suffered and died. Vegetarians don't.
According to Davis' corrected estimates, a vegetarian causes a
fraction of a death *annually*. Even much better than a hunter.
> >> > 'Taking Animals Seriously Mental Life and Moral Status
> >> > by David DeGrazia
>
> >> Like all the victims of agriculture, especially those affected by slow
> >> poisoning.
> >
> > Like all the victims of your meat habit. We are against poisons too.
>
> YOUR consumptive lifestyle. YOU constantly make compromises based on your
> own balancing of your own interests and other-interests, so do I. You decide
> which compromises you make, I decide the ones I make. I make a point of not
> allowing looney-birds who believe in <sic> little green men to influence my
> decisions.
MY consumptive lifestyle? Not in the slightest. Stop trying to shift blame.
> >> > When we're confronted with such an emotive parallel, all sorts of
> >> > psychological denial and defence-mechanisms are likely to kick in.
> >> > Undoubtedly, too, animal-exploitation makes our lives so much
> >> > more convenient. Not surprisingly, in view of what we're doing to
> >> > them, there is a powerful incentive for us as humans to rationalise
> >> > our actions.
> >>
> >> Animal "exploitation" is a sneaky non-sequitur here. It represents only a
> >> tiny percentage of the animals harmed by human activity, and a group
> >> which
> >> probably fares comparatively well relative the larger group, those chewed
> >> up, displaced and poisoned by us.
>
> [..]
> >> DeGrazia in fact in classic ARA fashion is
> >> trying to rationalize his own actions, by segregating and targetting this
> >> group, this activity and ignoring all others.
> >
> > The attitude and consideration implied is all-encompassing.
>
> Have you read his book? Lke all ARAs he focuses almost completely on animal
> "exploitation" to the exclusion of 99% of the harm humans do to animals.
Have you not read how the figures stack up? All stems from intent (attitude).
> >> > Numerous pretexts and rationalisations aimed at legitimating animal
> >> > exploitation are certainly available; most of them seek to magnify the
> >> > gulf between "us" and "them". Intellectually, however, they prove on
> >> > examination to be surprisingly thin.
> >>
> >> He promotes the pretext that there is an actual gulf between the actions
> >> that "exploit" and the actions that simply *destroy*. This is a standard
> >> AR
> >> ploy to target their victims.
> >
> > No, he isn't. You are.
>
> Yes he does, he does the same thing that your little tweety in BC does. I
> consider all harm to animals to be of the same value, stripping away the
> phoney politicizing.
Yeah... you don't give a damn about people who are in the way, neither.
> > This is a standard anti-AR ploy to mislead.
>
> I am leading the misled back to reality.
"Deluding myself felt good" Dutch Jun 4 2005
> >> > http://www.hedweb.com/animals/degrazia.htm
> >> >
> >> >> >> > An example, according to Fox, is the special status given to
> >> >> >> > dogs and cats in North America but not to cows, pigs and
> >> >> >> > chickens.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> What a surprise, right off the hop vegan propaganda. What about
> >> >> >> rats,
> >> >> >> mice, frogs, toads, snakes, lizards, rabbits, or any other animal
> >> >> >> killed
> >> >> >
> >> >> > What about the many humans who die so that a minority can eat meat??
> >> >>
> >> >> More disinformation,
> >> >
> >> > That's all that can be expected from you and your ilk.
> >>
> >> You said it. Humans die in every industry.
> >
> > 500 million people suffering from starvation.
>
> Meat isn't causing that.
Yes it is.
> There is enough uncultivated land in the world to
> grow food for those people a hundred times over.
More forest? Or where? Why aren't they doing it?
> The problems are logistics, economics and politics.
The problem is misappropration of resources for meat.
> >> >> there is no human endeavour except war where humans are
> >> >> targetted and human lives destroyed willy-nilly as animals are
> >> >
> >> > There is. Read again what you have been running away from.
> >>
> >> Your imagination is running away from you.
> >
> > "Fuck off, I'm not interested in your childish games." ring a bell?
>
> Definitely, you should do that.
You first.
> >> > Land expropriated - taken from humans, by humans. For meat.
> >> > Food exported when people are starving, and dying. For meat.
> >>
> >> Your selective targetting is transparent.
> >
> > And again. Your evasion is shocking.
>
> And again, your disrespect, your dishonesty, your selective targetting is
> appalling.
If there's a hell, I swear there's a toasty place reserved there for you.
> >> >> and must be in agriculture.
> >> >
> >> > Needn't be. Shouldn't be.
> >>
> >> Need be and should be, in *this reality*.
> >
> > Absolutely needn't be and shouldn't be in *this reality*.
>
> Polly want a cracker?
Imbecile.
> >> >> >> intentionall and collaterally by nearly every form of human
> >> >> >> activity?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Destructive and wasteful practices should be rejected; wise choices
> >> >> > made.
> >> >>
> >> >> All forms of agriculture are destructive.
> >> >
> >> > False. Where's the destruction here?
> >> >
> >> > 'Cornell Ph.D. student works the land by hand at Bison Ridge
> >> > Farming in harmony with nature
> >> > http://www.theithacajournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article%3FAID%3D/20060804/NEWS01/608040306/1002
> >>
> >> The link would have been sufficient. This kind of agriculture necessarily
> >> comprises a miniscule part, just as Salatin-type animal farming does.
> >
> > Why "necessarily"? That is how it should be done everywhere.
>
> But it's not, at all, and never will, and could not.
False.
> There are too many
> people in the world with not enough money to pay for hand-raised vegetables.
If they had their land, then they could grow their vegetables.
> > OTOH, any animal 'farming' for meat necessarily involves killing.
>
> I'm OK with that.
You're ok with anything that doesn't affect ~you~.
> You cause animals to be killed, whinge about it but do it
> anyway.
What animals? Support your claim with evidence.
> I accept it, I embrace my role as a predator.
A sick stupid lard-arse with the IQ of a brain-damaged lizard.
> >> >> > 'Students learn valuable lesson about ethical issues
> >> >> >
> >> >> > What if the fast food sandwich you buy causes animal suffering?
> >> >>
> >> >> Or the banana?
> >> >
> >> > How so?
> >>
> >> Don't be obtuse.
> >
> > Me?
>
> LOL! Who else, Miss Innocentia?
You, obviously.
> > I'm not.
>
> Yes you are.
Liar.
> Are you going to answer the question?
>
> http://www.bananalink.org.uk/documents/Current_Environmental_Impact_by_Y_Astorga.doc
> From the beginning of the 1980s, massive effects on the human population in
> the banana areas, brought about by the high use of *****agrochemicals**** and
> consequent inhibition of cholinesterase, were reported (20). In 1979, the
> use of the nematicide DBCP (Di-Bromo-Chloro-Propane 1,2,3) was suspended
> owing to evidence of toxic sterility amongst the DBCP operatives. This
> substance was introduced into Costa Rica in 1965 for use in the banana
> plantations (21). Thousands of banana workers who suffer from sterility and
> reduced sperm-count as a result of exposure to DBCP have been seeking
> compensation through the United States courts (21, 22, 23).
>
>
> The proportion of poisoning incidents in banana cultivation is 59.5% and
> 63.9% in 1995 and 1996 respectively, out of the total number of incidents in
> Costa Rica agriculture. The level of intoxication in these zones is at least
> six times greater than in the rest of the country (63 per 1000), and the
> incidence of death from the same *****poisonings**** is greater (4.8 per 100.000)
> than for the entire country (2.6 per 100.000) (23, 24).
>
>
> I wonder how the diverse animal populations of Costa Rica are making out?
So not due to banana cultivation per se, but poisonous agri-chem's.
We are wholly opposed to the use of these chemicals. Try again.
> >> [..]
> >>
> >> >> > McGill received a notice from the humane society about free
> >> >> > educational
> >> >> > programs for secondary school students to promote respect for
> >> >> > animals,
> >> > environmental ethics and human rights
> >> >>
> >> >> Free = come-on.
> >> >
> >> > You'd be complaining if they were charging for it, you poor simpleton.
> >>
> >> Is that you Fuckwit?
> >
> > What?
>
> DUH! as Fuckwit says, he likes to insert "you poor simpleton" at the end of
> his statements to prop his arguments.
I hadn't noticed. Maybe you should take note.
> >> > Such education is most important, and required. Currently neglected.
> >>
> >> Ethics is an important topic, AR should be included, but it should not be
> >> taught by ARAs.
> >
> > You're a laugh a minute.
>
> Glad to hear it. AR should be taught as an aberration in moral theory.
People need to know what psychopaths are. Thanks for your assistance.
> [..]
>
> > Lots more evasion.
>
> Snipping reams of non-responsive crap is no more evasion than pasting it.
Get a hobby.
Dutch
I could not care less what views you hold provided they don't include
attacking me.
>>you do.
>
> False.
>
>> Calling her a loon is a mild form of criticism,
>
> Hardly.
The only people you don't disrespect are the miniscule minority known as
ARAs.
[..]
>> you think people who eat meat are monsters.
>
> I think that most people are woefully misinformed and addicted.
>
> I think that you are a monster, dutch
[..]
They ought to.
> According to Davis' corrected estimates, a vegetarian causes a
> fraction of a death *annually*. Even much better than a hunter.
That's rubbish, Davis's estimates don't say that at all.
>> >> > 'Taking Animals Seriously Mental Life and Moral Status
>> >> > by David DeGrazia
>>
>> >> Like all the victims of agriculture, especially those affected by slow
>> >> poisoning.
>> >
>> > Like all the victims of your meat habit. We are against poisons too.
>>
>> YOUR consumptive lifestyle. YOU constantly make compromises based on your
>> own balancing of your own interests and other-interests, so do I. You
>> decide
>> which compromises you make, I decide the ones I make. I make a point of
>> not
>> allowing looney-birds who believe in <sic> little green men to influence
>> my
>> decisions.
>
> MY consumptive lifestyle? Not in the slightest. Stop trying to shift
> blame.
Stop pointing fingers, it's unseemly, and it's not your job. Live your own
damn life.
[..]
>> >> DeGrazia in fact in classic ARA fashion is
>> >> trying to rationalize his own actions, by segregating and targetting
>> >> this
>> >> group, this activity and ignoring all others.
>> >
>> > The attitude and consideration implied is all-encompassing.
>>
>> Have you read his book? Lke all ARAs he focuses almost completely on
>> animal
>> "exploitation" to the exclusion of 99% of the harm humans do to animals.
>
> Have you not read how the figures stack up? All stems from intent
> (attitude).
Worry about your own attitude, I am quite happy with mine.
>> >> > Numerous pretexts and rationalisations aimed at legitimating animal
>> >> > exploitation are certainly available; most of them seek to magnify
>> >> > the
>> >> > gulf between "us" and "them". Intellectually, however, they prove on
>> >> > examination to be surprisingly thin.
>> >>
>> >> He promotes the pretext that there is an actual gulf between the
>> >> actions
>> >> that "exploit" and the actions that simply *destroy*. This is a
>> >> standard
>> >> AR
>> >> ploy to target their victims.
>> >
>> > No, he isn't. You are.
>>
>> Yes he does, he does the same thing that your little tweety in BC does. I
>> consider all harm to animals to be of the same value, stripping away the
>> phoney politicizing.
>
> Yeah... you don't give a damn about people who are in the way, neither.
Whatever that means..
>> > This is a standard anti-AR ploy to mislead.
>>
>> I am leading the misled back to reality.
>
> "Deluding myself felt good" Dutch Jun 4 2005
It's an accurate observation, it's why people do it. A recent vegan poster
called 'Blueshark' reported the same experience, the feeling made him feel
oddly uncomfortable. I understand why, he has a deeper sense of ethics than
the typical vegan who revels in her delusions of grandeur.
[..]
>> > 500 million people suffering from starvation.
>>
>> Meat isn't causing that.
>
> Yes it is.
>
>> There is enough uncultivated land in the world to
>> grow food for those people a hundred times over.
>
> More forest? Or where?
Just drive around North America, there is virtually untouched land
everywhere.
> Why aren't they doing it?
Who are "they"? Ask yourself why you aren't doing it. Nobody invests vasts
amounts of time and money for nothing.
>> The problems are logistics, economics and politics.
>
> The problem is misappropration of resources for meat.
Only in your myopic little slitty-eyed vision of the world. Meat is produced
because people have money to buy it and believe that there is nothing wrong
with it.
>> >> >> there is no human endeavour except war where humans are
>> >> >> targetted and human lives destroyed willy-nilly as animals are
>> >> >
>> >> > There is. Read again what you have been running away from.
>> >>
>> >> Your imagination is running away from you.
>> >
>> > "Fuck off, I'm not interested in your childish games." ring a bell?
>>
>> Definitely, you should do that.
>
> You first.
Promise?
>> >> > Land expropriated - taken from humans, by humans. For meat.
>> >> > Food exported when people are starving, and dying. For meat.
>> >>
>> >> Your selective targetting is transparent.
>> >
>> > And again. Your evasion is shocking.
>>
>> And again, your disrespect, your dishonesty, your selective targetting is
>> appalling.
>
> If there's a hell, I swear there's a toasty place reserved there for you.
There's explicit demonization for you.
[..]
>> I accept it, I embrace my role as a predator.
>
> A sick stupid lard-arse with the IQ of a brain-damaged lizard.
The eagle, the hawk, the lion, the orca, even the lizard, all are predators
without shame. I am the same
I am wholly opposed to ANY suffering of animals in meat production, so I
suppose you in furure you will stow all references to that.
[..]
Dutch
[..]
>> you think people who eat meat are monsters.
>
> I think that most people are woefully misinformed and addicted.
I think you are addicted to this false pose of righteousness.
> I think that you are a monster, dutch, and this is the root cause:
>
> 'Imagine - if you can - not having a conscience, none at all,
> no feelings of guilt or remorse no matter what you do, no
> limiting sense of concern for the well-being of strangers,
> friends, or even family members. Imagine no struggles with
> shame, not a single one in your whole life, no matter what
> kind of selfish, lazy, harmful, or immoral action you had taken.
> ...
> The high incidence of sociopathy in human society has a
> profound effect on the rest of us who must live on this
> planet, too, even those of us who have not been clinically
> traumatized. The individuals who constitute this 4 percent
> drain our relationships, our bank accounts, our
> accomplishments, our self-esteem, our very peace on earth.
> ...'
> http://www.cassiopaea.com/cassiopaea/psychopath.htm
>
>> You are a parrot.
>
> "A favored technique is to debilitate your identity
> [personally, I hate the term self-esteem] by levelling
> false accusations and/or questioning your honesty,
> fidelity, trustworthiness, your "true" motivations,
> your "real" character, your sanity and judgement."
> http://www.cassiopaea.com/cassiopaea/psychopath.htm
You just finished calling me a monster and a sociopath and you have the
audacity to paste quotes about personal attacks??
[..]
>> > "Everyone assigns values or rights based on species."
>> > "Discrimination on the basis of species is just part of
>> > rational thinking."
>> >
>> > You are referring to definition (3) 'Treatment or consideration
>> > based on class or category...
>>
>> No, it's 2. The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions;
>> discernment.
>
> So you're assigning values or rights based on "fine distinctions"?
I am saying that discrimination on the basis of species is not
"discrimination" as in the pjorative use of the word, it is "discrimination"
in the positive sense, that is perception using the ability to discern
rationally, as opposed to NOT using the ability to discern rationally.
> Must be pretty hefty "fine distinctions". What are they exactly?
In fact there are huge distinctions as well as fine ones. They are there for
anyone to see.
[..]
>> You are not discriminating enough to understand that species is a valid
>> reason to discriminate.
>
> There you go- 3. Treatment or consideration based on class or category.
It's not just an arbitrary category, the species of an animal embodies
everything about the capabilities of members of that species.
Consideration based on gender is not even improper, if it is rational and
correct consideration. I would never consider another male as a spouse to
have my children.
> What 'power of discrimination' of yours determines who to cherish or kill?
Discrimination is the ability to choose which animals we will consider to be
food and which will occupy other roles in our interface with life, companion
animals, protected wildlife, pests to be eliminated, etc..etc.. Inability to
discriminate rationally leads to mistakes in moral thinking like AR.
[..]
pearl
> >> >> >> >> > Speciesism' touted as topic for Grade 12 social justice course
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> By one AR loon,
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > "How we treat animals says a lot about how we treat one another."
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Non-sequitur.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Sure it does. You lack respect for both animals and people.
> >> >>
> >> >> That was a disrespectful thing to say. Your whole approach shows a
> >> >> profound
> >> >> disrespect for people.
> >> >
> >> > "By one AR loon" was a disrespectful thing to say. Your
> >> > whole approach shows a profound disrespect for people.
> >>
> >> I don't disrespect almost the entire human race,
> >
> > You show disrespect for all those who hold differing views.
>
> I could not care less what views you hold provided they don't include
> attacking me.
How about a vegetarian explanation?
... I answered your question, vegans are smarmy, navel-gazing, deluded,
sanctimonious twits, thats what EVERYBODY hates about them. ...
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian - Nov 21 2002, 7:30 pm by Dutch - 24
messages - 12 authors
Choices STILL confuse Jonny Nymshift
... Vegans are people with something missing in their lives which
causes them to seek out some "Great Solution". Veganism fills that ...
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian - Feb 4 2005, 6:34 pm by Dutch - 385
messages - 11 authors
leather gloves vs. synthetic gloves
... I don't try to attack vegans, I succeed, because you're easy
targets, a bunch of nasty, smug, self-righteous cretins with big
targets on your faces.
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian - Aug 29, 6:40 am by Dutch - 311
messages - 21 authors
Very respectful. Again:
3. Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather
than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination;
discrimination against foreigners.
http://www.answers.com/discrimination&r=67
3. To devise self-satisfying but incorrect reasons for (one's behavior):
http://www.answers.com/topic/rationalize
And,
'Attacking the Person (argumentum ad hominem)
Definition:
The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the
argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the
person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked.
Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to
gain from a favourable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be
attacked by association, or by the company he keeps.
There are three major forms of Attacking the Person:
(1) ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion,
the argument attacks the person who made the assertion.
(2) ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an
assertion the author points to the relationship between the
person making the assertion and the person's circumstances.
(3) ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the
person notes that a person does not practise what he preaches. '
> >>you do.
> >
> > False.
> >
> >> Calling her a loon is a mild form of criticism,
> >
> > Hardly.
>
> The only people you don't disrespect are the miniscule minority known as
> ARAs.
Stop being such a presumptuous twit.
> [..]
>>> you think people who eat meat are monsters.
>>
>> I think that most people are woefully misinformed and addicted.
>
>I think you are addicted to this false pose of righteousness.
That's your schtick.
"It always gave me a kind of puffed-up feeling when I thought
I had made someone feel a little uncomfortable, a little guilty
about their diet. " Dutch 21/8/2006
'Bullies project their inadequacies, shortcomings, behaviours
etc on to other people to avoid facing up to their inadequacy
and doing something about it (learning about oneself can be
painful), and to distract and divert attention away from
themselves and their inadequacies. Projection is achieved
through blame, criticism and allegation; once you realise this,
every criticism, allegation etc that the bully makes about their
target is actually an admission or revelation about themselves.'
http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htm
>> I think that you are a monster, dutch, and this is the root cause:
>>
>> 'Imagine - if you can - not having a conscience, none at all,
>> no feelings of guilt or remorse no matter what you do, no
>> limiting sense of concern for the well-being of strangers,
>> friends, or even family members. Imagine no struggles with
>> shame, not a single one in your whole life, no matter what
>> kind of selfish, lazy, harmful, or immoral action you had taken.
>> ...
>> The high incidence of sociopathy in human society has a
>> profound effect on the rest of us who must live on this
>> planet, too, even those of us who have not been clinically
>> traumatized. The individuals who constitute this 4 percent
>> drain our relationships, our bank accounts, our
>> accomplishments, our self-esteem, our very peace on earth.
>> ...'
>> http://www.cassiopaea.com/cassiopaea/psychopath.htm
>>
>> >You are a parrot.
>>
>> "A favored technique is to debilitate your identity
>> [personally, I hate the term self-esteem] by levelling
>> false accusations and/or questioning your honesty,
>> fidelity, trustworthiness, your "true" motivations,
>> your "real" character, your sanity and judgement."
>> http://www.cassiopaea.com/cassiopaea/psychopath.htm
>
> You just finished calling me a monster and a sociopath and you have the
> audacity to paste quotes about personal attacks??
You've just spent 5+ years attacking people in the harshest
ways imaginable and you have the audacity to complain??
> [..]
>
>>> > "Everyone assigns values or rights based on species."
>>> > "Discrimination on the basis of species is just part of
>>> > rational thinking."
>>> >
>>> > You are referring to definition (3) 'Treatment or consideration
>>> > based on class or category...
>>>
>>> No, it's 2. The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions;
>>> discernment.
>>
>> So you're assigning values or rights based on "fine distinctions"?
>>
>> I am saying that discrimination on the basis of species is not
>> "discrimination" as in the pjorative use of the word, it is "discrimination"
>> in the positive sense, that is perception using the ability to discern
>> rationally, as opposed to NOT using the ability to discern rationally.
Entertaining back-flips on the spot, ditch.
>> Must be pretty hefty "fine distinctions". What are they exactly?
>
> In fact there are huge distinctions as well as fine ones. They are there for
> anyone to see.
Dietary adaptations more than anything else define characteristics.
'Neurophysiologists have so far discovered no fundamental difference
con·tin·u·um
n. pl. con·tin·u·a (-tny-) or con·tin·u·ums
..
A continuous extent, succession, or whole, no part of which can be
distinguished from neighboring parts except by arbitrary division.
..
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=continuum
ar·bi·trar·y
adj.
1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity,
reason, or principle:
2. Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference:
..
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=arbitrary
[..]
>>> You are not discriminating enough to understand that species is a valid
>>> reason to discriminate.
>>
>> There you go- 3. Treatment or consideration based on class or category.
>
> It's not just an arbitrary category, the species of an animal embodies
> everything about the capabilities of members of that species.
But we are talking about our different treatment of different species.
>> Consideration based on gender is not even improper, if it is rational and
>> correct consideration. I would never consider another male as a spouse to
>> have my children.
Of course not, but you wouldn't kill a man because of that inability.
>> What 'power of discrimination' of yours determines who to cherish or kill?
>
> Discrimination is the ability to choose which animals we will consider to be
> food and which will occupy other roles in our interface with life, companion
> animals, protected wildlife, pests to be eliminated, etc..etc.. Inability to
> discriminate rationally leads to mistakes in moral thinking like AR.
But upon what are you basing this 'discrimination'?? *Only* your
own predetermined categorization (self-satisfying partiality) as you
lay it out above, not from any truly rational analysis or discernment.
discrimination
3. Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather
than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination;
discrimination against foreigners.
http://www.answers.com/discrimination&r=67
rationalize
3. To devise self-satisfying but incorrect reasons for (one's behavior):
http://www.answers.com/topic/rationalize
Anthropocentrism
By Penelope Smith
Albert Einstein is quoted as saying, "A human being is part of the whole,
called by us 'Universe', a part limited in time and space. He experiences
himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest,
a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind
of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection
for a few persons nearest to us. 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."
Many humans have an attitude that restricts their ability to understand
or empathize with non-human animals and other life forms and has
some serious consequences for all life on this planet. It is called
anthropocentrism, or viewing man as the center or final aim of the
universe. I refer to this in my book, Animal Talk, as the "human
superiority complex" considering humans as superior to or the pinnacle
of all forms of life. From the anthropocentric view, non-human beings
that are most like human are usually considered more intelligent, for
example, chimpanzees who learn to use sign language or dolphins who
signal word or thought comprehension through touching electronic
devices in their tanks. Animals or other life forms that don't express
themselves in human ways by language or in terms easily
comprehensible by common human standards are often considered
less developed, inferior, more primitive or mechanistic, and usually of
less importance than humans.
This viewpoint has been used to justify using animals as objects for
human ends. Since humans are the superior creatures, "dumb,
unfeeling" non-humans can be disregarded, mistreated, subjugated,
killed or whole species eliminated without much concern for their
existence in itself, only their usefulness or lack of it to humankind.
Many humans, as they see other animals are more like them in
patterns of behavior and expression of intelligence, begin to respect
them more and treat them with more regard for their rights. However,
this does not transcend the trap of anthropocentrism. To increase
harmony of life on Earth, all beings need to be regarded as worthy
of respect, whether seen as different or similar to the human species.
The anthropocentric view toward animals echoes the way in which
many humans have discriminated against other humans because they
were of different cultures, races, religions, or sexes. Regarding others
as less intelligent or substandard has commonly been used to justify
domination, cruelty or elimination of them.
Too often people label what they don't understand as inferior, dumb,
or to be avoided, without attempting to understand a different way of
being. More enlightened humans look upon meeting people, things or
animals that are different than themselves as opportunities to expand
their understanding, share new realities, and become more whole.
Anthropocentrism does not allow humans to bridge the artificial gap
it creates. It leaves humans fragmented or alienated from much of their
environment. We see the disastrous consequences of this in human
disruption of the earth's ecology, causing the disintegration of health
and harmony for all including human life.
Anthropocentrism causes humans to misjudge animal intelligence
and awareness. Humans can get too fixed in the view or model that
they indeed are the center of and separate from the universe and
therefore the most intelligent and aware. They then see or seek only
to prove that point.
Anthropocentric humans also tend to judge non-human animals
according to human cultural standards, as human groups often do
with other human cultures. Instead of viewing and evaluating animals
according to the their own cultural experience, heredity, training and
environment, they impose human environments, tests, standards and
methods and evaluate animals, according to the ability to exhibit
human-like behavior.
This is similar to the bias that was found in college preparatory and
intelligence tests, which caused anyone unfamiliar with a white middle
class upbringing to score lower and therefore to be considered less
intelligent. Individuals with different ethnic backgrounds could not
comprehend the tests' frames of reference and therefore were not
able to express their intelligence through them.
When we respectfully regard animals as intelligent, sensitive fellow
beings with whom we walk upon the Earth, our whole perspective
of life changes. In cooperation instead of alienation, we can create a
new balance and joy in living for all us here. Lets each of us do our part.
http://animalliberty.com/animalliberty/articles/penelope/pene-2.html
"Remote from universal nature, and living by complicated artifice, man
in civilization surveys the creature through the glass of his knowledge
and sees thereby a feather magnified, and the whole image in distortion.
We patronize them for their incompleteness, for their tragic fate of having
taken a form so far below ourselves. And therein we err, and greatly err,
for the animal shall not be measured by man. In a world far older than
ours, finished and complete, gifted with extensions of the senses we have
lost or never attained, they live by voices we shall never hear. They are
not underlings. They are not bretheren. They are other nations, caught in
the net of life and time, fellow prisoners of the splendour and travail of
the earth." - from The Outermost House by Henry Beston -1928.
> >> >> > "Humans - who enslave, castrate, experiment on, and fillet other
> >> >> > animals - have had an understandable penchant for pretending
> >> >> > animals do not feel pain. A sharp distinction between humans
> >> >> > and "animals" is essential if we are to bend them to our will, make
> >> >> > them work for us, wear them, eat them - without any disquieting
> >> >> > tinges of guilt or regret. It is unseemly of us, who often behave
> >> >> > so unfeelingly toward other animals, to contend that only humans
> >> >> > can suffer. The behavior of other animals renders such pretensions
> >> >> > specious. They are just too much like us." -- Dr. Carl Sagan
> >> >> > & Dr. Ann Druyan, Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors, 1992
> >> >>
> >> >> I have never supported the notion that non-human animals cannot
> >> >> suffer.
> >> >
> >> > So you've always supported the notion that non-human animals
> >> > can suffer.. giving real meaning to this past utterance of yours:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > "I buy what is readily available, and I assume a lot of it comes
> >> > from factory farms. I don't support the concept "philosophically",
> >> > I support it in real terms.
> >> > - Dutch Mon, 15 Dec 2003 http://tinyurl.com/2cdgk
> >>
> >> So does almost every vegetarian in large urban centres buy "factory
> >> farmed"
> >> food.
> >
> > You KNOW that an animal suffered and died. Vegetarians don't.
>
> They ought to.
They can't know that...
> > According to Davis' corrected estimates, a vegetarian causes a
> > fraction of a death *annually*. Even much better than a hunter.
>
> That's rubbish, Davis's estimates don't say that at all.
'Each year in the United States, approximately ten billion land
animals are raised and slaughtered for human consumption.
...
Davis suggests the number of wild animals killed per hectare in
crop production (15) is twice that killed in ruminant-pasture (7.5).
If this is true, then as long as crop production uses less than half
as many hectares as ruminant-pasture to deliver the same amount
of food, a vegetarian will kill fewer animals than an omnivore. In
fact, crop production uses less than half as many hectares as
grass-fed dairy and one-tenth as many hectares as grass-fed beef to
deliver the same amount of protein. In one year, 1,000 kilograms of
protein can be produced on as few as 1.0 hectares planted with soy
and corn, 2.6 hectares used as pasture for grass-fed dairy cows, or
10 hectares used as pasture for grass-fed beef cattle (Vandehaar,
1998;UNFAO, 1996). As such, to obtain the 20 kilograms of protein
per year recommended for adults, a vegan-vegetarian would kill 0.3
wild animals annually, a lacto-vegetarian would kill 0.39 wild animals,
while a Davis-style omnivore would kill 1.5 wild animals. Thus,
correcting Davis's math, we see that a vegan-vegetarian population
would kill the fewest number of wild animals, followed closely by a
lacto-vegetarian population.
...'
http://web.archive.org/web/20050217071128/www.veganoutreach.org/enewsletter/matheny.html
".. a vegan-vegetarian would kill 0.3 wild animals annually ..".
300,000,000 Americans x 0.3 = 90,000,000 wild animals may die
with destructive conventional farming practices. Potentially - ~0.
300,000,000 Americans x 1.5 = 450,000,000 wild animals may die
for 'omnivores', and add 10,000,000,000 (ten billion) slaughtered,
and also the wildlife killed as 'predators', 'competitors' and 'pests'.
> >> >> > 'Taking Animals Seriously Mental Life and Moral Status
> >> >> > by David DeGrazia
> >>
> >> >> Like all the victims of agriculture, especially those affected by slow
> >> >> poisoning.
> >> >
> >> > Like all the victims of your meat habit. We are against poisons too.
> >>
> >> YOUR consumptive lifestyle. YOU constantly make compromises based on your
> >> own balancing of your own interests and other-interests, so do I. You
> >> decide
> >> which compromises you make, I decide the ones I make. I make a point of
> >> not
> >> allowing looney-birds who believe in <sic> little green men to influence
> >> my
> >> decisions.
> >
> > MY consumptive lifestyle? Not in the slightest. Stop trying to shift
> > blame.
>
> Stop pointing fingers, it's unseemly, and it's not your job. Live your own
> damn life.
Hypocrite.
> [..]
> >> >> DeGrazia in fact in classic ARA fashion is
> >> >> trying to rationalize his own actions, by segregating and targetting
> >> >> this
> >> >> group, this activity and ignoring all others.
> >> >
> >> > The attitude and consideration implied is all-encompassing.
> >>
> >> Have you read his book? Lke all ARAs he focuses almost completely on
> >> animal
> >> "exploitation" to the exclusion of 99% of the harm humans do to animals.
> >
> > Have you not read how the figures stack up? All stems from intent
> > (attitude).
>
> Worry about your own attitude, I am quite happy with mine.
If you were happy you wouldn't be here trying to tear people down.
> >> >> > Numerous pretexts and rationalisations aimed at legitimating animal
> >> >> > exploitation are certainly available; most of them seek to magnify
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > gulf between "us" and "them". Intellectually, however, they prove on
> >> >> > examination to be surprisingly thin.
> >> >>
> >> >> He promotes the pretext that there is an actual gulf between the
> >> >> actions
> >> >> that "exploit" and the actions that simply *destroy*. This is a
> >> >> standard
> >> >> AR
> >> >> ploy to target their victims.
> >> >
> >> > No, he isn't. You are.
> >>
> >> Yes he does, he does the same thing that your little tweety in BC does. I
> >> consider all harm to animals to be of the same value, stripping away the
> >> phoney politicizing.
> >
> > Yeah... you don't give a damn about people who are in the way, neither.
>
> Whatever that means..
You know perfectly well what it means.
> >> > This is a standard anti-AR ploy to mislead.
> >>
> >> I am leading the misled back to reality.
> >
> > "Deluding myself felt good" Dutch Jun 4 2005
>
> It's an accurate observation, it's why people do it. A recent vegan poster
> called 'Blueshark' reported the same experience, the feeling made him feel
> oddly uncomfortable. I understand why, he has a deeper sense of ethics than
> the typical vegan who revels in her delusions of grandeur.
You'll find no safety in numbers, dutch. You stand alone fully exposed.
People with a healthy sense of ethics do not knowingly delude/deceive
themselves. And if lying to yourself feels good, so will lying to others.
> [..]
>
> >> > 500 million people suffering from starvation.
> >>
> >> Meat isn't causing that.
> >
> > Yes it is.
> >
> >> There is enough uncultivated land in the world to
> >> grow food for those people a hundred times over.
> >
> > More forest? Or where?
>
> Just drive around North America, there is virtually untouched land
> everywhere.
People are suffering from starvation in the US? From poverty yes,
but you do not have a dirth of food there. Are you proposing that
what little of the US that isn't being grazed, etc. be used to feed the
world's hungry? Somehow I don't think that many will agree to it.
'The planet's mantle of trees has already declined by a third relative
to preagricultural times, and much of that remaining is damaged or
deteriorating. Historically, the demand for grazing land is a major
cause of worldwide clearing of forest of most types. Currently,
livestock production, fuel wood gathering, lumbering, and clearing
for crops are denuding a conservatively estimated 40 million acres
of the Earth's forestland each year.
Worldwide, grasses of more than 10,000 species once covered
more than 1/4 of the land. They supported the world's greatest
masses of large animals. Of the major ecotypes, grassland produces
the deepest, most fertile topsoil and has the most resistance to soil
erosion. Livestock production has damaged the Earth's grassland
more than has any other land use, and has transformed roughly half
of it to desertlike condition. Lester Brown of the Worldwatch
Institute reports that "Widespread grassland degradation [from
livestock grazing] can now be seen on every continent."
In 1977, experts attending the United Nations Conference on
Desertification in Nairobi agreed that the greatest cause of world
desertification in modern times has been livestock grazing (as did
the US Council on Environmental Quality in 1981). They reported
that grazing was desertifying most arid, semi-arid, and sub-humid
land where farming was not occurring. Seven years later UNEP
compiled, from questionnaires sent to 91 countries, the most
complete data on world desertification ever assembled. According
to the resultant 1984 assessment, more than 11 billion acres, or 35%
of the Earth's land surface, are threatened by new or continued
desertification. UNEP estimated that more than 3/4 of this land --
the vast majority of it grazed rangeland -- had already been at least
moderately degraded. About 15 million acres (the size of West
Virginia) of semi-arid or subhumid land annually are reduced to
unreclaimable desert-like condition, while another 52 million and
acres annually are reduced to minimal cover or to sweeping sands
-- more due to livestock grazing than any other influence. The
world's "deserts" are expected to expand about 20% in the next
20 years.
....'
GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE
http://www.wasteofthewest.com/Chapter6.html
> > Why aren't they doing it?
>
> Who are "they"? Ask yourself why you aren't doing it. Nobody invests vasts
> amounts of time and money for nothing.
'THEY' are the 500,000,000 people suffering from starvation.
> >> The problems are logistics, economics and politics.
> >
> > The problem is misappropration of resources for meat.
>
> Only in your myopic little slitty-eyed vision of the world. Meat is produced
> because people have money to buy it and believe that there is nothing wrong
> with it.
In *this reality*, ditch. At the expense of 500 MILLION other people!
And you see nothing wrong with that?
> >> >> >> there is no human endeavour except war where humans are
> >> >> >> targetted and human lives destroyed willy-nilly as animals are
> >> >> >
> >> >> > There is. Read again what you have been running away from.
> >> >>
> >> >> Your imagination is running away from you.
> >> >
> >> > "Fuck off, I'm not interested in your childish games." ring a bell?
> >>
> >> Definitely, you should do that.
> >
> > You first.
>
> Promise?
No.
> >> >> > Land expropriated - taken from humans, by humans. For meat.
> >> >> > Food exported when people are starving, and dying. For meat.
> >> >>
> >> >> Your selective targetting is transparent.
> >> >
> >> > And again. Your evasion is shocking.
> >>
> >> And again, your disrespect, your dishonesty, your selective targetting is
> >> appalling.
> >
> > If there's a hell, I swear there's a toasty place reserved there for you.
>
> There's explicit demonization for you.
Very well deserved.
> [..]
>
> >> I accept it, I embrace my role as a predator.
> >
> > A sick stupid lard-arse with the IQ of a brain-damaged lizard.
>
> The eagle, the hawk, the lion, the orca, even the lizard, all are predators
> without shame. I am the same
You have claws and fangs? Suits you. Hyena maybe.
No you aren't. If you were you would stop eating slaughtered animals.
And quit attacking ARAs and veg*ns.
> so I suppose you in furure you will stow all references to that.
?
> [..]
>
>
Glorfindel
<snip>
>>>>"Everyone assigns values or rights based on species."
>>>>"Discrimination on the basis of species is just part of
>>>>rational thinking."
<snip>
> I am saying that discrimination on the basis of species is not
> "discrimination" as in the pjorative use of the word, it is "discrimination"
> in the positive sense, that is perception using the ability to discern
> rationally, as opposed to NOT using the ability to discern rationally.
You are equivocating on the meaning of discrimination much as
Harrison does on the term "life". You claim rights belong
only to humans, but you have never been able to give any
reason for this opinion -- it is pure speciesism in your
case, and pure, irrational circular reasoning. It is, in
fact, pure prejudice. Humans have rights because they are
human, you claim, and other beings don't. However, you
cannot even define what "human" means in a moral sense, or
what characteristics make a being "human" and why they are
morally significant. I've pointed out that there is *NO*
morally significant characteristic which all humans
possess and no animal does, so your "distinction" makes
no ethical sense.
<snip>
>>Must be pretty hefty "fine distinctions". What are they exactly?
> In fact there are huge distinctions as well as fine ones. They are there for
> anyone to see.
What are they? Why are they significant? You can't answer this.
<snip>
dh
LOL!!! So there is NOTHING to consider.
>> >You argue that we should consider that animals "have a life".
>>
>> Yes, because they don't just "have a death" but they also
>> DO have a life.
>
>So consider that many more lives of wild animals instead.
Why would anyone do that?
>> >What you are admitting is that your 'argument'
>> >is simply a thinly-veiled and poor excuse for raising animals to
>> >serve your 'purposes'; not due to any genuine consideration.
>>
>> That's just another lie, and another blatant and completely
>> useless one. Why do you lie, have you any idea? What if you
>> stuck with the truth and DID consider the animals' lives? What
>> horror are you afraid of that prompts you to lie, DO YOU have
>> any idea? Or are you afraid to even think that far into it?
>
>It is no lie.
I do consider the lives of the animals because I'm not afraid
to. You "aras" do NOT consider the lives of the animals because
you are afraid to...plus you're entirely too self absorbed to give
anything else any consideration other than your own interests.
That's why you allow yourself to get all worked up about the
deaths of livestock, while at the same time can't be made to
consider the wildlife deaths you contribute to. It's all the same
thing, and all due to your incredible selfishness.
dh
><dh@.> wrote in message news:oea2i25hs1o8jeuce...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 21:02:48 +0100, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
>>
>> ><dh@.> wrote in message news:nf10i2d97b8aore37...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 13:40:12 +0100, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >But you are not a legitimate animal welfare supporter,
>> >>
>> >> He sure isn't. He--like you!
>> >
>> >UNLIKE me.
>> >
>> >> --refuses to consider the animals' lives:
>> >>
>> >> "I decline to "consider" the lives of animals" - Dutch
>> >
>> >Selective quoting which entirely changes the meaning.
>> >
>> >"The only confusion is the one you are attempting to create, such as when I
>> >decline to "consider" the lives of animals to be moral leverage against
>> >vegans, you accuse me of being "in_considerate" towards those animals.
>>
>> That's BECAUSE declining to consider the lives of animals, is BEING
>> inconsiderate towards those animals. DUH!!!
>
>By 'lives' you are referring to existence, not animals' quality of life, or lives.
You're incapable of considering either, much less both.
>> >It's
>> >a transparent equivocation on the word "consider". The equivocation on the
>> >word "life" is also peripheral to that equivocation, between life itself,
>> >and the conditions of that life. "
>>
>>http://groups.google.ie/group/alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/browse_frm/thread/c85604c643e5e878/7cf079ae606b16e6?lnk=st&q=&rnum=1&hl
>=
>> >en#7cf079ae606b16e6
>> >
>> >> You and Dutch are the same.
>> >
>> >No,
>>
>> Yes you are. You both feel exactly the same way about
>> consideration of the lives of livestock. EXACTLY!
>
>BS!
Try to explain how you think you and Dutch have different
beliefs regarding the lives of livestock.
>> >you and dutch are the same. You both turn a blind-eye to this:
>> >
>> >'Each year in the United States, approximately ten billion land
>> >animals are raised and slaughtered for human consumption.
>>
>> That's certainly as blatant a lie as I've ever seen told in
>> these ngs. Congratulations, you're right up there with Goo.
>> I guess you people must take some sort of pride in that.
>
>(Another troll implodes. Jolly good show and all that.)
>
>Why don't you post some evidence to disprove it, goof.
Every time I point out that livestock animals' lives should be
given as much consideration as their deaths I prove you're a
liar, you dishonest scum.
>That's certainly as blatant an evasion as I've ever seen in
>these ngs. Congratulations, you're right down there with
>ditch. I guess you people have no sense of shame at all.
>
>--restore--
>The wild mouse lives free of confinement and is able to practice
>natural habits like roaming, breeding,and foraging.
There's no reason to STOP raising cattle just so more mice
MIGHT be able to live in the area instead, as far as anyone
knows.
That's all bullshit. The elites use their land to make money,
and they're not going to just give away even profits--much
less their land!--to poor people. IF! they were going to help
the poor, and I imagine some of then do, they would make
the most money they could with the land and give some of
the money to the poor, NOT the land.
pearl
<dh@.> wrote in message news:tjn8i29ranek6oe51...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 21:19:10 +0100, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
>
> ><dh@.> wrote in message news:oea2i25hs1o8jeuce...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 21:02:48 +0100, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
> >>
> >> ><dh@.> wrote in message news:nf10i2d97b8aore37...@4ax.com...
> >> >> On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 13:40:12 +0100, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >But you are not a legitimate animal welfare supporter,
> >> >>
> >> >> He sure isn't. He--like you!
> >> >
> >> >UNLIKE me.
> >> >
> >> >> --refuses to consider the animals' lives:
> >> >>
> >> >> "I decline to "consider" the lives of animals" - Dutch
> >> >
> >> >Selective quoting which entirely changes the meaning.
> >> >
> >> >"The only confusion is the one you are attempting to create, such as when I
> >> >decline to "consider" the lives of animals to be moral leverage against
> >> >vegans, you accuse me of being "in_considerate" towards those animals.
> >>
> >> That's BECAUSE declining to consider the lives of animals, is BEING
> >> inconsiderate towards those animals. DUH!!!
> >
> >By 'lives' you are referring to existence, not animals' quality of life, or lives.
>
> You're incapable of considering either, much less both.
Non sequitur, ad hominem, red herring, evasion, and clearly false.
> >> >It's
> >> >a transparent equivocation on the word "consider". The equivocation on the
> >> >word "life" is also peripheral to that equivocation, between life itself,
> >> >and the conditions of that life. "
> >>
>
>>http://groups.google.ie/group/alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/browse_frm/thread/c85604c643e5e878/7cf079ae606b16e6?lnk=st&q=&rnum=1&h
l
> >=
> >> >en#7cf079ae606b16e6
> >> >
> >> >> You and Dutch are the same.
> >> >
> >> >No,
> >>
> >> Yes you are. You both feel exactly the same way about
> >> consideration of the lives of livestock. EXACTLY!
> >
> >BS!
>
> Try to explain how you think you and Dutch have different
> beliefs regarding the lives of livestock.
I wish to see wild animals thriving; dutch wants to eat tortured livestock.
> >> >you and dutch are the same. You both turn a blind-eye to this:
> >> >
> >> >'Each year in the United States, approximately ten billion land
> >> >animals are raised and slaughtered for human consumption.
> >>
> >> That's certainly as blatant a lie as I've ever seen told in
> >> these ngs. Congratulations, you're right up there with Goo.
> >> I guess you people must take some sort of pride in that.
> >
> >(Another troll implodes. Jolly good show and all that.)
> >
> >Why don't you post some evidence to disprove it, goof.
>
> Every time I point out that livestock animals' lives should be
> given as much consideration as their deaths I prove you're a
> liar, you dishonest scum.
By 'lives', you mean existence, not quality of life, and only to
cater to your "meat and gravy" habit. I consider wild animals'
lives in every sense - their importance in healthy ecosystems,
and quality of life, as only pristine natural habitat can provide.
> >That's certainly as blatant an evasion as I've ever seen in
> >these ngs. Congratulations, you're right down there with
> >ditch. I guess you people have no sense of shame at all.
> >
> >--restore--
> >The wild mouse lives free of confinement and is able to practice
> >natural habits like roaming, breeding,and foraging.
>
> There's no reason to STOP raising cattle just so more mice
> MIGHT be able to live in the area instead, as far as anyone
> knows.
'Lewis and Clark's and other historic journals attest that buffalo, elk,
deer, bighorns, pronghorn, mountain goats, moose, horses, grizzly
and black bears, wolves, foxes, cougars, bobcats, beaver, muskrats,
river otters, fish, porcupines, wild turkeys and other "game" birds,
waterfowl, snakes, prairie dogs and other rodents, most insects, and
the vast majority of wild animals were all many times more abundant
then than now. So too were native plants; the journals describe a
great abundance and diversity of grasses and herbaceous vegetation,
willows and deciduous trees, cattails, rushes, sedges, wild grapes,
chokecherries, currants, wild cherries and plums, gooseberries,
"red" and "yellow" berries, service berries, flax, dock, wild garlic and
onions, sunflowers, wild roses, tansy, honeysuckle, mints, and more,
a large number being edible. Most of these plants have been depleted
through the many effects of livestock grazing for 100 years and are
today comparatively scarce.
..
http://www.wasteofthewest.com/Chapter3.html
It is that or continued desertification, global warming and extinction.
> >In contrast,
> >the grass-fed cow, while able to roam some distance in a fenced
> >pasture, may suffer third-degree burns (branding), have holes
> >punched in his ears (tagging), be castrated, have his horns
> >scooped out of his head (dehorning), and be kept from breeding
> >naturally. Once reaching market weight, he can be transported up
> >to several hundred miles without food, water, or protection from
> >extreme heat or cold; then he is killed in a conventional
> >slaughterhouse. The conditions of slaughter-houses have been
> >described in detail elsewhere (Eisnitz, 1997).
> >....'
> >http://www.veganoutreach.org/spam/matheny.html
> >--end restore--
Not a word. Proof that dh@ has no true consideration for animals.
Apparently, you don't understand the meaning of the word
'expropriation'.
expropriation
noun
The act of taking quick and forcible possession of:
confiscation, seizure.
..
This mainly occurs in countries where property laws are
not concrete and well defined. Expropriation also occurs
when there are legal implications.
..
Expropriation is the act of removing from control of the
owner an item of property. The term is used to both refer
to acts by a government or by any group of people.
..
http://www.answers.com/expropriation&r=67
dh
>
><dh@.> wrote in message news:tjn8i29ranek6oe51...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 21:19:10 +0100, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
>>
>> ><dh@.> wrote in message news:oea2i25hs1o8jeuce...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 21:02:48 +0100, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> ><dh@.> wrote in message news:nf10i2d97b8aore37...@4ax.com...
>> >> >> On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 13:40:12 +0100, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >But you are not a legitimate animal welfare supporter,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> He sure isn't. He--like you!
>> >> >
>> >> >UNLIKE me.
>> >> >
>> >> >> --refuses to consider the animals' lives:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "I decline to "consider" the lives of animals" - Dutch
>> >> >
>> >> >Selective quoting which entirely changes the meaning.
>> >> >
>> >> >"The only confusion is the one you are attempting to create, such as when I
>> >> >decline to "consider" the lives of animals to be moral leverage against
>> >> >vegans, you accuse me of being "in_considerate" towards those animals.
>> >>
>> >> That's BECAUSE declining to consider the lives of animals, is BEING
>> >> inconsiderate towards those animals. DUH!!!
>> >
>> >By 'lives' you are referring to existence, not animals' quality of life, or lives.
>>
>> You're incapable of considering either, much less both.
>
>Non sequitur, ad hominem, red herring, evasion, and clearly false.
Then explain how you think people can be considerate towards animals,
while refusing to consider the lives of those same animals.
Quality of life is part of it...not to you, but it is to me.
About what?
Are you saying you don't think the land would be
expropriated for any reason other than to raise livestock?
Do you really think it would not be for any other reason?
Rupert
Their contribution is much less.
> As I pointed out before, they don't avoid contributing to
> killing--they avoid contributing to LIFE.
>
Don't see that they avoid doing that, either. Can you show that more
animals will exist if animal agriculture is practised?
dh
It is very little less if any at all, and what little less it may be is
probably of even less significance.
>> As I pointed out before, they don't avoid contributing to
>> killing--they avoid contributing to LIFE.
>>
>
>Don't see that they avoid doing that, either. Can you show that more
>animals will exist if animal agriculture is practised?
I can certainly show that more livestock are. Now we're at the
point where you need to explain which type of wildlife should life
be promoted for instead of which type of livestock, and why. Go:
(lol...I knew I had you on that one, because none of you can
ever explain it....it's like "which rights for which animals?"...you
people just can't handle it :-)
Rupert
I don't agree. Argue the point.
> >> As I pointed out before, they don't avoid contributing to
> >> killing--they avoid contributing to LIFE.
> >>
> >
> >Don't see that they avoid doing that, either. Can you show that more
> >animals will exist if animal agriculture is practised?
>
> I can certainly show that more livestock are. Now we're at the
> point where you need to explain which type of wildlife should life
> be promoted for instead of which type of livestock, and why. Go:
>
No, you're the one who has to explain that since you're the one who's
attaching so much moral significance to bringing animals into
existence.
dh
It's pretty obvious that you contribute to almost all the same
deaths that everyone else does except maybe less from your
food. We know that omnivores contribute to a lot more lives,
but don't know that vegans contribute to that many if any fewer
deaths.
>> >> As I pointed out before, they don't avoid contributing to
>> >> killing--they avoid contributing to LIFE.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Don't see that they avoid doing that, either. Can you show that more
>> >animals will exist if animal agriculture is practised?
>>
>> I can certainly show that more livestock are. Now we're at the
>> point where you need to explain which type of wildlife should life
>> be promoted for instead of which type of livestock, and why. Go:
>>
>
>No,
Nya nya...told ya' so...
>you're the one who has to explain that
Okay: By far most of the time there is no reason to promote
life for wildlife instead of livestock, so consideration of the
potential lives of future wildlife should be given less consideration
than those of potential future livestock, IF they should be given
any at all.
>since you're the one who's
>attaching so much moral significance to bringing animals into
>existence.
>
>> (lol...I knew I had you on that one,
And thank you for again proving me right ━)
Rudy Canoza
> Speciesism' touted as topic for Grade 12 social justice course
warriors" need to be marginalized and put in fear. There should be no
"safe space" for SJWs.
> Janet Steffenhagen, CanWest News Service
> Published: Monday, September 25, 2006
>
> VANCOUVER -- Arguing that "speciesism" is a prejudice
> akin to racism and sexism,
claim whatever.
Rudy Canoza
>
>> Speciesism' touted as topic for Grade 12 social justice course
>> Published: Monday, September 25, 2006
>>
>> VANCOUVER -- Arguing that "speciesism" is a prejudice
>> province to include the topic in the curriculum for a new
>> Grade 12 course on social justice.
>>
>> "If we are going to discuss social justice concepts such as
>> oppression and exploitation, animals should be included,"
>> Lesley Fox of the Vancouver Humane Society said yesterday.
> . . .
>
>> "It isn't that humans are better than animals, or animals are
>> better than humans," she said in an interview. "When we talk
>> about oppression, we need to look at it as a whole and how
>> it is interlinked.
>
> I wonder if she wants people to keep in mind that animals
> killed for food would not have any life at all if they weren't
> raised for that purpose
Rudy Canoza
>> production of wood, paper, crops, electricity etc, would have
>> longer lives if they weren't killed in those processes. I doubt
>> very much she would want to examine that end of things,
>> don't you? She probably doesn't want to examine "speciesism"
>> to the point that people see how "aras" could be considered
>> LESS ethical than everyone else.
>
> Hopefully, she'll encourage the students to consider a number of
> weak.
life" to "future farm animals" is complete bullshit.
However, the ethical failures of "aras" are undeniable. Their refusal
to do anything to lessen animal suffering and death other than by
refusing to eat meat is disgusting and wrong.
Rudy Canoza
> On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 13:40:12 +0100, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
>
>> But you are not a legitimate animal welfare supporter,
>
Nothing to consider. It is morally meaningless if "future farm animals"
come into existence or not.
Rudy Canoza
>
>> argument that ARAs are less ethical than other people is incredibly
>> weak.
>
> else does except for those of animals who would have no
> life at all if they weren't raised for food. They don't avoid
> contributing to killing--they avoid contributing to LIFE.