Help End the Cruel Harp Seal Hunt
in [Vegetarian]
|
Prev: SpayVac� Managing wildlife without slaughter?
Next: Most early humans ate primarily plant foods...
From: Chom Noamsky on 14 Mar 2007 14:12 "pearl" <tea(a)signguestbook.ie> wrote in message news:et995u$6ua$8(a)reader01.news.esat.net... > "Chom Noamsky" <e(a)t.me> wrote in message > news:YBOJh.82922$Du6.27757(a)edtnps82... >> "pearl" <tea(a)signguestbook.ie> wrote in message >> news:et6d6s$1ij$9(a)reader01.news.esat.net... >> >> > '.. the argument's presentation has no relevance to the >> > truth or falsity in the conclusion. >> >> But you're not presenting arguments... you're presenting someone else's >> arguments. > > 'cite (sit) > tr.v., cit�ed, cit�ing, cites. > > 1. To quote as an authority or example. > 2. To mention or bring forward as support, illustration, or proof: ... Oh, I see, pearl doesn't have any answers so she has to continually parrot ARA and reference websites.
From: Chom Noamsky on 14 Mar 2007 14:14 "pearl" <tea(a)signguestbook.ie> wrote in message news:et995u$6ua$9(a)reader01.news.esat.net... > "Chom Noamsky" <e(a)t.me> wrote in message > news:KnNJh.82615$Du6.26694(a)edtnps82... >> "pearl" <tea(a)signguestbook.ie> wrote in message >> news:et6d6r$1ij$8(a)reader01.news.esat.net... >> >> > Do you have any valid argument, or are you just a pro-sealing troll? >> >> I consider all sides of a conflict and weigh the evidence accordingly... >> my >> arguments are never based on a single side or facet. ARAs consider only >> their side of a conflict to be the correct side, there is no other side >> to >> consider. Therefore... no... I can never have a valid argument with an >> ARA. > > You don't know that ARAs haven't adopted their position > as a result of weighing the evidence, and if what you allege > was true, it should spur you on more to try valid argument, > instead of weasling out of it with cheap sniping as you do. You haven't presented any arguments... at least none of your own. All you do is parrot ARA websites and online reference material. I don't think you have an original thought in your head.
From: Chom Noamsky on 14 Mar 2007 14:30 "pearl" <tea(a)signguestbook.ie> wrote in message news:et995v$6ua$10(a)reader01.news.esat.net... > Tell me about "loss of wildlife habitat" for my PC. Where do you think the electicity comes from to manufacture and run your computer? Most likely the power comes from coal-fired generation which in turn requires mining, most often in the form of giant open pit strip mines. Or hydro-electric power, which flood vasts amount of land. Or natural gas, which requires networks of pipelines that disrupt natural habitats. Or nuclear power, which also usurps natural habitat from animals. This doesn't even touch on the infrastructure needed to support and develop computer technology (think on the scale of cities... all land being robbed from the natural habitats of wildlife). > You are complicit and an accessory to the crime by your support. What crime? > And all the pretence falls away, just like that. Marvelous. What pretence? The only pretension around here is an ARAs that believe she's holier-than-thou. >> > Was the reason for colonisation just to exploit the abundant wildlife? >> >> Apparently you're quite ignorant of Canadian history. Do they teach kids >> that stuff these days? > > I'm asking you. Do you know, or don't you? Rhetorical questions are not meant to be answered. Now, you seem bright enough with your online reference material, go study up on Canadian history, beavers, and the Hudson's Bay Company. >> >> > There are about 4500 Inuit in Newfoundland. However, the >> >> > original Newfoundlanders, the Beothuk, were driven into >> >> > extinction by the European immigrants. The last member of >> >> > the Beothuk nation died in 1912. The Newfoundlanders had >> >> > a bounty on the Beothuk and most were slain by MicMac >> >> > Indian bounty hunters from New Brunswick and Quebec. >> >> > Newfoundlanders also drove the Newfoundland wolf, the >> >> > walrus, and the Labrador duck to extinction and extirpated the >> >> > polar bear, and the pilot whale from Newfoundland territory.... >> >> >> >> The sons are responsible for the sins of the father? >> > >> > The sons are clearly continuing the sins of their fathers. >> >> It's only a sin in the minds of ideologically-driven ARA fanatics who >> watch >> too much Walt Disney. > > '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 individuals who constitute this 4 percent drain our > relationships, our bank accounts, our accomplishments, > our self-esteem, our very peace on earth. So you've done immoral things in your life and developed a guilt complex. Go see a psychiatrist and get it dealt with.
From: Chom Noamsky on 14 Mar 2007 14:46 "pearl" <tea(a)signguestbook.ie> wrote in message news:et995s$6ua$7(a)reader01.news.esat.net... >> Precisely. Primates naturally prefer food sources with the highest >> availability. This is not a conscious preference but one driven by the >> environment. In an environment rich with fruits and herbivorous food >> sources there is no need to expend the effort to obtain meat. That is >> due >> to the purely logistical differences in obtaining plant versus animal >> food. >> Given equal access to both carnivorous and herbivorous sources, primates >> would naturally prefer the food that gives the biggest bang for the buck. > > 'Goodall also noted that Kahuzi gorillas ignored eggs and > fledglings and did not invade bees nests (Tuttle, ibid., p.105), > and that none of the many fecal samples he found contained > animal remnants. > ... > Kortlandt states that predation by chimpanzees on vertebrates is > undoubtedly a rather rare phenomenon among rainforest-dwelling > populations of chimpanzees. Kortlandt lists the reasons given > below in his evidence. > > # the absence (or virtual absence) of animal matter in the > digestive systems of hundreds of hunted, dissected or > otherwise investigated cases > # the rarity of parasites indicating carnivorous habits > # rarity of pertinent field observations > # the responses when he placed live as well as dead > potential prey animals along the chimpanzee paths at Beni > (in the poorer environments of the savanna landscape > however, predation on vertebrates appears to be much > more common) Funny you mention Goodall. Before she undertook her research it was believed that chimps were strictly herbivorous. She is credited with dispelling that myth: "When Jane Goodall first observed wild chimpanzees hunting and eating meat nearly 40 years ago, skeptics suggested that their behavior was aberrant and that the amount of meat eaten was trivial. Today, we know that chimpanzees everywhere eat mainly fruit, but are also predators in their forest ecosystems. In some sites the quantity of meat eaten by a chimpanzee community may approach one ton annually. Recently revealed aspects of predation by chimpanzees, such as its frequency and the use of meat as a political and reproductive tool, have important implications for research on the origins of human behavior. These findings come at a time when many anthropologists argue for scavenging rather than hunting as a way of life for early human ancestors. Research into the hunting ecology of wild chimpanzees may therefore shed new light on the current debate about the origins of human behavior. " http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~stanford/chimphunt.html
From: Chom Noamsky on 14 Mar 2007 14:48
"pearl" <tea(a)signguestbook.ie> wrote in message news:et9964$6ua$16(a)reader01.news.esat.net... > "Chom Noamsky" <e(a)t.me> wrote in message > news:P_NJh.82793$Du6.20953(a)edtnps82... >> "pearl" <tea(a)signguestbook.ie> wrote in message >> news:et6d77$1ij$17(a)reader01.news.esat.net... >> > "Chom Noamsky" <e(a)t.me> wrote in message >> > news:BeiJh.38699$lY6.2489(a)edtnps90... >> >> > "pearl" <tea(a)signguestbook.ie> wrote in message >> >> > news:et3o5j$ui6$2(a)reader01.news.esat.net... >> >> > >> >> > They belong to no one. You cannot truthfully own other beings. >> >> >> >> The world doesn't run on the theoretical ethics of misguided animal >> >> rights >> >> activists. All major religions support a human-centric view of the >> >> world, >> >> that we are superior beings and hold dominion over the natural world. >> >> To >> >> claim that one "cannot truthfully own other beings" is moot and >> >> irrelevant. >> > >> > 'Benedict XVI Continues Tradition of Papal Concern for Animals >> >> Still no opinion of your own? > > Still no valid argument? Polly wanna cracker? |