Protest continues as whaling resumes
in [Vegetarian]
|
Prev: A RAW NEW YOU!
Next: Super green me
From: pearl on 10 Jan 2006 14:21 "Mark" <spammers(a)here.com> wrote in message news:42iatqF1ivop9U1(a)individual.net... > > "pearl" <tea(a)signguestbook.ie> wrote in message news:dq0ebh$kf9$1(a)reader01.news.esat.net... > > "Mark" <spammers(a)here.com> wrote in message news:42ghdcF1ipjuoU1(a)individual.net... <..> > >> Sorry to have missed this part in your reply. To my mind it would > >> still me immoral if they ARE killed for scientific research anyway. > >> Using animals for scientific research generally is obscene, immoral > >> and bad science. Also, besides all that, animal research and testing > >> kills more people than you might actually realise. > > > > I totally agree, and am aware of the massive toll from pharma'. > > Really? Are you aware that 'properly' proscribed drugs are directly > responsible for 100's of 1000's of human deaths, and that the pharm > industry grows fatter and fatter by keeping that kind of information > from those (now dead) patients? Yes. And from the (now sick) living. > I don't have the figures at hand but I can assure you I'm > not lying. I have the figures for the US at hand. http://www.healthe-livingnews.com/articles/death_by_medicine_part_1.html > How many times have you been to see > a doctor who then refers you to a homeopath or a reflexologist BEFORE > scribbling out a dangerous drug proscription? I am a reflexologist, and in the now over ten years that I've been practicing here, I have not had one single referral from 'good ol' doc' (who I know has a card of mine sitting in his desk), in spite of his knowing from patients of the benefits. > How many doctors advise > diabetes-prone patients to take on a healthy meat-free diet, for example? Very few to none. > I could go on and on with plenty of other examples, but then you'd > probably think I'm some kind of a nut if I do. 'nuff said. I wouldn't think that at all. > > The following piece also appears in the January 9, 2006 issue > > of the Canberra Times. > > > > Mirko Bagaric: Respect for animals a mark of humanity > > 29dec05 > > > > The Moral black spot that we have towards animals is so gaping > > that it will shame us in the eyes of future generations. > > > > That's the message we should take from the Greenpeace activists > > that are harassing the Japanese whaling fleet as it goes about its > > brutal task of fulfilling its self-awarded licence quota of killing 935 > > minke and 10 fin whales this summer. The Japanese don't have a > > monopoly when it comes to dishing out doses of human savagery > > towards animals. All countries engage in the practice at obscenely > > high levels. > > > > The killing of whales is a particularly distressing example of animal > > cruelty. Whales scream in terror as they are being massacred in a > > killing process that often lasts for several hours. Unlike humans, > > they are not blessed with a consciousness shut off valve that kicks > > in when they are subjected to extreme levels of pain. > > I didn't know that. Here's one for you - did you know that rats can't > puke? When used as test objects for various human consumables > like lip gloss, for example, once dosed they keep what's been forced > into them until they die from it, very often in indescribable agony as > their guts swell to bursting point. Like the testing of substances on rabbits' eyes. 'For example, rabbits? eyes are extremely sensitive, and they do not produce tears. One of the most common tests used in product testing is the Draize Eye Irritancy test, in which caustic substances are inserted into immobilized rabbits? eyes to see how irritating the materials are. Because rabbits do not tear, there is no danger of the chemicals naturally washing out of their eyes. And because the rabbits receive no anesthesia, and are certainly not treated, there is no reprieve from the pain, ulceration, swollen eyelids, bleeding, or blindness that occur as the inevitable result of these tests. ' http://www.vivisectioninfo.org/rabbits.html All of which brings to mind this quote: "We have enslaved the rest of the animal creation, and have treated our distant cousins in fur and feathers so badly that beyond doubt, if they were able to formulate a religion, they would depict the Devil in human form." --William Ralph Inge > > Their suffering > > continues as their flesh is repeatedly harpooned and ripped apart. > > > Oh that's disgusting. Mind you, how does one humanely kill an animal > as large as a bus? Not that that's an excuse to kill bus-sized animals > INhumanely, mind. We, or rather they shouldn't be killing them at all, > humanely or not. Leave em alone is what I say. They're not doing us > any harm. Hear, hear! Check this out, Mark, everyone: * Remarkable - stunning. All animals are wild and people-friendly. All the images are as the photographer saw them and have not been digitally enhanced. In the new exhibit which will be shown at the Santa Monica Pier mid January. Many of the actual photographs are about 5 feet by 8 feet in size. http://www.ashesandsnow.org/ Follow these directions: click on Portfolio. To see next image, click on image. Be patient they'll change. * > > The rivers of blood that are now filling the Antarctic ocean should > > jar our moral psyche into overdrive to reassess the manner in > > which we treat animals. > > > > Looking back on history many of us are bewildered at the barbarity > > displayed by previous generations towards the interests of certain > > agents. More enlightened future generations will regard the callous > > disregard with which we treat animals as on a par with the repugnant > > ways that our forefathers treated groups such as women and people > > with dark skin. > > > Current generations too. *I* find it hard to believe that *I* live in an > age where sensitive animals are disrespected simply because they're > animals. To my mind they have just as much a right to be treated with > respect as we do. It's a fallacy to argue that animals can be disrepected > simply because they're animals, that blacks can be disrespected simply > because they're black, etc. Same here. Absolutely. Be honest. Do unto others... > > We eat millions of animals annually, despite the fact that animal > > products are not essential (and in some cases are detrimental) to > > our dietary needs. In the process we often farm and kill animals in > > cruel ways. We have no qualms about inflicting the cruel death of > > gentle creatures so that we can salivate on the transient delight of > > a yummy burger, even though we would salivate no less on a > > vegetarian meal, properly prepared. > > > > Don't be conned into thinking that we don't inflict suffering on > > animals in the process. Just go to your local battery hen plant > > for a visit. > > No. I'd probably end up doing something unlawful, and no judge in > the land would accept my plea of diminished responsibilty. I might > go during the night to free them, but there's no way on earth I'd be > persuaded to go and vist them during the day and then walk away > from them, leaving them to continue suffering because of my cowardice > not to do something about it. You go if you want to, but I think I'll take > a rain check on that one for now if you don't mind. I really couldn't bring myself to enter a slaughterhouse, and cannot watch video clips of abuse and killing either. > > There you will notice that within one to 10 days of > > being hatched, chicks will be debeaked, which involves > > amputating about half of their beak with a red hot blade or wire. > > The pain involved is so intense, that some chicks die of shock > > or injury. Shortly after this they are placed in 50cm x 50cm > > wire cages with up to four other hens, where they stay for the > > rest of their lives. They will never experience the ''luxury'' of > > walking or spreading their wings. Many hens lose all their > > feathers from being pecked by others and some even die from > > pecking injuries. All this so that we pay a few cents less for our > > omelettes. Mercifully, the laying capacity of battery hens reduces > > quickly and after one or two years most are slaughtered for pet > > food or flavour concentrates. > > > > We also intentionally inflict pain on animals in > > UN > > >scientific > > experiments that have less than remote chances of success > > and use their skins to keep us warm and enhance our looks, > > despite the fact that we have an oversupply of synthetic > > material which can satisfy these ''needs''. > > > "wants", more like. We don't "need" their feathers or skins to > survive. Warm clothes are a need; not ripping off another animal's skin. > > Rarely is the benefits and burdens scale so grossly distorted. > > It's time for the carnage to stop. > > > > There is no wriggle room on the animal cruelty front. It is > > unquestionably morally repugnant. Animals can't speak in > > ways that we understand. > > I disagree on that point. They can speak, and we know what > they're expressing, even though we can't spell what they're saying. I agree with you here too. > And what about the animals that make no sound at all? Being > hooked on a line by the mouth and not being able to scream > in pain and for mercy is a whole new nightmare on its own ... right? Right. > > Their intellect is not high and they > > don't have an awareness of themselves as continuing entities > > over time. Yet they are entitled to be treated with concern > > and regard because they possess the most important attribute > > that qualifies an entity for moral standing: the capacity to feel > > pain and suffer. > > > > Suffering is suffering, whether experienced by animals or > > humans. The physiological process is identical. > > > > It is always agonising to endure and often as agonising to > > observe. That's why few people who witness the excruciating > > death of a whale would contemplate eating whale flesh and > > the best advertisement for free range eggs is a visit to a > > battery hen processing plant. > > > > To remedy this situation we need to be cognisant of the > > lessons of history. Full moral status is not accorded quickly > > to repressed agents. Thus, we need to move towards > > incrementally improving the plight of animals. The first stage > > of this process involves ceasing to engage in activities that > > are cruel to animals, unless there is an overwhelming benefit > > to be obtained from such conduct. > > But only to THAT animal, surely? Iff a small amount of short- > term pain WILL alleviate long-term agonies for THAT animal, > then yes, to my mind we can inflict that pain to THAT animal > if we're competent enough to do it. I'm thinking vets and > surgeons. I don't actually find any reason why pain should be inflicted. > > This means that it is > > never permissible to kill animals for food by painful means, > > given that we do not need animal products to maintain a > > healthy diet. Cruelty in relation to scientific experimentation > > should be only permitted where the objective of the research > > is to advance human or animal health; the potential benefits > > of the research are significant; the research goals cannot be > > achieved without animal experimentation and there is a high > > level of confidence that the research will achieve its stated > > outcomes. > > > > Once the moral standing of animals has been elevated to a > > point where it is accepted that it is impermissible to treat > > them cruelly, the next stage involves a recognition of the > > fact that it is wrong to kill animals (even using painless > > techniques), or otherwise mistreat them, for our consumption. > > Until we reach that level of moral understanding our behaviour > > towards animals will continue to be the shame of our generation. > > Mahatma Gandhi correctly noted that: ''the greatness of a nation > > and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are > > treated''. It's not only the Japanese that stand condemned at this > > point in history. > > True. Have you seen how French fishermen push large hooks > through the upper front muzzles of labradores so they can use > them as swimming live bait? Yes. 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. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=inhuman > > ---------------------- > > Professor Mirko Bagaric is the Head of Deakin Law School. > > This is a summary of his paper No absence of Malice Towards > > the Gallus - Animal Cruelty the Shame of a Generation in the > > Environmental and Planning Law Journal Generation (with > > Keith Akers). > > > > http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,17679563%255E5000423,00.html > > > Glad to make your acquaintance Pearl. Thanks, Mark. Likewise.
From: pearl on 10 Jan 2006 14:31 "Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd(a)apaflo.com> wrote in message news:87mzi399hz.fld(a)apaflo.com... > "pearl" <tea(a)signguestbook.ie> wrote: > >"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd(a)apaflo.com> wrote in message news:87vews978q.fld(a)apaflo.com... > >> "pearl" <tea(a)signguestbook.ie> wrote: > >> >"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd(a)apaflo.com> wrote in message news:874q4d9g60.fld(a)apaflo.com... > >> >> Dave Lister <retsildivad33(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >"pearl" <tea(a)signguestbook.ie> wrote in > >> >> >news:dpuiij$11t$1(a)reader01.news.esat.net: > >> >> > > >> >> >> * The Japanese are also in violation of the Australian laws > >> >> >> protecting the Australian Antarctic Territorial waters. > >> >> > > >> >> >Said territory nobody on earth recognizes, although I do agree whaling > >> >> >should be banned. > >> >> > >> >> Which is exactly the same problem that *every* item on that list > >> >> had: none of it is the truth. > >> > > >> >The untruths are all yours. > >> > > >> >The Japanese Whale Industry has a credibility problem > >> > http://perth.indymedia.org/?action=newswire&parentview=15422 > >> > >> ICR director-general Hiroshi Hatanaka has attacked a > >> critique of Japanese whaling by three New Zealand scientists > >> and the New Zealand Minister for Conservation, Chris > >> Carter. He accused the critique of being a recycling of > >> politically motivated arguments which New Zealand scientists > >> put forward at a meeting of the IWC's scientific committee > >> in June. "Of course we know that Greenpeace has been > >> misleading the public on issues related to whaling for many > >> years but it is unfortunate that the minister has now chosen > >> to use the same tactics," Dr Hatanaka said in a statement. > >> > >> Pretty much says it all. > > > >No. You left this out: > > I had no intention of distributing the same lies and untruths You have, and stupidly persist in doing so. Shame on you. <..yackety-yak..>
From: Kjell Andersson on 10 Jan 2006 14:40 "Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd(a)apaflo.com> skrev i meddelandet news:87mzi399hz.fld(a)apaflo.com... > Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> > Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd(a)apaflo.com Have you looked at the video yet. I think you are cowardly. Here it is: http://wspa.org.uk/index.php?page=1217# Kjell
From: pearl on 10 Jan 2006 14:43 "Leif Erikson" <notgenx32(a)yahoo.com> Faking quotes, forged posts, lies, filth, harassment. http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html The Socialised Psychopath or Sociopath http://tinyurl.com/92d7k
From: Mark on 10 Jan 2006 15:53
"pearl" <tea(a)signguestbook.ie> wrote in message news:dq11ea$qaf$1(a)reader01.news.esat.net... > "Mark" <spammers(a)here.com> wrote in message news:42iatqF1ivop9U1(a)individual.net... >> >> "pearl" <tea(a)signguestbook.ie> wrote in message news:dq0ebh$kf9$1(a)reader01.news.esat.net... >> > "Mark" <spammers(a)here.com> wrote in message news:42ghdcF1ipjuoU1(a)individual.net... > <..> >> >> Sorry to have missed this part in your reply. To my mind it would >> >> still me immoral if they ARE killed for scientific research anyway. >> >> Using animals for scientific research generally is obscene, immoral >> >> and bad science. Also, besides all that, animal research and testing >> >> kills more people than you might actually realise. >> > >> > I totally agree, and am aware of the massive toll from pharma'. >> >> Really? Are you aware that 'properly' proscribed drugs are directly >> responsible for 100's of 1000's of human deaths, and that the pharm >> industry grows fatter and fatter by keeping that kind of information >> from those (now dead) patients? > > Yes. And from the (now sick) living. > >> I don't have the figures at hand but I can assure you I'm >> not lying. > > I have the figures for the US at hand. > http://www.healthe-livingnews.com/articles/death_by_medicine_part_1.html > Thanks for that info. If you look at the figures in the first row on the first table, 106000 patients died from "adverse drug reactions" - drugs that have passed animal testing. And yet the pharm industry still uses animals to test our drugs despite that worrying fact. I can barely believe the stupidity of it all. >> How many times have you been to see >> a doctor who then refers you to a homeopath or a reflexologist BEFORE >> scribbling out a dangerous drug proscription? > > I am a reflexologist, Cool. and in the now over ten years that I've > been practicing here, I have not had one single referral from > 'good ol' doc' (who I know has a card of mine sitting in his > desk), in spite of his knowing from patients of the benefits. > The only way you'll get a referal from him is to offer a financial incentive like the pharm companies do. I reckon you already knew that. >> How many doctors advise >> diabetes-prone patients to take on a healthy meat-free diet, for example? > > Very few to none. > >> I could go on and on with plenty of other examples, but then you'd >> probably think I'm some kind of a nut if I do. 'nuff said. > > I wouldn't think that at all. > Sorry to presume that. It's just that when I talk about alternative therapies, most people ignorantly think I'm a bit of a nut job without even realising how powerful these remedies actually are, and how effective they are at keeping healthy people healthy. I'm no expert, but I've seen how effective they are first hand. I can't go into details because it would involve divulging information about myself that I'd rather not discuss on an open forum. >> > The following piece also appears in the January 9, 2006 issue >> > of the Canberra Times. >> > >> > Mirko Bagaric: Respect for animals a mark of humanity >> > 29dec05 >> > >> > The Moral black spot that we have towards animals is so gaping >> > that it will shame us in the eyes of future generations. >> > >> > That's the message we should take from the Greenpeace activists >> > that are harassing the Japanese whaling fleet as it goes about its >> > brutal task of fulfilling its self-awarded licence quota of killing 935 >> > minke and 10 fin whales this summer. The Japanese don't have a >> > monopoly when it comes to dishing out doses of human savagery >> > towards animals. All countries engage in the practice at obscenely >> > high levels. >> > >> > The killing of whales is a particularly distressing example of animal >> > cruelty. Whales scream in terror as they are being massacred in a >> > killing process that often lasts for several hours. Unlike humans, >> > they are not blessed with a consciousness shut off valve that kicks >> > in when they are subjected to extreme levels of pain. >> >> I didn't know that. Here's one for you - did you know that rats can't >> puke? When used as test objects for various human consumables >> like lip gloss, for example, once dosed they keep what's been forced >> into them until they die from it, very often in indescribable agony as >> their guts swell to bursting point. > > Like the testing of substances on rabbits' eyes. > LD50, actually. > 'For example, rabbits' eyes are extremely sensitive, and they > do not produce tears. Oh, I see what you mean now. Like rats that can't puke substances forced into their stomachs, rabbits can't cry away whatever's put into their eyes. Good analogy Pearl. One of the most common tests used in > product testing is the Draize Eye Irritancy test, in which caustic > substances are inserted into immobilized rabbits' eyes to see > how irritating the materials are. Because rabbits do not tear, > there is no danger of the chemicals naturally washing out of > their eyes. And because the rabbits receive no anesthesia, and > are certainly not treated, there is no reprieve from the pain, > ulceration, swollen eyelids, bleeding, or blindness that occur > as the inevitable result of these tests. ' > http://www.vivisectioninfo.org/rabbits.html > Disgusting, we know, but wasn't the draize test abolished some time ago? I'm not at all as up to date as most on these subjects, but I was comfortably sure they were replaced with something else. Please don't tell me I'm sadly mistaken. > All of which brings to mind this quote: > > "We have enslaved the rest of the animal creation, and > have treated our distant cousins in fur and feathers so > badly that beyond doubt, if they were able to formulate > a religion, they would depict the Devil in human form." > --William Ralph Inge Oh dear. I'm sure I once attributed that quote to Sir Paul McCartney. >> > Their suffering >> > continues as their flesh is repeatedly harpooned and ripped apart. >> > >> Oh that's disgusting. Mind you, how does one humanely kill an animal >> as large as a bus? Not that that's an excuse to kill bus-sized animals >> INhumanely, mind. We, or rather they shouldn't be killing them at all, >> humanely or not. Leave em alone is what I say. They're not doing us >> any harm. > > Hear, hear! Check this out, Mark, everyone: > > * > Remarkable - stunning. All animals are wild and > people-friendly. All the images are as the photographer > saw them and have not been digitally enhanced. In the > new exhibit which will be shown at the Santa Monica > Pier mid January. Many of the actual photographs are > about 5 feet by 8 feet in size. > > http://www.ashesandsnow.org/ > > Follow these directions: click on Portfolio. To see > next image, click on image. > Wow! Thanks. They're beautiful. Hence my late reply. >Be patient they'll change I've got high-speed broadband. My daughter's going to love that link. She's so into large mammals, especially elephants. >> > The rivers of blood that are now filling the Antarctic ocean should >> > jar our moral psyche into overdrive to reassess the manner in >> > which we treat animals. >> > >> > Looking back on history many of us are bewildered at the barbarity >> > displayed by previous generations towards the interests of certain >> > agents. More enlightened future generations will regard the callous >> > disregard with which we treat animals as on a par with the repugnant >> > ways that our forefathers treated groups such as women and people >> > with dark skin. >> > >> Current generations too. *I* find it hard to believe that *I* live in an >> age where sensitive animals are disrespected simply because they're >> animals. To my mind they have just as much a right to be treated with >> respect as we do. It's a fallacy to argue that animals can be disrepected >> simply because they're animals, that blacks can be disrespected simply >> because they're black, etc. > > Same here. Absolutely. Be honest. Do unto others... > Otherwise, where's the truth in our claim to having rights? >> > We eat millions of animals annually, despite the fact that animal >> > products are not essential (and in some cases are detrimental) to >> > our dietary needs. In the process we often farm and kill animals in >> > cruel ways. We have no qualms about inflicting the cruel death of >> > gentle creatures so that we can salivate on the transient delight of >> > a yummy burger, even though we would salivate no less on a >> > vegetarian meal, properly prepared. >> > >> > Don't be conned into thinking that we don't inflict suffering on >> > animals in the process. Just go to your local battery hen plant >> > for a visit. >> >> No. I'd probably end up doing something unlawful, and no judge in >> the land would accept my plea of diminished responsibilty. I might >> go during the night to free them, but there's no way on earth I'd be >> persuaded to go and vist them during the day and then walk away >> from them, leaving them to continue suffering because of my cowardice >> not to do something about it. You go if you want to, but I think I'll take >> a rain check on that one for now if you don't mind. > > I really couldn't bring myself to enter a slaughterhouse, > and cannot watch video clips of abuse and killing either. > Ah, so, you've participated on some of the Yahoo vegan groups as well, have you? I don't always click on the links I see there either. >> > There you will notice that within one to 10 days of >> > being hatched, chicks will be debeaked, which involves >> > amputating about half of their beak with a red hot blade or wire. >> > The pain involved is so intense, that some chicks die of shock >> > or injury. Shortly after this they are placed in 50cm x 50cm >> > wire cages with up to four other hens, where they stay for the >> > rest of their lives. They will never experience the ''luxury'' of >> > walking or spreading their wings. Many hens lose all their >> > feathers from being pecked by others and some even die from >> > pecking injuries. All this so that we pay a few cents less for our >> > omelettes. Mercifully, the laying capacity of battery hens reduces >> > quickly and after one or two years most are slaughtered for pet >> > food or flavour concentrates. >> > >> > We also intentionally inflict pain on animals in >> >> UN >> :-) >> >scientific >> > experiments that have less than remote chances of success >> > and use their skins to keep us warm and enhance our looks, >> > despite the fact that we have an oversupply of synthetic >> > material which can satisfy these ''needs''. >> > >> "wants", more like. We don't "need" their feathers or skins to >> survive. > > Warm clothes are a need; not ripping off another animal's skin. > OK. I see what you mean. >> > Rarely is the benefits and burdens scale so grossly distorted. >> > It's time for the carnage to stop. >> > >> > There is no wriggle room on the animal cruelty front. It is >> > unquestionably morally repugnant. Animals can't speak in >> > ways that we understand. >> >> I disagree on that point. They can speak, and we know what >> they're expressing, even though we can't spell what they're saying. > > I agree with you here too. > Thanks. It's hard not to if you're capable of understanding what a yelp means. >> And what about the animals that make no sound at all? Being >> hooked on a line by the mouth and not being able to scream >> in pain and for mercy is a whole new nightmare on its own ... right? > > Right. > >> > Their intellect is not high and they >> > don't have an awareness of themselves as continuing entities >> > over time. Yet they are entitled to be treated with concern >> > and regard because they possess the most important attribute >> > that qualifies an entity for moral standing: the capacity to feel >> > pain and suffer. >> > >> > Suffering is suffering, whether experienced by animals or >> > humans. The physiological process is identical. >> > >> > It is always agonising to endure and often as agonising to >> > observe. That's why few people who witness the excruciating >> > death of a whale would contemplate eating whale flesh and >> > the best advertisement for free range eggs is a visit to a >> > battery hen processing plant. >> > >> > To remedy this situation we need to be cognisant of the >> > lessons of history. Full moral status is not accorded quickly >> > to repressed agents. Thus, we need to move towards >> > incrementally improving the plight of animals. The first stage >> > of this process involves ceasing to engage in activities that >> > are cruel to animals, unless there is an overwhelming benefit >> > to be obtained from such conduct. >> >> But only to THAT animal, surely? Iff a small amount of short- >> term pain WILL alleviate long-term agonies for THAT animal, >> then yes, to my mind we can inflict that pain to THAT animal >> if we're competent enough to do it. I'm thinking vets and >> surgeons. > > I don't actually find any reason why pain should be inflicted. > Smacking a new-born baby's bum comes to mind if you want one example. >> > This means that it is >> > never permissible to kill animals for food by painful means, >> > given that we do not need animal products to maintain a >> > healthy diet. Cruelty in relation to scientific experimentation >> > should be only permitted where the objective of the research >> > is to advance human or animal health; the potential benefits >> > of the research are significant; the research goals cannot be >> > achieved without animal experimentation and there is a high >> > level of confidence that the research will achieve its stated >> > outcomes. >> > >> > Once the moral standing of animals has been elevated to a >> > point where it is accepted that it is impermissible to treat >> > them cruelly, the next stage involves a recognition of the >> > fact that it is wrong to kill animals (even using painless >> > techniques), or otherwise mistreat them, for our consumption. >> > Until we reach that level of moral understanding our behaviour >> > towards animals will continue to be the shame of our generation. >> > Mahatma Gandhi correctly noted that: ''the greatness of a nation >> > and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are >> > treated''. It's not only the Japanese that stand condemned at this >> > point in history. >> >> True. Have you seen how French fishermen push large hooks >> through the upper front muzzles of labradores so they can use >> them as swimming live bait? > > Yes. > How on earth can they do such a thing to such lovable and devoted animals? (rhetorical) > 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. > > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=inhuman > >> > ---------------------- >> > Professor Mirko Bagaric is the Head of Deakin Law School. >> > This is a summary of his paper No absence of Malice Towards >> > the Gallus - Animal Cruelty the Shame of a Generation in the >> > Environmental and Planning Law Journal Generation (with >> > Keith Akers). >> > >> > http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,17679563%255E5000423,00.html >> > >> Glad to make your acquaintance Pearl. > > Thanks, Mark. Likewise. > FYI, Mark is my middle name. I'm a bit more guarded than I used to be while talking about animal rights and human wrongs these days. |