Who's "Him"?
in [Low-Carb]
|
Prev: whole sale dior coogi coach kids LV sneakers
Next: CNN: Pleas for help come too late as half-ton man dies in Mexico
From: pearl on 7 Oct 2008 11:37 "Rudy Canoza" <pipes(a)thedismalscience.noot> wrote in message news:Cf-dnbKd2MNT63bVnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d(a)earthlink.com... > But the bigger blunder is, meat eating requires no ethical > justification, insofar as the killing of the animals is concerned. > Animals do not have "rights", and just as the lion does not violate any > "rights" of a gazelle or zebra in killing it, so we do not violate any > in killing the livestock animals we consume. The lion is justified (has the right) to sustain her life by taking life since she has no other option - felines are obligatory carnivores. Also, the prey has the right to fight or flee to maintain his life... Humans aren't a naturally carnivorous species, and no amount of rant and bluster, ball, will change known biological realities. You're not a lion in any way, shape or form, and you certainly don't need to feed on animal flesh, in fact it should be avoided. What's ironic here, is that you're constantly denying non-human animals even basic minimal conscious awareness, yet if it suits you try to excuse your (lack of) ethics by appealing to nature.
From: pearl on 7 Oct 2008 12:08 "Rudy Canoza" <pipes(a)thedismalscience.not> wrote in message news:JPOdnZZ2OKIYHnbVnZ2dnUVZ_ojinZ2d(a)earthlink.com... > pearl wrote: > > "Rudy Canoza" <pipes(a)thedismalscience.noot> wrote in message news:Cf-dnbKd2MNT63bVnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d(a)earthlink.com... > > > >> But the bigger blunder is, meat eating requires no ethical > >> justification, insofar as the killing of the animals is concerned. > >> Animals do not have "rights", and just as the lion does not violate any > >> "rights" of a gazelle or zebra in killing it, so we do not violate any > >> in killing the livestock animals we consume. > > > > The lion is justified (has the right) to sustain her life by taking life > > since she has no other option - felines are obligatory carnivores. > > Also, the prey has the right to fight or flee to maintain his life... > > Utter bullshit analysis. First of all, "need" can't justify anything. 'In English criminal law, the defence of self-defence provides for the right of people to act in a manner that would be otherwise unlawful in order to preserve the physical integrity of themselves or others .. ... If a jury thought that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought was necessary that would be most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken." The Human Rights Act 1998 incorporates into English law Article 2 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms which defines the right to life as follows: "1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. ...' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defence_in_English_law > Secondly, prey animals don't flee or attempt to flee based on any notion > of "rights". Will to live, liberty and happiness, plus self-preserving instinct. > It is completely incoherent to say that an animal has a "right" to its > life against one species but not another. In nature, animals can and do act to defend their lives against natural threats - it's a fair, healthy system which works well. What humans have done is remove any possible chance of evading the 'predator' who from day one used unnatural force, there's no escaping the metal fences or bars, and the knife.....
From: Doug Freyburger on 7 Oct 2008 12:20 "pearl" <t...(a)signguestbook.ie> wrote: > > The lion is justified (has the right) to sustain her life by taking life > since she has no other option - felines are obligatory carnivores. This means for example that anyone who feeds a cat a vegitarian diet should be reported for animal cruelty. > Also, the prey has the right to fight or flee to maintain his life... When it comes to moral issues this is the interesting part. What is to be done about domesticated animals? There they all to be neutered and taken extinct, or are they to be released into the wild and let evolution decide if they go extinct? > Humans aren't a naturally carnivorous species, and no amount > of rant and bluster, ball, will change known biological realities. In fact humans are omnivores and no amount of rant and bluster, ball, will change known biological realities. That means humans are evolved to eat meat. In spite of being an omnivore not a carnivore humans are now the peak preditor on our planet. > You're not a lion in any way, shape or form, and you certainly > don't need to feed on animal flesh, Any one human is free to decide that for whatever reason they chose. Good reasons religious, political, environmental. All as the list of groups (I trimmed out fat acceptance and weight lifting as irrelevant) imply are the ethical reasons. Bad reasons are health related. Since humans are omnivores declining to eat either meat or vegitables is sub optimal. Any health reason against mean must perforce compare against an unhealthy junk food eating not plans that focus on meat and veggies. But it remains true - Being an omnivore any one human is free to chose to never eat meat or for that matter to never eat anything but meat. > in fact it should be avoided. That rather depends on your reasons. I certainly favor the good reasons I listed above as long as folks aren't pressured into it. This is why I am so opposed to the liars at PCRM. It's not a topic that benefits from pressure and lies. That strategy depicts the ethical vegitarians as lunatics who will stoop to anything to stop folks from eating meat. Isn't it a better strategy to live a better example and encourage those religions that encourage vegitarian eating? Just like there are good and bad reasons for deciding about eating meat, there are good and bad strategies for encouraging others to do so. > What's ironic here, is that you're constantly denying non-human > animals even basic minimal conscious awareness, yet if it suits > you try to excuse your (lack of) ethics by appealing to nature. I think animals have an immortal soul just like I do. Yet I eat them. Why should I take such a stance that's the opposite of the Hindu or Buddhist vegitarian stance that comes from the same notion of souls? It's my nature as an omnivore to eat both plants and animals so I do so and give thanks. Heck, I think plants have immortal souls, too. No one declines to eat both animals and plants except to starve themselves to death.
From: pearl on 7 Oct 2008 12:40 "Doug Freyburger" <dfreybur(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:0b93bb69-c96e-4d07-bc77-44cfeb5c44a2(a)2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com... > "pearl" <t...(a)signguestbook.ie> wrote: > > > > The lion is justified (has the right) to sustain her life by taking life > > since she has no other option - felines are obligatory carnivores. > > This means for example that anyone who feeds a cat a > vegitarian diet should be reported for animal cruelty. There are vegan cat foods formulated specifically for cats. > > Also, the prey has the right to fight or flee to maintain his life... > > When it comes to moral issues this is the interesting part. What > is to be done about domesticated animals? There they all to be > neutered and taken extinct, or are they to be released into the > wild and let evolution decide if they go extinct? Which domesticated animals - cows, chickens, pigs, sheep...? Stop breeding. Their natural original counterparts can recover. > > Humans aren't a naturally carnivorous species, and no amount > > of rant and bluster, ball, will change known biological realities. > > In fact humans are omnivores No. Humans are frugivores. See: http://www.iol.ie/~creature/BiologicalAdaptations.htm , etc. > and no amount of rant and bluster, > ball, will change known biological realities. That means humans > are evolved to eat meat. Show us evidence. You'll find nothing to hang your hat on. > In spite of being an omnivore not a > carnivore humans are now the peak preditor on our planet. Without weapons, you'd be nothing. Likely still prey. > > You're not a lion in any way, shape or form, and you certainly > > don't need to feed on animal flesh, > > Any one human is free to decide that for whatever reason they > chose. Good reasons religious, political, environmental. Health. I've snipped the rest. The slur ruined it for me. Anyway, check out that link, if you're really interested.
From: pearl on 7 Oct 2008 12:53
"Rudy Canoza" <pipes(a)thedismalscience.not> wrote in message news:NqudndC41L2KD3bVnZ2dnUVZ_qvinZ2d(a)earthlink.com... > pearl wrote: > > "Rudy Canoza" <pipes(a)thedismalscience.not> wrote in message news:JPOdnZZ2OKIYHnbVnZ2dnUVZ_ojinZ2d(a)earthlink.com... > >> pearl wrote: > >>> "Rudy Canoza" <pipes(a)thedismalscience.noot> wrote in message news:Cf-dnbKd2MNT63bVnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d(a)earthlink.com... > >>> > >>>> But the bigger blunder is, meat eating requires no ethical > >>>> justification, insofar as the killing of the animals is concerned. > >>>> Animals do not have "rights", and just as the lion does not violate any > >>>> "rights" of a gazelle or zebra in killing it, so we do not violate any > >>>> in killing the livestock animals we consume. > >>>> > >>> The lion is justified (has the right) to sustain her life by taking life > >>> since she has no other option - felines are obligatory carnivores. > >>> Also, the prey has the right to fight or flee to maintain his life... > >>> > >> Utter bullshit analysis. First of all, "need" can't justify anything. > > > > 'In English criminal law, the defence of self-defence provides for > > the right of people to act in a manner that would be otherwise > > unlawful in order to preserve the physical integrity of themselves > > or others .. > > Eating is not self-defense. Lions must eat other animals in order to preserve the physical integrity of themselves and others, so have the right to act in a manner that would be otherwise unlawful - as it is in your case. > You don't know the English criminal law - I just posted it. Now you really should JSTFU, you know. |