Prev: Time for me to step in
Next: The Rise Of The White Male Sycophant
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: 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.


From: dh on 7 Oct 2008 11:34
On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 the Goober lied:

>On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 12:10:53 -0200, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 08:30:24 -0400, Hoots <ratty_dew(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Goo lied:
>>>>
>>>>> [bullshit]
>>>>
>>>> A figment of your fevered cracker imagination, that's who.
>>>
>>>He does like to go on...
>>
>> It's good typing practice, and good for practicing presenting
>>information. Also, the only "good" thing about an interaction like
>>this with a person like Goo, is getting to point out what he's lying
>>about, etc.
>
>It's bullshit.

LOL. I'm *pointing out* bullshit, Goo. I point out the misnomer's
bullshit in general, and your bullshit in particular, Goob. It's what
I do, and lying about it is what you do. Try to keep up at least
with your own self, you lame Goober.

>>If a person is stupid enough to believe the Goober's
>>lies, that shows something too. By now I have a fairly large
>>collection of Goo's lies and unsupported absurd claims, which
>>of course are just a small sample of the deluge of bullshit that
>>Goo has shared with us over the years.
>>
>>>Well, I think it's nice he cares about people so much. In this world of
>>>rush, rush, rush, it's refreshing to find someone who will stop and
>>>visit for awhile.
>>
>> I've been trying to get Goo to explain what he thinks prevents
>>us from benefitting without referring to our pre-existent "selves" for
>>years and he can't even make the attempt.
>
>No, you haven't.

Yes Goo, I've been challenging you and you've been failing
the challenge for years by now.

>There's no "Him", Goo. That's your fabrication - a lie.

Then try explaining what you think prevents you from benefitting
from your life without referring to "Him" Goo. GO!:

From: dh on 7 Oct 2008 11:38
On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 16:37:25 +0100, "pearl" <tea(a)signguestbook.ie> wrote:

>Goo 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...

You wouldn't exist if humans didn't eat meat. Neither would
the rest of us.

>Humans aren't a naturally carnivorous species, and no amount
>of rant and bluster, ball, will change known biological realities.

We wouldn't exist if humans didn't eat meat and none of
your ranting can change that reality.

>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,

That's because by posing as such an idiot he's hoping
to make true misnomer opponents appear to be idiots by
his dishonest supposed association with them.

>yet if it suits you try to excuse your (lack of) ethics by appealing
>to nature.

No nonhuman predators deliberately provide life for the
animals they eat, nor do they deliberately maintain efficient
population sizes for the area, or try to kill humanely, or avoid
killing young, baby and pregnant animals, etc... They don't
observe hunting seasons, and they don't give their prey a
break by not hunting at night...
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Prev: Time for me to step in
Next: The Rise Of The White Male Sycophant