Europe mistakes apes for humans-WTF

[Black Jack II]

So retarded.


http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080716/NEWS07/807160417/1009/PRINT

[WinterPalm]

That is awesome.
But does that mean that soon apes in Europe will have more rights than American citizens?!:eek:

[golden arhat]

why is that bad?

why should we cage them up?


i know plenty of brain dead people that have more rights than most animals

i dont understand what your problem is with it ?

if i had my way all sentient beings would have the right to a life free from human interference and torture

but lets not turn this into a vegetarian thing


why are you against chimps and apes having more rights?

[sanjuro_ronin]

Dman dirty apes !!!

[Lucas]

Im all for it.

Anyone who isnt needs to go visit one of these extremely intelligent creatures. Look into his/her eyes and tell me there is no emotion. No sadness.....

[SimonM]

You are forgetting that BJ2 has a knee-jerk reaction to oppose any progressive measure out of fear.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Im all for it.

Anyone who isnt needs to go visit one of these extremely intelligent creatures. Look into his/her eyes and tell me there is no emotion. No sadness.....

That's how its starts and soon, when we come back from space, they'll be running place !!

And probably doing a better job too !

[Lucas]

lol.

cornelius wont do you wrong man!

[golden arhat]

Im all for it.

Anyone who isnt needs to go visit one of these extremely intelligent creatures. Look into his/her eyes and tell me there is no emotion. No sadness.....

or almost any caged creature for that matter

[Becca]

Spain's legislation would outlaw using great apes in experiments, circuses, TV commercials or films. Apes could be kept in zoos, but conditions would be improved.

"This is a significant step," said Stumpe, who compares apes to human babies or people who are mentally incapacitated. They have emotions but need caretakers -- as apes do, she said.

I'm all for giving the apes some basic inaliable rights, but what's with the no t.v. or film bit? Are we going to stop allowing children to act? I think those apes that are trained to act might just enjoy having a porpuse to thier lives.

[Lucas]

or almost any caged creature for that matter

werd........

[David Jamieson]

it is through rule of law that we change our core behaviours.

this is a positive thing.

perhaps we can eventually rule it into law that we do not exploit other species and create and maintain an agrarian food source with high nutritional value and at the same time keep a lid on our own numbers through carefully planned population control.

Or we can continue to consume our own tail until we are extinct. :)

[golden arhat]

perhaps we can eventually rule it into law that we do not exploit other species and create and maintain an agrarian food source with high nutritional value and at the same time keep a lid on our own numbers through carefully planned population control.

one can always dream:(

[sanjuro_ronin]

it is through rule of law that we change our core behaviours.

this is a positive thing.

perhaps we can eventually rule it into law that we do not exploit other species and create and maintain an agrarian food source with high nutritional value and at the same time keep a lid on our own numbers through carefully planned population control.

Or we can continue to consume our own tail until we are extinct. :)

Ok there.
Nature tends to take care of species that grow to "big for their britches",

[David Jamieson]

If by nature, you mean "asteroids from space", I'm with you. :D

[SimonM]

I'm all for giving the apes some basic inaliable rights, but what's with the no t.v. or film bit? Are we going to stop allowing children to act? I think those apes that are trained to act might just enjoy having a porpuse to thier lives.


The chimpanzees used in film are mostly terribly abused. It's common to knock most of their teeth out and a standard training tool is to beat the chimp with a pipe wrapped in a newspaper when away from the set. The trainer will bring the rolled up newspaper onto set and threaten the chimp when not behaving.

Furthermore the babies and juveniles used in cinema are usually sold to biomedical testing when they get too big to use effectively in film any further.

Life as a movie chimp is not one of purpose, just one of bondage.

[sanjuro_ronin]

If by nature, you mean "asteroids from space", I'm with you. :D

I mean really BIG HONKING ASTEROIDS from space.
:p

[sanjuro_ronin]

The chimpanzees used in film are mostly terribly abused. It's common to knock most of their teeth out and a standard training tool is to beat the chimp with a pipe wrapped in a newspaper when away from the set. The trainer will bring the rolled up newspaper onto set and threaten the chimp when not behaving.

Furthermore the babies and juveniles used in cinema are usually sold to biomedical testing when they get too big to use effectively in film any further.

Life as a movie chimp is not one of purpose, just one of bondage.

They should learn kung fu and fight back against their oppressors !!

[SimonM]

That's why the sell the adults to biomedical research. A fully grown chimp WILL fight back...

and chimps can be really strong.

[sanjuro_ronin]

That's why the sell the adults to biomedical research. A fully grown chimp WILL fight back...

and chimps can be really strong.

And very good with the staff I hear.
That and poo flinging.

[TenTigers]

If those European women would simply shave their legs and underarms, there wouldn't be so much confusion, and all this wouldn't be neccesary.

[Becca]

The chimpanzees used in film are mostly terribly abused. It's common to knock most of their teeth out and a standard training tool is to beat the chimp with a pipe wrapped in a newspaper when away from the set. The trainer will bring the rolled up newspaper onto set and threaten the chimp when not behaving.

Furthermore the babies and juveniles used in cinema are usually sold to biomedical testing when they get too big to use effectively in film any further.

Life as a movie chimp is not one of purpose, just one of bondage.True. But I would have thought that sort of treatment would be covered in the no torture clause. I know we are capable of treating out animal t.v. stars well; it's just a mater of taking care of the less savory human "care takers." This law would do that if enforced properly.

[Black Jack II]

Pffftph!


I expected a typical response from a few on this board. A crowd that absurdly cheers about human rights for apes but does not care that society kills millions of humans every day.

The hypocrisy is amazing.

For free beings rights come with a bag of responsibilities.What responsibilities do apes have toward their fellow-beings. Could an ape be prosecuted for violating rights of another ape...:rolleyes:

It's f@cking retarded:D

Saying an ape deserves human rights is a mockery to those who have fought and sacrificed so much to introduce and keep liberty as an important foundation for human society.

We are not talking about basic sentient rights here but human rights and it is funny as hell that people want to give apes human rights simply because they perceive human characteristics in them - what about other animals? The idea that apes are really only furry humans is not valid - they may have 98% of our DNA, but that 2% difference causes massive physical and mental changes. Imagine taking a passage of writing of 100 words and changing just two. That would probably make two sentences meaningless, which in turn would affect subsequent sentences. In short, changing a tiny part of the passage alters the whole meaning of the sentence, and this is analogous to human and chimp DNA.

I am not sweating animal rights with anyone on this board. I would wager I experience first hand conservation as an active hunter and fisher more than anybody on this site. But don't let me stop there, did any of you spend over $5,000 buying a police department two k-9 dogs because the last two died in the line of duty, do any of you put out the cash to feed them every month.

Do any of you actively sponsor cat and dog adoption and rescue events? I know I do and I have the bills to prove it sitting in my office.

Anyone ever donate raw food to a zoo....my company has:rolleyes:

I am all for protecting those creatures on our planet......but to pretend they are the same as us is ridiculous and a smack in the face of what you are.

[Becca]

By that reasoning, you must think it's fine to trample the inaliable rights of humans who take no responsability for thier actions are percieved place i the world..... Now that would be fing retarded.

[TenTigers]

these are the same people who swab a convicted felon's arm with alcohol before giving him a lethal injection.:rolleyes:

[unkokusai]

There will be NO PEACE until all iceberg lettuce has the right to vote!



(and of course, having no brains they will all vote Democrat)

[TenTigers]

frankly, I don't understand why we don't use humans who are convicted felons of extreme violent crimes for lab rats. Let them pay a debt to society. What debt are they paying by living off our taxes?

"Oh, but that's inhumane"

yeah, so a guy who rapes and dismembers little girls should be spared, but we can take innocent animals. I say these people should be lab rats, and harvested for organ donation and stem cell research, cancer research, etc.
We can reopen Auschwitz and reverse the Earth's negative karmic energy....



..**** meds fading again..... and I was just peaking awhile ago

[bakxierboxer]

frankly, I don't understand why we don't use humans who are convicted felons of extreme violent crimes for lab rats. Let them pay a debt to society. What debt are they paying by living off our taxes?

I REALLY LIKE "your idea"....... possibly because I've been tossing it about for quite a number of years now. :rolleyes:

One major stumbling block would be the "accounting".... putting base values on their crimes/debts so we can try to figure out just what they have to do (or be used for) to "pay off" their debt. :D

[Black Jack II]

By that reasoning, you must think it's fine to trample the inaliable rights of humans who take no responsability for thier actions

What are you talking about? Try and stick to the topic at hand

[golden arhat]

Pffftph!


I expected a typical response from a few on this board. A crowd that absurdly cheers about human rights for apes but does not care that society kills millions of humans every day.

The hypocrisy is amazing.

For free beings rights come with a bag of responsibilities.What responsibilities do apes have toward their fellow-beings. Could an ape be prosecuted for violating rights of another ape...:rolleyes:

It's f@cking retarded:D

Saying an ape deserves human rights is a mockery to those who have fought and sacrificed so much to introduce and keep liberty as an important foundation for human society.

We are not talking about basic sentient rights here but human rights and it is funny as hell that people want to give apes human rights simply because they perceive human characteristics in them - what about other animals? The idea that apes are really only furry humans is not valid - they may have 98% of our DNA, but that 2% difference causes massive physical and mental changes. Imagine taking a passage of writing of 100 words and changing just two. That would probably make two sentences meaningless, which in turn would affect subsequent sentences. In short, changing a tiny part of the passage alters the whole meaning of the sentence, and this is analogous to human and chimp DNA.

I am not sweating animal rights with anyone on this board. I would wager I experience first hand conservation as an active hunter and fisher more than anybody on this site. But don't let me stop there, did any of you spend over $5,000 buying a police department two k-9 dogs because the last two died in the line of duty, do any of you put out the cash to feed them every month.

Do any of you actively sponsor cat and dog adoption and rescue events? I know I do and I have the bills to prove it sitting in my office.

Anyone ever donate raw food to a zoo....my company has:rolleyes:

I am all for protecting those creatures on our planet......but to pretend they are the same as us is ridiculous and a smack in the face of what you are.

i dont want them to have "human rights" i want them to be able to live free from our interference and without fear from totrture etc

and you are right, people make too many allowances for apes and chimps simply because they LOOK SIMILAR, other animals have it much worse but we dont care. its hypocrisy, obviously an ape cant pay taxes or bear the responsibility for attacking someone etc, but every animal should have the right to live free from human human interference and torture, we as humans should be above meddling in animal affairs, and can live quite happily without using them for anything.

[Becca]

frankly, I don't understand why we don't use humans who are convicted felons of extreme violent crimes for lab rats. Let them pay a debt to society. What debt are they paying by living off our taxes?

"Oh, but that's inhumane"

yeah, so a guy who rapes and dismembers little girls should be spared, but we can take innocent animals. I say these people should be lab rats, and harvested for organ donation and stem cell research, cancer research, etc.
We can reopen Auschwitz and reverse the Earth's negative karmic energy....



..**** meds fading again..... and I was just peaking awhile agoHiel Hitler!!! The Natzis thought the same way and saved that sort of thing for the very worst offeders... anyone they elt might be Jewish.

[Becca]

What are you talking about? Try and stick to the topic at handThe topic at hand is "should we allow animals certain right usually reguarded as human."


You stated:
Saying an ape deserves human rights is a mockery to those who have fought and sacrificed so much to introduce and keep liberty as an important foundation for human society.


The problem with that is the vast majority of humans don't fight or sacrifice anything for thier freedoms. And the vast majority don't even have most of what we Americans call inalieable rights. We stick our noses into a lot of other countries' affairs because we feel strongly that everyone should have the right to life without the fear of being murdered for what you look like or beleive.... so long as you look just like us... That is hipocracy. Apes have the same right to live withoutbeing enslaved, tortured, maimed, ect.

This doesn't meen zoos are bad, but medical testing without consent? Knockingout teath so they don't cause as much damage when they try to defend themselves? Yes, I think they have the right to all of that, simply because we fight for those who looklike us to have those rights.

[Mr Punch]

Way to go guys! (http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/K/1/bush_chimps2.jpg)

.

:rolleyes:

[TenTigers]

there is a huuuuuge difference between Charles Manson, and Gold Meir.
Being a Jew, with relatives who were lost in the holocaust, I think I might be able to relate to this. I was talking specifically about mass murderers, people who rape and dismember, or otherwise sadistically murder and torture the innocent, and Aryans, and hippy vegan liberal democrats. Get it together.

[TenTigers]

oh yeah, and Falun Gong drones.
-But they can be made into Soylant Green
(not much eatin on their bones, Fat, overstuffed Right-wing Republicans would probably taste better, Ya gotta go for the marbled cuts. They cook up jucier and more tender.)

[TenTigers]

I once had a PETA activist over for dinner. I served her with fava beans and a nice Chianti.

[golden arhat]

I once had a PETA activist over for dinner. I served her with fava beans and a nice Chianti.

i knew that would come at some point:rolleyes:

[WinterPalm]

Pffftph!


I expected a typical response from a few on this board. A crowd that absurdly cheers about human rights for apes but does not care that society kills millions of humans every day.


I care. I've opposed all the silly wars of W. Bush since the beginning. And the violations in China...and Iran...and Iraq...and anywhere they occur. Show me where this "crowd" doesn't care about humans dying. Maybe the neo-con wackos who invade countries like it's going out of style and sacrifice the lives of so many don't give a ****, but not regular people.

[unkokusai]

Universal sufferage for universal roughage! Who's with me comrades?

[Water-quan]

why is that bad?

why should we cage them up?


i know plenty of brain dead people that have more rights than most animals

i dont understand what your problem is with it ?

if i had my way all sentient beings would have the right to a life free from human interference and torture

but lets not turn this into a vegetarian thing


why are you against chimps and apes having more rights?


Ditto......

[TenTigers]

i knew that would come at some point:rolleyes:

it's all about the set-up.;)

[golden arhat]

it's all about the set-up.;)

ahhh its always fun

ive never been a big fan of PETA anyway

[unkokusai]

Lettuce pray for TRUE justice, not these meager half-steps!

[Black Jack II]

Apes have the same right to live withoutbeing enslaved, tortured, maimed, ect.

No they don't.

It really is that simple. They are not human so those rights would not apply.

Laws of protection granted out by government agencies of course can but be applied but that is about it. There is a real discontinuity between humans, who have been granted the stewardship of the earth, and animals, because of our capability of moral judgments.

Human rationality and morality derive from our existence as social beings from our membership of humanity as a collective, something obviously denied to apes and other animals.

If you want to get spiritual some would say this gift of rationality and morality is handed down as part of a plan. Either way you cut it we are different and certain layouts will just not fly when you compare the two, humans and apes.

[golden arhat]

No they don't.
.

umm dude yeah they do.

if you think that something by virtue of its birth deserves to be treated badly then you are messed up

doesnt surprise me to bhe honest

[unkokusai]

umm dude yeah they do.

if you think that something by virtue of its birth deserves to be treated badly then you are messed up

doesnt surprise me to bhe honest




You better think about that the next time you sink the teeth of the oppressor into a helpless salad, you villian!

[golden arhat]

You better think about that the next time you sink the teeth of the oppressor into a helpless salad, you villian!

you cant actually compare a salad to an animal, so dont try, one is conscious, one is not, one is sentient, one is not

the end.

[unkokusai]

Filthy bigot! You have no respect for life.

[unkokusai]

http://www.psychobotany.com/projects/Cleve%20Backster.htm

[TenTigers]

you cant actually compare a salad to an animal, so dont try, one is conscious, one is not, one is sentient, one is not

the end.

so if someone is in a coma, or brain-dead, (like some of the people on this forum,) then they're salad!



and, we're back to Soylent Green. YAY!

[golden arhat]

so if someone is in a coma, or brain-dead, (like some of the people on this forum,) then they're salad!



and, we're back to Soylent Green. YAY!

i dont see anything wrong with eating the brain dead other than i'd probably upset their family



way i see it is

if you kill an animal, eat it
if you dont have to kill it, dont
meat should be a last resort

[TenTigers]

so we can hang around the wards, and say,"Yo, you gonna eat that?"

[golden arhat]

so we can hang around the wards, and say,"Yo, you gonna eat that?"

whatever floats your boat

other than eating humans probably being bad for you
i dont see anything morally wrong with it
however i'm not sure how their familys would react haha:D

[golden arhat]

http://www.psychobotany.com/projects/Cleve%20Backster.htm

sorry i didnt realise that that was conclusive scientific proof of plant consciousness and sentience:rolleyes:

[unkokusai]

sorry i didnt realise that that was conclusive scientific proof of plant consciousness and sentience:rolleyes:



Now you know, and yet you continue your murderous mastications mindless of the moral morass in which you are muddled.



Monster!

[Black Jack II]

umm dude yeah they do.

if you think that something by virtue of its birth deserves to be treated badly then you are messed up

doesnt surprise me to bhe hones

Where did I say that something by virtue of birth deserves to be treated badly.

Wait I will hold.......:rolleyes:

Recognizing your special status is essential, in my view, to the creation of a better world. Part of this status is the fact that you can not compare apes in a reasonable context with yourself. This has nothing to do with not caring about an animal but actually about our ability to care, which btw is distinctly un-evolutionary, in a pure materialistic sense.

We are of course part of nature, being physical beings, with a very unique and evolving genome. We feel pain, copulate, fight, and die just like every other mammal on the planet but we are far more than our mere sum of carbon molecules.

Indeed, us even having the understanding that there is such a basic thing as an evil action proves that we are special in our known universe.

[bakxierboxer]

... murderous mastications mindless of the moral morass in which you are muddled.
Monster!

MMMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmm... nice turn of phrase!

[Becca]

Way to go guys! (http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/K/1/bush_chimps2.jpg)

.

:rolleyes:

I imagine if we were to film you nonstop for 8 or more years, scrutinize every look on your face, analize every word out of you mouth with the determined effort to find fault, we would find flenty to make fun of too. Thisdoes't say I support the current U.S. presient; I don't. But really, all you can find is clips and uips other people found?

[Becca]

there is a huuuuuge difference between Charles Manson, and Gold Meir.
Being a Jew, with relatives who were lost in the holocaust, I think I might be able to relate to this. I was talking specifically about mass murderers, people who rape and dismember, or otherwise sadistically murder and torture the innocent, and Aryans, and hippy vegan liberal democrats. Get it together.Yes. Gold Meir was government approved. We went after Manson as soon as we knew about him. And Manson never ripped infants way fromt thier monthers to preform macabre "medical tests" on them. I swhat they did useful? Yes, our understanding of how the human mind works, the entire field of psycology was founded on that "work". But was it worth the price? There is the hair that needs to be split; no al that rubish about salads....

[Becca]

I once had a PETA activist over for dinner. I served her with fava beans and a nice Chianti.PETA are by and large over grown children still looking for attenting with outragious, rediculus claims and by trying to act shocking. They hurt thier "cause" more than help it.

[David Jamieson]

peta is what happens when you give the ill informed and ignorant a platform to shout from.

i agree they do more to hurt the cause of animal treatment with fairness and humaneness with their ridiculous stunts.

[Mr Punch]

I imagine if we were to film you nonstop for 8 or more years, scrutinize every look on your face, analize every word out of you mouth with the determined effort to find fault, we would find flenty to make fun of too. Thisdoes't say I support the current U.S. presient; I don't. But really, all you can find is clips and uips other people found?It was a throw away gag.

Guess that's well and truly thrown away now! :D

[unkokusai]

There is the hair that needs to be split; no al that rubish about salads....

Oh sure, avoid the uncomfortable truth...

[TenTigers]

And Manson never ripped infants way fromt thier monthers to preform macabre "medical tests" on them. ....


um, that's exactly what he did, but without the medical test Sharon Tate was brutally stabbed 16 times and the word, "Pig" was written on the wall with her blood. She was pregnant at the time.

[Becca]

um, that's exactly what he did, but without the medical test Sharon Tate was brutally stabbed 16 times and the word, "Pig" was written on the wall with her blood. She was pregnant at the time.

No, that was murder. The Natizs conducted very sophisticated medical experiments with the infants removed from thier mothers.

The idea was to see what level of care was required for a human child to survive. They were given various levels of care, from absolute bare minumum contact and no mental stimulation to vigurous mental stimulation and "normal" contact with nurse-care givers. They felt no sympathy when most of the children died beofre 6 months of age anfmost of the "survivors" suffered horrble mental instability.

Manson was a psycopath; the Natzies were several multiples worse. Manson hid his activities for the most part; we hid from the Natzis' activities. The only similarity was the loss of innocent life.

[Black Jack II]

Japans's secret military outfit in WW2 called Unite 731 was FAR worse in terms of experimentation than anything someone could throw out at the Nazi's.

Sick beyond belief.

I am pretty sure the pseudo case that Becca is writing about was part of 731 and not a Nazi experiement. I of course may be wrong, they did their share of medical and horrible psychological fringe testing, but some of it has turned into a grand and false mythos.

[Old Noob]

Hiel Hitler!!! The Natzis thought the same way and saved that sort of thing for the very worst offeders... anyone they elt might be Jewish.

I can't remember the name of the blooger who created this truism so I can't credit him but his truism was as follows:

In any online discussion with differeing views, the person who compares someone else's views either to Hitler or to Nazis has both ended and lost the debate.

[Becca]

Japans's secret military outfit in WW2 called Unite 731 was FAR worse in terms of experimentation than anything someone could throw out at the Nazi's.

Sick beyond belief.

I am pretty sure the pseudo case that Becca is writing about was part of 731 and not a Nazi experiement. I of course may be wrong, they did their share of medical and horrible psychological fringe testing, but some of it has turned into a grand and false mythos.

Me thinks you don't know as much about what the Natzis did as you think you might. Unit 731 was primarily torture and chemical warefare testing. Here's a nice link to some of the Natzi war crimes involving human testing. Please take note that it is only a partial listing and it is on Wiki.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_experiments

[Becca]

I can't remember the name of the blooger who created this truism so I can't credit him but his truism was as follows:

In any online discussion with differeing views, the person who compares someone else's views either to Hitler or to Nazis has both ended and lost the debate.
This is where you actually call that person a Natzi. I pointed out that the idea was already used by the Natzis. Are you implying that any talk of human rights vs. animal rights that includes one of the biggest populations to violate human rights is inapropriate? That I need to ignore that whole link because some guy you don't know and can't remember the name of might have said words to that effect?

[Black Jack II]

Me thinks you don't know as much about what the Natzis did as you think you might

You say this but back up your bland statement with a very lazy wiki article:cool:


The Natizs conducted very sophisticated medical experiments with the infants removed from thier mothers.

The idea was to see what level of care was required for a human child to survive. They were given various levels of care, from absolute bare minumum contact and no mental stimulation to vigurous mental stimulation and "normal" contact with nurse-care givers. They felt no sympathy when most of the children died beofre 6 months of age anfmost of the "survivors" suffered horrble mental instability.


Where in your wiki article does it state the above?

BTW- Old Noob is deadon. Anyone who uses the term Nazi or Hitler with animal rights is a stooge.

[golden arhat]

BTW- Old Noob is deadon. Anyone who uses the term Nazi or Hitler with animal rights is a stooge.

how so
its one group opressing another
and its racism at its most basic level

whats not to compare ?

[Old Noob]

I'm just saying that most people who compare people/systems to Hitler/Nazis know very little about Hitler and/or Nazis and/or the person and/or the system that they are comparing Hitler/Nazis to. Better to argue the merits themselves without making inflamatory and often completely incorrect comparisons. I think that was the point of the truism.

Disclaimer: Not supporting Hitler and/or Nazis. Just suggesting that most "evils" that are compared to Hitler and/or the Nazis usually don't touch them in terms of bad acts such that the comparison is usually unfair to the thing being compared to the Nazis.

[golden arhat]

i think the way we treat billions of animals every year and have done through out history where untold trillions have died for our greed and selfishness is far far far worse than the systematic murder of 6 million jews and millions of other minoritys comitted from 1933 to 1945

as bad as they are, it doesnt compare to what we currently do to animals


if you disagree i dont actually care

[Old Noob]

i think the way we treat billions of animals every year and have done through out history where untold trillions have died for our greed and selfishness is far far far worse than the systematic murder of 6 million jews and millions of other minoritys comitted from 1933 to 1945

as bad as they are, it doesnt compare to what we currently do to animals


if you disagree i dont actually care

Well you're not afraid to put your viewpoint out there. I'll give you that. I'm glad you feel free not to care. I know I do.

[sanjuro_ronin]

how so
its one group opressing another
and its racism at its most basic level

whats not to compare ?

Do you really live in the UK ???

[unkokusai]

i think the way we treat billions of animals every year and have done through out history where untold trillions have died for our greed and selfishness is far far far worse than the systematic murder of 6 million jews and millions of other minoritys comitted from 1933 to 1945



That statement is even more disgraceful than your usual hypocrisy.

[KC Elbows]

People who are cruel to animals are probably cruel to anyone who they would have the same power over.

Likewise, to tolerate such cruelty for entertainment or comfort(NOT security) is not the sign of a highly ethical society.

Liberty is supposed to be an inalienable right for people, thus the hopefully inexorable trend toward it in society, and unrelated to any discussion of allowing cruelty in society simply because it entertains us or overfeeds us in a manner we don't require.

Gluttony is not a trait that makes one count as a steward of the earth in the biblical sense, or any other.

[Becca]

You say this but back up your bland statement with a very lazy wiki article:cool:



Where in your wiki article does it state the above?

BTW- Old Noob is deadon. Anyone who uses the term Nazi or Hitler with animal rights is a stooge.It si Wiki, it is incomplete, and I don't have my pscyc books at work.

As stooge would be someone who blames the Japs for something, backs it up not at all, then critisizes someone else because the back the the other person provided was from a quick search......:rolleyes:

I can see why you liked noob's reference- no spacifics, just accuisations.:D

[Old Noob]

It si Wiki, it is incomplete, and I don't have my pscyc books at work.

As stooge would be someone who blames the Japs for something, backs it up not at all, then critisizes someone else because the back the the other person provided was from a quick search......:rolleyes:

I can see why you liked noob's reference- no spacifics, just accuisations.:D

No need to insult me while trying to go at someone else. I wasn't even arguing against your position. I was just calling foul on your poor rhetorical tool. Since I wasn't taking a position vis a vi your substantive argument I might be excused for not providing examples. Gee ****!:(

[Becca]

I'm just saying that most people who compare people/systems to Hitler/Nazis know very little about Hitler and/or Nazis and/or the person and/or the system that they are comparing Hitler/Nazis to. Better to argue the merits themselves without making inflamatory and often completely incorrect comparisons. I think that was the point of the truism.

Disclaimer: Not supporting Hitler and/or Nazis. Just suggesting that most "evils" that are compared to Hitler and/or the Nazis usually don't touch them in terms of bad acts such that the comparison is usually unfair to the thing being compared to the Nazis.
"trueisms" taken out of context are no longet "true" though. I believe I've demonstrated that I have some grasp of what I was talking about and nothing I said was *actually* inflamitory untill I started bickering. I am atleast contributing.... you got anything to add that isn't inflamitory and thread derailing? Any more nameless bloggers to suposedly quote?:rolleyes:

[Becca]

No need to insult me while trying to go at someone else. I wasn't even arguing against your position. I was just calling foul on your poor rhetorical tool. Since I wasn't taking a position vis a vi your substantive argument I might be excused for not providing examples. Gee ****!:(

I'm the one who made the comparison of torturing human children to torturing ape children. thus your attach was against me. Grow thinker skin or say less inflametroy things; surly you've been around this forum to have learned that much.

[Old Noob]

"trueisms" taken out of context are no longet "true" though. I believe I've demonstrated that I have some grasp of what I was talking about and nothing I said was *actually* inflamitory untill I started bickering. I am atleast contributing.... you got anything to add that isn't inflamitory and thread derailing? Any more nameless bloggers to suposedly quote?:rolleyes:

Actually, the reason they're called truisms is because they tend to be true generally, rather than in the context of a specific conversation. The truism I cited was a corollary to Godwin's law. From your friend the wiki:

"There are many corollaries to Godwin's law, some considered more canonical (by being adopted by Godwin himself)[2] than others invented later.[1] For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress. This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's Law. It is considered poor form to raise such a comparison arbitrarily with the motive of ending the thread. There is a widely recognized codicil that any such ulterior-motive invocation of Godwin's law will be unsuccessful (this is sometimes referred to as "Quirk's Exception").[6]"

Other than pointing out the inapplicability of an example raised on a thread (which shouldn't really be considered "thread-derailing" though it may be argument-derailing) I haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about when accusing me of inflammatory behavior.

Seriously, some folks around here spout off their opinions as if it's scripture and expect everyone to get on board. Then when someone shoots a hole in their argument without being willing to pontificate oneself, he's a "thread-derailer?" Please. That doesn't make any sense. One doesn't necessarily have to have their own opinion in order to critically examine someone else’s. Socrates never did.

[Old Noob]

BTW, if you're getting ready to throw this at me:

"However, Godwin's Law itself can be abused, as a distraction or diversion, that fallaciously miscasts an opponent's argument as hyperbole, especially if the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate. A 2005 Reason magazine article argued that Godwin's Law is often misused to ridicule even valid comparisons.[7]"

It is inapplicable in this case. Comparing any slaughter of animals to a human genocide is not a valid comparison no matter how much you love animals.:D

[sanjuro_ronin]

BTW, if you're getting ready to throw this at me:

"However, Godwin's Law itself can be abused, as a distraction or diversion, that fallaciously miscasts an opponent's argument as hyperbole, especially if the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate. A 2005 Reason magazine article argued that Godwin's Law is often misused to ridicule even valid comparisons.[7]"

It is inapplicable in this case. Comparing any slaughter of animals to a human genocide is not a valid comparison no matter how much you love animals.:D

Unless people are being slaughtered for food.
:D

[Old Noob]

Unless people are being slaughtered for food.
:D

Soylent Green is really people!!!!!!!!!:D:D:D

[sanjuro_ronin]

Soilent Green is really people!!!!!!!!!:D:D:D

Sure, but its still yummy.
Hey, we all know how tasty a nice taco is :D
Besides, you say that as if it was a bad thing.

[Old Noob]

Sure, but its still yummy.
Hey, we all know how tasty a nice taco is :D
Besides, you say that as if it was a bad thing.

I can't be sure what you're talking about without a picture. I never learned to read.

[unkokusai]

As stooge would be someone who blames the Japanese for something,



I know it's a terribly long word, but come on...

[sanjuro_ronin]

I know it's a terribly long word, but come on...

Well, at least "nips" wasn't used...

[TenTigers]

we are overpopulating the world (especially with idiots)
eating people would solve many things;
1) world hunger-just think of those poor Biafrans and Ethiopians, and our own downtrodden homeless
2)more real estate for developing, rather than cemetaries, or polluting the atmosphere with crematoriums-thus preventing global warming
3) less people mean less cars, means less fossil fuels being wasted, and we don't have to depend on foriegn oil.
4) less cars also means we again get to save our ozone layer
5) think of all the untapped resources for human food-prisons, hospices,Hip-Hop concerts,mental institutions,fat broads, K-Mart,ESL classes, special ed classes, etc
6) it would be a great incentive for people to get into the gyms and get in shape, lest not be sigled out as the weak of the herd and taken for food. This will lead to greater productivity-a sound mind in a healthy body!
WE CAN MAKE THIS WORLD A BETTER PLACE! (with ketchup, please)

[sanjuro_ronin]

I can't be sure what you're talking about without a picture. I never learned to read.

you know, taco:

[Old Noob]

you know, taco:

Oh yeah. I'm tracking now;)

[sanjuro_ronin]

we are overpopulating the world (especially with idiots)
eating people would solve many things;
1) world hunger-just think of those poor Biafrans and Ethiopians, and our own downtrodden homeless
2)more real estate for developing, rather than cemetaries, or polluting the atmosphere with crematoriums-thus preventing global warming
3) less people mean less cars, means less fossil fuels being wasted, and we don't have to depend on foriegn oil.
4) less cars also means we again get to save our ozone layer
5) think of all the untapped resources for human food-prisons, hospices,Hip-Hop concerts,mental institutions,fat broads, K-Mart,ESL classes, special ed classes, etc
6) it would be a great incentive for people to get into the gyms and get in shape, lest not be sigled out as the weak of the herd and taken for food. This will lead to greater productivity-a sound mind in a healthy body!
WE CAN MAKE THIS WORLD A BETTER PLACE! (with ketchup, please)

Hey, I am doing my part, I have eaten more females than I care to imagine, matter of fact, these are on the menu for tonight:

[golden arhat]

we are overpopulating the world (especially with idiots)
yes we are

3) less people mean less cars, means less fossil fuels being wasted, and we don't have to depend on foriegn oil.


the livestock industry does far more damage to the environment than transport of any kind.

[TenTigers]

well, if you would eat more cows, like the ones at closing time,
we wouldn't have to rely on the other cows.

[bakxierboxer]

Hey, I am doing my part, I have eaten more females than I care to imagine, matter of fact, these are on the menu for tonight:

Of course, you have to be a bit careful to do this in a "timely" manner.... particularly if you have a mustache/beard........ :cool:
(otherwise, someone might mistake you for a vampire?) :eek:

[golden arhat]

That statement is even more disgraceful than your usual hypocrisy.

why because i value ALL life as opposed to just one species ?


dont get me wrong the holocaust was a horrible horrible thing
but it just doesnt compare to how we have abused other species day in day out for the entirety of our history.

your trying to make out that i dont care about human life, i do. i also care about other species.

[Old Noob]

yes we are

the livestock industry does far more damage to the environment than transport of any kind.

Do you have any statistical data to support this claim or are we just supposed to take you at your word?

BTW, SR, do you prefer legs and thighs to breastmeat?

[TenTigers]

I like the part that goes over the fence last

[golden arhat]

Do you have any statistical data to support this claim or are we just supposed to take you at your word?


heres what the new york times had to say on it

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/weekinreview/27bittman.html



http://www.waitingforthestorm.com/en/meat-industry-statistics-environmental-impact-meat


"Meat causes deforestation in and habitat destruction on multiple levels. Clearing trees to create grazing land is the most obvious, but grazing land is only part of the picture. Most domesticated animals raised for slaughter or for their byproducts are fed grains either as a supplement to grazing or as a replacement. Growing these grains takes space, and when there is a forest in the way of growing grains for animals it has always been the forest that looses. Eating organic doesn't change a thing when it comes to deforestation. The forest of the world are being cut down to make room for burgers and hotdogs, organic and free range as they might be.

The equivalent to seven football fields is destroyed every minute!

In Central America, 40 percent of all the rain forests have been cleared or burned down in the last 40 years, mostly for cattle pasture. In the process, natural ecosystems where a variety of plant and animal species thrive are destroyed and replaced with mono-culture grass. But you know what? Each vegetarian / vegan saves an acre of forest every year! Think about how many years you hope to live from this day. It could easily be 70 or 80 acres of land that you would save in you life time just by making a decision to stop consuming meat.

80% of the agricultural land in the United states is used to raise animals for food. That makes almost 50% of the land mass of the lower 50 states. Environmentalist talk about saving wildlife, but very few are brave enough to say what really needs to be said. The only way to free up land for wildlife is to stop consuming meat. I know I can imagine that you might be thinking that we wouldn't actually free up the land since it would be used to produce vegan / vegetarian food instead, but in fact to produce a pound of meat an animal must consume between 5 and ten times that weight in grains and soy that we humans could have been living on just fine."

[sanjuro_ronin]

Of course, you have to be a bit careful to do this in a "timely" manner.... particularly if you have a mustache/beard........ :cool:
(otherwise, someone might mistake you for a vampire?) :eek:

Dude.......:p

[sanjuro_ronin]

Do you have any statistical data to support this claim or are we just supposed to take you at your word?

BTW, SR, do you prefer legs and thighs to breastmeat?

I have always liked a nice pair of legs and succulent buttocks....


I like the part that goes over the fence last

..must be a "hung" thing...;)

[sanjuro_ronin]

The equivalent to seven football fields is destroyed every minute!



We do people always pick on football fields ??
What did they ever do to you man !!?!?!

[TenTigers]

Red Bull,er cow gives you wings!

(for those of you who know what bikers mean by earning yuor red wings)

[Old Noob]

heres what the new york times had to say on it

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/weekinreview/27bittman.html



http://www.waitingforthestorm.com/en/meat-industry-statistics-environmental-impact-meat


"Meat causes deforestation in and habitat destruction on multiple levels. Clearing trees to create grazing land is the most obvious, but grazing land is only part of the picture. Most domesticated animals raised for slaughter or for their byproducts are fed grains either as a supplement to grazing or as a replacement. Growing these grains takes space, and when there is a forest in the way of growing grains for animals it has always been the forest that looses. Eating organic doesn't change a thing when it comes to deforestation. The forest of the world are being cut down to make room for burgers and hotdogs, organic and free range as they might be.

The equivalent to seven football fields is destroyed every minute!

In Central America, 40 percent of all the rain forests have been cleared or burned down in the last 40 years, mostly for cattle pasture. In the process, natural ecosystems where a variety of plant and animal species thrive are destroyed and replaced with mono-culture grass. But you know what? Each vegetarian / vegan saves an acre of forest every year! Think about how many years you hope to live from this day. It could easily be 70 or 80 acres of land that you would save in you life time just by making a decision to stop consuming meat.

80% of the agricultural land in the United states is used to raise animals for food. That makes almost 50% of the land mass of the lower 50 states. Environmentalist talk about saving wildlife, but very few are brave enough to say what really needs to be said. The only way to free up land for wildlife is to stop consuming meat. I know I can imagine that you might be thinking that we wouldn't actually free up the land since it would be used to produce vegan / vegetarian food instead, but in fact to produce a pound of meat an animal must consume between 5 and ten times that weight in grains and soy that we humans could have been living on just fine."

Thank you. That wasn't so hard, was it? I assume that you walk wherever you go, make your own clothes out of recycled six-pack rings, and eat only plants grown without deforrestation? Correct?

[unkokusai]

why because i value ALL life

That is a lie.

[Old Noob]

Red Bull,er cow gives you wings!

(for those of you who know what bikers mean by earning yuor red wings)

Dude!?!?!?!?!?!:eek::confused:

[sanjuro_ronin]

Dude!?!?!?!?!?!:eek::confused:

The horror.....


And now, to get the "taste" out, I give you nature wonder:

[Black Jack II]

yes we are

No we are not. That statement is tired and utterly gay.


why because i value ALL life as opposed to just one species ?

Ah, no...it's because you are bat-**** crazy enough to compare the slaughter of jews with that of animals.


dont get me wrong the holocaust was a horrible horrible thing
but it just doesnt compare to how we have abused other species day in day out for the entirety of our history

See above for a taste of bat-**** crazy.

I like animals, I'm not cruel to them, nor do I condone it. But I would push a magical button in a second to have every species of ape wiped out if it could cure cancer or any other form of lethal disease, if it could save just one kid with cancer I would type in the magic code and have every chimp put down and torn up for the secret sauce.

The FACT that you are so mislead by this "eco-green" cult-movement to the degree that you can not see this is what is really scary.

[golden arhat]

That is a lie.
thats a bold statement considering that you havent said why

[Old Noob]

Hey, where'd Becca go?????????

[unkokusai]

thats a bold statement considering that you havent said why



How many plants have died because of you? Have you ever shed a tear for them? Have you compared that to the holocaust as well?

[sanjuro_ronin]

All I can say is:

[TenTigers]

How many plants have died because of you? Have you ever shed a tear for them? Have you compared that to the holocaust as well?

****! wish I'd thought of that earlier. I coulda gotten out of mowing the lawn and weeding the beds when I was a kid.

[Black Jack II]

Just posting this to **** with some people:)


http://www.hsus.org/animals_in_research/animals_in_research_news/military_uses_pigs.html

[KC Elbows]

No need to insult me while trying to go at someone else. I wasn't even arguing against your position. I was just calling foul on your poor rhetorical tool. Since I wasn't taking a position vis a vi your substantive argument I might be excused for not providing examples. Gee ****!:(

How can you say the rhetorical tool is not apt without making a statement on the substantive portion of the argument? You seem to be saying the substance of the argument doesn't support the relation, then saying that you aren't saying so.

I think, if this argument boiled down to, "do you support physical cruelty for personal gain and/or entertainment", there would be not one serious post in support of it, and that is what the argument boils down to. I have no problem finding a lot in common between someone who unnecessarily knocks out a chimps teeth to have some sort of bottom feeder Hollywood career and a nazi, both are cruel people acting by a convenient world-view that excuses them of ethics in certain bizarre situations who need to be divested of their freedom to act in such a manner.

There is no tyranny being placed on animal trainers here.

[golden arhat]

I like animals, I'm not cruel to them, nor do I condone it. But I would push a magical button in a second to have every species of ape wiped out if it could cure cancer or any other form of lethal disease, if it could save just one kid with cancer I would type in the magic code and have every chimp put down and torn up for the secret sauce.

i totally disagree, why you valur human life over another species is beyond me, by some assumption that being more intelligent (However you define that) makes something superior or more worthy to live does not make sense to me.
i dont know how you could put that much worth on one child or person over a species makes no sense to me either.

we have a different set of ideals.
i value life,period.

you value what resembles yourself.

[unkokusai]

why you valur human life over another species is beyond me.


Then you are an idiot.

[unkokusai]

i value life,period.

you value what resembles yourself.

......................................

Hypocrit.

[KC Elbows]

......................................

Hypocrit.

Weren't you just correcting spelling errors?

[golden arhat]

......................................

Hypocrit.

you havent said why or how

which is why no one values your opinion

[golden arhat]

Then you are an idiot.

considering the source, i'm okay with it:D

[KC Elbows]

Then you are an idiot.

I suppose the meaning of interdependence is lost on you? Sustainable? Don't drive gas guzzlers for thirty years or you'll ruin your nation's competitive advantage? No?

Oh well.

[unkokusai]

you havent said why or how


But I did, on the previous page.

[unkokusai]

Weren't you just correcting spelling errors?



It's one of those 'do as I say, not as I do' kind of things.

[golden arhat]

But I did, on the previous page.

and i addressed that. one guy saying plants can talk to each other does not equal genuine scientific consensus that plants are either a)conscious, or b) sentient. some plants have the ability to get out of the way of predators and some even catch food, but none of that is done through conscious thought a fly lands on a venus fly traps mouth and the trap shuts, even if you put your finger there it would shut, there is no

i am hungry i'l wait for a fly to land on me and then i'l eat it

its simply mouth touched mouth shuts,
all this BS about plants being as conscious or sentient as anything else is just that,BS. plants and animals cannot be compared like that.and one guy saying it can for the purposes of your argument (what little there is of it as you seem to be just addresing things with one liners and not backing them up with anything) does not make it the truth.

[golden arhat]

I think, if this argument boiled down to, "do you support physical cruelty for personal gain and/or entertainment", there would be not one serious post in support of it, and that is what the argument boils down to. I have no problem finding a lot in common between someone who unnecessarily knocks out a chimps teeth to have some sort of bottom feeder Hollywood career and a nazi, both are cruel people acting by a convenient world-view that excuses them of ethics in certain bizarre situations who need to be divested of their freedom to act in such a manner.



exactly right.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I have no problem finding a lot in common between someone who unnecessarily knocks out a chimps teeth to have some sort of bottom feeder Hollywood career and a nazi, both are cruel people acting by a convenient world-view that excuses them of ethics in certain bizarre situations who need to be divested of their freedom to act in such a manner.


Seriously ?
Dude, I was a peacekeeper in Bosnia, I saw the mass graves that the Serbians filled with the bodies of the Bosnian Muslims, old men, women, children...
One of the older officers there said that it was probably "nothing" compared to what the Allied forces found in the concentration camps.
Dude...

[Old Noob]

How can you say the rhetorical tool is not apt without making a statement on the substantive portion of the argument? You seem to be saying the substance of the argument doesn't support the relation, then saying that you aren't saying so.

I think, if this argument boiled down to, "do you support physical cruelty for personal gain and/or entertainment", there would be not one serious post in support of it, and that is what the argument boils down to. I have no problem finding a lot in common between someone who unnecessarily knocks out a chimps teeth to have some sort of bottom feeder Hollywood career and a nazi, both are cruel people acting by a convenient world-view that excuses them of ethics in certain bizarre situations who need to be divested of their freedom to act in such a manner.

There is no tyranny being placed on animal trainers here.

I see your point. By claiming that the animal abuser/nazi comparison is invalid, I am positing that animal abuse is not as bad as genocidal behavior. True. Absolutely true. However, the main topic, if you'll remember, was the propriety of giving certain rights to apes. My critique of a poor analogy used in that argument espouses no viewpoint on that topic. Follow?

No, as for you view that the hollywood animal trainer and the nazi or no different, I would suggest, with reasonable confidence, that your viewpoint on that particular issue is a minority one....very minority.

The analogy sucks as much when you defend it as is did when Becca first made it. The funny thing is that you could have so much more credibility by making more reasoned and less inflamatory arguments but when called on your ridiculous rhetoric you just dig in.

[golden arhat]

Seriously ?
Dude, I was a peacekeeper in Bosnia, I saw the mass graves that the Serbians filled with the bodies of the Bosnian Muslims, old men, women, children...
One of the older officers there said that it was probably "nothing" compared to what the Allied forces found in the concentration camps.
Dude...

yeah but its similar in method chimps teeth being knocked out is bnothing compared to what you saw, but the comparison is similar because its one group opressing another,



animal cruelty overall every year dwarfs what the nazi's did, i think it was 785 million animals slaughtered in the US alone in 2006 and meat production has gone up since. and we do it every year, not just for the comparitvley small amount of time that the nazi's murdered for.

[Old Noob]

yeah but its similar in method chimps teeth being knocked out is bnothing compared to what you saw, but the comparison is similar because its one group opressing another,



animal cruelty overall every year dwarfs what the nazi's did, i think it was 785 million animals slaughtered in the US alone in 2006 and meat production has gone up since. and we do it every year, not just for the comparitvley small amount of time that the nazi's murdered for.

So are carnivorous animals also oppressors of the animals on which they feed? And, BTW, can't you just admit that your "cogniscance" standard about when something should have rights is just as arbitrary as anyone else's.

The problem here is that you don't respect any other human's rights to his or her choices. No one quibbles with your decision not to eat meat or to treat apes as your peers if you like. The objection people have is that you'd force your views on other people. Don't they have some rights that you're disrespecting/dishonoring?

[sanjuro_ronin]

yeah but its similar in method chimps teeth being knocked out is bnothing compared to what you saw, but the comparison is similar because its one group opressing another,


.

No, its not.
It has ZERO to do with oppression.

[golden arhat]

So are carnivorous animals also oppressors of the animals on which they feed? the difference is that they dont have the choice of farming crops and developing new technology which has redered meat unnecessary and cruel, if i were in the wild in a kill or be killed situation i'd chow down on meat too.


The problem here is that you don't respect any other human's rights to his or her choices. we take criminals rights away by putting them in prison for their offence, why should i respect anyones right to kill what i love?


No one quibbles with your decision not to eat meatoh yes they do

The objection people have is that you'd force your views on other people so are you an anarchist? that is exactly what the police do every day they force people to keep with in the law that is based on a society's views, not all people agree with it but its still the law, i'm not trying to force my views on yours i'm trying to demonstrate that my lifestyle is more ethical and better than yours, in the hopes that someday it will make sense to you too and eventually the whole world will abandon opressing others unnecessarily, for every life for liberation.
Don't they have some rights that you're disrespecting/dishonoring?
they can choose not to read what i write, they can choose to ignore me, i'm not going to stop pressing my beliefs forward, there is much more at stake as to weither or not you like what i'm saying.


i've had debates before where people have said to me that "being militant will get you nowhere"

try telling that to george washington
or lenin
or hitler
or just about anyone else who has fought to acomplish his goals and achieved them.

[golden arhat]

No, its not.
It has ZERO to do with oppression.

life is life. weither you kill a person or an animal should be irrelivant your still taking away unnecessarily the right of something else to live and prosper, if you need to in a life or death situation kill something else in order to survive then do so i have no qualms with that, human or not.

shooting entire villages of people and slaughtering herds of animals are both unnecessary actions, one can do fine without murdering a village and one can do fine without eating meat. killing is killing, the reason people see the holocaust as a terrible thing is because they see it from (for lack of a better word) a selfish point of view where they only relate themselves and their loved ones to being in the same situation, when it shouldn't matter what your destroying, taking a life is taking a life.

[sanjuro_ronin]

life is life. weither you kill a person or an animal should be irrelivant your still taking away unnecessarily the right of something else to live and prosper, if you need to in a life or death situation kill something else in order to survive then do so i have no qualms with that, human or not.

shooting entire villages of people and slaughtering herds of animals are both unnecessary actions, one can do fine without murdering a village and one can do fine without eating meat. killing is killing, the reason people see the holocaust as a terrible thing is because they see it from (for lack of a better word) a selfish point of view where they only relate themselves and their loved ones to being in the same situation, when it shouldn't matter what your destroying, taking a life is taking a life.

You don't get it do you?
I assume its because you are young, at least I hope that is why.
They didn't slaughter those Bosnian Muslims because they wanted to "take away their rights", or because "killing is killing".
Same thing with the jews, they weren't targeted and slaughtered because of an "need" or any type of "population control" or anything like that.
Don't you get it?
It has zero to do with anything you can put your logical mind around.

[golden arhat]

You don't get it do you?
I assume its because you are young, at least I hope that is why.
They didn't slaughter those Bosnian Muslims because they wanted to "take away their rights", or because "killing is killing".
Same thing with the jews, they weren't targeted and slaughtered because of an "need" or any type of "population control" or anything like that.
Don't you get it?
It has zero to do with anything you can put your logical mind around.

they hate them, they want them to stop living, they want to "take away their right" to live

whats not to get,

you like meat, you want others to stop living so you can enjoy it, you want to "take away their right" to live in order that you enjoy yourself because of course, you dont need meat to prosper.

[sanjuro_ronin]

they hate them, they want them to stop living, they want to "take away their right" to live

whats not to get,

you like meat, you want others to stop living so you can enjoy it, you want to "take away their right" to live in order that you enjoy yourself because of course, you dont need meat to prosper.

Nope, you don't get it.
Fine.

[Old Noob]

so are you an anarchist?

No. Libertarian.


i'm not trying to force my views on yours i'm trying to demonstrate that my lifestyle is more ethical and better than yours, in the hopes that someday it will make sense to you too and eventually the whole world will abandon opressing others unnecessarily, for every life for liberation.

Why does your position have to be better. They're just different. This is the problem with modern liberalism. It's adherrents are more judgmental than the most conservative personalities. Get off your high horse. You are no more virtuous and are probably more hypocritical then most.


i've had debates before where people have said to me that "being militant will get you nowhere"

try telling that to george washington
or lenin
or hitler
or just about anyone else who has fought to acomplish his goals and achieved them.

Ahem. I thought you said you weren't forcing your views on anyone. Sounds like you're getting ready to march the veg. brigade into war.

[unkokusai]

and i addressed that. one guy saying plants can talk to each other does not equal genuine scientific consensus that plants are either a)conscious, or b) sentient. some plants have the ability to get out of the way of predators and some even catch food, but none of that is done through conscious thought a fly lands on a venus fly traps mouth and the trap shuts, even if you put your finger there it would shut, there is no

i am hungry i'l wait for a fly to land on me and then i'l eat it

its simply mouth touched mouth shuts,
all this BS about plants being as conscious or sentient as anything else is just that,BS. plants and animals cannot be compared like that.and one guy saying it can for the purposes of your argument (what little there is of it as you seem to be just addresing things with one liners and not backing them up with anything) does not make it the truth.






we have a different set of ideals.
i value life,period.

you value what resembles yourself.


Liar. Hypocrite.

[David Jamieson]

So are carnivorous animals also oppressors of the animals on which they feed? And, BTW, can't you just admit that your "cogniscance" standard about when something should have rights is just as arbitrary as anyone else's.

The problem here is that you don't respect any other human's rights to his or her choices. No one quibbles with your decision not to eat meat or to treat apes as your peers if you like. The objection people have is that you'd force your views on other people. Don't they have some rights that you're disrespecting/dishonoring?

If you made this argument in regards to paedophiles, would you still support it?

If someone doesn't agree with an instance or behaviour, then that is what it is.
Taking it too far into the weeds is flaming out the debate. Which actually started as an article repost link and an opinion.

[bakxierboxer]

Originally Posted by Old Noob View Post
The problem here is that you don't respect any other human's rights to his or her choices....


Don't they have some rights that you're disrespecting/dishonoring?
If you made this argument in regards to paedophiles, would you still support it?


AFAIK, pedophilia is not a RIGHT in any part of the 1st or 2nd world.
(OTOH, I think "the age of consent" is much lower in some places)

[KC Elbows]

I see your point. By claiming that the animal abuser/nazi comparison is invalid, I am positing that animal abuse is not as bad as genocidal behavior. True. Absolutely true. However, the main topic, if you'll remember, was the propriety of giving certain rights to apes. My critique of a poor analogy used in that argument espouses no viewpoint on that topic. Follow?

No, as for you view that the hollywood animal trainer and the nazi or no different, I would suggest, with reasonable confidence, that your viewpoint on that particular issue is a minority one....very minority.

The analogy sucks as much when you defend it as is did when Becca first made it. The funny thing is that you could have so much more credibility by making more reasoned and less inflamatory arguments but when called on your ridiculous rhetoric you just dig in.

Which would all be spot on if it weren't for the fact that the nazi comment, and your response to it, were unrelated to the original discussion. The comment was a response to a suggestion that criminals be used for the purposes that animals previously had, and had nothing to do with the central discussion.

Additionally, I did not posit that a Hollywood animal trainer was the same as a nazi, I suggested that one who used cruel methods to achieve their ends was. When we say nazi, it all seems so clear cut, but it is quite likely that a given nazi was not directly involved in the kind of cruelty the animal trainer in question, who specifically chooses to embark on cruel shortcuts in order to fill a role, does. The trait of cruelty is central, and, I'm glad that your experience of cruelty has not led you to understand that sadistic people display their sadism to whomsoever they have power over, good for you, but that is still the reality, and there is little good in giving them the opportunity in order to artificially maintain a human top tier position when, in fact, it is out recorded history and technology that is what maintains human dominance, not denial of a right to be free of UNNECESSARY cruelty(a distinction you keep missing in all your comparisons of casual 10 lbs. steak eating lardasses to animals eating meat to survive).

The reality is, part of your argument breaks down to nothing more logical than "Because I am human, I may exploit animals to the utmost, even if it involves making their lives absolute misery, so that I can RECREATIONALLY eat amounts of their meat that I have little need for."

I don't view the target of cruelty as its defining feature, but the cruelty itself, and some defining characteristics of nazi cruelty are the casual approach to it, and it's ruthless efficiency. It's right, it's normal, there's nothing wrong with it, that is the attitude. Maybe you don't live in the midwest, but I see a multitude of obese people here who lack the core ethics to tell them that animals are being couped up and killed in the most violent manner, more efficiently than the Germans killed the jews, solely so that they can be total gluttons. I see no reason not to call that like it is. Your distinction of cruelty bases on whether it is done to a human or not is completely artificial: only a worthless wretch would not be repulsed and saddened by watching another living creature die under an unnecessary cruelty.

Again, what tyranny is being placed on animal trainers here? None. If we can't have a good chimp movie without such behavior, why do we need a chimp movie anyway? Simply because some glutton wants one.

I tried to be polite in response, only to be labeled inflammatory, so here's the reality. You posted a response to Becca's post that was a straw man, saying she was discussing the central argument when, in fact, she was not. Then you compared survival feeding to gluttony. No harm, no foul, simple misunderstanding, not sure why you took it so personally, not gonna worry about it.

I'm all for protecting humans and human rights, but this simply isn't a threat to that, unless you see cruelty of a clearly criminal level to be a right.

[KC Elbows]

AFAIK, pedophilia is not a RIGHT in any part of the 1st or 2nd world.
(OTOH, I think "the age of consent" is much lower in some places)

Old Newbies context was "right to his or her choices," not whether the choices should be legal. David's response is spot on. Right to choice is always hemmed in by morality and the needs of society. The suggestion is that the need to give cruelty no corner to act in is more important than the need to eat excessive amounts of beef or have chimp movies.

[KC Elbows]

Seriously ?
Dude, I was a peacekeeper in Bosnia, I saw the mass graves that the Serbians filled with the bodies of the Bosnian Muslims, old men, women, children...
One of the older officers there said that it was probably "nothing" compared to what the Allied forces found in the concentration camps.
Dude...

Do you think that seeing a mass grave of cattle that would dwarf what you previously saw would have no lasting emotional impact on you? I doubt that is true. I'm willing to bet your view would be entirely different. Ever been to an abattoir? I have. You should go to one some time, seriously, a bit of aliveness training for steak night.

That mass grave would be a speck in a giant mass if placed in the middle of all the cattle that were killed to OVERFEED many people unnecessarily. Those cattle would have lived in conditions that are more confined than the Jews in Nazi Germany, those cattle would never have had any other life before their cage, unlike the Jews in Nazi Germany, but, just like the Jews in Nazi Germany, most of those cattle would suffer and die unnecessarily.

Because of the need to fill a gluttonous demand, those cattle live in smaller quarters than they might if the demand weren't kept so artificially high by the irresponsible eating habits of the consumer.

Yes, I consider with harsh suspicion anyone who can be so calculatingly cruel as to create such a system, which is needed the way it is not because, if not, people would starve, but really to maximize profit.

Are you suggesting that the emotional capacity of a cow makes it not suffering? I don't think so. Research doesn't support that contention, either.

Are you suggesting that anyone needs ten pound steaks? I can't imagine that's a serious argument on your part.

If we were arguing that a responsible beef industry, serving responsible consumers, is acting cruelly out of selfishness, I would not agree. Fortunately for my argument, we have neither a responsible beef industry nor responsible consumers for the most part.

The reality for cattle is something like a bolt in the head at the end of a harsh conveyer, if that is unnecessary in most cases, why should we not call it harsh, cruel, and immoral? When it is efficient beyond the realm of the Nazis, morally glossed over to a like degree as the Nazi's used, why shouldn't we compare?

Give me one GOOD reason I should put a bolt through a living creature's head so that a human can eat more than he could ever need, and I'll shoot that bolt. If not, why are you trying to get bolt's in cow heads, you sicko?

[sanjuro_ronin]

Do you think that seeing a mass grave of cattle that would dwarf what you previously saw would have no lasting emotional impact on you? I doubt that is true. I'm willing to bet your view would be entirely different. Ever been to an abattoir? I have. You should go to one some time, seriously, a bit of aliveness training for steak night.

That mass grave would be a speck in a giant mass if placed in the middle of all the cattle that were killed to OVERFEED many people unnecessarily. Those cattle would have lived in conditions that are more confined than the Jews in Nazi Germany, those cattle would never have had any other life before their cage, unlike the Jews in Nazi Germany, but, just like the Jews in Nazi Germany, most of those cattle would suffer and die unnecessarily.

Because of the need to fill a gluttonous demand, those cattle live in smaller quarters than they might if the demand weren't kept so artificially high by the irresponsible eating habits of the consumer.

Yes, I consider with harsh suspicion anyone who can be so calculatingly cruel as to create such a system, which is needed the way it is not because, if not, people would starve, but really to maximize profit.

Are you suggesting that the emotional capacity of a cow makes it not suffering? I don't think so. Research doesn't support that contention, either.

Are you suggesting that anyone needs ten pound steaks? I can't imagine that's a serious argument on your part.

If we were arguing that a responsible beef industry, serving responsible consumers, is acting cruelly out of selfishness, I would not agree. Fortunately for my argument, we have neither a responsible beef industry nor responsible consumers for the most part.

The reality for cattle is something like a bolt in the head at the end of a harsh conveyer, if that is unnecessary in most cases, why should we not call it harsh, cruel, and immoral? When it is efficient beyond the realm of the Nazis, morally glossed over to a like degree as the Nazi's used, why shouldn't we compare?

Give me one GOOD reason I should put a bolt through a living creature's head so that a human can eat more than he could ever need, and I'll shoot that bolt. If not, why are you trying to get bolt's in cow heads, you sicko?

I worked a whole summer in a "slaughterhouse".
Apples meet oranges.

[sanjuro_ronin]

While I certainly don't argue that animals breed for slaughter can be treated better and that a good chunk of the industrialized world can consume a whole lot less and be all the better for it ( and that is applicable to all things), but to compare it to what happened to the jews and the Bosnian muslims (and so many other) and try to rationalize that comparison makes ZERO sense to me.
But to each their own.

[David Jamieson]

I actually spent time working on a killing floor in a slaughter house (abattoir).

It's not the same. The emotional impact exists for about 10 minutes after your first nail. After that it becomes a production line.

I am inclined to think that this is the way it is when it comes to humans and war crime type slaughters. after you mow down your first batch, the next one is easier and the one after that is practically an automated action.

It becomes clear how desensitization works if you give even one minute to think about it. IN fact, if we took one minute to think about a lot of things, the obvious solutions often slap us in the face very quickly. :)

[sanjuro_ronin]

I actually spent time working on a killing floor in a slaughter house (abattoir).

It's not the same. The emotional impact exists for about 10 minutes after your first nail. After that it becomes a production line.

I am inclined to think that this is the way it is when it comes to humans and war crime type slaughters. after you mow down your first batch, the next one is easier and the one after that is practically an automated action.

It becomes clear how desensitization works if you give even one minute to think about it. IN fact, if we took one minute to think about a lot of things, the obvious solutions often slap us in the face very quickly. :)

Perhaps, though I don't see how you get around the intent of what you are doing - killing to feed people as opposed to killing to the pure joy of it (in some cases) and out of pure hate, illogical and unfounded hate.
The kind of hate that makes it ok to riddle a child body with bullets, the kind of hate that make sit ok to rip open a pregnant woman stomach.
Sorry to be graphic but I think propoer prespective is loss sometimes on those that are nice and comfy at home ( not aiming this at you David).

[SimonM]

While I certainly don't argue that animals breed for slaughter can be treated better and that a good chunk of the industrialized world can consume a whole lot less and be all the better for it ( and that is applicable to all things), but to compare it to what happened to the jews and the Bosnian muslims (and so many other) and try to rationalize that comparison makes ZERO sense to me.
But to each their own.

Thank you Sanjuro Ronin for providing some sense to this increasingly polarized discussion. I am strongly opposed to the use of great apes in the entertainment industry and do feel that factory farming conditions are attrocious and yet I would never compare cattle farmers, abbatoir workers or even sleazy hollywood animal "trainers" to nazis. Factory farming is distasteful but certainly not genocide, the use of wild captured baby great apes (whose mothers were undoubtably killed and most likely used for bush meat) for cinema is closer, due to the endangered status of the species involved and the fact that the capture of one hollywood chimp essentially removes a whole family from the breeding pool, but it's still not the same thing by any means as the planned slaughter of a whole ethnicity for no reason other than collective racism and insanity.

Then I remember the old usenet addage that any discussion, given enough time, in which the two parties do not agree, will inevitably decline to the point where one side is calling the other nazis.

[KC Elbows]

The kind of hate that makes it ok to riddle a child body with bullets, the kind of hate that make sit ok to rip open a pregnant woman stomach.

But David's point addresses this PERFECTLY. It is nice and safe to think of it as an act of constant hate, but a quick viewing of the recent documentary "Nazi Diaries From Hell" demonstrates perfectly that desensitization makes it an emotionless act conducted in order to get to what we think of as our real life, when, in fact, the two cannot be separated. What went on in the camps may have been acts of hate for certain people, but the norm was far more likely emotionless routine.

A man capable of riddling a puppy with bullets exists, and is just as wicked a person as one who does the same to babies, imho.

Additionally, the role of a slaughterhouse is not necessarily simply "feeding people", especially when those people need less feeding, which was most likely the case at the slaughterhouses we three have been to. It is a business, it's goal is maximum profit, minimum cost, nothing more, it is not a not for profit, or a human relief organization, no one was going to starve if that slaughterhouse shut down operations, especially since the culture keeps the demand unnecessarily high.

The flaw in your argument is the false idea that sympathy for any target of unnecessarily harsh treatment is less sympathy for humans who have experienced such. It's not a zero-sum game, one can have equal revulsion for senseless cruelty regardless of the target, what is reviled is not reviled because of who they harmed, but because of the basic selfish nature that drives it. I think most of the people who are arguing probably perfectly good people, who would universally despise the puppy killers and the baby killers, and I suspect they would likewise see that someone willing to do one given the opportunity is not likely to eschew the other under the same circumstances.

And again, the nazi term came up when someone suggested using HUMAN prisoners, not in relation to animals, so the old usenet adage does not apply in regards to Becca, since a discussion of using humans prisoners against their will for science that must exclude the nazis because of net dogma more than Godwin's law is silly.

So Becca:1, Old Newbie:0

And apples and oranges are both fruit, and thus have no consciousness, will, or freedom to violate.

[KC Elbows]

Factory farming is distasteful but certainly not genocide,

No extinctions have resulted from ranching practices driven by a desire, not need, by the consumer for an unnecessary beef heavy diet? Knowing those consequences, have ranchers on the whole changed those practices?

[sanjuro_ronin]

And apples and oranges are both fruit, and thus have no consciousness, will, or freedom to violate.

And yet, no one mistakes one for the other...
Something quite lacking in this thread.
Probably time to head off of it. later.

[Old Noob]

Of all of us, it seems that SR is the only one to have personally experienced both the stockyards and the battlefield. Other debaters on this thread seem to have experienced either one or the other, or neither, directly. Having spent a year in Iraq and seen all manner of atrocities inflicted by humans on other humans, I'll gladly admit that I may be biased in my viewpoint that mistreatment of humans is more worthy of contempt than the same mistreatment applied to an animal. However, part of my bias most certainly comes from the fact that I am a human and have, despite society's attempts to remove it, a will to survive. That means that given the choice between me and and animal, the animal will always lose. Believe me the animals think the same way. No silverback is going to respect your rights. In any case, because SR has seen both, I feel fairly comfortable defering to his view on this issue.

To clear up any misconceptions though:
1. We're not keeping score.
2. I have not advocated anyone's right to eat too much meat or to be a fat@$$.
3. I do not support any right of a child molester and have, at times in my career, prosecuted them vigorously (we've ceded certain rights by choosing to live in societies, among which are the right to rape, murder, and pillage other members of the society who are weaker than ourselves).
4. I have not advocated cruelty in any way.
5. I'm not sure why anyone thinks I'm taking anything personally. I certainly haven't stooped to the name-calling that some on this thread have.

Stop being haters!

ON

[golden arhat]

most nazi's were ordinary people like you and i


i agree with kc elbows entirely which is a first for anyone on this board for me.

i agreee also with old noob in that, in a life or death situation i would favour myself over an animal. or most people for that matter.

the fact remains that the meat industry and almost all industrys where animals are involved are not driven by necessity they are driven by profit

you could produce far more food on the land used to rear cattle (roughly 10 grams of wheat equals around 1 gram of meat)

which makes it the exploitation of one or more groups by another for the latters personal selfish enjoyment/gain.

which like it or not is exactly what the nazi's did.

[KC Elbows]

However, part of my bias most certainly comes from the fact that I am a human and have, despite society's attempts to remove it, a will to survive. That means that given the choice between me and and animal, the animal will always lose.

But nowhere did anyone make this a choice between you and an animal. Your existence hasn't been threatened.


5. I'm not sure why anyone thinks I'm taking anything personally. I certainly haven't stooped to the name-calling that some on this thread have.

I was responding to the claim that my remarks were inflammatory. Since my core remark was that cruel people, whatever the target of their cruelty, suck, I really don't feel that is inflammatory, though I understand the sensitivity of the Holocaust as an example, since it has been overused for unrelated discussions. However, I hold, for reasons stated above, that there are people who for their own gain or comfort maintain a cruel industry. I also find it counterproductive to look at Nazis as this untouchable other, that is essentially how the Nazis looked at the Jews, and it ended up quite bad for the Nazis.

If ethical discussions always forbid placing monstrous acts by HUMANS into human contexts, there can be no understanding of what causes those acts and how to avoid them. The nazis and other Germans did not do what they did wearing scowls and big pointy helmets and smiling hateful, wicked smiles, they did it routinely, thus the expression treating people like cattle. Why is it a given that we even have to treat cattle that way? Isn't the trend toward improving civilization?

[KC Elbows]

And yet, no one mistakes one for the other...
Something quite lacking in this thread.
Probably time to head off of it. later.

I know you're probably not happy with this, but I still hold that my revulsion or comparison of such acts on animals with those on people does not make my revulsion toward the nazis any less than yours. I don't feel it's that cut and dried, but I won't argue it with you further.

[GunnedDownAtrocity]

does this mean ill be able to have sex with monkeys?

[SimonM]

Yes GDA, as long as they are consenting monkeys over the age of majority in the jurisdiction in which you chose to do the nasty.

[Old Noob]

I'm just looking forward to throwing poo with impunity.

[KC Elbows]

does this mean ill be able to have sex with monkeys?

Will saying no stop you?

[KC Elbows]

And yet, no one mistakes one for the other...
Something quite lacking in this thread.
Probably time to head off of it. later.

A friend emailed me and suggested that I went overboard in the nazi relation in a way that suggested I was conflating all omnivores with nazis, thus including all posters, including you. This was not my intention. My intent was suggesting that the excessiveness of certain lifestyles create these situations which lead uncaring people to step in and exploit it, in the midwest I see a lot of people who are highly guilty, the kind of people who have to buy two airline seats to fly(no joke intended there, I know one restaurant where that is the norm of customer, scary as that is), not because of a thyroid problem, but their own choices.

However, I don't believe you, old Newbie, Unkokusai, et al are comparable to nazis, I do not know each of you, you may have very moderate lifestyles, possibly more moderate than mine, which would make your lifestyles more moderate in relation to eating meat than most Americans. I simply have a hard time understanding how unnecessary killing of anything is okay, and I think sometimes good people bear the burden of explaining the actions of opportunists, or fall into defending them.

Likewise, though it irks me to say so, in regards to Black Jack, his personal actions regarding animals, support of the meat industry aside, are spot on, something that is rare and to be commended. His history and mine concerning this are virtually the same, though I've donated less money to animal groups because I almost always have pets I took in that others balked at, which cost a lot to get cured/trained away from behavior, where solutions are possible. To my knowledge, he is not in the business of killing as many animals as possible to make a profit, and again, I was not saying moderate people are nazis, if one can apply the term "moderate" to him.

I simply don't see systematized cruelty of an unnecessary nature as worth defending, or different from previous incarnations in anything but ability to apply it broadly. As old newbie pointed out, a minority view, but it is not without merit, imo. Just because I argue it with you on a different position than you does not mean I am suggesting that you are a nazi.

[Old Noob]

A friend emailed me and suggested that I went overboard in the nazi relation in a way that suggested I was conflating all omnivores with nazis, thus including all posters, including you. This was not my intention. My intent was suggesting that the excessiveness of certain lifestyles create these situations which lead uncaring people to step in and exploit it, in the midwest I see a lot of people who are highly guilty, the kind of people who have to buy two airline seats to fly(no joke intended there, I know one restaurant where that is the norm of customer, scary as that is), not because of a thyroid problem, but their own choices.

However, I don't believe you, old Newbie, Unkokusai, et al are comparable to nazis, I do not know each of you, you may have very moderate lifestyles, possibly more moderate than mine, which would make your lifestyles more moderate in relation to eating meat than most Americans. I simply have a hard time understanding how unnecessary killing of anything is okay, and I think sometimes good people bear the burden of explaining the actions of opportunists, or fall into defending them.

Likewise, though it irks me to say so, in regards to Black Jack, his personal actions regarding animals, support of the meat industry aside, are spot on, something that is rare and to be commended. His history and mine concerning this are virtually the same, though I've donated less money to animal groups because I almost always have pets I took in that others balked at, which cost a lot to get cured/trained away from behavior, where solutions are possible. To my knowledge, he is not in the business of killing as many animals as possible to make a profit, and again, I was not saying moderate people are nazis, if one can apply the term "moderate" to him.

I simply don't see systematized cruelty of an unnecessary nature as worth defending, or different from previous incarnations in anything but ability to apply it broadly. As old newbie pointed out, a minority view, but it is not without merit, imo. Just because I argue it with you on a different position than you does not mean I am suggesting that you are a nazi.

Gracias amigo! I don't have a bone to pick with anything you've just said. Unless folks were really trying to get your goat I don't think they would claim to support gratuitous/unneccessary killing of anything really. We may quibble about the definition of gratuitous/unneccessary but that's about it. I'm definitely down on people who eat themselves into obesity. I'm in the beer myself to obesity camp.

[KC Elbows]

I'm in the beer myself to obesity camp.

I am hiding in Brazil for the horrible things I've done to hops in the name of science.

Now, tell me where my goat is. I know you know who has it.

[GunnedDownAtrocity]

Will saying no stop you?

good point.

[KC Elbows]

good point.

You'll like this story.

A friend worked with chimps that do sign language, and there was an instance where one worker, a college girl, found out that one chimp was sexually attracted to hats. So, she would come by on her off time wearing the biggest, gaudiest hats she had, and the chimp would sit there on the other side of the glass...performing chimp magic. The woman got fired. I'm sure the exit interview was very awkward.

Tell your sister if she still needs a job, I've got a really big cowboy hat.:D

[bakxierboxer]

Old Newbies context was "right to his or her choices," not whether the choices should be legal. David's response is spot on. Right to choice is always hemmed in by morality and the needs of society. The suggestion is that the need to give cruelty no corner to act in is more important than the need to eat excessive amounts of beef or have chimp movies.

My response was actually an addition to DJ's response to Old Noob.

If something is illegal, then there is no RIGHT to "act out".

[KC Elbows]

My response was actually an addition to DJ's response to Old Noob.

If something is illegal, then there is no RIGHT to "act out".

The founding fathers did not live under laws that supported the rights they espoused when they fought for them.

Other than that, I see your point, it just isn't reliable to equate inalienable rights with laws.

[bakxierboxer]

I simply have a hard time understanding how unnecessary killing of anything is okay......


So, a little (or "moderate"/"necessary") killing/slaughter is OK?
(note: the "slaughter" of an animal is a different term/meaning than the "slaughter" of humans)

OK.... you think that killing cattle prior to slaughter is "different" when it is actually a part and parcel of the same term/act of "slaughter"?

Quantities/numbers aside.....
It's a given that those cattle ARE going to be killed/butchered/eaten....
As for as its being "cruel".... if you didn't kill said cattle prior to butchering them, just think of alla dat thrashing about and SCREAMING!!!! :eek:
(sounds much more cruel to me....)

[KC Elbows]

So, a little (or "moderate"/"necessary") killing/slaughter is OK?
(note: the "slaughter" of an animal is a different term/meaning than the "slaughter" of humans)

OK.... you think that killing cattle prior to slaughter is "different" when it is actually a part and parcel of the same term/act of "slaughter"?

Quantities/numbers aside.....
It's a given that those cattle ARE going to be killed/butchered/eaten....
As for as its being "cruel".... if you didn't kill said cattle prior to butchering them, just think of alla dat thrashing about and SCREAMING!!!! :eek:
(sounds much more cruel to me....)

I recognize the difficulty in expecting all people to live vegetarian. Thus, some meat may be required, which would be a fraction of a fraction of what Americans use nowadays, Especially in the midwest.

However, having grown up working summers on my uncle's dairy farm, you are incorrect that all cows are headed for slaughter in all cases, and I never conflated killing and slaughter, but of course, you know that.

However, I would advocate the slaughter of people who dress as cows for furry conventions,

[bakxierboxer]

The founding fathers did not live under the rights they espoused when they fought for them.

Other than that, I see your point, it just isn't reliable to equate inalienable rights with laws.

OK......
NOW, why did this come up when the Forum shows the following?

*******


KC Elbows KC Elbows is offline
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Kansas City, KS
Posts: 4,755
Quote:

Originally Posted by bakxierboxer View Post
My response was actually an addition to DJ's response to Old Noob.

If something is illegal, then there is no RIGHT to "act out".

The problem with this approach is that sometimes, what we recognize as an inalienable right becomes illegal or impracticable. For example, the true vernacular of American English will rarely be seen on TV because of the FCC, yet we theoretically have a right to free speech. You simply cannot depict it on the only medium universally available to all Americans.

Looks like you're referring to "profanity"..... (as defined by the so-called "community standards")
Other than that, the "vernacular" of each region is usually prominent on most available televised content.

"Universal availability" is also under "assault" with the coming "move to digital", which seems to impose the costs of that move on those unable to afford new digital tv sets or cable/satellite.......

[bakxierboxer]

I recognize the difficulty in expecting all people to live vegetarian. Thus, some meat may be required, which would be a fraction of a fraction of what Americans use nowadays, Especially in the midwest.

.... and you're gonna "rule" on those numbers & that amount?


However, having grown up working summers on my uncle's dairy farm, you are incorrect that all cows are headed for slaughter in all cases....

I never said anything at all about that.... although chances are good that any cow not slaughtered earlier will probably be sent to slaughter when they become less use for whatever purpose they'd been serving.



and I never conflated killing and slaughter, but of course, you know that.

No?
Then I must have been :confused: about the way you seemingly subscribed to another's views.



However, I would advocate the slaughter of people who dress as cows for furry conventions,

Agreed. :D

[KC Elbows]

.... and you're gonna "rule" on those numbers & that amount?

I never suggested that, I believe that the gluttonous deserve all the disdain that comes their way, and that unsustainable lifestyles will ultimately prove harmful to everyone, thus driving that disdain. Likewise, just as I feel that having a company that sells bear paws for medicine should be illegal, irresponsible and unsustainable industries should likewise be illegal.


I never said anything at all about that....

You stated that it was a given, but it's not an important point.



No?
Then I must have been :confused: about they way you seemingly subscribed to another's views.

I'm not sure whose views this is in reference to.

Regarding your previous post, if profanity is part of the vernacular, which it is, it is prevented from freedom of speech. One could argue the need for it, but other countries seem to have no serious repercussions on decency from airing the same terms, so the argument gets a bit questionable from there from the standpoint of "decency". IMO, like the comics code, these approaches are more a bend over to the religious right than anything useful and necessary to maintain decency.

[KC Elbows]

Weird, I did not intend to delete the free speech part of that.:confused:

[bakxierboxer]

You stated that it was a given, but it's not an important point.

"Given", meaning that cattle "in the chute" at a slaughterhouse ARE going to be killed/butchered/eaten. (when they're not deemed "unusable")



Regarding your previous post, if profanity is part of the vernacular, which it is, it is prevented from freedom of speech. One could argue the need for it, but other countries seem to have no serious repercussions on decency from airing the same terms, so the argument gets a bit questionable from there from the standpoint of "decency".

I "question" the idea of lumping all too many terms in the category of "profanity".
What is normally meant by the FCC is probably ("actually"(?)) "expletives".
(or should be)
By definition, expletives serve no useful purpose.
If the use of a "profane" term actually adds value/meaning to verbiage, then it's entirely possible that it might not actually BE "profanity". (in that case)

[sanjuro_ronin]

A friend emailed me and suggested that I went overboard in the nazi relation in a way that suggested I was conflating all omnivores with nazis, thus including all posters, including you. This was not my intention. My intent was suggesting that the excessiveness of certain lifestyles create these situations which lead uncaring people to step in and exploit it, in the midwest I see a lot of people who are highly guilty, the kind of people who have to buy two airline seats to fly(no joke intended there, I know one restaurant where that is the norm of customer, scary as that is), not because of a thyroid problem, but their own choices.

However, I don't believe you, old Newbie, Unkokusai, et al are comparable to nazis, I do not know each of you, you may have very moderate lifestyles, possibly more moderate than mine, which would make your lifestyles more moderate in relation to eating meat than most Americans. I simply have a hard time understanding how unnecessary killing of anything is okay, and I think sometimes good people bear the burden of explaining the actions of opportunists, or fall into defending them.

Likewise, though it irks me to say so, in regards to Black Jack, his personal actions regarding animals, support of the meat industry aside, are spot on, something that is rare and to be commended. His history and mine concerning this are virtually the same, though I've donated less money to animal groups because I almost always have pets I took in that others balked at, which cost a lot to get cured/trained away from behavior, where solutions are possible. To my knowledge, he is not in the business of killing as many animals as possible to make a profit, and again, I was not saying moderate people are nazis, if one can apply the term "moderate" to him.

I simply don't see systematized cruelty of an unnecessary nature as worth defending, or different from previous incarnations in anything but ability to apply it broadly. As old newbie pointed out, a minority view, but it is not without merit, imo. Just because I argue it with you on a different position than you does not mean I am suggesting that you are a nazi.

As I said over PM, I didn't take it as such, not even close, I know you Brian :)
I just made my point and moved on, that's all.

[Old Noob]

KC,

Are you familiar with Temple Grandin? She's an autistic woman who developed a "more humane" way of slaughtering cattle. As I recall from a radio program, she attempted to get the US to legislate her system unsuccessfully. Later, though, she was hired by McDonalds coporation to inspect the slaughterhouses that provide meat to McDonalds. Then McDonalds issued and edict to its suppliers that, unless this woman found the slaughterhouses to be humane, they wouldn't buy from them. The suppliers, of course, fell in line because of McDonalds purchasing power. I'm not a staunch defender of completely unregulated markets but, assuming that some mass production would be necessary to meet the "required" consumption needs of the population, what do you think of this woman and her methods as a standard?

[KC Elbows]

KC,

Are you familiar with Temple Grandin? She's an autistic woman who developed a "more humane" way of slaughtering cattle. As I recall from a radio program, she attempted to get the US to legislate her system unsuccessfully. Later, though, she was hired by McDonalds coporation to inspect the slaughterhouses that provide meat to McDonalds. Then McDonalds issued and edict to its suppliers that, unless this woman found the slaughterhouses to be humane, they wouldn't buy from them. The suppliers, of course, fell in line because of McDonalds purchasing power. I'm not a staunch defender of completely unregulated markets but, assuming that some mass production would be necessary to meet the "required" consumption needs of the population, what do you think of this woman and her methods as a standard?

That's interesting, I'll read up on it.

[GunnedDownAtrocity]

You'll like this story.

A friend worked with chimps that do sign language, and there was an instance where one worker, a college girl, found out that one chimp was sexually attracted to hats. So, she would come by on her off time wearing the biggest, gaudiest hats she had, and the chimp would sit there on the other side of the glass...performing chimp magic. The woman got fired. I'm sure the exit interview was very awkward.

Tell your sister if she still needs a job, I've got a really big cowboy hat.:D

you want to wear a cowboy hat so my sister can pretend to be a monkey and masturbate? ill tell her man, but im not sure if she'll be interested.

me on the otherhand ....

[KC Elbows]

you want to wear a cowboy hat so my sister can pretend to be a monkey and masturbate? ill tell her man, but im not sure if she'll be interested.

me on the otherhand ....

You're ambidextrous?

[golden arhat]

KC,

Are you familiar with Temple Grandin? She's an autistic woman who developed a "more humane" way of slaughtering cattle. As I recall from a radio program, she attempted to get the US to legislate her system unsuccessfully. Later, though, she was hired by McDonalds coporation to inspect the slaughterhouses that provide meat to McDonalds. Then McDonalds issued and edict to its suppliers that, unless this woman found the slaughterhouses to be humane, they wouldn't buy from them. The suppliers, of course, fell in line because of McDonalds purchasing power. I'm not a staunch defender of completely unregulated markets but, assuming that some mass production would be necessary to meet the "required" consumption needs of the population, what do you think of this woman and her methods as a standard?

normally i'd say killing anything unnecesarily is inhumane

but looking at humans over the world killing things unnecesaarily seems to be the most typically human thing to do, period.



killing is killing
murder is murder
just because your nice about it doesnt make it ok.

[KC Elbows]

but looking at humans over the world killing things unnecesaarily seems to be the most typically human thing to do, period.


Agreed, but civilization is based off of the opposite, the importance of choosing to buck ones nature.

[TenTigers]

well, I was pondering the world hunger crisis, while sitting on the porceline throne in my meditation chambers. And it hit me.(actually it splashed up...) CORN! It comes out the same way it goes in. And peanuts, too.
Problem solved! Just give each starving person one serving of corn and peanuts, maybe three, if they want breakfast, lunch and dinner, and they can eat for the rest of their lives.

And no unnecesary slaughtering of animals or wheelchair bound grannies.
although I still like that whole soylent green idea....

well, Mr.& Mrs. Nobel, where's my prize?

[golden arhat]

they probably should give you a prize