Alf

[Godslayer Jillian]

Don't argue with her about what a law is.
Her point was merely that ALF are dipshits because the law is the law but when we argue against that logic then laws are stupid.

[Mealla]

Originally Posted by Saya

Sorry for double post!



I think I"ve explained a million times on the board why welfarism is bullshit, but its true. Welfarism has been around for almost two hundred years and the conditions of animals that are meant to be "used", either for food, clothing or testing are worse than they've ever been. Other than outright bannings (like Russia's seal hunt) I never heard of a welfare legislation that made real change. The gestation crate ban came as most companies were abandoning the practice anyway for more economical methods, and still allows for the use of one for nine days before the sow gives birth, the foie gras ban in California gave the major producer there four years immunity, thereby dropping any animal cruelty charges agaisnt them, and gives them time to appeal. The few humane laws that are enforced have ridiculous sentences, for farm animals anyway because a lot of cruel practices are deemed necessary and normal. For there to be real help and change for animals we need to start respecting them, cease to support their suffering and abolish their property status..

I do respect animals. I respect most animals more than I respect most people. At the same time, however, I am a predatory animal myself, and it is simply a fact that one must kill to eat, and one must eat in order to survive.

Originally Posted by Saya

They are not animal welfare activists, they are animal rights activists. They believe the animals shouldn't be in that position at all, they don't believe in "better treatment".

I can agree whole-heartedly that animals should not be killed exclusively for clothing. That is pure, cruel vanity. I also whole-heartedly believe that animal testing should not be used if there is an alternative. I'd even be fine with allowing convicts to volunteer for drug testing again (as long as it's consensual). Some animal testing, however, has paved the way for disease treatments not just in humans, but also in canines, felines, and other animals that we incorporate into our families.

I also stand by the fact that some animals are food. Many animals in the wild see other animals as food. Wolves eat moose. Cheetahs eat gazelles. I eat cow. Do I think they should be pumped full of growth hormones, antibiotics, and locked in cages all their lives? No. But do I see an ethical dillema with eating cow flesh? Also no.

[JCC]

Originally Posted by Mealla

and it is simply a fact that one must kill to eat, and one must eat in order to survive.

How in the flying fuck is it a fact that you have to kill animals to eat?

Originally Posted by Mealla

I also stand by the fact that some animals are food. Many animals in the wild see other animals as food. Wolves eat moose. Cheetahs eat gazelles. I eat cow. Do I think they should be pumped full of growth hormones, antibiotics, and locked in cages all their lives? No. But do I see an ethical dillema with eating cow flesh? Also no.

If your basis for meat consumption is as weak as that other animals do it too, then you need to rethink your position, since we've got less in common with the carnivorous wolf than the herbivorous gorilla, for example.

[Mealla]

Originally Posted by JCC

How in the flying fuck is it a fact that you have to kill animals to eat?

I didn't say one had to kill animals to eat. I said

Originally Posted by Mealla

it is simply a fact that one must kill to eat, and one must eat in order to survive.

Plants are just as alive as animals. They are in many ways just as complex as animals, even though they are a different form of life. Additionally, many plants are eaten while they're still alive.

Originally Posted by JCC

If your basis for meat consumption is as weak as that other animals do it too, then you need to rethink your position, since we've got less in common with the carnivorous wolf than the herbivorous gorilla, for example.

If you want to exclusively eat plant matter, feel free. I did at one point briefly experiment with vegetarianism, and it just didn't work. I can't do it. Also, if you want to get into biology, humans aren't herbivorous, and canines aren't exclusively carnivorous. Maned wolves eat a plant similar to tomatoes in addition to meat. Coyotes will eat some plant matter, including watermellon. If gorillas are exclusively herbivorous, then we do have less in common with them diet-wise as a species.

[JCC]

Originally Posted by Mealla

I didn't say one had to kill animals to eat. I said

Plants are just as alive as animals. They are in many ways just as complex as animals, even though they are a different form of life. Additionally, many plants are eaten while they're still alive.

Plants and animals are entirely different. Plants have no central nervous system, nor do they have senses. They have no organs, no mobility, the differences are almost endless. They're both alive, but then, bacteria are also alive, however there is no logical basis for a bacterial liberation movement.

Originally Posted by Mealla

If you want to exclusively eat plant matter, feel free. I did at one point briefly experiment with vegetarianism, and it just didn't work. I can't do it. Also, if you want to get into biology, humans aren't herbivorous, and canines aren't exclusively carnivorous. Maned wolves eat a plant similar to tomatoes in addition to meat. Coyotes will eat some plant matter, including watermellon. If gorillas are exclusively herbivorous, then we do have less in common with them diet-wise as a species.

It is ironic that you would suggest that, considering that the main slant of most modern scientific investigations into the system of humans imply that humans are naturally herbivorous animals. The editor of the American Journal of Cardiology even stated that human beings should not eat meat, which isn't exactly a source predisposed to vegan propaganda.

[JCC]

Wait, now that I think about it the thing about plants not having organs is bollocks. Forget that bit.

[Mealla]

Originally Posted by JCC

Plants and animals are entirely different. Plants have no central nervous system, nor do they have senses. They have no organs, no mobility, the differences are almost endless. They're both alive, but then, bacteria are also alive, however there is no logical basis for a bacterial liberation movement.

Plants and animals are both entirely different, but plants are still alive and just as complex as animals in many ways. While they do not have mobility, they do have senses. While they don't feel pain in the same way we do, they respond to light, touch, and emit chemicals and sounds (higher pitched than we can hear) upon being attacked. Bacteria are nowhere near as complex as plants are.

Originally Posted by JCC

It is ironic that you would suggest that, considering that the main slant of most modern scientific investigations into the system of humans imply that humans are naturally herbivorous animals. The editor of the American Journal of Cardiology even stated that human beings should not eat meat, which isn't exactly a source predisposed to vegan propaganda.

Humans are closely related to chimpanzees, and they are omnivores. Our teeth are structured differently from both carnivores and herbivores. Our stomachs are structured differently than those of herbivorous animals as well, and we can't digest cellulose, while herbivores can. Most human cultures rely and have relied heavily on meat, with few exceptions.

I had not heard the statement from the editor of the American Journal of Cardiology, but if you can give me his/her name and direct me to the article or quote you're referring to, I'll gladly look into it.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Mealla

Plants and animals are both entirely different, but plants are still alive and just as complex as animals in many ways. While they do not have mobility, they do have senses. While they don't feel pain in the same way we do, they respond to light, touch, and emit chemicals and sounds (higher pitched than we can hear) upon being attacked. Bacteria are nowhere near as complex as plants are.

And yet this does not help your argument that "we need to kill to eat = we need to kill ANIMALS to eat"

Humans are closely related to chimpanzees, and they are omnivores.

Who only so often eat meat, only due to scarcity or frighteningly because they killed for fun.
If you want to compare yourself to the chimpanzee, then you still have to justify why would we eat meat when we don't need to.

Most human cultures rely and have relied heavily on meat, with few exceptions.

Actually that's pretty much backwards from the truth.

[JCC]

Originally Posted by Mealla

Our teeth are structured differently from both carnivores and herbivores.

How so? Our teeth are designed for eating plant food, that much is evident. Virtually all choking deaths stem from improperly chewed food, which is because we simply don't have the teeth for it; our teeth are primarily grinding teeth, for plant matter.

Originally Posted by Mealla

Our stomachs are structured differently than those of herbivorous animals as well,

Apparently not structured differently enough to allow us to digest raw meat safely. Our intestines are too long, our enzymes incompatible with meat-eating. Do you know of any other animal that has to cook its food before eating it? Or that can't catch it without fashioning tools first?

Originally Posted by Mealla

I had not heard the statement from the editor of the American Journal of Cardiology, but if you can give me his/her name and direct me to the article or quote you're referring to, I'll gladly look into it.

I don't think that he wrote an article on it, he just made one quote;

"When we kill animals to eat them, they end up killing us because their flesh, which contains cholesterol and saturated fat, was never intended for human beings, who are natural herbivores."

[Raptor]

http://www.vrg.org/nutshell/omni.htm

Though I'm not sure how ability (or lack of) to eat meat or plants is "proof" that it's right or wrong. And the same for cooking.

[JCC]

http://www.ecologos.org/mcardle.htm

I'm not saying that whether it's natural dictates whether it's moral. It's just that Mealla is saying things that I don't believe to be true.

[Raptor]

I thought as much, that was directed at Mealla too.

Nice find. I'm going to keep looking, even if it isn't relevant to this, I'm interested. Neither of those back up many of the claims made.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Mealla

Plants and animals are both entirely different, but plants are still alive and just as complex as animals in many ways. While they do not have mobility, they do have senses. While they don't feel pain in the same way we do, they respond to light, touch, and emit chemicals and sounds (higher pitched than we can hear) upon being attacked. Bacteria are nowhere near as complex as plants are.

Plants are complex but not sentient, their responses to stimuli are merely reflexes. I'm thinking you're thinking of a "experiment" that was done some time ago and the documentary The Secret Life Of Plants was based on, however the experiment was extremely flawed and actual scientists duly ignored it.

http://skepdic.com/plants.html

And it also begs the question, if you're sure plants are sentient, if you're house was on fire, who would you save, your dog or your house plant? Will slicing your dog's throat have the same effect as if you cut a rose from the bush?

Humans are closely related to chimpanzees, and they are omnivores. Our teeth are structured differently from both carnivores and herbivores. Our stomachs are structured differently than those of herbivorous animals as well, and we can't digest cellulose, while herbivores can. Most human cultures rely and have relied heavily on meat, with few exceptions.

We can't digest cellulose, but thats a good thing. Why? Fiber. Incase you didn't know, fiber is essential for a healthy digestive tract. Way too many people do not get enough fiber, because too many people think meals should revolve around meat and not plants. While I do concede that we were initially herbivorous and have evolved to eat meat, we are by no means dependent on it, it was just an evolutionary survival skill that we are able to consume either plants or animals to survive. But we do not have to be dependent on it. The Inuit, where they are, were exclusively depended on it as there isn't much plant life that far north, and they also have a shorter life span than the rest of Canadians, 12 to 15 years shorter, but countries like India has had large populations of vegetarians and vegans for a very very long time.

Our teeth are more like pigs, who can eat meat but generally are more healthy on a vegan diet, our intestines are also too long to be that of a carnivore, which is why red meat can cause colon problems, it rots while it slowly makes its way through our system, a diet high in red meat has been known to raise the risk of colon cancer.

Also chimps kill each other willy nilly and have been known to cannibalize their babies, I wouldn't say they are exactly nature's role model.

I also stand by the fact that some animals are food. Many animals in the wild see other animals as food. Wolves eat moose. Cheetahs eat gazelles. I eat cow. Do I think they should be pumped full of growth hormones, antibiotics, and locked in cages all their lives? No. But do I see an ethical dillema with eating cow flesh? Also no.

Many animals do see other animals and those of their own species as food but once again as they are not capable of language and therefore abstract thinking, they cannot contemplate the morality of doing so, and therefore how can we look to them as moral role models? Also many carnivores on the wild simply have no choice. Also no other animal breeds their prey into a completely new species entirely dependent on the predator. You see some animals as food and others as companions, but its completely and utterly subjective. Hindus do not see cows as food, they are sacred beings and companion animals. You like dogs and cats as family members but to the Chinese they are food animals. Pigs are arguably as smart as dogs, very complex social creatures that many people refuse to eat because of that, and potbelly pigs were once a popular companion animal. All farm animals are also kept as companion animals, many people take in rescue farm animals and there are organizations such as Peaceful Prairie and Farm Sanctuary where farm animals lead their own lives but are also companions to the humans who live and work there. They aren't meat on legs, they are individuals with their own fears and joys, personalities, loves and rivalries, and are just as capable as a human to feel pain and have a strong sense of self preservation. Thats the difference between humans and carnivores in the wild, its not a us vs them situation, we are able to see animals as the individuals they are and feel empathy.

[Duncan]

Originally Posted by Joker_in_the_Pack

Law is based on the simplest and most efficient way to keep all of society in line so that the leaders can go about being leaders. They're justified using those thousand flawed theories.

I disapprove of hierarchy in any form, but we need some regulations to avoid total social chaos. Living without any law requires strong self control and similar morals. Humanity isn't mature and 'standardized' enough to have that. But as an idea, it is nice.
People seem to need someone to follow. They need a 'daddy' to tell them who is nice and who is evil. Just look at them. The media, politics, etc. are filled with various 'idols'. People admire them, so they follow them. It gives them power. If we get rid of one, another replaces him.
But fortunately we have some rules to affect their actions and replace them if they proved to be too disgusting.

Originally Posted by Joker_in_the_Pack

The only laws that aught to exist people follow without instruction.

Yeah. People follow everyone and everything. If you promise them a reward and give a justification, they do anything. To expect all of them to disobey their instincts for the greater cause is naive.

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Most do get away.

Yes. Everyone can get away. Fur farm owners, slaughterhouse bosses, lab chiefs too.

Maybe we should find and promote alternative solutions for the problem itself instead of playing hide-and-seek with businesspersons and the authorities?

[Godslayer Jillian]

Man, you spew so much bullshit you're starting to bug me.

You fought with Raptor about how bad these businesses are, yet you fucking believe "we can all just get along" and they'll stop harming animals and while we reach a point of reform we should just let them keep torturin and mutilating animals?

Fuck you.

[Duncan]

GJ:
Well, I have some misanthropic tendencies, but for some strange reason I hope someday they will change, so I try to get along with them.