Page 4 of 8 [ 120 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Tomasu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,193
Location: West Yorkshire, England

20 May 2009, 3:05 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Magnus wrote:
Sand, it wasn't necessary for the people back then to do those things. It was how history went, but it could have turned out many other ways. Don't you think that it would have been more ethical if all that killing and maiming didn't take place? Who knows how things would have turned out if the Native Americans weren't wiped out like they were. It didn't have to happen that way. It doesn't have to continue to be like that either.


The readiest supply of protein is animal flesh. Grain eating did not become practical until humans learned how to grow grain to order and the agricultural mode of existence took hold. Even now, meat is the best source of protein for the human diet. We can substitute a combination of brains and legumes, but more of them must be consumed.

ruveyn


^^ I certainly respect your argument ruveyn, however is has been argued many times and seems very logical that if all humans adopted a vegan diet, this was increase efficiency a very large amount. There are lots of replacements for protein, such as legumes, and humans certainly need many of these for their supply of protein. However, how many legumes is alot? In order for a poor cow that is bred by certain humans only to be slaughtered requires food and land to feed on. If this same space was used directly for food to be eaten by humans, then eating a certain mass of legumes would be less protein for ahuman than eating equal mass of flesh of a poor cow, less food was perhaps used as no food was used for the poor cow to feed on. I believe energy efficieny decreases as one progress up the "food chain" (although I find this term very mean.



AnonymousAnonymous
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 56,240
Location: Portland, Oregon

20 May 2009, 4:33 pm

There is an animal welfare conference, set for June 26th-28th in Portland
on the campus of Portland State University.

Google "Let Live Foundation Conference" and the info will be there.
There is a catch with the info.


_________________
Silly NTs, I have Aspergers, and having Aspergers is gr-r-reat!


Magnus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,372
Location: Claremont, California

20 May 2009, 7:59 pm

Seeds don't need to be cooked. Nuts are very high in protein and the fatty oils are very good for the brain.


_________________
As long as man continues to be the ruthless destroyer of lower living beings he will never know health or peace. For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other.

-Pythagoras


Markie
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 33

28 Jan 2010, 10:43 am

Oh boy, another animal rights debate!
How could I remain quiet on this? :-)

I am a strong promoter of animal rights and a vegetarian. I have an own animal rights organization, the Organization for Animal Dignity, www.animaldignity.org
I founded this organization mainly because I believe the stance of just about ALL animal welfare and animal rights organizations on castration of animals and animal sexuality is fundamentally wrong, flawed, messed up and totally hypocritical. And that *IS* relevant for animals and their rights and protection, thus for the sincerity of any animal rights or protection organization.

I agree that animal rights groups should take humans and their needs into consideration as well. I strive to do just that. And I myself have and still do own pets.
I'm all for animal rights, but I am not against people being friends with and "having" "pet" animals.
I'm just against the notion of people having a "right" to own pets just like they had to own human slaves. Animals should not be "ownable" should not be objects, should not be slaves. People wishing to keep animals should have a stuartship, should be granted permission to keep and take care of the animal, as long as they fulfill their duty of respect towards the animal acceptably, do not abuse them, mutilate them, or treat them without respect or dignity.

Tomasu wrote:
I believe it would be nice if a group was created that attempted to create equality for all. If they fought for the needs of all humans and non-humans alike.

Hey! Without trying to advertise my organization, please do check out my organization, that's just what I'm trying to do! :-)
Very recently I added the slogan "Dignity and Justice for all Genders, Races and Species".
Please do tell me what you think if you have the time. You can also tell me by personal message, so as not to turn this thread into a thread about *my* animal rights organization. That is not my intention, mentioning it is just relevant both in this thread and as something important about myself that I wish people to know.

Mark



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

28 Jan 2010, 12:35 pm

Hmm..... I believe in eating animals of all forms. From the small to the big, just so long as they are cooked right to be healthy to eat. (and even otherwise if the person eating them wants that) The historical role of animals is to be property at best, and I think people should be free to dispose of their property however they wish without hippies telling them otherwise.



Magnus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,372
Location: Claremont, California

28 Jan 2010, 12:44 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Hmm..... I believe in eating animals of all forms. From the small to the big, just so long as they are cooked right to be healthy to eat. (and even otherwise if the person eating them wants that) The historical role of animals is to be property at best, and I think people should be free to dispose of their property however they wish without hippies telling them otherwise.


Children used to be considered property until the animal rights activists fought for their rights. Animals may be property, but they are sentient property. Are you okay with people eating their dogs and cats?


_________________
As long as man continues to be the ruthless destroyer of lower living beings he will never know health or peace. For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other.

-Pythagoras


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

28 Jan 2010, 12:56 pm

Magnus wrote:
Children used to be considered property until the animal rights activists fought for their rights. Animals may be property, but they are sentient property. Are you okay with people eating their dogs and cats?

Animal rights activists fought for children's rights? In any case, the issue is that I don't see a reason to alter the property status of animals. They are both capital and consumption.

Yes, I am fine with people eating their dogs and cats. In fact, I felt slightly outraged when I heard that China was attempting to outlaw consumption of dogs and cats. http://planetsave.com/blog/2010/01/27/c ... -and-dogs/

I mean, the right of people to eat things should not be abridged. It should be considered the first Amendment to the NWO. Certainly I would feel wronged if one of my favorite meals was outlawed because of the sentimentality of some self-righteous jerks in the middle class.



Magnus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,372
Location: Claremont, California

28 Jan 2010, 1:04 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Magnus wrote:
Children used to be considered property until the animal rights activists fought for their rights. Animals may be property, but they are sentient property. Are you okay with people eating their dogs and cats?

Animal rights activists fought for children's rights? In any case, the issue is that I don't see a reason to alter the property status of animals. They are both capital and consumption.

Yes, I am fine with people eating their dogs and cats. In fact, I felt slightly outraged when I heard that China was attempting to outlaw consumption of dogs and cats. http://planetsave.com/blog/2010/01/27/c ... -and-dogs/

I mean, the right of people to eat things should not be abridged. It should be considered the first Amendment to the NWO. Certainly I would feel wronged if one of my favorite meals was outlawed because of the sentimentality of some self-righteous jerks in the middle class.


Treat others the way you would want to be treated, even if they are slaves or animals.
What is self righteous about that and why does it make me a jerk for saying it? I find your attitude much more self righteous (I'm a human and therefore I can do whatever I want to those who are weaker than me). No wonder animal rights activists are so annoying, they have to deal with this sort of jerk mentality on a daily basis.


_________________
As long as man continues to be the ruthless destroyer of lower living beings he will never know health or peace. For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other.

-Pythagoras


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

28 Jan 2010, 1:17 pm

Magnus wrote:
Treat others the way you would want to be treated, even if they are slaves or animals.
What is self righteous about that and why does it make me a jerk for saying it? I find your attitude much more self righteous (I'm a human and therefore I can do whatever I want to those who are weaker than me). No wonder animal rights activists are so annoying, they have to deal with this sort of jerk mentality on a daily basis.

Who says that we should consider animals to be others?

The self-righteous element of it is that the very structure of our society and the very beliefs of our people for millenia have to be overthrown because you ended up liking some food-thing, therefore you want to tell the rest of us how we can treat these things. I mean, I don't tell you that you have to eat animals do I? Nothing like "Magnus, eat that cow now!", but you want to tell me "AG stop eating your meal, it disgusts me"?

The point is not anything to do with weakness, only with difference. I'm a human, and therefore I can do whatever I want to those who aren't human. I am not saying that this will be something you will like, but let's face it, abortions have some of the same moral issues. Not only that, but I have given up on the idea that morality really exists or can truly be made consistent. Morals came from evolution to benefit mankind, and right now they've gone haywire and no longer promote that reason that ensured their original existence in the first place. We're now rich enough that we don't have to give a damn about food, therefore we've gone crazy, sort of like one of those nobles in stories who becomes incited to do crazy things by the mere fact that he's got so much wealth that he doesn't have to care.



Magnus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,372
Location: Claremont, California

28 Jan 2010, 1:40 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Magnus wrote:
Treat others the way you would want to be treated, even if they are slaves or animals.
What is self righteous about that and why does it make me a jerk for saying it? I find your attitude much more self righteous (I'm a human and therefore I can do whatever I want to those who are weaker than me). No wonder animal rights activists are so annoying, they have to deal with this sort of jerk mentality on a daily basis.

Who says that we should consider animals to be others?

The self-righteous element of it is that the very structure of our society and the very beliefs of our people for millenia have to be overthrown because you ended up liking some food-thing, therefore you want to tell the rest of us how we can treat these things. I mean, I don't tell you that you have to eat animals do I? Nothing like "Magnus, eat that cow now!", but you want to tell me "AG stop eating your meal, it disgusts me"?

The point is not anything to do with weakness, only with difference. I'm a human, and therefore I can do whatever I want to those who aren't human. I am not saying that this will be something you will like, but let's face it, abortions have some of the same moral issues. Not only that, but I have given up on the idea that morality really exists or can truly be made consistent. Morals came from evolution to benefit mankind, and right now they've gone haywire and no longer promote that reason that ensured their original existence in the first place. We're now rich enough that we don't have to give a damn about food, therefore we've gone crazy, sort of like one of those nobles in stories who becomes incited to do crazy things by the mere fact that he's got so much wealth that he doesn't have to care.


You are a human, but you are also an animal.

I'd bet that far more people have told me to eat meat than people who have told you not to eat it. I never said, don't eat meat. This is not a right that is going to be taken away from you. Yes, we are very blessed as human beings to have the ability to eat whatever we want. I don't think it is necessary to eat them at this stage in the evolution.


_________________
As long as man continues to be the ruthless destroyer of lower living beings he will never know health or peace. For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other.

-Pythagoras


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

28 Jan 2010, 2:02 pm

Magnus wrote:
I'd bet that far more people have told me to eat meat than people who have told you not to eat it. I never said, don't eat meat. This is not a right that is going to be taken away from you. Yes, we are very blessed as human beings to have the ability to eat whatever we want. I don't think it is necessary to eat them at this stage in the evolution.

Well, ok, but never with the backing of the law. And that makes a difference, if someone passes a law outlawing vegetarianism, I will defend you, but if someone is trying to curtail the freedom to devour tasty animals, then I have to side with the other side.

Now, I do recognize that there is a cultural element of the matter, however, it does seem as if the motions of the animal rights crowd is going to drive up animal rights and things like that which will curtail my right to eat meat.

Very few things we do are necessary. Eating meat is what we do because meat is tasty. How about this though, if it becomes reasonable to eat vat-meat, I have no problem favoring that over actual animal flesh. Is that alright?



Markie
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 33

28 Jan 2010, 6:42 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Yes, I am fine with people eating their dogs and cats. In fact, I felt slightly outraged when I heard that China was attempting to outlaw consumption of dogs and cats. http://planetsave.com/blog/2010/01/27/c ... -and-dogs/
I mean, the right of people to eat things should not be abridged. It should be considered the first Amendment to the NWO. Certainly I would feel wronged if ...

Awww, now look who's whining...
"Putty putty" (= little birdy) is afraid to loose a "right"?
Who said you have any rights whatsoever?

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
people for millenia have to be overthrown because you ended up liking some food-thing, therefore you want to tell the rest of us how we can treat these things.

You mean like cannibals and their human food-things?

Mark



Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

28 Jan 2010, 6:43 pm

The 'animal rights' people are quite bonkers IMV.



Markie
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 33

28 Jan 2010, 7:07 pm

Tequila wrote:
The 'animal rights' people are quite bonkers IMV.

Perhaps I agree, but with most (not all!) I find that quite sympathetic actually.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 94
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

28 Jan 2010, 8:06 pm

Markie wrote:
Tequila wrote:
The 'animal rights' people are quite bonkers IMV.

Perhaps I agree, but with most (not all!) I find that quite sympathetic actually.


Although I do my best to help other living things that are in trouble, people in general do not even treat other people decently. We are still a good way from appreciating the worth of all living things.



Magnus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,372
Location: Claremont, California

28 Jan 2010, 8:23 pm

Tequila wrote:
The 'animal rights' people are quite bonkers IMV.


That is not a nice thing to say. I bet that I would help you if need be. Animal rights people are pissed people. Yeah, they can be annoying. Realize that they see lots of bad s**t everyday. I used to be in the frontlines of it all.


_________________
As long as man continues to be the ruthless destroyer of lower living beings he will never know health or peace. For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other.

-Pythagoras