|
| Thread: did you know why they are skinned alive? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 · «PREV |
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
posted May 22, 2009 03:49 PM |
|
|
you never heard the over population of deer problem as a major excuse omnivores use to defend hunting?
____________
What are you up to
|
|
Totoro
Famous Hero
in User
|
|
posted May 22, 2009 10:00 PM |
|
|
I hate people who don't respect life.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 22, 2009 10:54 PM |
|
|
Quote:
you never heard the over population of deer problem as a major excuse omnivores use to defend hunting?
I've heard that argument. But I don't see what it has to do with death camps.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted May 23, 2009 01:11 AM |
|
|
@Celfious
I just love it when a vegetarian calls me childish and anti-environmentalist whenever I mention that plants are living creatures too.
What you don't understand in my childish logic is that no matter how much we love the environment we still need to eat, like every other creature on Earth. Except plants who are the only ones that don't need to kill in order to feed - and you preach that we should eat them - the only, by your logic, innocent creatures on Earth.
I have attacked Edison's statement because I find it quite hypocritical of him to say something like that. If you quoted Bush about peace, I'd reply that his administration started a war that killed thousands of people. That doesn't mean that peace is wrong, it simply means that it means nothing coming from the mouth of such a person.
But I agree that you should stop wasting your time on my childish arguments (such as "plants are alive") and go back to whatever the **** you're trying to say or whatever the point you're trying to prove (such as the one with deers).
OR you can try to help out the environment in a way that actually makes sense. For example, by saying something that isn't 75% incomprehensible. For once.
For further info about what makes sense please consult the following chart.
-Stopping the slaughtering animals for fur or skinning them alive? Yes.
-Stopping the destruction of forests and wildlife for profit or other reasons? Yes.
-Protecting the ozone layers and trying as hard you can to reduce pollution? Yes.
-Hysterically attacking other environmentalists because they don't like Thomas Edison and consider plants as alive as animals? No.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted May 23, 2009 01:15 AM |
|
|
@MVass
Quote:
Humans live in human society and use definitions and concepts defined by humans.
Yes but cheetahs (for example) don't live in human society and don't use definitons and concepts defined by humans.
What gives us the right, then, to define their purpose?
Purpose for humans, perhaps. But purpose overall? Not really.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 23, 2009 01:20 AM |
|
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted May 23, 2009 01:27 AM |
|
Edited by baklava at 01:28, 23 May 2009.
|
Well cheetahs certainly serve a different purpose for chimpanzees, or grass, or other cheetahs than for humans. So you can view it that way, if you don't believe in a greater purpose.
In other news, humans usually disagree on the purpose of anything; hence I believe I can successfully argue that there is no such thing as a purpose for all humans either. The purpose of cheetahs for some humans is quite different than for other humans.
Or, if you like, every individual human defines what purpose something has for him, but none have the right to impose their view of purpose on others.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 23, 2009 01:39 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Or, if you like, every individual human defines what purpose something has for him, but none have the right to impose their view of purpose on others.
Unfortunately, that is quite impossible unless every human were to have their own Earth all to themselves.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted May 23, 2009 03:58 AM |
|
|
Like I said, I like when people claim that animal rights is unnecessary because plants cant -for example- run away, or, we eat plants, and plants are alive therefore eating animals is completely permissible.
I apologize for my sensitivity. I realize now you weren't necessarily pushing me but at the time I felt your comment against a positive statement was a push, and I am well known in real life to push back even when my microscope on life is whacked out.
I also like how people say eating meat is "natural" you know, that says many things that we humans do is wrong, like in in many ways condoms, medicines, buildings, clothes, and my personal favorite we should just chew on bones and have sex with multiple partners.
So yea, any other arguments which 'clearly' prove its permissible and natural to run and pay death camps to breed animals into miserable lives and slay them savagely?
There is the teeth approach as well. Many say our teeth are evolved to tear flesh etc.. Thats funny, because if you look at whats considered to be our ancestry its quite obvious that if we are evolving in any way to do with meat, it is further away from it. Note jaw structure, supporting muscles and those teeth which are you know, purely for killing and eating flesh. SOOooo while claiming evolution and nature you deny what has happened.. Evolution away from flesh eating.. Nice.
____________
What are you up to
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted May 23, 2009 10:28 AM |
|
Edited by baklava at 10:30, 23 May 2009.
|
@MVass
But then we're talking about the purpose that rich people or a mass decide, aren't we? We're not talking about a purpose for humans in general.
Also, it's not impossible to not impose your view on others. You may use something for one thing, but it's not impossible for me to use it for something else instead. If you use a dog to eat it, and I use it to play with it, then it already doesn't have a general purpose for all humans. So like I said, for some things, purpose truly is up to the individual to decide. Some other things, usually man-made, can have a general purpose (like, I don't know, a computer mouse), but most of nature is too intricate to use so simply.
Often humans realize that only when it's too late - for example, they cut down a forest in order to gain profit from the wood (as they see that as the purpose of those trees), and then erosion starts and the entire area goes to hell.
And then we're like "whoops".
@Celf
If we one day evolve into herbivores, then sure. But I don't see the point in looking down upon people who eat meat when we don't have enough food as it is - ask me between fanatical vegetarian farm-abolition (including farm reforms which are most likely to fail for reasons I'm going to address soon) and sharing all the food we can muster with the starving in Somalia and I'll pick the latter.
Also, on countless farms, plantations, etc, slash and burn methods are still used, making me doubt that growing plants is more humane than breeding livestock. The use of pesticides on plants causes 3 million poisonings and 220 000 deaths annually. Imagine the number if the entire planet grew only crops.
Thirdly, I don't know how much you're into farming (as I'm pretty certain that 99% of vegetarians never really cared about how food is actually produced), but if you live using plantations, and it's not much of a rainy year, or hail destroys your crops, you are pretty much going to starve without livestock. At least in these parts of the world. Not to mention hilly regions where there's little or no chance to grow crops anyway.
Domestic animals can't survive without humans. That's the way it is - humans are making sure that they never go extinct, they have all the food they wish during their lifetimes, but after a while they get eaten. Trust me, that's far less cruel than what most wildlife does.
And if you go "Well that's wildlife, we're above them", then why are you trying to save it and prolong the excruciating suffering of billions of creatures eaten yearly in nature?
Nature is, by your logic, a deathcamp. I love it and I'm trying to save it from destruction, yes, but we can't change its key mechanics. Mechanics which make us what we are, too.
The main problem here is that excessive breeding of livestock is also ecologically horrible. Here is cited the problem along with various remedies for it.
As always, I'm aiming for the golden middle. Fanaticism will never get us anywhere.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
| |
|
|
