OT: Protest against the slaughter of dolphins in Japan

[Walden]

I don't quite know how to take that one, Cran.

~A

Try as I may, I can't seem to find much of a wholesome way to interpret it.

[Nanohedron]

I don't quite know how to take that one, Cran.

~A

Try as I may, I can't seem to find much of a wholesome way to interpret it.

Arguably, "wholesome" and Cranberry have a tenuous acquaintance.

[Bloomfield]

Come here, Andrea, I want to eat you.

Point is, if NorCal or Andrea say that they cannot see a relevant distinction between animals and plants when it comes to eating them, how can they claim that there is a relevant distinction between animals and humans when it comes to eating them.

Meaning, if one should be willing to eat animals because one is willing to eat plants, shouldn't one also be willing to eat other humans because one is willing to eat animals?

-------

Cran,
I don't think the fact that you feel strongly about one moral issue (eating animals) is reason enough to compromise on another moral issue (respecting fellow humans). So in that sense, if you are calling meat-eaters names and denying them respect for their position, you're not helping the animals much. There will be people who are as strongly convinced that homosexuality is wicked and wrong as you are convinced that eating meat is wicked and wrong. Why not treat meat-eaters as you would like to be treated by those who disapprove homosexuality?

[Boo]

I've always wondered, if the killing of animals is murder, isn't the keeping of pets slavery?

[Jack]

Quote @ aderyn_du

I don't quite know how to take that one, Cran.

I'll take you with ketchup and salt. As long as I kill you "humanely" it's ok.

Hurry! I'm hungry.

Quote @ Bloomfield

Point is, if NorCal or Andrea say that they cannot see a relevant distinction between animals and plants when it comes to eating them, how can they claim that there is a relevant distinction between animals and humans when it comes to eating them.

Ditto.

Quote @ Bloomfield, again

Why not treat meat-eaters as you would like to be treated by those who disapprove homosexuality?

Because, Darling, I am evil.

[antstastegood]

I've always wondered, if the killing of animals is murder, isn't the keeping of pets slavery?

With cats it's the other way around. (I have one)

[Nanohedron]

I've always wondered, if the killing of animals is murder, isn't the keeping of pets slavery?

With cats it's the other way around. (I have one)

Ya beat me to it, Ants!!

[Boo]

I've always wondered, if the killing of animals is murder, isn't the keeping of pets slavery?

With cats it's the other way around. (I have one)

That explains all the stooping and scooping!

[Nanohedron]

I've always wondered, if the killing of animals is murder, isn't the keeping of pets slavery?

Sometimes no different than imprisonment, anyway...

[The Weekenders]

Very mild, Bloomie. For someone as acute, perceptive and stinging in your de-constructions (of me, at least), you have played gentle indeed. Kinda condescending though, in the end. I have been wrestling all day with speaking up or allowing this idiocy to continue, especially since I take personal offense at being characterized as greedy and ignorant for eating meat.

I avoid OT threads with Cran because its nearly impossible to argue a point with someone who:

Cannot separate thoughts from feelings and apparently hasn't learned the value in doing so.

Cannot separate morality from science. In this case, the omnivorous digestive and dental apparatus of humans is indisputable but just because the SENTIMENT exists to go herbivorous, none of the scientific reality is bigger than that sentiment. Sarcastically put, its a successful result of outcome-based education. Post-structural superstition, based on FEEEELINGS.

Rather than acknowledging a personal lack of gathered information (i.e. reading books) by SUGGESTING a thought, extreme statements and reductions are made, all the while vilifying others as extreme. I guess a website is enough to become an expert, especially an ADVOCACY website.

Is willing to insult probably half of the human race for perpetuating a behavior that is based on survival, physiology and tradition, yet play the victim card when it comes to a personal victim group, whose practices are seen as loathsome to others. Its okay to insult a meateater (which would include Christ his-own-self, I think), just don't insult a homosexual.

I am sorry for Claudine, for having her sincere thread hijacked into touchy-feely hijinx by someone who would throw a fetus in the garbage but wants us to be compassionate towards ants and fishes, and risk-taking satyrs and their victims. Give me a break.

Sorry, Cran, but that's how I see it.

[Jack]

Quote @ Boo

I've always wondered, if the killing of animals is murder, isn't the keeping of pets slavery?

Depends on who you ask. Ingrid Newkirk would say it's very close. But generally in the AR Community, the issue of "owning" animals takes a back seat to the issue of killing them to eat their flesh. I'm conflicted on the issue.

[Bloomfield]

Very mild, Bloomie. For someone as acute, perceptive and stinging in your de-constructions (of me, at least), you have played gentle indeed. Kinda condescending though, in the end....

Oooh, Weeks, you're giving me goosebumps. I never get accused of being too gentle! I could have slapped Cran around a bit for his outrageous rethoric, but it wouldn't do to at same time bash her and tell him not bash others. You see, I'm a prisoner of my own argument.

As for being condescending, you tell me how to rephrase my post so it isn't condescending, and I'll edit it.

[Jack]

All quotes @ The Weekenders

I avoid OT threads with Cran

No you don't.

Cannot separate thoughts from feelings and apparently hasn't learned the value in doing so.

Cannot separate morality from science. In this case, the omnivorous digestive and dental apparatus of humans is indisputable but just because the SENTIMENT exists to go herbivorous, none of the scientific reality is bigger than that sentiment. Sarcastically put, its a successful result of outcome-based education. Post-structural superstition, based on FEEEELINGS.

I've never said my positions on just about everything is based on feelings. Everybody's are. If you didn't feel someway, you'd be a plant.

Rather than acknowledging a personal lack of gathered information (i.e. reading books) by SUGGESTING a thought, extreme statements and reductions are made, all the while vilifying others as extreme. I guess a website is enough to become an expert, especially an ADVOCACY website.

Have I ever said "I am an expert on this issue."? No. This is just something I care about. Is ErikT an expert on any of "his" issues? No. You don't have to have a PhD to have an opinion. Websites of any form are just as valid as books, in my opinion.

Is willing to insult probably half of the human race for perpetuating a behavior that is based on survival, physiology and tradition, yet play the victim card when it comes to a personal victim group, whose practices are seen as loathsome to others. Its okay to insult a meateater (which would include Christ his-own-self, I think), just don't insult a homosexual.

Eating dead animal flesh is something that can be easily stopped. Homosexuality and Transgenderism can not. I've tried to change both and succeeded at one. Have you tried?

I am sorry for Claudine

Me, too. I like claudine.

someone who would throw a fetus in the garbage

Always comes down to a woman's rights or Bill Clinton with you, doesn't it? I won't go there this time.

Sorry, Cran, but that's how I see it.

Don't be sorry. You have every right to say what you think, and you should.

[jim stone]

I think Bloomie and the Big Berry have it right.
We've been over this ground before in earlier
threads.

Porpoises are piggy things that went back
to the sea--heaven knows why piggy things
are so smart, but they are. So porpoises are
probably somewhere tween dogs and
chimps, it's said. I've seen pigs slaughtered,
lots of em. Uh-uh.

[peeplj]

I often find it a sad truth that those who are the victims of stereotypes and prejudice are often the first to stereotype and demonize others with whom they do not agree.

The respectful disagreement, in which opponents may even have great respect and admiration for each other, and even for each other's views, is a dying art.

--James