OT: Protest against the slaughter of dolphins in Japan

[trisha]

I can honestly say I have never, ever entered into a OT discussion with Cranberry.

I will ask one question as a humane, caring, smallscale livestock farmer in the UK:- have you ever actually visited an abattoir Cranberry? Or are your views the result of "information" from websites?

Just wondering, because they simply aren't as you describe over here.

OK, I lied, two questions: why is it that vegetarians are always right and expect everyone else to justify eating the diet they were designed to eat through evolution?

Oh and Claudine, you are quite right - this is barbaric.

Trisha

[Jack]

#1 I have. But they were not in Wales. Things may be different across the pond. I can't say.

#2 I can not speak for all vegetarian people. But we don't all always think we are always right. That's just me.

[mamakash]

OK, I lied, two questions: why is it that vegetarians are always right and expect everyone else to justify eating the diet they were designed to eat through evolution?

I don't think that vegetarians "act" always right, I think they "act" defensive, often because the people they come in contact with become offended at a eating style. Which is odd, because I'm sure if I said this was a diet to lose weight, they'd be encouraging, but no, it's my lifestyle and I don't eat meat, so it's odd. "No chicken?" they might say, or "No fish, either?" as if I might miss that, but I don't.
Evolution can't help you out on this argument, either. The bowel of a carnivore is straight and that of a human is curved and puckered. Meat will leave a carnivore's body quickly, it takes longer for a human to pass it. Does colon cancer ring a bell?

What an argument. Yes, it's sad to see dolphins killed for food, but it's sad to see it happen to any animal. I remember some time ago that it was customary for cats and dogs to be eaten(I thought it was korea) and that caused an uproar . . . how could you eat Fluffy, but parents put a cheery Happy Meal in front of their six year old, how is that any different?
The best book on this subject is "Diet for a New America", which never preaches and never condemns the reader, but appeals to our compassion.

[peeplj]

On the biological argument, the teeth of a human are not the teeth of an herbivore, but rather an omnivore. We have teeth which are specialized for cutting and tearing meat, and we also have teeth which are specialized for crushing and grinding plant material.

Likewise the colon has a dual specialization--in fact, it's really only a happy biological accident we can digest plant material at all, and we owe a nod of thanks to symbiotic gut bacteria, since we all lack the enzymes that would allow us to directly digest plant material ourselves without their assistance.

--James

[Blackbeer]

I`m woundering if we would have packaged up the half a million children we have killed in Iraq since 1991 and sold them by the pound that more people would be outraged at real outrage. Or maybe if more people saw what a body looks like after being racked by 50 cal. machine gun fire. Yes I like cridders but does anybody here know what is going on in this world. There are things worth worring about and this issue, in my humble opioion is a little farther down my list of priorities.
By the way weekender how does one get so pompus and rude anyway?

Tom

[TelegramSam]

As far as colon cancer goes, it's irrelevant from an evolutionary standpoint as it occurs in later life, long after the "breeding" years and has no impact on the ability of an individual to reproduce.

[Bloomfield]

Evolution can't help you out on this argument, either. The bowel of a carnivore is straight and that of a human is curved and puckered. Meat will leave a carnivore's body quickly, it takes longer for a human to pass it. Does colon cancer ring a bell?

On the biological argument, the teeth of a human are not the teeth of an herbivore, but rather an omnivore. We have teeth which are specialized for cutting and tearing meat, and we also have teeth which are specialized for crushing and grinding plant material.

Likewise the colon has a dual specialization--in fact, it's really only a happy biological accident we can digest plant material at all, and we owe a nod of thanks to symbiotic gut bacteria, since we all lack the enzymes that would allow us to directly digest plant material ourselves without their assistance.

Frankly I don't think comparing teeth or gut shapes or the like will help the argument either way. Since you are trying to derive a moral maxime ("you may eat animal flesh" or "you should not eat animal flesh"), you will be commiting what is known as the Naturalistic Fallacy by arguing from nature, from the fact that we are this or that. You are always already implying a moral maxim, that we should be what we are (according to your view of what we are). Jim Stone will explain it better than I can, I am sure.

Here is the practical application, though: We are certainly equipped by Nature or evolution with the means to kill each other: strong hands to strangle one another, teeth to rip & bite, hands to wield implements of destruction. Does it follow from this fact that we are at liberty to kill each other? No, of course not. So, does it follow from the fact that we can digest animals that we are at liberty to kill and eat them? No. (It also doesn't follow that we must not kill and eat them; an additional reason is required for that.)

There could be an even stronger version of that argument: Take the passage in the bible that speaks of the lion lying with the lamb, without devouring the lamb, that is. So in a morally perfect world, the New Jerusalem, obvious and indisputable carnivors would and should not kill to eat. (I apologize to the Bible-Christians if I've bungled this one.)

[antstastegood]

I am now debating with myself over whether to be nice, and talk about how we all have our own opinions, and that we should respect the opinions of others.

or...

should I jump in to this with both guns blazing and give everyone my opinion, and talk about how I am right and certain others are wrong?

For now I will not go overboard.

You've heard it all before, and if you posted your opinion on this thread, that means you are confident with your opinion, and your mind will not be changed. Neither will mine.

Solution: I'll drop it. I will continue to vote and protest and live my life the way I know to be right, and I assume you will all do the same.

[Bloomfield]

...By the way weekender how does one get so pompus and rude anyway?

Clinton lied to him. He's never been the same since.



(Just teasing you a bit, Weeks, no criticism intended.)

[jim stone]

Let me offer an argument from a Buddhist perspective.
The point isn't to moralize or to make anybody feel guilty
or wrong. Everyone here, I'm sure, wants to be
prudent, wants to be kind, and wants to live
skillfully.

1. Given a choice between a practice which is pleasant but
imprudent and which causes harm and suffering to others,
and one that is equally pleasant but prudent and which causes
significantly less harm and suffering, we ought (on grounds
of prudence and kindness) to choose the latter.

2. Factory farming causes awful suffering; slaughtering/capturing
causes pain and terror, which a vegetarian diet avoids.

3. Meat eating is linked to higher rates of heart disease,
strokes and cancer, which a vegetarian diet avoids.

4. I have lived amid millions of people who ate no meat
and were fine; I've gone for long periods without meat and
I was fine. A vegetarian diet is perfectly nutritious, and
it avoids the health risks of meat eating.

5. Vegetarian food is delicious, when there's good vegetarian
fare one doesn't miss meat, and there are now meat substitutes
that taste like meat (and they're constantly getting better).So vegetarianism can be about as pleasant as meat eating.

2, 3, 4 and 5 entail

6. Eating meat (while pleasant) is imprudent and it causes harm and suffering; vegetarianism is about as pleasant (you don't miss
meat), it's less risky to one's health, and it causes signficantly
less harm and suffering.
1 and 6 entail

7. On grounds of prudence and kindness, if we have a choice
we ought to be vegetarians.

Some people don't have a choice--there's nothing else
to eat but meat. From a Buddhist perspective they should
eat meat. But it's skillful
to minimize meat-eating if one
can--on grounds of health and because none of us wants
to cause unnecessary pain. Best

[peeplj]

Jim, I respect you and I respect your philosophy and your willingness to think an issue through. Even when I don't agree, I respect and appreciate your input.

My philosophy is different, markedly. It includes an awareness that I fulfill the role of a high-order omnivore in nature, and that in fulfilling the duality of that role, and in seeking a balance between the herbivorous and the carnivorous, I am what the Mother (Nature, in this case) meant me to be.

My own philosophy centers around the concept of balance. When you deny part of yourself, when you try to reshape yourself in a way Nature did not intend, you are out of balance, and that will be reflected in every facet of your life and thought.

In that balance, specifically in the fractal border between opposites, there is balance, and peace: peace with yourself and with Nature. There is peace in the Predator when the prey is down, and there is peace in the Prey when they are past the point of inevitability.

--James

[The Weekenders]

Everyone here, I'm sure, wants to be
prudent, wants to be kind, and wants to live
skillfully.

I wish that were true, Jim, but it's not. Activists and polemicists of all kinds can be very cruel and imprudent and choose to live "in the moment" rather than seeking skillful living.

The imprudence and cruelty, or more properly rudeness, was my point about one of the earliest posts and its sweeping generalization. "The end justifies the means" is currently popular amongst the most radical of the animal rights groups. They are certainly hurting the more kind and prudent organizations who have been around for a long time. Oh yeah, and the "By Any Means Necessary," another acronym thrown around by radical groups, with its implied threat. It sounds so much like spoiled brats who are gonna torch the place if they don't get their way.

At the risk of pomposity, I would track it to the first WTO riots, as some kind of recent historical turning point in mean, nasty "protest" strategies that made Abbie Hoffman look like a kindergartner by comparison.

I chalk it up to the failure of the educational system, legitimate frustrations with corporate reality and media, and the ever-present ability of man to practice mob behavior. The issue of "Civil Incivility" is way too large to go into but its on the table in this discussion. Please note that I am not condemning everyone and everything except those activities and behaviors in which self-control factors. I am pretty disgusted with a lot of things in society too, but carrying around a videotape camera, purposely breaking the law then taping the police reaction for a future lawsuit is a long way off from hollerin' "Hey Ho, Georgie Bush has got to go." I mentioned months ago that protestors were poking police horses with the stick parts of their protest signs during the anti-war riots.

In the Bay Area, we have had some very mean and nasty gay activists who seem to want the right to destroy property, hurl epithets at straights (we are "breeders") then make hysterical media demands in the name of "compassion." "Hate you, stroke me", seems to be the message and its damned cynical, imprudent and rude. In their case, they want it both ways and that strategy has run thin in the eyes of many. I only mention it in the context of the above paragraph, not as relevant to the thread topic or any of the posters..

About animals and meat, one thing that I wished to note: Though I have no real experience in this, I have been told that the Jewish approach towards slaughtering animals for food is done with humility, thankfulness to God and respect for the animal. To the radicalized, this may just be rationalization but it captures the way I view meat-eating.

As I come from many generations of ranching/farming in the US on both sides of my family, and have spent lots of time with animals, I know well how the truly sensitive (as in, me!) have a hard time coping with the slaughter of animals. Hey, I had a pet cow when I was a kid. I have come to the conclusion that taking that responsibility sobers (or, more darkly, hardens) a man or woman by the practicality of the situation. My Dad loves animals, that's one of the reasons he has so many. He's one of those cowboys who communicates with horses in that inspiring style that sold a bunch of movie tickets not long ago (The Horse Whisperer). Yet he has the capacity to slaughter animals at the appropriate time, a test I would fail. No matter how much you might ridicule this concept, I think he is the more mature of us. Sometimes its just absurd, like the Easter Sunday a few years ago in which he had to go down to the barn and slaughter rabbits for the restaurant order!! I have thought about this subject for years and years so please understand that I respect the sentiments of those opposed. (And btw, many ranchers bring in butchers to actually do the slaughtering or take the animal to them)

Oh yeah, here are some quotes: "The life of an ant and the life of my child should be granted equal protection." - Michael Fox, Vice President, Humane Society of the United States, 1990.

"Feeding kids meat is child abuse" PETA billboard outside Shelley, Idaho Sept 03.

Prudent?

[Lorenzo]

Just because someone has a craving for blood, hair, toenails, skin, muscles, eyes, bones, weird looking appendages (whatever) of the animal kingdom, doesn't mean they're not intelligent, or mean they are completely thoughtless. It just means they're not quite as educated or sensitive to the rights of other living creatures as vegetarians and vegans. It's more like an innocent slavery to appetite...they mean no harm (most wouldn't directly kill any animal), but they seem immuned to thinking of it as harmful. They'd go nuts (no pun intended ), and they'd experince withdrawal pains if they had to go vegan, cold turkey (no pun intended ).

The rights of any creature are equal to the rights of mankind. It's true that many creatures are insensitive to the rights of other creatures. It's only inhumane for humans to act inhuman. Our moral struggle has always been to rise above cruelty, above slavery, overcoming the demands of appetite and lusts of the flesh. The opposite only leads to moral decay.

Naturally, or biologically, humans belong to the same phylum, class, order, and genus as anthropoid apes (frugivores)...flat teeth, flat nails, long convoluting intestines.

I think it was George Bernard Shaw who left instructions for his funeral...that he wanted the procession to include turkeys, chickens, ducks, an aquarium of fishes, a herd of cows, pigs, sheep, goats...all with a red ribbon tied around their necks, in memory of the man who allowed them to live while he ate fruits, nuts, grains, and vegetables.

He wrote:

We are the living graves of murdered beasts
Slaughtered to satisfy our appetites
We seldom pause to wonder at our feasts,
If animals, like men, can possibly have rights.
We pray on Sundays that we may have light
To guide our footsteps on the path we tread.
We're sick of war, we do not want to fight,
The thought of it now fills our hearts with dread
Yet we gorge ourselves upon the dead.

Like carrion crows, we live and feed on meat
Regardless of the pain and suffering we cause.
If thus we treat defenseless animals for sport or gain,
how can we hope in this world to attain
The Peace we say we're so anxious for.
We pray for it o'er the hecatombs of slain,
To God, while outraging the moral law.
This cruelty begets it's offspring--WAR G.B. Shaw

[Jack]

Quote @ Lorenzo

We are the living graves of murdered beasts
Slaughtered to satisfy our appetites
We seldom pause to wonder at our feasts,
If animals, like men, can possibly have rights.
We pray on Sundays that we may have light
To guide our footsteps on the path we tread.
We're sick of war, we do not want to fight,
The thought of it now fills our hearts with dread
Yet we gorge ourselves upon the dead.

Like carrion crows, we live and feed on meat
Regardless of the pain and suffering we cause.
If thus we treat defenseless animals for sport or gain,
how can we hope in this world to attain
The Peace we say we're so anxious for.
We pray for it o'er the hecatombs of slain,
To God, while outraging the moral law.
This cruelty begets it's offspring--WAR G.B. Shaw

I am in love with that. Has anybody ever put that to music?

[Lorenzo]

I doubt it, unless you speak of the ineffable music of our hearts, or being in tune with the lonesome touch, or the salty tear in your avatar.