You know, the Chiffboard would be a much happier place if we just decided to ignore this thread.
<img src="http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/sucks.gif">
OT: Protest against the slaughter of dolphins in Japan
-
antstastegood
- Posts: 519
- Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2003 12:48 am
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Seabiscuit's stomping ground.
- Contact:
Cranberry wrote:And we will find that homosexuality is as much genetic as blue eyes or brown hair.
I don't buy it. I personally know lesbians who were hetero, married, and happy about it for many years before they 'switched'. I know avowed homosexuals who have admitted to having sex with women, and liking it. Where you like to stick your pee-pee is a choice.
-
peeplj
- Posts: 9029
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2002 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: forever in the old hills of Arkansas
- Contact:
Of all the comments so far on this thread, I think I agree with this one the most completely.antstastegood wrote:You know, the Chiffboard would be a much happier place if we just decided to ignore this thread.
<img src="http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/sucks.gif">
What do we really think we're accomplishing here, folks?--and I include myself in that question.
--James
-
fancypiper
- Posts: 2162
- Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2003 1:08 pm
- antispam: No
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 12
- Location: Sparta NC
- Contact:
Oh, and as possibly the only sheep farmer on this forum, my lambs have a great life. Nearly a year of doing their own thing on a Welsh hillside. No sheepdogs, no rough handling, no worries...AND NO LIFE if the veggies had their way. So is it so bad to have good animal husbandry and a life than no life at all?
That's an interesting argument--it's actually given and discussed
in the philosophical literature on animal rights.
Obviously it has limited consequences, at best.
Won't justify factory farming of animals, fishing, hunting,
and so on. It might possibly show that what you do
is morally justified as far as the lambs are concerned.
One argues that if the choice is between no life at all,
and a year of pleasant life ending in humane slaughter,
the animal is better off the second way. By the way, this
argument is also given for raising bulls for fighting--
four years of happiness, 20 minutes of pain is
better for the bulls than no life at all--which is what
they would have if there was no bull fighting.
But that does seem a bit weird to me, I confess.
Of course bull fighting is optional, but so is
meat-eating; the sport gives immense pleasure
to many thousands of people and the bulls meat is
distributed to the poor. But I think treating bulls
that way is wrong, anyhow.
So I'm not persuaded....though it bears some thinking
about. What perhaps bothers me most about the
argument, taken seriously, is its Utilitarian nature.
I might say: 'The world is a more pleasant place
on account of bull fighting--there are the happy bulls
(who only suffer 20 minutes after four years of
bull-heaven), the happy audiences; there would be
less happiness is the world both for bulls and
people if we had no bull fighting.' And that's true,
I suppose.
But what the argument leaves out, I think, is that
the bulls have a right not to be treated in that way,
stabbed and speared for the pleasure of an audience.
We owe them better treatment, we owe them more
kindness. If we raised people to be gladiators
who otherwise wouldn't have been conceived,
20 years of good living, 20 minutes of combat,
it would wrong them, even if the world would be
a happier place because of it, both for their lives,
which otherwise wouldn't have happened, and the
enjoyment of the audience.
These people would be exploited, even though they
would never have existed if they weren't going to
be exploited--and it's wrong to exploit people
even if they owe their existence to the exploitive
practice. If my slaves are living pretty good lives,
and would never have been conceived except
that slaves were needed, I should still set them
free--even though it would mean no more slavery,
hence fewer people conceived and fewer happy lives.
I owe them that. We shouldn't exploit them.
People aren't merely receptacles of pleasure and
pain, so that any treatment can be justified on
the ground that the victim had a happy life he
wouldn't have had if wasn't going to be
treated in that way. We have responsiblities
to them as individuals.
I think animals are getting exploited, too,
and we owe it to them--those bulls, those lambs--
not to treat them that way, even though they never
would have existed if it hadn't been for the
exploitive practice. If eating meat isn't necessary
or particularly good for the people who do it,
and there are healthier and equally pleasant
alternatives, then I would not kill my lambs,
because I would be harming them--those
particular lambs-- without
a good enough reason.
But I appreciate that this is controversial.
Thanks for making me think about it, Jim
That's an interesting argument--it's actually given and discussed
in the philosophical literature on animal rights.
Obviously it has limited consequences, at best.
Won't justify factory farming of animals, fishing, hunting,
and so on. It might possibly show that what you do
is morally justified as far as the lambs are concerned.
One argues that if the choice is between no life at all,
and a year of pleasant life ending in humane slaughter,
the animal is better off the second way. By the way, this
argument is also given for raising bulls for fighting--
four years of happiness, 20 minutes of pain is
better for the bulls than no life at all--which is what
they would have if there was no bull fighting.
But that does seem a bit weird to me, I confess.
Of course bull fighting is optional, but so is
meat-eating; the sport gives immense pleasure
to many thousands of people and the bulls meat is
distributed to the poor. But I think treating bulls
that way is wrong, anyhow.
So I'm not persuaded....though it bears some thinking
about. What perhaps bothers me most about the
argument, taken seriously, is its Utilitarian nature.
I might say: 'The world is a more pleasant place
on account of bull fighting--there are the happy bulls
(who only suffer 20 minutes after four years of
bull-heaven), the happy audiences; there would be
less happiness is the world both for bulls and
people if we had no bull fighting.' And that's true,
I suppose.
But what the argument leaves out, I think, is that
the bulls have a right not to be treated in that way,
stabbed and speared for the pleasure of an audience.
We owe them better treatment, we owe them more
kindness. If we raised people to be gladiators
who otherwise wouldn't have been conceived,
20 years of good living, 20 minutes of combat,
it would wrong them, even if the world would be
a happier place because of it, both for their lives,
which otherwise wouldn't have happened, and the
enjoyment of the audience.
These people would be exploited, even though they
would never have existed if they weren't going to
be exploited--and it's wrong to exploit people
even if they owe their existence to the exploitive
practice. If my slaves are living pretty good lives,
and would never have been conceived except
that slaves were needed, I should still set them
free--even though it would mean no more slavery,
hence fewer people conceived and fewer happy lives.
I owe them that. We shouldn't exploit them.
People aren't merely receptacles of pleasure and
pain, so that any treatment can be justified on
the ground that the victim had a happy life he
wouldn't have had if wasn't going to be
treated in that way. We have responsiblities
to them as individuals.
I think animals are getting exploited, too,
and we owe it to them--those bulls, those lambs--
not to treat them that way, even though they never
would have existed if it hadn't been for the
exploitive practice. If eating meat isn't necessary
or particularly good for the people who do it,
and there are healthier and equally pleasant
alternatives, then I would not kill my lambs,
because I would be harming them--those
particular lambs-- without
a good enough reason.
But I appreciate that this is controversial.
Thanks for making me think about it, Jim
Last edited by jim stone on Wed Dec 03, 2003 4:54 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
Jack
- Posts: 15580
- Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2003 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: somewhere, over the rainbow, and Ergoville, USA
Quote @ Paul
Quote @ Raymond
You can have sex with a woman and still be heterosexual. At its core whether you are born heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual doesn't mean you can only be involved with said gender. Anne Heche became itimized with Ellen. She was still straight - just in need of publicity (and clinically insane). Who you have sex with (or don't, for that matter) does not qualify you as one thing or the other. Who you're romantically attracted to does. The word 'sex' shouldn't be in heterosexual or homosexual.
Be honest with me, is this a running joke or what? I've apologized over and over!! If you're all serious I must have a brick for a brain or something - I have stopped saying what I was saying to Andrea but I will never stop talking about things I feel are important where I feel it's necessary. Which are you telling me to stop?Cranberry this is not funny and it never was. Please stop it.
Quote @ Raymond
Lots of these women (there is a term but I won't use it) are heterosexual women, who live in a culture that glamorizes lesbianism, and at a point in their lives decide to partner up with a woman. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, but these women (of whom I know many) invariably end up back in hetereosexual relationships.I don't buy it. I personally know lesbians who were hetero, married, and happy about it for many years before they 'switched'. I know avowed homosexuals who have admitted to having sex with women, and liking it. Where you like to stick your pee-pee is a choice.
You can have sex with a woman and still be heterosexual. At its core whether you are born heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual doesn't mean you can only be involved with said gender. Anne Heche became itimized with Ellen. She was still straight - just in need of publicity (and clinically insane). Who you have sex with (or don't, for that matter) does not qualify you as one thing or the other. Who you're romantically attracted to does. The word 'sex' shouldn't be in heterosexual or homosexual.
-
markv
- Posts: 410
- Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2001 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Lincoln Nebraska
Sunnywindo wrote:*Sigh*
But really, what will happen to all the domesticated animals who have been around and used for eons to supply food, etc.? Were it only as simple as letting them all run free and happy through green pastures raising their little ones in peace and joy, left to die old of natural causes... but it's not all so simple as that unfortunatly. Thoughts?
Sara
Move them all to Nebraska.
Without ranching or crop production for animal feed the economy of the entire state would likely collapse. There wouldn't be anyone left (except maybe me, my family has been in this state long before it was a state.)
Cran knows how I feel about this issue from previous threads and If you don't remember, then my coming from a similar background as Weekenders should sum it up but maybe not so rudely (sorry Weeks
)Mark V.
Fairy tales are more than true: not because
they tell us that dragons exist, but because
they tell us that dragons can be beaten.
G. K. Chesterton
they tell us that dragons exist, but because
they tell us that dragons can be beaten.
G. K. Chesterton
Seems to me you're proving my point....Cranberry wrote:Lots of these women (there is a term but I won't use it) are heterosexual women, who live in a culture that glamorizes lesbianism, and at a point in their lives decide to partner up with a woman. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, but these women (of whom I know many) invariably end up back in hetereosexual relationships.
You can have sex with a woman and still be heterosexual. At its core whether you are born heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual doesn't mean you can only be involved with said gender. Anne Heche became itimized with Ellen. She was still straight - just in need of publicity (and clinically insane). Who you have sex with (or don't, for that matter) does not qualify you as one thing or the other. Who you're romantically attracted to does.
-
TelegramSam
- Posts: 2258
- Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2001 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Nashville, TN
- Contact:
I think it's been said before that most people are to some degree or another bisexual, but just tend to lean more one way or the other.
As it stands, most people gain physical pleasure from sexual activity, regardless of whom they are involved with, so gay men enjoying sex with a woman doesn't necissarily make them straight, it just means they respond to such stimulation as anyone would.
I have known heterosexual women in homosexual relationships and very often it's a result of having been burned one time too many by men but not wanting to spend the rest of their lives alone, and frankly, I can't bring myself to fault them for it.
The human heart is a weird thing, people find love in all sorts of places, and I envy those who do, regardless of the source.
As it stands, most people gain physical pleasure from sexual activity, regardless of whom they are involved with, so gay men enjoying sex with a woman doesn't necissarily make them straight, it just means they respond to such stimulation as anyone would.
I have known heterosexual women in homosexual relationships and very often it's a result of having been burned one time too many by men but not wanting to spend the rest of their lives alone, and frankly, I can't bring myself to fault them for it.
The human heart is a weird thing, people find love in all sorts of places, and I envy those who do, regardless of the source.
<i>The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit their views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering.</i>
If I may, I think the etiology of gay and lesbian behaviour
is often different, and it's hard to generalize from one
to the other. As far as I can tell, male homosexuality--
the genuine article--is motivated by a raging turn on
toward men, rather like the heterosexual male sex
drive but the object is a man. Lesbianism seems often
to flow from other sources, including awful experiences
with men. Anybody can sleep with anybody under
the right circumstances, of course.
is often different, and it's hard to generalize from one
to the other. As far as I can tell, male homosexuality--
the genuine article--is motivated by a raging turn on
toward men, rather like the heterosexual male sex
drive but the object is a man. Lesbianism seems often
to flow from other sources, including awful experiences
with men. Anybody can sleep with anybody under
the right circumstances, of course.
-
herbivore12
- Posts: 1098
- Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2002 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: California
An interesting economic argument, but hardly a good moral one. That a region's economy is dependent on some service or commodity to survive has been and is used to support any number of (what other folks perceive as) evils: slavery, clear-cutting, burning of rainforests to provide arable land, the continued trade in endangered species, and on and on.markv wrote: Move them all to Nebraska.
Without ranching or crop production for animal feed the economy of the entire state would likely collapse. There wouldn't be anyone left (except maybe me, my family has been in this state long before it was a state.)
I come from a family of ranchers, too (Wyoming), and have killed animals hunting and fishing. I spent many summers, and a couple winters, helping family work their land, and their herds. I probably personally kill more animals each year than the vast majority of those on this board (I do a good deal of wildlife rehab, and often am forced to euthanize severely injured animals).markv wrote: Cran knows how I feel about this issue from previous threads and If you don't remember, then my coming from a similar background as Weekenders should sum it up but maybe not so rudely (sorry Weeks )
While I think such a background is conducive to helping me understand both sides of this issue, it doesn't prevent me from considering the ethical treatment of animals -- in the presence of alterntive food sources -- to include not causing them harm or death needlessly. Plenty of good environmental and health reasons, as well, of course, many outlined above and in previous threads.
Farmers who grow cattle feed could, in the event of a massive worldwide conversion to vegetarianism, provide vegetables for people to eat as well as for cows to eat, couldn't they? Lots of other jobs to be had, too, in the new decentralized economy. Well, *some* other jobs -- I'm still looking!
Last edited by herbivore12 on Wed Dec 03, 2003 5:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Jack
- Posts: 15580
- Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2003 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: somewhere, over the rainbow, and Ergoville, USA
Quote @ Raymond
I see what you're saying - one has to assume we're all inherently bisexual and that we could all just fall in love with and spend the rest of our lives with whoever we wanted if we just tried hard enough. The spectrum theory, if you will. But I'm not so sure I believe the spectrum theory. I know I couldn't do that and I doubt anyone else here could.
The women mentioned would fall on one side of the spectrum theory, and mabey that's how it is for some people. But I personally suspect the findings with the hypothalumus structure that have been underway for a while will eventually lead to the discovery of the "cause" of homosexuality, which is biological.
For some people, it may be the spectrum theory that is at play, but I suspect for others, for others, the bioligical. Either way, both are, at their core, biological.
How?Seems to me you're proving my point....
I see what you're saying - one has to assume we're all inherently bisexual and that we could all just fall in love with and spend the rest of our lives with whoever we wanted if we just tried hard enough. The spectrum theory, if you will. But I'm not so sure I believe the spectrum theory. I know I couldn't do that and I doubt anyone else here could.
The women mentioned would fall on one side of the spectrum theory, and mabey that's how it is for some people. But I personally suspect the findings with the hypothalumus structure that have been underway for a while will eventually lead to the discovery of the "cause" of homosexuality, which is biological.
For some people, it may be the spectrum theory that is at play, but I suspect for others, for others, the bioligical. Either way, both are, at their core, biological.
-
fancypiper
- Posts: 2162
- Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2003 1:08 pm
- antispam: No
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 12
- Location: Sparta NC
- Contact:
Sleep, yes, sex no.jim stone wrote:Anybody can sleep with anybody under
the right circumstances, of course.
I once slept with a woman but I would never, ever, under any circumstances, consider having sex with her.
I can't conceive any circumstance of my having sex voluntarily with another person of the penis persuasion, but when I am sleepy, I can sleep.
-
Sunnywindo
- Posts: 615
- Joined: Sun Mar 17, 2002 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Earth
markv wrote:Sunnywindo wrote:*Sigh*
But really, what will happen to all the domesticated animals who have been around and used for eons to supply food, etc.? Were it only as simple as letting them all run free and happy through green pastures raising their little ones in peace and joy, left to die old of natural causes... but it's not all so simple as that unfortunatly. Thoughts?
Move them all to Nebraska.
Without ranching or crop production for animal feed the economy of the entire state would likely collapse. There wouldn't be anyone left (except maybe me, my family has been in this state long before it was a state.)
Cran knows how I feel about this issue from previous threads and If you don't remember, then my coming from a similar background as Weekenders should sum it up but maybe not so rudely (sorry Weeks
Mark V.
Nebraska? Okay...
Really though, I'm a farmer's daughter and understand your view point.
But I still would like some answers to my question as posed in my last post here (see bottom of page ten) before this thread goes off into other realms of discussion. (Talking about the millions of farm animals aspect rather than farmer/economic aspect should the world go vegie overnight.) A well thought answer from one of those who are on the not eating meat side of the discussion. I already know what I think, what I really want to know is what other people think on this aspect of it. I'm honestly just curious here.
Thanks!
Sara(Edited to add: Not to argue for or against eating meat, only that perhaps it wouldn't be so great for the whole world to turn vegetarian too quickly, at least not without some thought and planning before hand.)
Last edited by Sunnywindo on Wed Dec 03, 2003 5:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
'I wish it need not have happend in my time,' said Frodo.
'So do I,' said Gandalf, 'and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.'
-LOTR-
'So do I,' said Gandalf, 'and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.'
-LOTR-
-
Jack
- Posts: 15580
- Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2003 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: somewhere, over the rainbow, and Ergoville, USA
Quote @ fancypiper
But if you believed in the other theories, you'd just be plain heterosexual, no changing that.
Either way, your being heterosexual is natural.
I'm certain you didn't wake up one day and say "I want to be heterosexual".
Then if you belive the spectrum theory, you'd be close to 100% on the heterosexual side, and you couldn't choose to be with a man, though some others on the other end of the spectrum, it would be completely the opposite.Sleep, yes, sex no.
I once slept with a woman but I would never, ever, under any circumstances, consider having sex with her.
I can't conceive any circumstance of my having sex voluntarily with another person of the penis persuasion, but when I am sleepy, I can sleep.
But if you believed in the other theories, you'd just be plain heterosexual, no changing that.
Either way, your being heterosexual is natural.
I'm certain you didn't wake up one day and say "I want to be heterosexual".