OT: Protest against the slaughter of dolphins in Japan

[akhleung]

I haven't really been following this thread, but regarding what some people have observed about the treatment of the animals that we eat here, check out the following link:

http://www.themeatrix.com/

It's pretty funny. (You'll need Flash, by the way.)

Aaron

[energy]

Well, golly, ya'll went and had a nice flame without me. Sorry to be adding fresh fuel to the fire, but sometimes you just have to speak. Please note, I haven't read the whole thread, or even most of it.

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.

Excuse me, but...yes, it does. It's perfectly acceptable, according to the modern humanist belief system. The sooner you all realize that the better off you'll be. Why isn't it acceptable, Bloomy? Huh? Cause you say so? Why should I give a darn what you say?

There are no longer any morals, no truths, no absoutes. Just opinions. Ya'll may not like it, but we'll have to live with it until this culture returns to God. It's the fruits of humanism: lawlessness. It's so ironic when the left wingers preach relativism and tolerance, but still somehow manage to cling to some idea of absolute wrongs. They're clinging to shadows. Cran, how can you say it's wrong to kill? On what basis? I know you don't believe the Bible. All you're going on is your feelings, and frankly, your feelings just don't matter in the bigger picture of things.

Liberals, socialists, and atheists can try to tell me all they want how I should run my life and how the world needs to be changed, but I could care less what they think. Their own belief system denies any possibility of any higher truths, and thus, they reduce themselves to blabbering hypocrites.

Natester out.

[Jack]

Hello, energy. Nice to see you around.

[Sunnywindo]

Yeah, thought about that. And in reality that would be what would happen, the gradual decrease in the population of these animals as the demand went down. I guess I was just thinking too much (do that a lot), thinking in the sense of those who wish the day the world said no to meat would just happen overnight, and what would happen if that wish were suddenly granted. Not logical, true.

Yes, I think there are cases where animals could be treated better. But I still eat meat and plan to continue. Yes, there are those who don't think much about where their food comes from. I'm not one of them. I grew up on a farm. We raised chickens and rabbits and cows... and some of them we butchered and ate. I'm quite aware of how these animal likly lived and why they died. What bothers me more is not that the animal died so I might eat it, but the life of the animal. In the sense of what did it eat, how did it live, was it pumped full of drugs in it's life, etc. I think animals who eat better and live healthier and aren't subjected to oodles of drugs taste better and are healthier eating. Same goes with eggs and dairy. I would love to someday have a bit of land to have my own chickens, and raise my own meat. I would then be confident in it's quality, know how they were treated, what they ate, etc. Love farm fresh stuff... eggs fresh from the chickens, new milk with the cream thick on it, roasted rabbit that's really fresh... just like I love home grown fruits and vegies and whole grains.... there's something wonderful about food that hasen't had the heck processed out of it, picked fresh and ripe, not green. Everything I eat I eat with gratitude and thanks. And if it came down to butchering my own chickens to make my favorite homemade chicken soup in the winter then I would.

As for the dolphins, I agree that there must be a better way than what those folks are doing. If you want to eat an animal, kill it quick and with the least amount of pain as possible... don't just slowly hack it to death. Eating dolphin just sounds strange to me anyway, but definitions of strange will vary. I always loved dolphins, don't think I could eat one. Yet I love rabbits to, and have eaten ones I've known personally. Mmmmmm.... literally food for thought.

Anyhow, time to stop rambling like the brain tired person I is....

Goodnight!
Sara

[herbivore12]

Gosh, energy. All those colors in a Crayola box, and all you ever got your stunted paws on were the black and white ones, huh? A shame.

Now see, that was what we call an ad hominem attack, right there. It's an example of what you did, in your sort of entertainingly inane post. There were no flames about until your loving, forgiving self popped in, to admit, and let's quote you, here:

Sorry to be adding fresh fuel to the fire, but sometimes you just have to speak. Please note, I haven't read the whole thread, or even most of it.

Ah, yes. I remember all those precepts about attacking the positions and arguments of others right after admitting you haven't read them, or care to. Always best to leap out and attack that which we don't understand, I remember the great teachers saying. The world would be a much finer place full of people doing just that.

It's too bad that you believe:

Liberals, socialists, and atheists can try to tell me all they want how I should run my life and how the world needs to be changed, but I could care less what they think. Their own belief system denies any possibility of any higher truths, and thus, they reduce themselves to blabbering hypocrites.

since it only reveals a rather deep ignorance on your part about the beliefs and foundations upon which "liberals, socialists, and atheists" (apparently we're a club, and all believe the same things!) base their ethics and behavior.

So your shining example is to admit to being ignorant about the subject and discussion at hand, fling insults around at entire groups and specific people, and then give the silliest distillation of your own thoughts possible while reveling in the fact that you've not actually engaged in the discussion.

Why would you choose to take part in a discussion while professing not to have been engaged in it and also being disinterested in what the others may be saying? What a small and petty little thing to do. And coming from someone who calls others "babbling hypocrites", well . . . a poor show, really.

Hey. Happy holidays, and joy to you.

[Jack]

All quotes @ energy

Excuse me, but...yes, it does. It's perfectly acceptable, according to the modern humanist belief system. The sooner you all realize that the better off you'll be.

F

Why isn't it acceptable, Bloomy? Huh? Cause you say so? Why should I give a darn what you say?

L

Ya'll may not like it, but we'll have to live with it until this culture returns to God. It's the fruits of humanism: lawlessness.

A

Liberals, socialists, and atheists can try to tell me all they want how I should run my life and how the world needs to be changed, but I could care less what they think.

M

Their own belief system denies any possibility of any higher truths, and thus, they reduce themselves to blabbering hypocrites

Natester out.

E

(no R )

Cran, how can you say it's wrong to kill? On what basis? I know you don't believe the Bible. All you're going on is your feelings, and frankly, your feelings just don't matter in the bigger picture of things.

Thank you for telling me what I believe. I will not justify my religious beliefs to you. Since you "know" I don't believe in the Bible, nothing I could say to you would make any difference any way. You already know what I believe.

I guess I can't figure anything out for myself because I belong to the liberal socialist Athiest Club, too (Speaking of which, I think I lost my lifetime membership card. Can somebody here mail me a new one?).

Next time please read the thread you're commenting on, or at least don't admit you haven't read it before you comment! Common sense, dear boy.

[energy]

Well gosh, I've gone and played the part of the goat. On re-reading my post several hours later, I see that my language was quite strong, which wasn't a good idea. My last paragraph also wasn't well developed so I didn't get my point across clearly.

Ah, yes. I remember all those precepts about attacking the positions and arguments of others right after admitting you haven't read them, or care to.

I was responding specifically to the post I quoted, and Crans post about how all killing is universally wrong. I have read those posts. These were the posts I was addressing.

since it only reveals a rather deep ignorance on your part about the beliefs and foundations upon which "liberals, socialists, and atheists" (apparently we're a club, and all believe the same things!) base their ethics and behavior

Perhaps so. What do these types base their ethics and behavior on? You can tell me "the good of all mankind", and that sounds nice, but it still doesn't establish an absolute by which you can tell me all killing is inherently wrong. As for grouping those three types of beliefs together, I admit I tend to do so because of their enlightenment heritage, which they all hold in common. Finally, don't assume I'm ignorant about why the enlightened thinkers think the way they do. I understand it better than some of their own do.

So your shining example is to admit to being ignorant about the subject and discussion at hand, fling insults around at entire groups and specific people

No. I simply said I hadn't read the whole thread. I read enough to get the flow and feel of the thing from beginning to end. I had read thoroughly the posts I was responding to, and understood the discussion perfectly.

and then give the silliest distillation of your own thoughts possible

Here I'll agree with you somewhat, in that my argument wasn't well put together. I'll try to restate it.

I used Bloo's post as a launching off point, because he made an appeal to some higher morale code: obviously, it isn't okay to to kill humans. My overall goal was to address Cran's assertion that any kind of killing is wrong, and his assertion that anyone who thought otherwise is misguided. By so doing, he established an absolute. I knew, however, that Cran and many others have repeatedly preached relativism and tolerance in other threads on this board. Relativism can only exist in the absence of absolutes. Thus, saying that killing any life form is wrong, while at the same time asserting that truth is relative, is hypocritical. That's why I used that word. When confronted with hypocrisy, I like all people, dismiss it. That's why I said "I could care less." It was a poor, unthoughtful way of stating my point of view.

I apologise for using such strong wording like "blathering", etc. It was uncalled for. Part of the reason I came across so strong in this post is because I didn't like seeing Weeks dismissed so out-of-hand. I know that discussing touchy subjects when you're even just a little hot under the collar isn't a good idea, but unfortunately, it's a mistake I just committed. Once again, sorry to be so unthoughtful.

Btw, Cran, you have made no attempt to hide what you believe. It's no leap on my part to say that you don't believe in the Bible. Also, I don't think I said anything implying that you can't figure anything out for yourself. I have certainly stated that I strongly disagree with you, but hey, you strongly disagree with me, right? So we're even.

[energy]

I was just reflecting back over the previous events in this thread, and musing about how getting upset and angry can completely derail the rational exchange of ideas. All of a sudden this occured to me, however: even if I transmit my thoughts rationally, no one is going to change their minds. However, if I say what I really feel, then I will end up feeling better because I've said what I actually think, with the same basic result: no one changes their minds. Unfortunately, this will make someone else angry. But, hey, no sweat! These people can go ahead and say what they actually think, so that they too will feel better! I agree not to respond to anything more on this thread, so once the opposing side has spoken it's mind, all unpleasantness will come to an end. Thus we all leave feeling better, with approximately the same outcome in the intellectual sense, and the thread can return to it's humane and sexuality discussions.

Why am I posting at 4:03 in the morning? I'm experiencing irrational amounts of lightheartedness...*surpresses undignified giggle*

[Jack]

(Quotes from two posts combined.)

Quote @ energy

My overall goal was to address Cran's assertion that any kind of killing is wrong,

Again, you're off on a whim. I've never made that assertion. I have said repeatedly that I can see where the tribe in Africa would need to kill an animal to live. I can see where Eskimos need to kill to survive. However, most of us here are not Eskimos. We in the civilized Western world do not need to kill animals and eat them, at least not on as grand a scale as we currently are. And I have also repeatedly used the phrases as much as possible, and try our best. I don't see any absolutism there.

Quote @ energy

Part of the reason I came across so strong in this post is because I didn't like seeing Weeks dismissed so out-of-hand.

I think that might be the whole reason you responded. You responded the way you did because your friend who agrees with you didn't come across well (stating in response to my post that he doesn't ever respond to me, for example) and you felt the need to stick up for him. That's it.

And yes, I know you feel that way. Don't try to persuade me otherwise because I know how you "are". I could also group you with a bunch of other random groups of people I don't like, because you all think alike, anyway. You belong to the conservatives gun owners oil company club (as opposed to liberal, socialist, Athiest club), you must all think alike.

It's no leap on my part to say that you don't believe in the Bible.

Yes, it is. But you won't hear that because you already know everything about what I believe. I forgot.

Quote @ energy

Also, I don't think I said anything implying that you can't figure anything out for yourself.

Did you read what you yourself wrote? Or did you skip over that, too? In case you skipped that, too, I'll remind you. You grouped me with Athiests, socialists, and liberals, three different groups of people who are all different in many ways. But you seem to think every liberal, socialist and Athiest is the same and thinks the same, thus I can't think of things for myself. See?

Quote @ energy

I was just reflecting back over the previous events in this thread, and musing about how getting upset and angry can completely derail the rational exchange of ideas.

I think we're all behaving quite rationally in the exchange of ideas. There have been much worse debates on this board, as I'm sure you're aware of. This thread is actually still remaining quite civil.

Quote @ energy

I agree not to respond to anything more on this thread, so once the opposing side has spoken it's mind

"Opposing side"? That's evidence to how you're seeing everything as black and white. There is no "opposing side". It's just one huge grey area, with people everywhere on the spectrum in their opinions and beliefs. Each person is a different person, with different opinions on everything. We're not carbon copies of each other, or of "liberal socialist Athiests".

Quote @ energy

all unpleasantness will come to an end.

Apart from my mistakenly over asserting my (joking, of course) desire to eat a board member, there has been no real unpleasantness on this thread except your initial post, in my honest opinion.

Quote @ energy

Why am I posting at 4:03 in the morning? I'm experiencing irrational amounts of lightheartedness...*surpresses undignified giggle*

Because you are insane.

[jim stone]

I think, Energy, you would have done better to
read more of the thread. Best

[trisha]

Jim - I'm not trying to be flippant here, but there are MILLIONS of lambs born every year, of which half will be male. OK, so some more people turn veggie, that's fine by me. But, you seem to be suggesting that the rest are allowed to carry on regardless - procreating at will.

Ingenious way? The only way to stop rams from fighting is to keep them in separate pens and they will still smack their heads on the bars...I don't have several spare fields to separate my spare stock into tolerably amicable groups and then add to them for up to ten years until they die of old age (and Jacobs can live for 20 years - and I NEVER cull female animals when they are past breeding age).

So, you seem to be suggesting that I accumulate between 100 and 200 spare male animals. I can castrate them or pay the vet to do it if they are past a few months. But, they still need hay all winter, vet attention, mega ££ over a lifetime...and the return on their wool is almost ZERO. This is impossible. Interestingly, I will be so overcrowded by that point that the animals would have been forcibly removed by the RSPCA. I don't DO animal cruelty.

Hence, many breeds of livestock become extinct. A meat free society is not possible......and I ran this past a veggie friend at school this morning and she agrees totally. I cannot remember whether you have followed this line or not so don't take it personally...

The annihilation of livestock on a permanent basis is unjustifiable - surely persuading the US Govt to take a tough line on good animal husbandry and factory farming would be the best for ALL concerned? Here we are already overregulated.

Trisha

[Jack]

trisha, do you know how difficult it is to get the US Government to listen to anything, much less something the majority of people you'd be trying to get to listen to you see as not an important issue? LOL. I've tried many times. It's not exactly easy.

Quote @ trisha

Hence, many breeds of livestock become extinct.

Ideally, (notice the word ideally) livestock would become extinct. There's no need for the animals. We should keep the ones we have, not let them breed, and after the last few die, we can breed no more. These breeds of livestock weren't meant to have extra wool, or extra tastey flesh. They weren't meant to be, period. They don't need to be here soley for our exploitation.

[peeplj]

A final thought from the liberal Pagan carnivore corner:

No other predator in nature takes the time to worry about whether it's morally wrong to kill and eat prey animals. Mankind is unique in that respect.

It seems to me that the essense of this discussion assumes that mankind is somehow above nature and is able to choose his nature.

It's a wonderful thought, and I'd like to believe there's some truth to it, but I don't really think there is.

We are an omnivorous primate whose major characteristics are a unique ability to communicate, and a desire to seek and enforce comformity.

Also we have the unique distinction of being the only species in nature that tortures its own kind.

--James

[Jack]

Quote @ peeplj

We are an omnivorous primate whose major characteristics are a unique ability to communicate, and a desire to seek and enforce comformity.

Omnivorous primate means mainly plants, nuts, seeds, berries, worms, insects, with the occasional bird and mouse. Not cows, goats, pigs, chickens, turkeys and sheep. None of our closest relatives even come close to the amount of dead animals humans eat in this country.

Quote @ peeplj

to me that the essense of this discussion assumes that mankind is somehow above nature and is able to choose his nature.

The way you say "above nature and able to choose his nature" implies (at least as I read it) that wo/man's nature is to be a killer, to be a predator, and I'd dispute that. So would millions of other people. I don't believe people are above nature. I believe it's a natural choice to choose not to eat flesh, at the very least not as much as our society does.

[Rando7]

We are an omnivorous primate whose major characteristics are a unique ability to communicate, and a desire to seek and enforce comformity.

Also we have the unique distinction of being the only species in nature that tortures its own kind.

--James

You feel that these are the major characteristics that define humankind?