 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / January 2004Is it ethical to eat animals? OF COURSE
Man is the master of animals, we can kill them at will. I often visit www.factoryfarming.com, where again and again, I am reminded of my superiority over farm animals. They are bound to miserable existence and ghoulish death, whereas I am enjoying their tissues and an enriched environment and great lifestyle. When I devour nice pale veal, I feel, gee, I must be a very important person if a veal has to suffer like in a tiny cage, for my eating pleasure. Professor >Man is the master of animals, we can kill them at will. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Professor The animal rights groups will say that the animal kingdom is getting even with us for mistreating them. Cows give milk and CJD. Civets give perfume and SARS. Horses give HRT and cancer. Ora > >Man is the master of animals, we can kill them at will. > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Ora Or you could just say: *spot the troll*... M. >> >Man is the master of animals, we can kill them at will. >> > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >M. I've never eaten spotted troll before. Is it anything like spotted owl? Once upon a time, our fellow Bob Ward rambled on about "Re: Is it ethical to eat animals? OF COURSE." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ... >I've never eaten spotted troll before. Is it anything like spotted >owl? No, ... It tastes more like a spotted Mark! Ha, ... Hah, Ha! >Man is the master of animals, we can kill them at will. > >I often visit www.factoryfarming.com, where again and again, I am >reminded of my superiority over farm animals. They are bound to >miserable existence and ghoulish death, Some of them have decent lives and some don't. >whereas I am enjoying their >tissues and an enriched environment and great lifestyle. When I devour >nice pale veal, I feel, gee, I must be a very important person if a >veal has to suffer like in a tiny cage, for my eating pleasure. > >Professor You are incredibly lucky, or blessed, to be in the position you're in. That doesn't mean the lives of beings in less fortunate positions should not be given positive consideration, as you "ARAs" want people to believe. You want people to believe that none of their lives are worth living. Some are and some are not. You "ARAs" want people to believe that none are. >>Man is the master of animals, we can kill them at will. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Some of them have decent lives and some don't. AFTER they are born. Being born in the first place, of course, is not a benefit to any animal, ever. >>whereas I am enjoying their >>tissues and an enriched environment and great lifestyle. When I devour [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > positions should not be given positive consideration, as you > "ARAs" want people to believe. There is no reason to give their lives ANY consideration as something that ought to occur. > You want people to believe > that none of their lives are worth living. No, that's a lie. YOU, however, want the mere fact of their "getting to experience life" to be given some moral consideration that no sane person gives it. > Man is the master of animals, we can kill them at will. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Professor Yes, Professor, are human beings just great! Here's e. e. cummings on this fine specimen. pity this busy monster, manunkindnot. Progress is a comfortable disease: your victim(death and life safely beyond) plays with the bigness of his littleness -- electrons deify one razorblade into a mountainrange;lenses extend unwish through curving wherewhen till unwish returns on its unself. A world of made is not a world of born--pity poor flesh and trees,poor stars and stones,but never this fine specimen of hypermagical ultraomnipotence. We doctors know a hopeless case if--listen:there's a hell of a good universe next door;let's go OK you idiot. I'll bite into this game. I can kill others, but that doesn't mean I am better or that I should eat them. So I don't kill. "Can" and "Should" are 2 different - ahem - animals. Jeffrey Dahmer bought into your theory and it seems he was wrong to assume "can" equals "should". > Man is the master of animals, we can kill them at will. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Professor AFN top posted: > OK you idiot. I'll bite into this game. What makes you think the OP is an idiot? > I can kill others, but that doesn't mean I am better or that I should eat > them. So I don't kill. Kill animals or kill people? Animals and people are not the same. The fact remains that animals die so you can eat vegetables, grains, and legumes. Oh yes, not to mention cotton and hemp -- both of which are lethal crops for animals. Do you favor synthetic materials over fur? Those are made by "big oil" companies and those materials cause a lot of pollution when they're refined from crude oil and its derivatives. > "Can" and "Should" are 2 different - ahem - > animals. They are, but that's not the issue. The real issue is whether or not your diet is free of suffering and death simply because you don't eat meat. It isn't. Nor is your cotton, hemp, and synthetic clothing "cruelty free." Do you care than animals die in crop production? Transportation? Storage? Processing? No. You sanctimoniously decree yourself as more ethical even though more animals die for your food and clothes than die for someone who eats grazed animals and vegetables. You're a hypocrite: your diet and lifestyle kills animals, yet you only point your finger at those who eat meat. > Jeffrey Dahmer bought into your theory and it seems he was wrong to assume > "can" equals "should". I would suggest that Dahmer's problems were much more profound than that. I await your ignorant banter about Nazis, too, even though they passed the most stringent animal rights laws in history (at least to that point in time). >>Man is the master of animals, we can kill them at will. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> >>Professor <snip> >. I await your ignorant banter about Nazis, too, even though they > passed the most stringent animal rights laws in history (at least to > that point in time). Absolutely false. The Nazi government did not pass any "animal rights" laws at all, or carry out any of the basic goals of animal _rights_. You want to do this dance again, Usual? You're just plain wrong on this one. Rat <snip degeneRat & Strap-on wrote: > <snip> >>. I await your ignorant banter about Nazis, too, even though they >> passed the most stringent animal rights laws in history (at least to >> that point in time). Not a Godwin moment. I pointed out an historical fact since the dolt to whom I was responding had already called someone an idiot; I figured his response would be to call me, and possibly anyone else who replied, a pro-meat Nazi. I nipped it in the bud. > Absolutely false. The Nazi government did not pass any "animal > rights" laws at all, or carry out any of the basic goals of > animal _rights_. You call those laws "animal welfare" laws which have nothing to do with post-1970s AR. It's a distinction without a difference despite your sophistry that "post-1970s AR did not exist in the 1920s and 1930s so it isn't really AR but maybe AW." You choose to ignore the fact that AR developed in a continuum which included Germans in the Nazi era. The primary source (Boria Sax) YOU offered to disabuse me actually confirmed my position rather than yours: The list of pro-animal predilections on the part of top Nazis is long, but more important are the animal rights policies implemented by the Nazi state and the underlying ideology that justified them. Within a few months of taking power, the Nazis passed animal rights laws that were UNPRECEDENTED IN SCALE and that explicitly affirmed the moral status of animals independent of any human interest. These decrees stressed the duty to avoid causing pain to animals and established extremely detailed and concrete guidelines for interactions with animals. According to a leading scholar of Nazi animal legislation, “the Animal Protection Law of 1933 was probably the strictest in the world”. http://www.communalism.org/Archive/5/aar.html (my emphasis) And before you bicker with the use of the term "animal rights," consider: ...The Nazi laws insisted on “the right which animals inherently possess to be protected in and of themselves.” (ibid; footnote says, "...Sax gives a compact exposition of the same passage on pp. 121-2 of Animals in the Third Reich.") What is the difference between "the right which animals inherently possess to be protected in and of themselves," laws "that explicitly affirmed the moral status of animals independent of any human interest," and whatever you now claim is "post-1970s AR"? Distinctions without ANY difference. > You want to do this dance again, Usual? The question is, Do you? I recall you refused to Google your past refutations. You also wussed out of the last thread on this issue. > You're just plain wrong on this one. No, you are a sophist. You're the one who does not look at the big picture of AR history and preceding movements and actions. > Rat wrote: <snip> >> Absolutely false. The Nazi government did not pass any "animal >> rights" laws at all, or carry out any of the basic goals of >> animal _rights_. > You call those laws "animal welfare" laws which have nothing to do with > post-1970s AR. Absolutely true. They were. > It's a distinction without a difference despite your > sophistry that "post-1970s AR did not exist in the 1920s and 1930s so it > isn't really AR but maybe AW." There was a huge difference. Any pro-AR government/movement would have worked to eliminate use of animals in medicine, as food, as fur, as leather. The Nazi government encouraged all of those uses, and even built a new, large facility which specifically BRED animals for lab use. The Nazi government encouraged hunting (under Goering, who was a hunter) encouraged farming (under Darre, who was a pig breeder), encouraged looking on both humans and domestic animals as breeding stock with no independent worth as individuals (under Himmler, the chicken farmer). Sure, like the hunting organizations and the pet breeders, they supported animal welfare for their human and animal slaves, and encouraged elimination of human and animal "vermin" (as do farmers). That didn't make them pro-AR. They opposed vivisection and Jewish ritual slaughter for reasons that had nothing to do with the motives of AR supporters -- they saw vivisection and Kosher slaughter as Jewish, and part of a fragmenting movement of "Jewish" and "Marxist" science which was attempting to destroy the holistic and non-materialistic view of the world based in the Nazis' Romantic ideological roots. There was NO philosophical connection between modern AR and any Nazi philosophy or actions. To claim otherwise is deliberate and dishonest sophistry. <snip> > What is the difference between "the right which animals inherently > possess to be protected in and of themselves," laws "that explicitly > affirmed the moral status of animals independent of any human interest," > and whatever you now claim is "post-1970s AR"? Distinctions without ANY > difference. The Nazi language is the same sort used by any of the modern animal welfare organizations. It is not AR language, or an AR view in itself. >> You want to do this dance again, Usual? > The question is, Do you? I recall you refused to Google your past > refutations. I can give them in detail again if you want, but any competent websearch would find them. <snip> Rat degene-Rat wrote: > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Absolutely true. They were. RESTORE REST OF WHAT YOU SNIPPED: It's a distinction without a difference despite your sophistry that "post-1970s AR did not exist in the 1920s and 1930s so it isn't really AR but maybe AW." You choose to ignore the fact that AR developed in a continuum which included Germans in the Nazi era. The primary source (Boria Sax) YOU offered to disabuse me actually confirmed my position rather than yours: The list of pro-animal predilections on the part of top Nazis is long, but more important are the animal rights policies implemented by the Nazi state and the underlying ideology that justified them. Within a few months of taking power, the Nazis passed animal rights laws that were UNPRECEDENTED IN SCALE and that explicitly affirmed the moral status of animals independent of any human interest. These decrees stressed the duty to avoid causing pain to animals and established extremely detailed and concrete guidelines for interactions with animals. According to a leading scholar of Nazi animal legislation, “the Animal Protection Law of 1933 was probably the strictest in the world”. http://www.communalism.org/Archive/5/aar.html (my emphasis) And before you bicker with the use of the term "animal rights," consider: ...The Nazi laws insisted on “the right which animals inherently possess to be protected in and of themselves.” (ibid; footnote says, "...Sax gives a compact exposition of the same passage on pp. 121-2 of Animals in the Third Reich.") END RESTORE. >> It's a distinction without a difference despite your sophistry that >> "post-1970s AR did not exist in the 1920s and 1930s so it isn't really >> AR but maybe AW." > > There was a huge difference. No, there wasn't: Within a few months of taking power, the Nazis passed animal rights laws that were UNPRECEDENTED IN SCALE and that explicitly affirmed the moral status of animals independent of any human interest. > Any pro-AR government/movement would have > worked to eliminate use of animals in medicine, as food, as fur, as > leather. Not necessarily. Significant policy shifts are more likely to occur gradually than radically. Chronologically speaking, too, the Nazi AR laws were ahead of the curve. They were radical enough by merely affirming a moral status to animals, which is a first step to the measures you endorse. > The Nazi government encouraged all of those uses, and even > built a new, large facility which specifically BRED animals for [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > slaves, and encouraged elimination of human and animal "vermin" (as do > farmers). That didn't make them pro-AR. It did both within their milieu and as forerunners of later thought. > They opposed vivisection and Jewish ritual slaughter for reasons that > had nothing to do with the motives of AR supporters -- Irrelevant. > they saw > vivisection and Kosher slaughter as Jewish, and part of a fragmenting > movement of "Jewish" and "Marxist" science which was attempting to > destroy the holistic and non-materialistic view of the world based in > the Nazis' Romantic ideological roots. There was NO philosophical > connection between modern AR and any Nazi philosophy or actions. Nonsense, and your own source (Sax) says as much. > To claim otherwise is deliberate and dishonest sophistry. No, it is to speak the truth. Your incessant splitting of hairs about what is or isn't AR is sophistry and you know it. > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > The Nazi language is the same sort used by any of the modern animal > welfare organizations. It is not AR language, or an AR view in itself. Not looking at it in the myopic post-1970s view you have. Looking at it in its full historical context, though, it clearly is AR in and of itself. I look at things in context, you don't. That's why and where we disagree on this matter. >>> You want to do this dance again, Usual? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I can give them in detail again if you want, but any competent > websearch would find them. My search was competent. Yes, I want detail. At the very least paste in some links to your previous efforts. a-historical garbage. Anyone with a basic understanding of history and the period knows that the Nazi animal welfare measures and attitudes had no historical connection to, or similarity to, modern AR views. The only people who try to make a connection are dishonest and sophistical propagandists. Historians understand that events must be seen in context, with some understanding that other times are not the same as our times. Blinkered non-historians are always trying to ignore this. We'll play the game if Usual wants, but it is just that -- a silly game, because Usual and the propagandists he got this garbage from simply don't comprehend how history works or what history IS. It's like trying to explain mathematics to monkeys. Rat <snip [snip shabby sophistry] Was working out the [ahem] finer points of your shabby bullshit about Nazis and "ar" what you chose to do instead of raising your son? No wonder he hates you. degene-Rat wrote: > a-historical garbage. Nonsense. Karen, even your *own* source calls it AR. You're the only one caught up on semantics. > Anyone with a basic understanding of history and the period > knows that the Nazi animal welfare measures and attitudes Appeal to popularity. > had no historical connection to, or similarity to, modern AR > views. The only people who try to make a connection are > dishonest and sophistical propagandists. You mean folks like Boria Sax, whom you used as a source? > Historians understand > that events must be seen in context, with some understanding > that other times are not the same as our times. You're the one taking things completely out of context. > Blinkered > non-historians are always trying to ignore this. Is that what one calls a drop-out history major who, like other things in her life, did not complete her course work? > We'll play the game if Usual wants, but it is just that -- a > silly game, because Usual and the propagandists he got this > garbage from simply don't comprehend how history works or what > history IS. It's like trying to explain mathematics to monkeys. In fairness, monkeys may humor your indulgent attitudes better than I do. I > > Man is the master of animals, we can kill them at will. Gzboli comments: You cannot live a day but at the expense of the life of someother creature. Your immune system murders millions of lives each day; your every step scrunches millions of creatures. Accept the bounty of animal food, but do so with reverence for the departed who become part of you. You will become food for the others soon enough; and may they pay your remains similar reverence. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.