Animal Liberation Movement (Animal Rights)

Page 5 of 8 [ 120 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

28 Jan 2010, 11:08 pm

I'll stop eating meat when animals stop eating meat.

Actually I won't, so don't go looking for a meat alternative for animals.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

28 Jan 2010, 11:13 pm

Markie wrote:

Awww, now look who's whining...
"Putty putty" (= little birdy) is afraid to loose a "right"?
Who said you have any rights whatsoever?

I'm not Chinese. I am not losing any right at all.

I am considered to have rights though mostly because this is a human society. It exists for the benefit of the human race.

Quote:

You mean like cannibals and their human food-things?

Hey, if they can find a way to eat people without killing them, or even only by killing people who already want to die, then I am for it.

I mean, Armin Meiwes, GOOD FOR YOU!! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3286721.stm

Magnus
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,372
Location: Claremont, California

28 Jan 2010, 11:46 pm

Jacoby wrote:

I'll stop eating meat when animals stop eating meat.

Actually I won't, so don't go looking for a meat alternative for animals.

Animals eat meat, but I don't look to them for moral guidance.

_________________
As long as man continues to be the ruthless destroyer of lower living beings he will never know health or peace. For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other.

-Pythagoras

Markie
Tufted Titmouse

Joined: 13 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 33

29 Jan 2010, 10:07 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

I am considered to have rights though mostly because this is a human society.

Oh? How do you define a "human society" then? "Exactly"?
By its composition: Let's see, xxx billion people, xxxxx billion cattle, xxxx billion horses, xxx billion dogs, xxx billion cats...
Or by being "humane"? Let's see... hmmm....

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

It exists for the benefit of the human race.

Oh?
And what god do you believe in that says this?
Muslim? Hindu? Jew?
Probably some god of humans I assume.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

29 Jan 2010, 1:45 pm

Markie wrote:

Who holds the power? People do. That's why we kill all of the other creatures at our disposal. We created the society. We hold the power. We own the animals. We've owned and eaten animals for generations.

I mean, there is no exact definition of a human society, but composition is kind of irrelevant. And the notion of "humane" is also kind of irrelevant. "Humane" is a word, one that actually has nothing to do with "human" despite how it seems.

Quote:

Oh?
And what god do you believe in that says this?
Muslim? Hindu? Jew?
Probably some god of humans I assume.

The fact that human societies exist for the benefit of human genes is just an evolutionary fact. If societies didn't promote better breeding, then they would not have thrived.

In any case, though, you're not really presenting arguments now, are you?

Look, my position is simple. Animals exist to be eaten or used by us. They cannot live autonomously in our society. There is no reason to waste our land on free lands for them or our money on resources for them, as they have no right to it. We've bred them for generations to be useless outside of what we've traditionally used them for, such as to be food objects. Their continued existence is solely dependent on how they please us, and how a good number of them please us is by allowing us to cheaply consume their bodies.

Meadow
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Dec 2009
Age: 64
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,067

29 Jan 2010, 1:58 pm

^ You might be the equivalent of the modern-day neanderthal.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

29 Jan 2010, 2:01 pm

Meadow wrote:

^ You might be the equivalent of the modern-day neanderthal.

No, probably not. Really though, I would imagine that you are drawing off of a notion of progress, where progress is forward towards things like animal rights and where I am going backwards, or some such like that, right?

I'd say that progress is just a word.

Omerik
Velociraptor

Joined: 25 Jan 2010
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 456

29 Jan 2010, 2:05 pm

Jacoby wrote:

I'll stop eating meat when animals stop eating meat.

Actually I won't, so don't go looking for a meat alternative for animals.

Equivalent: I'll stop killing people, when people stop killing people.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

29 Jan 2010, 2:10 pm

Omerik wrote:

Equivalent: I'll stop killing people, when people stop killing people.

And it is valid too to some extent. I mean, there are a lot of ways in which we kill people, and a lot of these are related to people already killing people. (like the death penalty and wars)

Omerik
Velociraptor

Joined: 25 Jan 2010
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 456

29 Jan 2010, 2:18 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Omerik wrote:

Equivalent: I'll stop killing people, when people stop killing people.

And it is valid too to some extent. I mean, there are a lot of ways in which we kill people, and a lot of these are related to people already killing people. (like the death penalty and wars)

It is not valid for me.
I'm against death penalty, and against violence overall.
If in some cases violence is a must, it's a special case.

Self-defense is okay - how is eating an animals self-defense?
So an animal kills another animal. Does that mean we can kill this animal as well?
If so, whenever your child acts violently - just use the same violence on him... It's okay, because he is also violent. That's the logic you're using, as I see it.

Meadow
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Dec 2009
Age: 64
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,067

29 Jan 2010, 2:41 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Meadow wrote:

^ You might be the equivalent of the modern-day neanderthal.

I do eat meat on rare occasions but when I do I experience quite a bit of conflict on many levels. I haven't crossed over completely but that doesn't mean I approve of the extremely poor treatment I see of animals by certain brutes known as "humans". I know a lot about health and nutrition but I don't know everything. I still eat eggs on occasion for health reasons and dairy because I love it but I don't feel good about that either because of the malpractice that takes place with raising and farming animals. I buy products as much as possible however from respectable, responsible sources when I do use those products. I do hope to see improvement in the ethical standards for farming, housing and slaughtering animals because I don't think it will ever be done away with. I prefer whole foods and lean more toward a vegetarian diet for the most part though I am not 100% as yet and I have gone the vegan route but found it a little extreme because you do have to know much more about nutrition if you're going to go that route but from the information I've gathered it appears it can be done though I have gotten conflicting information on that and haven't been able to weigh it up enough to know for sure. So anyway, that's where I stand. It's just very hard to relate to where you're coming from with the total, complete lack of sensitivity concerning animal cruelty and welfare.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

29 Jan 2010, 2:47 pm

Omerik wrote:

Well, I am not a pacifist.

I also don't have problems with spanking.

Thirdly, if the world really does work in a certain manner, then what's the point in acting against such issues? You won't get brownie points, and it might even be that you are the absurd one for taking such a stand.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

29 Jan 2010, 2:48 pm

Meadow wrote:

I think meat is tasty. I am also a very insensitive seeming person.

Magnus
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,372
Location: Claremont, California

29 Jan 2010, 2:54 pm

Logically, insensitivity is a lack of emotion that can cloud judgment, just as hypersensitivity can cloud it.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

29 Jan 2010, 3:00 pm

Magnus wrote:

Logically, insensitivity is a lack of emotion that can cloud judgment, just as hypersensitivity can cloud it.

Hmm..... no. I don't think so. It is a lack of perspective that can cloud judgment, but the issue is the perspective and not the emotion.

Magnus
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,372
Location: Claremont, California

29 Jan 2010, 3:03 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Magnus wrote:

Logically, insensitivity is a lack of emotion that can cloud judgment, just as hypersensitivity can cloud it.

Hmm..... no. I don't think so. It is a lack of perspective that can cloud judgment, but the issue is the perspective and not the emotion.

If we had no emotion, then it would be logical to kill half of the people on the planet. Is it ethical? That is a philosophical question. We need to be balanced. Genius is found in the equilibrium of emotion meeting reason. If you have no emotion, your conclusions are unsound. If you have too many emotions, errors in logic occur.

Page 5 of 8 [ 120 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next

Jump to:

Animal Liberation Movement (Animal Rights) Post Reply New Topic

Animal Liberation Movement (Animal Rights)