BURLAP Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 Originally posted by Ishbel Bullen@Feb 15 2006, 03:05 PM i really dont see the point of vegatarianism (sic?) fuck what would we do with cows or pigs or chickens if we didnt eat em? have you ever lived or worked on a farm? try having a few cows and see how much youll care if they are killed. Quoted post perhaps you can't see the point because you've never tried it yourself? also, for some veggies, it's not really about food production practices, it's about what you put in your body, and your health. hard to believe i know. the fact there are fucked up food production practices that they aren't supporting is just a nice aside. some people feel healthier not eating *meat. nothing wrong with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BURLAP Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 that peta shit, if true, is ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhoGotJokes Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 what does wearing fur have to do with a food chain? i dont know anyone that has eaten a mink Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swedish erotica Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 Originally posted by 2342+Feb 14 2006, 07:56 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (2342 - Feb 14 2006, 07:56 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-BURLAP@Feb 14 2006, 03:14 PM peta's got some sweet vids.. like the one where they put cows from one side in this stall thing and it's head only hangs out, then a guy waltzes up and slices the cows neck, then they release it to the other side where it freaks out gasping for life and blood gushes everywhere. most people don't give a fuck where their food comes from or what's really in it, which is why so many people are unhealthy, fat, depressed and generally unhappy. Quoted post Very well said- Burlap. I completely agree with you. I feel as though (and this is of course a generalization) until people see up close and personal where their food comes from- and the BGH that goes into the animal –then into us- meaning until it affects us directly- and we stand up- wake up and take bloody notice, nobody will give a fuck. Of course I realize that the people pandering around SF fighting, protesting for animals- human rights, torture, GITMO, equal rights and of course immigration issues- and such may not have 2 kids- or a mortgage to pay- along with the monthly car payment not to mention all those credit card payments. All of these things are important. For some though their list of “to do’s� simply goes in a different order than the person in the new M5 sitting at the red light- on Market Street- in 5 o’clock traffic trying to get home – only to circle the flat for an hour looking for parking because the nanny has yet again taken the garage. There are many directions that life takes us- which intern means our own list of “to do’s� winds up a bit different when we finally settle. To Soup- Your comment about us being human and not being meant to feel guilty about where we are on the food chain- should read that “you� do not feel guilty which is all well and good. I do not believe it is a matter of guilt but more over our own priorities and our own personal belief system. 2342 Quoted post [/b] MAN that steak i just had for dinner was good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swedish erotica Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 oh yeah, and as the wise maddox once said: "For every animal you don't eat, i will eat three" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Issac Brock Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 Originally posted by BURLAP+Feb 15 2006, 06:30 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BURLAP - Feb 15 2006, 06:30 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'> Originally posted by Ishbel Bullen@Feb 15 2006, 03:05 PM i really dont see the point of vegatarianism (sic?) fuck what would we do with cows or pigs or chickens if we didnt eat em? have you ever lived or worked on a farm? try having a few cows and see how much youll care if they are killed. Quoted post perhaps you can't see the point because you've never tried it yourself? also, for some veggies, it's not really about food production practices, it's about what you put in your body, and your health. hard to believe i know. the fact there are fucked up food production practices that they aren't supporting is just a nice aside. some people feel healthier not eating *meat. nothing wrong with that. Quoted post [/b] I see the point of being the president of the united states, but I've never tried that. How does trying it magically enlighten you of the motives of vegetarianism? Sorry, but if you can't elaborate on your own practices a bit more than that then you probably should give up the whole thing. Originally posted by BURLAP@Feb 15 2006, 06:40 PM that peta shit, if true, is ridiculous. Quoted post believe it. Its true. Go to peta's website and order the comic books. <!--QuoteBegin-swedish erotica@Feb 15 2006, 07:58 PM oh yeah, and as the wise maddox once said: "For every animal you don't eat, i will eat three" Quoted post maddox is an idiot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Issac Brock Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 Click here to read the entire comic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swedish erotica Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 i fucking laughed out loud when i read that comic. Like a fish, which has a brain about the size of a small pebble, experiance feelings such as fear? If the fish was so damn smart, it wouldnt have been caught...Some people are crazy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merk or be merked Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 fuck peta and all that bullshit.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobthemothafuckinbuilder Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 The whole animal issue is just people trying to seperate themselves from the animal kingdom. The reality is: you fuck, sleep, shit, fight etc. like an animal because you are an animal. Animals get deressed, they fear, they live just like people do. I have no problem shooting at people but you wouldn't see me in a million years going hunting for animals for fun... that's retarded (does it make you feel good to shoot at shit that can't shoot back?). Anyways, canada does some fucked up shit with seals as well. Many countries really fuck animals up. poland fucks horses up ahrdcore so that people in spain could eat em. Argentina, belize etc. list goes on.... People are the only creatures who feel that everything on this planet was put there for their use.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonesome Cowboy Bill Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 quote: People are the only creatures who feel that everything on this planet was put there for their use.... domestic cats have the same problem too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2342 Posted February 16, 2006 Author Share Posted February 16, 2006 Originally posted by merk or be merked@Feb 15 2006, 08:30 PM fuck peta and all that bullshit.... Quoted post Opinions founded on prejudice are always sustained with the greatest violence. Hebrew Proverb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BURLAP Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 Originally posted by Issac Brock@Feb 15 2006, 05:40 PM I see the point of being the president of the united states, but I've never tried that. How does trying it magically enlighten you of the motives of vegetarianism? Sorry, but if you can't elaborate on your own practices a bit more than that then you probably should give up the whole thing. Quoted post uh, i thought it was fairly simple and self explanatory. i suggest you reread my post and consider the context it was written in. after that, you can reread all my other posts in this thread so you can find out just how sensible your advice is. if you still need me to elaborate, i'm afraid your shit out of luck. thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soup Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 Originally posted by 2342+Feb 16 2006, 04:24 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (2342 - Feb 16 2006, 04:24 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'> Originally posted by merk or be merked@Feb 15 2006, 08:30 PM fuck peta and all that bullshit.... Quoted post Opinions founded on prejudice are always sustained with the greatest violence. Hebrew Proverb Quoted post [/b] <!--QuoteBegin-Soup@Feb 15 2006, 01:03 AM You're on crack. Quoted post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2342 Posted February 17, 2006 Author Share Posted February 17, 2006 Originally posted by Soup+Feb 15 2006, 09:56 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Soup - Feb 15 2006, 09:56 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'> Originally posted by 2342@Feb 16 2006, 04:24 AM Originally posted by merk or be merked@Feb 15 2006, 08:30 PM fuck peta and all that bullshit.... Quoted post Opinions founded on prejudice are always sustained with the greatest violence. Hebrew Proverb Quoted post <!--QuoteBegin-Soup@Feb 15 2006, 01:03 AM You're on crack. Quoted post Quoted post [/b] Why am I always on crack? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flavicon Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 you guys should read some Peter Singer... May change the way you view these issues Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flavicon Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 Originally posted by 2342@Feb 14 2006, 07:03 PM Why am I always on crack? Quoted post I ask myself this question every day Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BURLAP Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 i have yet to read a singer book, but i'm aware of him...interesting guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ishbel Bullen Posted February 19, 2006 Share Posted February 19, 2006 me too, id read it if i really cared about having ethics. or having someone else's ethics. fuck it people are all different. does anyone really expect everyone to be ethical? fuck not a lot of people have common sense, and thats suppoused to be common. forget about it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2342 Posted February 19, 2006 Author Share Posted February 19, 2006 Originally posted by BURLAP@Feb 17 2006, 11:03 AM i have yet to read a singer book, but i'm aware of him...interesting guy. Quoted post Peter Singer........ very interesting From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia on : Animal liberation Animal Liberation (originally published in 1975, second edition 1990, third edition 2002) was a major formative influence on the modern animal rights movement. Although Singer rejects rights as a moral ideal independent from his utilitarianism based on interests, he accepts rights as derived from utilitarian principles, particularly the principle of minimizing suffering. (Compare his fellow utilitarian John Stuart Mill, whose defense of the rights of the individual in On Liberty is introduced with the qualification, "It is proper to state that I forego any advantage which could be derived to my argument from the idea of abstract right as a thing independent of utility"). Singer allows that animal rights are not coextensive with human rights, writing in Animal Liberation that "[T]here are obviously important differences between human and other animals, and these differences must give rise to some differences in the rights that each have." But he is no more skeptical of animal rights than of the rights of women, beginning Animal Liberation by defending just such a comparison against Mary Wollstonecraft's 18th-century critic Thomas Taylor, who argued that if Wollstonecraft's reasoning in defense of women's rights were correct, then "brutes" would have rights too. Taylor thought he had revealed a reductio ad absurdum of Wollstonecraft's view; Singer regards it as a sound logical implication. Taylor's modus tollens is Singer's modus ponens. In Animal Liberation, Singer argues against speciesism: discrimination on the grounds that a being belongs to a certain species. He holds the interests of all beings capable of suffering to be worthy of equal consideration, and that giving lesser consideration to beings based on their having wings or fur is no more justified than discrimination based on skin color. In particular, he argues that while animals show lower intelligence than the average human, many severely retarded humans show equally diminished mental capacity, and intelligence therefore does not provide a basis for providing nonhuman animals any less consideration than such retarded humans. He concludes that the use of animals for food is unjustifiable because it creates unnecessary suffering, and considers veganism the most fully justifiable diet. Singer also condemns most vivisection, though he believes a few animal experiments may be acceptable if the benefit (in terms of improved medical treatment, etc.) outweighs the harm done to the animals used. Due to the subjectivity of the term "benefit", controversy exists about this and other utilitarian views. But he is clear enough that humans of comparable sentience should also be candidates for any animal experimentation that passes the benefit test. So a monkey and a human infant would be equally available for the experiment, from a moral point of view, other things being equal. Or else the benefit really isn't great enough, and alternatives should be found such as computer simulations, etc., to pursue the research goals for whatever value they may have. Acceptable vivisection would be weakly "speciesist" insofar as it passes over human candidates for non-human subjects, but arguably species membership in such cases would be a legitimate tie-breaking consideration. Applied ethics His most comprehensive work, Practical Ethics (1979, second edition 1993), analyses in detail why and how beings' interests should be weighed. His principle of equality encompasses all beings with interests, and it requires equal consideration of those interests, whatever the species. The principle of equal consideration of interests does not dictate equal treatment of all those with interests, since different interests warrant different treatment. All have an interest in avoiding pain, for instance, but relatively few have an interest in cultivating their abilities. Not only does his principle justify different treatment for different interests, but it allows different treatment for the same interest when diminishing marginal utility is a factor, favoring (say) a starving person's interest in food over the same interest of someone who is only mildly peckish. Among the more important human interests are those in avoiding pain, in developing one's abilities, in satisfying basic needs for food and shelter, in enjoying warm personal relationships, in being free to pursue one's projects without interference, "and many others". The fundamental interest that entitles a being to equal consideration is the capacity for "suffering and/or enjoyment or happiness"; mice as well as human beings have this interest, but stones and trees do not. He states that a being's interests should always be weighed according to that being's concrete properties, and not according to its belonging to some abstract group such as a species, or a set of possible beings, or an early stage of something with an as yet unactualized potential. He favors a 'journey' model of life, which measures the wrongness of taking a life by the degree to which doing so frustrates a life journey's goals. So taking a life is less wrong at the beginning, when no goals have been set, and at the end, when the goals have either been met or are unlikely to be accomplished. The journey model is tolerant of some frustrated desire, explains why persons who have embarked on their journeys are not replaceable, and accounts for why it is wrong to bring a miserable life into existence. Although sentience puts a being within the sphere of equal consideration of interests, only a personal interest in continuing to live brings the journey model into play. This model also explains the priority that Singer attaches to interests over trivial desires and pleasures. For instance, one has an interest in food, but not in the pleasures of the palate that might distinguish eating steak from eating tofu, because nutrition is instrumental to many goals in one's life journey, whereas the desire for meat is not and is therefore trumped by the interest of animals in avoiding the miseries of factory farming. In order to avoid bias towards human interests, he requires the idea of an impartial standpoint from which to compare interests. This is an elaboration of the familiar idea of putting oneself in the other's shoes, adjusted for beings with paws or flippers. He has wavered about whether the precise aim is the total amount of satisfied interests, or instead the most satisfied interests among those beings who already exist prior to the decision one is making. Both have liabilities. The total view for instance seems to lead to Derek Parfit's Repugnant Conclusion, and the prior-existence view seems questionably indifferent to the harm or benefit one can do to those who are brought into existence by one's decisions. The second edition of Practical Ethics disavows the first edition's suggestion that the total and prior-existence views should be combined in such a way that the total view applies to sentient beings who are not self-conscious and the prior-existence view applies to those who are. This would mean that rats and human infants are replaceable -- their painless death is permissible as long as they are replaced; whereas human adults and other persons in Singer's expanded sense, including great apes, are not replaceable. The second edition dispenses with the requirement of replacement and the consequent high population numbers for sentient beings. It asserts that preference-satisfaction utilitarianism, incorporating the 'journey' model, applies without invoking the first edition's suggestion about the total view. But the details are fuzzy and Singer admits that he is "not entirely satisfied" with his treatment of choices that involve bringing beings into existence. His revised position would presumably be in accord with PETA's opposition to no-kill sheltering (when this causes animals to live in deplorable conditions) and its advocacy of neutering, both policies contrary to the implications of the total view, at least when the animals have (or would have if conceived) lives worth living. Ethical conduct is justifiable by reasons that go beyond prudence to "something bigger than the individual," addressing a larger audience. Singer thinks this going-beyond identifies moral reasons as "somehow universal", specifically in the injunction to 'love thy neighbor as thyself', interpreted by him as demanding that one give the same weight to the interests of others as one gives to one's own interests. This universalizing step, which Singer traces from Kant to Hare, is crucial and sets him apart from moral theorists from Hobbes to David Gauthier, who regard that step as flatly irrational. Universalization leads directly to utilitarianism, Singer argues, on the strength of the thought that my own interests cannot count for more than the interests of others. Taking these into account, one must weigh them up and adopt the course of action that is most likely to maximize the interests of those affected; utilitarianism has been arrived at. Singer's universalizing step applies to interests without reference to who has them, whereas a kantian's applies to the judgments of rational agents (in Kant's kingdom of ends, or Rawls's Original Position, etc.). Singer regards kantian universalization as unjust to animals. It's their capacity for suffering/happiness that matters morally, not their deficiency with respect to rational judgment. As for the hobbesians, Singer attempts a response in the final chapter of Practical Ethics, arguing that self-interested reasons support adoption of the moral point of view, such as 'the paradox of hedonism', which counsels that happiness is best found by not looking for it, and the need most people feel to relate to something larger than their own concerns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2342 Posted February 25, 2006 Author Share Posted February 25, 2006 Originally posted by Issac Brock+Feb 15 2006, 02:03 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Issac Brock - Feb 15 2006, 02:03 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-2342@Feb 14 2006, 12:54 AM The fur industry is one of the world's cruelest, and China is the source of most of the world's fur products. In the absence of any legislation or government control, animals in the Chinese fur industry are subject to the most extreme forms of abuse. Investigations of fur farms in China have exposed shocking methods of trapping, transportation, confinement and killing. The species being used include not only typical sources of fur such as rabbits, foxes, minks and raccoons, but also domestic dogs and cats, whose furs are often being deliberately mislabeled and exported as fur from other species. More than 40 million animals are killed each year for their fur. For more information on the Chinese fur industry please refer to the these websites: furkills.org - The True Price of Fur furisdead.com - A Look Inside Chinese Fur Farms furisdead.com - China's Dog and Cat Fur Trade fourrure de luxe - How many animals does it take to make one fur coat? petatv.com - Video. Warning: highly disturbing images http://www.thenausea.com/elements/special%...na/chinafur.htm http://www.thenausea.com/elements/special%...chinafurpic.htm http://www.thenausea.com/menu.html Quoted post Ok, well, for one thing, do you eat meat? Do you eat any dairy products whatsoever? If so, you have a lot to learn about the abuse in those industries, right here in the good old US of A. Quoted post [/b] Actually I used to be a vegan- for about 15 years. Now I am simply a vegetarian. I do drink milk- and I do consume cheese – so yes- I am a hypocrite. I have never worn fur though- not even fake fur- though I could have never afforded it- I would not have anyway. So there you have it- I am an arse and shockingly alive and well- and for some ungodly reason apparently I cant stop flourishing my hypocrisy boundlessly upon this fur blog. This fur blog is turning me into some sort of angry time-warped ferret….. Now that’s a visual…… cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Issac Brock Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 Yeah, wearing fur is frivolous and cruel. The end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.