PETA is quite retarded

[Sulkdodds]

Have to be impressed by Gray Fox there.
What precisely is wrong with PETA's actions in this case again? They say it's cruel to kill the pigs when there are tested alternatives. That's true, isn't it?
Of course, it's not like they're going to win against the Army, which has a pretty strong grip on the US government.

My question is this: how do you handle according rights to animals? As far as I see it you have two options. You can say "only humans have rights". This doesn't preclude the capacity to try and diminish the suffering of animals out of compassion, and also, more often than not, protecting humans will entail protecting animals, and what's best for the planet may sometimes be best for the species (eg global warming, rainforest clearance). However, you always put the rights of humans above those of animals.

The other option is, you say animals have intrinsic rights not to be harmed. That is then a very difficult concept to keep tenable. Because where precisely do you draw the line and say "it's alright to kill or mistreat these animals"?

 

[nurizeko]

The other option is, you say animals have intrinsic rights not to be harmed. That is then a very difficult concept to keep tenable. Because where precisely do you draw the line and say "it's alright to kill or mistreat these animals"?

You cant exactly because rights and morality are entirely human created concepts that don't exist within reality.

We use our gift of sapience to choose to be kind and charitable to others and the wildlife/environment around us.

We choose to believe that not killing an animal is right, or we choose to believe that eating meat is wrong somehow.




Like religious fundamentalists though, militant vegetarians and animal rights activists make the mistake that their opinion is somehow valid as universal truth and fact of reality and therefor must be impressed upon everyone else.


But most of all, its just something to whinge about, like those Danish cartoons.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Ignoring the faintly mad conceit that we may 'choose' what we believe, the idea of 'universal truth' as you mean it is not only distinct from the real meaning of the word 'truth' but is, in fact, contained by it. Universal Capital-T Truth, the concept, itself exists within an entirely human frame of meaning (as does the concept of a 'frame of meaning'). That frame is everything to us. This makes it pointless to talk of an opposition between 'human' and 'absolute' morality.

'Rights' are an entirely human concept indeed - but this makes them very, very real.
Morality exists.

ethixlol

 

[Bad^Hat]

Because where precisely do you draw the line and say "it's alright to kill or mistreat these animals"?

Right along the jugular, usually.

Zing.

 

[99.vikram]

I love being a bad person. It's delicious.

 

[Qonfused]

Right along the jugular, usually.

Zing.

Lol'd.

 

[Eejit]

Like religious fundamentalists though, militant vegetarians, Samon and animal rights activists make the mistake that their opinion is somehow valid as universal truth and fact of reality and therefor must be impressed upon everyone else.

Agreed.

Their code of morals is the only real one.

 

[Gray Fox]

Ignoring the faintly mad conceit that we may 'choose' what we believe, the idea of 'universal truth' as you mean it is not only distinct from the real meaning of the word 'truth' but is, in fact, contained by it. Universal Capital-T Truth, the concept, itself exists within an entirely human frame of meaning (as does the concept of a 'frame of meaning'). That frame is everything to us. This makes it pointless to talk of an opposition between 'human' and 'absolute' morality.

'Rights' are an entirely human concept indeed - but this makes them very, very real.
Morality exists.

ethixlol

I knew you were gonna post something no one understands.

Anyway you're a jerk.
I would have loved to say that trough PM as to not **** myself. But my PM box is full!!
And now that you brought that subject up, ask munro to not ignore me, and make the box
larger, the current limit is damping my digital lifestyle and forms and obstacle to my social
development as well as my future success in life.

 

[Jintor]

Every single one of Gray Fox's posts are like poetry.

New-fangled, thrice-accursed post-modern poetry.

 

[Llama]

I knew you were gonna post something no one understands.

Anyway you're a jerk.
I would have loved to say that trough PM as to not **** myself. But my PM box is full!!
And now that you brought that subject up, ask munro to not ignore me make the box
larger, the current limit is damping my digital lifestyle and forms and obstacle to my social
development as well as my future success in life.

So you don't understand him, which therefore means you're going to abuse him for it? Wow, I knew you were a c*nt but that's impressive.

Ahh well, feel free to go about your life with silly ideas about objective morality while I chew on that delicious steak.

 

[Gray Fox]

Talking about something as the PM limit being an obstacle to my social developments in to
context of this thread opened up a whole slew of opportunities for you to explore. But in the
end you put as much imagination in your post as in your diet.

In any case my grudge against sulk go's beyond what I can understand, and it has nothing
to do with the way he expresses his own opinions, as they are as eloquent as they are
intelligent. More importantly they are conciseness raisers.

 

[Bad^Hat]

Ahh well, feel free to go about your life with silly ideas about objective morality while I chew on that delicious steak.

I think he'd be more offended if you said you were eating troll.

 

[Llama]

Talking about something as the PM limit being an obstacle to my social developments in to
context of this thread opened up a whole slew of opportunities for you to explore. But in the
end you put as much imagination in your post as in your diet.

Touch'e.

I didn't feel the need to comment on your social development, the way you act speaks volumes.

In any case my grudge against sulk go's beyond what I can understand, and it has nothing
to do with the way he expresses his own opinions, as they are as eloquent as they are
intelligent. More importantly they are conciseness raisers.

Well if you have an inherent dislike for him and you don't know why, perhaps it's best not to tell the world when it simply makes you look like an arse.

 

[Gray Fox]

It seemed to me you were just to slow.
But anyway glad, a clever thought crossed your mind?
Must have been a long and lonely journey.

But you got me real good.

 

[Llama]

Beleive it or not, I do not refresh this page every ten seconds to see whatever vague argument or side-stepping sniding remark you have made.

So do you have any actual argument rather than "omg it's WRONG!!!" (Which of course, is a statement that's impossible to define as being correct apart from in your own opinion)

 

[nurizeko]

'Rights' are an entirely human concept indeed - but this makes them very, very real.
Morality exists.

......only in our heads.


A bear doesn't care about where its food comes from. The sun won't care when it eventually expands and sterilizes the Earth to a lifeless cinder.

Morality and rights exist only as long as we choose to believe they do, they are completely at the whim of our own opinions and beliefs. Many people share certain beliefs and opinions in common, what we get from that is social cohesion and a judicial system, a common set of values.

Luckily telling people to eat the shit you like because you say so isn't one of them. If I had to live off of tofu and love for the animals I'de bloody hang myself.


Some folk choose to believe meat consumption is unethical, I chose to believe that people who tell me what to eat can go burn in that stinking incinerator at the mass cow processing plant that smells of evil and makes me feel ill because for all that I still have no ethical problems with meat consumption and I absolutely love a good bit of meat with my veg.




I can however agree that while not forced, it would be nice if some folk would expand their diet a bit to include a bit more veg.

 

[CptStern]

it's pretty clear some of you dont understand what animals rights is. it covers the right to be free from cruel or inhumane treatment. There are those that would expand on that: specifically the right to ownership or animals as commodity but by and large most groups fight inhumane treatment not affording animals the same rights we enjoy

 

[Tyguy]

I sometimes ponder what it would be like if animals could talk. Would that change the way we treat other animals? If a pig could talk, would we still eat them? Seems like our diet is directly based on how smart the tasty fella is. If that's the case, shouldn't we be eating retarded people?

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

it's pretty clear some of you dont understand what animals rights is. it covers the right to be free from cruel or inhumane treatment. There are those that would expand on that: specifically the right to ownership or animals as commodity but by and large most groups fight inhumane treatment not affording animals the same rights we enjoy

Exactly. There is a big difference between animal welfare and animal rights. The first wants animals on farms to be treated fairly and to have the right to a reasonable life, without an kind of inhumane death. The second wants the complete abolition of eating animals. Though this is a noble goal, animal welfare is the only practical one; the only one that most out of both the meat and veggie eating communities can agree upon.

 

[Eejit]

it's pretty clear some of you dont understand what animals rights is. it covers the right to be free from cruel or inhumane treatment.

That's animal welfare, not animal rights.

It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the eating of meat.

 

[CptStern]

That's animal welfare, not animal rights.

It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the eating of meat.

relative to this:

Animal rights, also known as animal liberation, is the idea that the interests of nonhuman animals, such as the interest in avoiding suffering, should be afforded the same consideration as the interests of human beings.

 

[Doomguy132]

Only Stern and Piggy have got it right, the rest of you have a rather weird point of view. Like many people, I prefer to eat meat, mainly because it is tasty, and because there is nothing inherently wrong about it.
Just because we raise animals to become food and just because we happen to be the most intelligent species on the planet doesn't mean we have any right to simply do whatever we want to another sentient being. For example, I have no problem with raising animals for slaughter, as long as the animal doesn't suffer too much cruelty. Keep in mind that they aren't just a bunch of walking nerves packed in meat.

 

[Pulse]

Pork scratchings are awesome.

 

[Raziaar]

Okay, what the **** is a pork scratching? Once again, crazy British lingo!

That's the UK name for Pork Rinds, isn't it?

Scratching is such a weird name for it... argh.

 

[Phobie]

http://www.breatharian.com/

Witness.

These people ask you to pay ridiculous money to learn how to live without food or water apparently.

 

[Raziaar]

Oh man, those Breatharians are so ****ing retarded. lol

They completely ignore the fact that all life requires water to survive, as well as energy in the form of photosynthesis or through consuming plants or other animals that have stored in them that chemical energy.


They are so stupid that they think they can survive in the same way plants do by using energy from the sun.

 

[Tyguy]

raziaar, have you not figured out how to produce chlorophyll yet?

 

[Raziaar]

I lack chloroplast organelles.

<cries> WHY GOD WHY!?


Maybe that's how the Hulk becomes green.

 

[Tyguy]

that would mean plants have the capability to grow to gigantic sizes and kill people....NICE

 

[Absinthe]

Only Stern and Piggy have got it right, the rest of you have a rather weird point of view. Like many people, I prefer to eat meat, mainly because it is tasty, and because there is nothing inherently wrong about it.
Just because we raise animals to become food and just because we happen to be the most intelligent species on the planet doesn't mean we have any right to simply do whatever we want to another sentient being. For example, I have no problem with raising animals for slaughter, as long as the animal doesn't suffer too much cruelty. Keep in mind that they aren't just a bunch of walking nerves packed in meat.

O hai, welcome to what the other half of the meat eaters in this topic are already saying.

 

[VirusType2]

well, I don't like to eat meat. I never have. I don't even like the taste of most of it. And I don't usually eat it.

And I wish that we could all live in rainbows and eat M&M's all day, but there aren't enough to go around.

And I worked in a slaughterhouse, and it's disgusting and sad. They've got a guy that gets paid to bless every animal right before the animals are processed, and well, that makes me feel good inside, but does it make any difference to the animal?

Like, If I point a gun at you and say, 'bless you child.' right before I kill you will that make everything OK?

Animals eating other animals. That is how we got to where we are today. The food chain is still taught in schools is it not?

break it down

micro plankton grows from the water and sunlight, the brine shrimp eats the micro plankton, the wale eats the brine shrimp. That's the quick version. sometimes fish and bigger fish and dolphins and sharks become involved

I'm just tired and I love you all.

I wholeheartedly agree we should make the animal's death painless as possible. So I'm not even sure why I posted. I guess, in the end, I put human life above animal life, so that's where I stand.

If the military thinks it can save my brothers and friends and peers and countrymen, by testing on pigs, who am I to tell them that's not OK? Especially when I can drive down the road where they are slaughtering up to 2 million chickens per week, and that is in the smallest town in Virginia.

Don't waste your foods

 

[Sulkdodds]

I'd like to say that I'm very disappointed that more attention is given to Grey Fox's supposed "fundamentalism" than is being given to his actual arguments, or to the issue of whether it is/isn't okay/notokay to eat/noteat animals/slamina - and why/why not?

I knew you were gonna post something no one understands.

Anyway you're a jerk.

Is it because I cut my hair?

I am almost reluctant to try and explain myself when "no one understands" me (sob), because perhaps that would diminish the veracity of what I'm saying. There's a reason all these stylish French cultural critics write in almost obfuscatory language; it's because language affects thought, and they want you to start really thinking.

Nevertheless, I'll attempt to explain myself using these handy quotes from Nurizeko:

...only in our heads.

Or rather, in our systems of language and thought, which are sustained in limbo and in potentia between the outputs and the inputs of our sensory organs. Which, I concede, are controlled from our heads. So fair play.

But to say that these things are only in our heads is rather like saying "it's only planet earth" or "it's only the horsehead nebula" or even "it's only the western empiricist-idealist problematic". I don't want to say that we live in our heads, because I think that suggests that I'm talking in psychological terms, about things like delusion and the objective/subjective divide. That is not what I am talking about.

Nor will I again use terms like "the human perspective" or "the human frame". To do so suggests a perspective and a framework that is, though subjective, still shared by all humanity. Not only does this imply that 'humanity' is unique, but it also implies some element which is common to all humans, some cultural kinship which is illusory. It does not do to talk of 'humanity'.

So I'll say this, albeit ineloquently: meaning and morality only work on a societally-formed frame. But we are on that frame - whether we like it or not.

Morality and rights exist only as long as we choose to believe they do, they are completely at the whim of our own opinions and beliefs.

We do not "choose" to believe what we do. I think you don't go far enough in saying that 'morality' is at the whim of our beliefs. What you should say - excuse me. Allow first a little leeway, admit that there are exceptions, and there are contradictions, which make the following judgement not quite as totalising nor quite as frightening as it first sounds (though still sufficiently scary - it should be). Ahem: what you should say, having done all that, is that we are at the mercy of our beliefs - or rather, the beliefs have us at their mercy.

What I'm saying is that while morality might not ultimately be inherent in the physical universe, it is an inherent product of a living perspective, and living values, which, though not objective in the sense that you mean, are still external to the individual. Indeed, they create and allow the existence of the individual. They are therefore of incredible importance, and to dismiss them as only anything is to ignore the discovery of even a fraction of their function - which is, I suspect, beyond objective and subjective.

I wanted to elaborate on this because I found it interesting, but I'm forced to admit it's not necessarily very relevant. No, 'rights' couldn't be actually enshrined in the physical functions of the universe. But such things are literally inscribed in our experience of the universe, which is what we access anyway. I mean, you know, this is like my true response, but here's one that, while technically misrepresenting what I think, would probably do just as well:

Player one: "Morality is only a human construction, not inherent in the bursting of suns, the movement of the stars nor the orbits of our tiny rocks."
Player two: "Well, duh. But so what?"

I would have loved to say that trough PM as to not **** myself. But my PM box is full!!
And now that you brought that subject up, ask munro to not ignore me, and make the box
larger, the current limit is damping my digital lifestyle and forms and obstacle to my social
development as well as my future success in life.

I would take your request to Munro if I had any confidence that he'd listen, but I have none - and in any case, Helplife2.net helps those who help themselves. Don't wait for others to act for you! Take your fate into your own hands, like they do in movies! Take decisive action! Take back your life! That is to say, I think you should copy and paste all your important PMs into a word document for safe-keeping, and then delete them all from your inbox to free up enough space for a healthier, happier you.

 

[PvtRyan]

Have to be impressed by Gray Fox there.
What precisely is wrong with PETA's actions in this case again? They say it's cruel to kill the pigs when there are tested alternatives. That's true, isn't it?
Of course, it's not like they're going to win against the Army, which has a pretty strong grip on the US government.

My question is this: how do you handle according rights to animals? As far as I see it you have two options. You can say "only humans have rights". This doesn't preclude the capacity to try and diminish the suffering of animals out of compassion, and also, more often than not, protecting humans will entail protecting animals, and what's best for the planet may sometimes be best for the species (eg global warming, rainforest clearance). However, you always put the rights of humans above those of animals.

The other option is, you say animals have intrinsic rights not to be harmed. That is then a very difficult concept to keep tenable. Because where precisely do you draw the line and say "it's alright to kill or mistreat these animals"?

More fun things to consider: what's a human?

Think about it. Before we can say what rights humans have versus animals, we first have to establish what a human is and where the boundary ends. Is a human an intelligent and conscious being? Then why aren't the great apes, dolphins, whales and elephants human? Is it because that while they're intelligent, conscious and social creatures they're not as intelligent, conscious and social as us? Then, does that mean that a mentally handicapped person is less human, because they're less intelligent as well. Does that also mean that very intelligent people are more human and worth more than less intelligent people?

Well, I say: stop trying to put a price tag on stuff. Nothing has an inherent value. All value is derived. A man in a coma doesn't have a lower price tag than you or me because he's a vegetable, because he has people that do assign a lot of value to him. A shitty cheap-ass necklace doesn't have zero value if your deceased mom gave it to you.

An old post I made (a response to Gray Fox coincidentally) about this subject:

Lets start over again because this answering of posts quote by quote waters down the entire argument and obviously confuses everyone. That's what I hate about forum discussions, you always lose track of everything and end up talking about nothing or menial things like what the law is.

In the beginning I made a claim, which I will restate here:
There is nothing wrong with the killing of an animal for consumption, there is only something wrong with causing it unnecessary suffering during its live.

And let me make clear that this argument has nothing to do with justifying the meat industry. This is purely the concept of killing an animal for consumption, in an ideal world where it can live a worthy live and its death is instantaneous and painless. I cannot stress that enough, in each of your responses you refer to the injustice of the meat industry, which is completely irrelevant to my argument.

When you kill an animal, what kind of effect does it have on the animal? Obviously, it loses all awareness of this world. So therefor death is not suffering because the animal can't suffer any more.

What about its "right to live" then? The animal is simply not aware of such a thing and when the time comes for it, it doesn't contemplate its existence or cry injustice. It doesn't even know whether or not its life was supposed to end there anyway. You are aware of that, you are aware of the loss that dying would be to you. It's a completely different awareness of death When you kill a human, you take away more than his life, you rob him of his ideas, plans for the future, hopes and dreams, bla bla. A cow's experience of life is much more superficial. An animal should have the right to be free from unnecessary suffering because it is aware of that.

Then why can't we kill the retards and the comatose? They're nor aware of much and I'm sure they'd make fine hamburgers, but that's where the value thing comes in. The coma patient has value to someone, he or she is loved by someone. Even if he didn't have anyone, the nurses taking care of her/him have established a sense of empathy for him/her. The only way for someone to have no one at all is to live in a complete social vacuum, and then you are better off dead.

That is why it also wrong to kill someone's pet, it's an animal that like most is not as conscious about being alive as most humans are, but his owner loves it. Whatever reason he has for that, is not relevant, only the fact that taking it away from him will cause suffering. The same goes for things like gifts received from loved ones, while its material value may be very little, it's actual value is high. But it doesn't mean anyone would care if an identical object was destroyed. If someone has a pet cow, it wouldn't cross my mind to eat it, but I have no objection to eat another cow.

And you're right that someone given the choice of killing his animals or becoming a vegetarian (why a vegetarian? They still cause animal suffering, do it well and become a vegan I would say) would choose to be a vegetarian. That's sort of my point, he values his own animals. I love my dog and would never be able to kill it, but I'm not gonna cry about the Koreans eating dogs "aww but dogs are cute", but I would about how they treat them. If anyone would try to kill my dog however, I wouldn't hesitate to kill them if needed.

I can fully sympathize with being a vegetarian because of the suffering the meat industry causes during the life of an animal. But being a vegetarian because you object to the concept of killing animals for consumption, even in an ideal world free of suffering during life is plain silly to be honest. And where do you draw the line? If eating fish OK? And if so, why? While beef and pork might be largely redundant in terms of nutritional value, fish is a very healthy thing to eat. What about chicken? Because they're not much "higher" than fish. Also, I believe you stated before that the killing of animals was justified by people who live in the wilderness, but not any more because we don't need meat in this modern society. But why is that? Our "equal rights" suddenly go away when people do depend on the meat?

 

[Sulkdodds]

Yes yes no that is certainly interesting (albeit anthropocentric) and probably a better contribution to the debate than what I posted. I'm all fucked up on big red pills.

 

[Overclock]

The way I see it animels could not live on their own anymore because we have taken too much of the land they would normally use for food. So as a human I take care of a dog and 2 cats because otherwise they would die.

Also 2 birds.

 

[CptStern]

The way I see it animels could not live on their own anymore because we have taken too much of the land they would normally use for food. So as a human I take care of a dog and 2 cats because otherwise they would die.

Also 2 birds.

lol you should adopt a pig because they wouldnt be alive without you ..also a chicken, a sparrow, mongoose, whooping crane, wildebeest, otter, seahorse, mole, marmoset, armadillo, giraffe, wombat, humpback whale and a moo moo cow


if only people like you had adopted unicorns and leprechauns, they wouldnt be extinct today

 

[Raziaar]

No. They wouldn't be extinct if they did have such great decorative appeal, and if they didn't attempt to hoard gold like ****ing little dragons waiting for people to steal it from them.

 

[Eejit]

The way I see it animels could not live on their own anymore because we have taken too much of the land they would normally use for food.

Also because we've changed them so much by selective breeding that most livestock would get pwned in the wild, even if there was food for them.

 

[CptStern]

which is ok because there's no way milions of cows would have existed without us

 

[McGooTheWise]

Yep, thats what the bulls are for... protecting the herd.