[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Kamehameha, show a little patience. I did not ignore you post. As you can see I have several opponants at the moment. I am simply behind in getting to posts. I have addressed many points of yours, though admittedly not all due to spreading my time around with other posters on animal issues here on Volconvo.

And you have time to the post that tells you that you didn't respond to my post, but not the post itself?

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin You, too, seem to have ignored some of the rebuttles and comments I put directly to you? You, however, do not have the excuse on this thread of being engaged with others in having to address their comments.

Show me.

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Kamehameha, we can all play "if" games. No animals are born and will not be born naturally behaving to the interests and whims of man -- not even a dog, which does so only due to socialization and conditioning.

That was my point. The fact that that is true is irrelevant to the issue of ownership of their life.

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Then why do many people cringe when they see animals in factory farms and slaughterhouses? People don`t take their 6 year old kids for fun on weekend outings to whatch the hogs get slaughtered, do they? They do take them to orchards for fun that charge families by the basket to pick their own oranges, apples, dig potatos etc...

People don't take their family to the municipal garbage facility as an outing, either, but does that mean having one is immoral?

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Funny how some in modern times, seeking to distance themselves from the suffering involved in slaughter now refer to it as "harvesting" -- as if it is merely the same as picking fruit.

There is NO suffering involved with death. Stop using prejudicial terminology.

When did this term come into vogue? I challenge you to find it widely used before the start of the modern animal rights campaign. You may find it began with Japanese using it to describe the slaughtering of whales from the oceans to equate it with the practices of other countries' agrarian systems in a means to blunt criticisms of killing these animals. Other countries and industries surely could see how "harvest" did not carry the baggage that the word "slaughter" brought to mind and therefore began usingn it, too. Oh, how clever and misleading we homosapiens can be. First get the slaugherhouses far from the cities out of site, then work on changing the vocabulary from one of the bloody association of "slaughter" to the neat and bloodless act of "picking oranges, apples, potatos, etc..." from trees or the ground. Nice spin. Perhaps Clinton would say, [/quote]

Slaughter denotes pain, which isn't present in the process. Using uephemisms should only matter if it actually changes the meaning of the term.

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin "It all depends on what the meaning of 'is' is." Orwell would be proud of our inroads in Doublespeak, wouldn`t he? We do his horrendous view of the future and its dark ways of communication honor. I try to be honest in my words and call things as they are, not as I would like others to believe them to be with changing the sublime truth of them and resorting to their narrower meanings out of special interests. Why don`t you? Why have you adopted and rejected the traditional word? It is in fact a "slaughter" -- that is why they are honestly known by the public as "slaughterhouses" or even meatpacking houses. They surely do not call them "silos" as in "grain silos" or "stores" (i.e. as in storage and collection facilities for fruit such as "fruit stores").

My accurate use of the word harvest shouldn't matter to you unless you are confused by it.

Also, stop getting caught up in my use of the word harvest and acknowledge the fact that it is ILLEGAL to cause animal cruelty