Vegetarianism

[Osborn F Enready]

Zippster said: Volumes has to do with the fact that we take hundreds and thousands by the day and month to slaughter..

And this means?

Zippster said: I don't recall wild animals taking you, your loved ones, your friends, etc. to a slaughterhouse and killing them, impregnating them, mal-nutritioning, or milking them for all their worth and then discarding the body.

Me or my friends? No. Other people, their kids, their pets and loved ones, yes, they take them, kill them, eat what they want and leave them to rot for other animals, birds and insects to pick clean.

You seem to want to lead people to believe that if you took a baby human to the plains of Africa, and leave it unprotected around a pack of Hyenas, the baby will NOT be killed and picked clean faster than you can spit. That is not the case.

The same thing happens when you take a baby lamb, and put it unprotected around a bunch of meat eating humans.... right.....

Nature is a bitch, and we all act on our NATURAL rights to live by killing to provide life. Nature kills us, we kill the next things down the chain, the next thing down kills the next things on the chain, and so on......

Zippster said: And yes, the methods need a good look at it.

Agreed, and so be it. That is a goal we can work together on.

Zippster said: Here's what happens in the milking industry that leads into the meat industry for cattle. They're raised on food that is full of anti-biotics and ground up meat of other animals including cattle (these are supposed to be herbivores) The momma cows are taken, impregnated and then they take all the milk from her that they can. If she has a calf that's a girl, it gets put into the same milking process. If it's a boy one of 2 things happens. It either goes to make that precious veal some people like (thrown in a wooden crate, not able to turn around, purposely anemic and mal-nutritioned) or it's taken, fattened up and slaughtered in the most inhumane way. At the end of the day, the cows weren't ever treated right from day one.

Sad indeed, but the methods can be changed without effecting the end.

Zippster said: You wanna do your part in interacting with respect... show some for an animal.

I do, what I can. I am a meat eater though, and my love for pets or wild animals does nothing to change that.

I will not limit the rights of my countrymen, in order to "give" rights, since "rights" can't be given. Rights are earned, through evolution, persistence, passion and a refusal to submit to force.

Zippster said: I'm pretty sure that if they started feeding humans, the remains of humans and treating them in this manner it would be illegal in so many respects, immoral, and highly unethical.

Laws mean nothing to me, without rights.

Without rights, laws have no meaning, other than tyranny, and a reason to fight.

[brien]

Zippy; You should reconsider eating in Fast Food joints. They will kill you. I haven't eaten in one ofd those places in over 35 years. Neither did I take my kids there and they don't eat there to this day and they are both adults over 21.

I, and my vegetarian friends, tend to aim towards Oriental and Indian restaurants. Also other ethnic restaurants that are a bit more sophisticated and offer wider choices than grease pits. We tend to repsect our bodies more now that we are older.

[zippster18]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Me or my friends? No. Other people, their kids, their pets and loved ones, yes, they take them, kill them, eat what they want and leave them to rot for other animals, birds and insects to pick clean. You seem to want to lead people to believe that if you took a baby human to the plains of Africa, and leave it unprotected around a pack of Hyenas, the baby will NOT be killed and picked clean faster than you can spit. That is not the case. The same thing happens when you take a baby lamb, and put it unprotected around a bunch of meat eating humans.... right..... Nature is a bitch, and we all act on our NATURAL rights to live by killing to provide life. Nature kills us, we kill the next things down the chain, the next thing down kills the next things on the chain, and so on......

Ok, so you're TAKING a baby there. They aren't coming into the cities and putting you through the hell that we put the animals that we TAKE from them. This isn't the same thing at all. And yes, if you put a kid out there un-protected 9 times out of 10 it will be eaten by a wild pack of hungry hyenas, but why would you?

And I seriously doubt that if i put a baby lamb infront of you... alive that you could kill it, clean it, and eat it w/out cooking it and without using various other tools aka knife, gun

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I do, what I can. I am a meat eater though, and my love for pets or wild animals does nothing to change that. I will not limit the rights of my countrymen, in order to "give" rights, since "rights" can't be given. Rights are earned, through evolution, persistence, passion and a refusal to submit to force. Laws mean nothing to me, without rights. Without rights, laws have no meaning, other than tyranny, and a reason to fight.

Well unless they're babe the pig or charolette the spider and can talk to us, then they can't really speak for themselves, and this doesn't mean that we're better 'cause evolution likes us best. they weren't made that way and they weren't made to be our food. They were made to live in harmony with us.

[zippster18]

Quote by: brien Zippy; You should reconsider eating in Fast Food joints. They will kill you. I haven't eaten in one ofd those places in over 35 years. Neither did I take my kids there and they don't eat there to this day and they are both adults over 21. I, and my vegetarian friends, tend to aim towards Oriental and Indian restaurants. Also other ethnic restaurants that are a bit more sophisticated and offer wider choices than grease pits. We tend to repsect our bodies more now that we are older.

Yeah, well the starving college student part goes into effect here. I tend to make a lot of my meals, but my friends like to go out a lot and they go to McD. whilst i go to Wendy's and get that bun with lettuce and tomato and a baked potato... I try to eat healthy when i can though.

[brien]

they weren't made that way and they weren't made to be our food. They were made to live in harmony with us.

It sounds to me like you think "someone" made these animals other than their biological parents, and there is some "plan" on how animals are supposed to act toward each other. Any support of your principle based upon religion is entirely subjective and thus has no basis in fact.

[zippster18]

Quote by: brien It sounds to me like you think "someone" made these animals other than their biological parents, and there is some "plan" on how animals are supposed to act toward each other. Any support of your principle based upon religion is entirely subjective and thus has no basis in fact.

Um, well I'm Catholic...So yeah that part is based on religious views.

[brien]

Quote by: zippster18 Yeah, well the starving college student part goes into effect here. I tend to make a lot of my meals, but my friends like to go out a lot and they go to McD. whilst i go to Wendy's and get that bun with lettuce and tomato and a baked potato... I try to eat healthy when i can though.

My wife and I go to a favorite Chinese restaurant and both eat lunch for under $10.00 plus tax and tip. We each have a hot and sour soup for two, a appetizer like summer rolls, and free hot tea. There are many alternatives to MC D's so you don't need to eat that awful slop. I will wager your friends spend more than $5.00 at Fast food joints. Don't want to tip, then take away. Chinese and Japanese restaurants are wonderful healthy inexpensive alternatives to your fast food traps. Try them.

[zippster18]

Quote by: brien My wife and I go to a favorite Chinese restaurant and both eat lunch for under $10.00 plus tax and tip. We each have a hot and sour soup for two, a appetizer like summer rolls, and free hot tea. There are many alternatives to MC D's and you don't need to eat that awful slop. Chinese and Japanese restaurants are wonderful inexpensive alternatives to your fast food traps. Try them.

I eat ethnic foods all the time. Indian is my prefered food, but I can't drop $10 on a meal. $2.75 is about all I get to spend...and that's "going out" for me. And I don't eat at McD's...never! Those are my friends. Even their fries are done in beef fat, that's just nasty.

[brien]

Quote by: zippster18 Um, well I'm Catholic...So yeah that part is based on religious views.

Sorry. I won't attack your religious views. However, I will say they are irrelevant to the merits of the argument here. I was raised a Catholic, yet I place more stock in Hinduism and reincarnation than I would a woman bearing a child not pregnant by the penetration of a man. Sorry.

[brien]

Quote by: zippster18 I eat ethnic foods all the time. Indian is my prefered food, but I can't drop $10 on a meal. $2.75 is about all I get to spend...and that's "going out" for me. And I don't eat at McD's...never! Those are my friends. Even their fries are done in beef fat, that's just nasty.

You missed the fact that my wife and I BOTH dine for the $10.00 so that is $5.00 each. I am certain that people spend at least $5 at Wendy's etc. Hell, you can get Chinese vegetable soup and a summer roll for about $3.50 and free tea at a Chinese rest.. My point is you can find healthy cheap eats if you look for it.

Happy hunting.

[zippster18]

Thank you! I tend to make meals at home for under $2... i really should just stick with that...

[zippster18]

Quote by: brien Sorry. I won't attack your religious views. However, I will say they are irrelevant to the merits of the argument here. I was raised a Catholic, yet I place more stock in Hinduism and reincarnation than I would a woman bearing a child not pregnant by the penetration of a man. Sorry.

no offense... your views are your own...just so long as you stick to one thing.

[Kamehameha34]

Those rights rested on the "Personhood" of an individual before the law. Slaves did not have what is known in law as "Personhood," so those rights were not held by them because the courts or legislature was not at their disposal to bring redress, suit, or even for someone to do it on their behalf. That is why Mr. X who saw Mr. Y beat slave Z to a bloody pulp could not even bring it to the court to handle on behalf of slave Z.

I suggest you look at this link, particularly definition 2.

Rights can always be expanded -- not just in their scope, but also by what beings fall under them. It is a mere decision that the people and their government have to make. In fact, in the courts, it is the granting of "personhood" for animals which is knocking on the doors of the courts now.

That's nice. A lot of things can be legally changed. Is that justification for them all?

In all probability, it will be primates first and then the other animal species one by one over a long period. Don`t worry, your meat will be one of the last to get granted personhood. ARists know this, that is why most of our actions as it concerns meat is directed at Animal Welfare issues and outreach to increase vegetarianism.

You seem very confident about some legislation that will, in much more likelihood, never happen.

People will always eat meat. If you try to restrict meat, the resistence against it will be much more forceful than any weak movement based on the subjective opinions of a pompous few who believe in restricting human rights.

[Osborn F Enready]

Zippster said: Ok, so you're TAKING a baby there. They aren't coming into the cities and putting you through the hell that we put the animals that we TAKE from them. This isn't the same thing at all. And yes, if you put a kid out there un-protected 9 times out of 10 it will be eaten by a wild pack of hungry hyenas, but why would you? And I seriously doubt that if i put a baby lamb infront of you... alive that you could kill it, clean it, and eat it w/out cooking it and without using various other tools aka knife, gun

I gave that example to prove the point I was making.

Animals kill for food, prey on the weak, and are true savages. They are not worthy of rights, they are not equals, nor are they capable of understanding or collectively voicing their rights, let alone collectively defining them.

There are animals that oppose the norm, but the norm is there.

Humans in the norm, respect life. The human wouldn't butcher a baby child or a baby lamb, if it didn't HAVE TO to survive, 9 times out of 10.

Differences?

Point being, man created law to PROTECT his rights from his own undoing by other men. Animals have done nothing of the sort.

What you ask for is pity, understanding, sympathy and compassion.

I have compassion, which is why I say I don't support UNNECESSARY cruelty, to animals. I don't have pity beyond saying that we could do better, and should. I don't have understanding for them, because they realize like I, nature is a cruel bitch. I don't have sympathy, except because I am as vulnerable as them.

It is society, and society alone, and all of its "isolation" from the REALITY of nature, that allows you to have such grand conceptions of "giving" rights to animals. Nature will kill us all, if man doesn't, before animals ever have equal rights, and that I can almost assure you.

Why?

Nature....

Zippster said: And I seriously doubt that if i put a baby lamb infront of you... alive that you could kill it, clean it, and eat it w/out cooking it and without using various other tools aka knife, gun

I'll take you up on that bet. We will limit me to only what I can make from natural surroundings, ok, same as the animals?

If I can make tools from nature, I can use them, so I have stone knives, stone mincers, wood bowl, wood spoon. I can make fire without a tool, so I am good there......

What was the problem again?

How much do I get if I can do it?

Zippster said: Well unless they're babe the pig or charolette the spider and can talk to us, then they can't really speak for themselves, and this doesn't mean that we're better 'cause evolution likes us best.

Um, yes, it does. We evolved faster, can do more, have more natural ability, have mastered tools, language, technology, science, math, and most importantly when speaking of nature, KILLING.

When speaking of the "game of life" where losing means death, winning means life, exposed to nature with only what you have...... humans win.

We felled massive mammoths with spikes and spears, arrows and sword long before guns or knives, cannons or the ivory trade. Why? Food. Just like they would do to you, if they were hungry, they were able, and you were in front of them.

Zippster said: they weren't made that way and they weren't made to be our food. They were made to live in harmony with us.

If my stomach digests it, it means it can be food. Survival is about nourishment, not Political Correctness.

So, if you are with your family together, flying across the Arctic Circle and your plane crashes, would you let your family eat you to live IF you KNEW that eating you would allow them ALL to live but you, or all die?

Would they eat you, or all die?

How bad do they, or you, want to live?

Would you eat them, if they offered?

What if they were all strangers? Enemies?

Point being, your statement can't be proven, its subjective, and it falls apart under even the most basic assault of reason, or logic.

By the way, are girls made of spice, and everything nice too?

Zippster said: Um, well I'm Catholic...So yeah that part is based on religious views.

A-Ha, that explains that.....

[Chaossaber314]

The whole PETA mantra that we seem to be getting regurgitated here is kinda old IMO.

[Epistemologist]

It just occurred to me that you are what you eat. So, if you eat ham i.e. pig's ass, then you're a...just kidding.

I stick with my previous statements.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I suggest you look at this link, particularly definition 2.

You are not understanding the concept of the legal challenges facing the courts in regards to the legal nuances of the term "person" or in this case "personhood." You are focused on biology, but in law, "personhood" is not bound only by the biology of what defines a human being. Using your own link I suggest you not be so selective in what you want the term to mean and think about the term the courts are being challenged with. Look at #s 4 and 11 as it pertains to "person."

4. Philosophy. a self-conscious or rational being.

11. Law. a human being (natural person) or a group of human beings, a corporation, a partnership, an estate, or other legal entity (artificial person or juristic person) recognized by law as having rights and duties.

As you can see, it is not dependent that a person be defined by biology -- but also capacity and what has been granted to it by recognition under law. You should note that the fight for AR is not in the biology class, but in the courts where lawyers and judges ponder legal issues wrapped up with all the other sciences. Divorcing the entities, and you are left with your myopic view of "person" and complete non undersanding of "personhood."

If you think the term is not being taken seriously in its challenge to preconcieved notions, you may want to take a moment to look at the orgs that are very concerned with its advancement for animals. They are not dismissing it like you, and they are on the same side as you:

To address this clear threat to animal research, several scientific organizations including APS, FASEB, ASPET, AAA, AAMC, the Society for Neuroscience, the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ACNP), and the American Academy of Neurology (AAN), initiated a project coordinated through the National Association for Biomedical Research (NABR) aimed at developing a coherent legal strategy to address these new “animal law” and “legal personhood” initiatives. This is a five-year effort, starting first with a foundation of legal research, followed by a legal and political strategy that would also include coalition building and outreach. The ultimate goal of the project is to be fully prepared when and if a significant “personhood” or other “animal law” case is brought before a federal or state court.

And on one front in the struggle for some kind of "Personhood" for animals there is this:

Two very prominent legal scholars, Laurence Tribe and Cass Sunstein, subscribe to this view of personhood. (Tribe is the Ralph S. Tyler, Jr. Professor of Constitutional Law, and Carl M. Loeb University Professor at Harvard Law School. Tribe is arguably the most prominent constitutional law scholar in the country. His constitutional law treatise was the most widely cited legal document of the 20th century. -- Source

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin: Rights can always be expanded -- not just in their scope, but also by what beings fall under them. It is a mere decision that the people and their government have to make. In fact, in the courts, it is the granting of "personhood" for animals which is knocking on the doors of the courts now.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 That's nice. A lot of things can be legally changed. Is that justification for them all?

If it ends suffering, yes.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 You seem very confident about some legislation that will, in much more likelihood, never happen.

Yes, I am confidant or perhaps a better word is optimistic. Furthermore, industries which rely on animal exploitation feel the threat and do not feel it is such an unlikely happening. The first to feel the pinch is the animal research community, but the agri-corporations know that they will be in courts soon after if primates are given protective rights -- after all, pigs, too, have been demonstrated to be highly intelligent. But, to give you a hint at the worry in the industry:

The animal personhood movement has the support of some legal luminaries, including Harvard law professor Lawrence Tribe, who argued for Al Gore in the Supreme Court case against George W. Bush, and civil rights and celebrity lawyer Alan Dershowitz. "Animal rights or animal legal courses are being taught now in something like 26 U.S. law schools, and there are more added to that list every year," says Trull. "We are also seeing chapters of animal rights law in a number of state bar associations, as well as the introduction of related resolutions within the American Bar Association that are being brought to the house of delegates."

While these efforts have not yet gained considerable traction, Trull believes there's cause for concern. "We've seen this in other aspects of this movement where what appeared to be a 'ridiculous' proposal was brought forth and everybody said that it was going nowhere, and the next thing that happened was that it did go somewhere, and we were left standing, asking 'what happened?'"

Michael Socarras, a partner at Greenberg Traurig, LLP, who has represented research interests in several animal rights cases, agrees. "There is a very important shift under way in the manner in which many people in law schools and in the legal profession think about animals," says Socarras. "This shift has not yet reached popular opinion. However, in our country, social change has and can occur through the courts, which in many instances do not operate as democratic institutions. Therefore, the evolution in elite legal opinion is extremely significant and raises an important challenge for the future of biomedical research." Source

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 People will always eat meat.

People will always break whatever law there is on the book. Do you know of any law that is not broken by people?

If you try to restrict meat, the resistence against it will be much more forceful than any weak movement based on the subjective opinions of a pompous few who believe in restricting human rights.

Once again your error in not understanding that if it is legislated through elected representatives as the will of the people in reflecting their values, then it would not be a "few" people. I think I have pointed this out to you several times already but you are not comprehending.

Now, if it is legislated from the courts, bypassing votes in congress, then you may be right. In that case, the courts` judges may be acting on their own beliefs. If that happened, I would expect a lot of people to ignore the laws and perhaps even law enforcement might not enforce it. However, if it is legislated from the courts and the courts in addition to agreeing with the arguments of the lawyers fighting for rights of animals to bodily integrity are also in alignment with the popular sentiment of the country, then the laws will for the most part be upheld and enforced.

Sometimes social or legal change occurs one judge funeral at a time as the generations pass.

What will the decisions be like when today`s law students who are vegans and supporters of AR move into the positions of judges 20, 30, or 40 years from now or as more and more juries more often get vegetarians or others greatly sympathetic to the plight of animals on their panels? I can imagine the impact. Can`t you?

In fact, the AR and vegetarian movment really got legs in the 80`s. That is 25 years ago. Now law schools and bar associations have professors and members who grew up in that period and will within the near future start moving over from attorney to judge as they get older.