Vegetarian Discussion: PeTA/inconsideration/education (was: Re: Please Post A Message In Support Of PeTA)

PeTA/inconsideration/education (was: Re: Please Post A Message In Support Of PeTA)
Posts: 17

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)

D*@.
2006-09-10 21:40:05 EST
On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 19:55:55 -0600, Glorfindel <notgiven@all.com> wrote:

>Double O'Malley wrote:
>
>> dh pointed out:
>
>>> Don't be fooled when they pretend to want to provide decent lives for
>>> livestock or anything like that, because all that is is a way they
>>> have of tricking people interested in promoting decent AW, into
>>> sending money to an organization whose goal is to eliminate the very
>>> animals people are sending money trying to help.
>
>> But they aren't the same thing.

They sure aren't. In fact:
_________________________________________________________
. . . Not only are the philosophies of animal rights and animal welfare
separated by irreconcilable differences, and not only are the
practical reforms grounded in animal welfare morally at odds with
those sanctioned by the philosophy of animal rights, but also the
enactment of animal welfare measures actually impedes the
achievement of animal rights.

. . . There are fundamental and profound differences between the
philosophy of animal welfare and that of animal rights.

. . . Many animal rights people who disavow the philosophy of animal
welfare believe they can consistently support reformist means to abolition
ends. This view is mistaken, we believe, for moral, practical, and conceptual
reasons.

. . . welfare reforms, by their very nature, can only serve to retard the pace
at which animal rights goals are achieved.
. . .

"A Movement's Means Create Its Ends"
By Tom Regan and Gary Francione
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>> Animal Welfare is for animals that actually exist.

That's a dishonest suggestion as to how people should view the
situation. AW means decent lives for future domestic animals, but
"ar" means the *elimination* of domestic animals. You're slimy
attempt didn't work on me, and hopefully not on anyone else either.

>> The PeTA goal is prevention, not elimination.
>
>PETA works very hard to encourage spay/neuter for domestic animals,
>which is a good thing in our current society.

Agreed.

>They used to have a
>much more absolute attitude toward companion animals, but in recent
>years they have slid slowly into a position as primarily a fairly
>mainstream pro-vegetarian/animal welfare organization,

They exploit AW issues for the $$$.

>whose main program is improving the situation in particularly horrible
>factory farm situations,

I haven't checked into it, but would expect the people who are
actually doing something about that are legitimate AW organizations
who want to provide lives of positive value for livestock, *not!* do
away with them. PeTA puts on goofy demonstrations exploiting true
AW issues to carry them into the spotlight so they can promote
their vegan/"ara" agenda cheaply. For example a couple of years
ago they did the McUnhappy Meal trick, pretending to call attention
to bad conditions in slaughterhouses and battery laying houses
and whatever else. The main goal though was to promote veg*nism
by trying to scare kids into it with their gross propaganda. They may
or may not have done anything to significantly improve the lives of
some battery hens, but the main goal was probably just trying to
force some farmers out of business.
We can see that problems in slaughterhouses were greatly improved
years before PeTA went on the road with their show about it:
_________________________________________________________
Stunning of beef cattle has greatly improved since the USDA survey done
by the author in 1996. In 1996 only 30% of the plants were able to stun 95%
or more of the cattle with one shot. In 1999, 90% of the plants were able to
do this. Stunning was scored in 41 Federally inspected beef plants in 11
different states. The percentage of cattle that vocalize (moo or bellow) during
handling has also greatly improved. Vocalization (mooing, bellowing or
squealing) is an indicator of animal stress and discomfort. In many plants
electric prods had been replaced with other driving aids such as flags or plastic
bags. One remaining problem area in attempting to stun 390 cattle per hour
with one operator.

A total of 19 Federally inspected pork plants were audited in 8 different states.
Seventeen out of 19 plants (89%) induced instant insensibility in 100% of the
pigs. Pig handling has greatly improved and this was reflected by less squealing.
This fact made it possible to develop a new scoring system for objective scoring
of the amount of squealing. This was not possible in 1996 because pigs squealed
continuously in most plants. Eleven plants were evaluated with the new system
and eight out of 11 plants (72%) had either acceptable or excellent scores.
[...]
http://www.grandin.com/survey/99.audits.beef.pork.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
and I hope and expect that things are pretty well humane by now...that PeTA
was greatly exaggerating whatever they were blowing about. But people are
often very inconsiderate toward animals, especially toward ones they are about
to kill. It's just lack of consideration. It doesn't have to be that way but it's hard
to overcome, and I believe you "aras" are more likely making it worse instead
of better. In high school I knew kids who worked in broiler houses that said they
would kill chicks sometimes "for" the "aras".

>medical organizations, fur farms, and
>entertainment facilities like circuses.

Do you think life could ever be made good enough for such animals that
you "aras" would be able to actually appreciate it for them, and stop trying
to prevent any more of them from living? Maybe even be glad for them that
they got to experience what life they did? No? No, in fact that would work
*against!* "ar". It would destroy the entire objective.

>They have a number of
>straightforward welfare programs such as providing dog houses and
>bedding for "outdoor" dogs and mobile spay/neuter vans,

Well if they do stuff like that, great, but their end objective is still certainly
not going to provide anything at all for domestic animals. Hopefully some
day people will take an interest in that, which again just comes down to
having common consideration for "the other guy". If people would just
learn to be considerate of the poor beasts then most cruelty problems would
just go away by themselves. But NOOOOOOOOOOOOO! And the worst
part is that you "aras" are little if any better than another person who honestly
admits he simply doesn't care.

On that note, we have the perfect example right here. For years I've been
trying to get people just to have consideration for the fact that the animals
get to live, and you "aras" have totally freaked out about it, and your special
froot loop characters like Goo and Dutchy have maniacally opposed the idea
for the rest of you so you don't have to expose your selfish disregard for
animals publically for the world to see...at least that's why I think it goes like it
does. One thing is certain: No one who's interested in promoting decent AW
has ANY reason to oppose seeing the animals' lives given as much consideration
as their deaths, so just by that simple fact we see that "aras" are very anti-AW.
Then on top of that there's the fact that appreciation for lives of positive value
for livestock would completely trash any hopes you have of getting rid of them.

>helping improve bad shelter situations (such as in Puerto Rico) and
>hands-on rescue help in situations such as the aftermath of
>Hurricane Katrina last year. They do also protest

Translation: They also exploit AW issues in order to get free public exposure
to promote their true objectives, and to encourage contributions.

>and provide anti-dissection help

And what's wrong with dissection?

>and vegetarian information,

Ever see them promote reduced cruelty animals products? I doubt it.
They'd be more likely to bomb one of the farms or something instead.
Now that we mention it, I remember a few years back a reduced cruelty
farmer did come through the ngs, but wouldn't give the URLs for the
farmer's sites BECAUSE of "aras". Not because of general asshole
people, or AW people, but "aras"! So not only do you people insanely
oppose the suggestion that we deliberately provide decent lives for
livestock instead of becoming "ethically" veg*n, you people even
attack it when it's going on! That goes way below just plain old
inconsideration. And their attacks on medical research are even worse
.....oh, so *that's* why the attack on dissection. You know some kids
are afraid of it to begin with, so you use that to try scaring them all and
encouraging bad feelings about it. There was good reason to include
it to begin with, to DELIBERATELY PREVENT the bad feelings that
you "aras" are trying to generate, so people would be more likely to
take an interest in the body and get involved with the medical field.
And you "aras" are trying to screw that up too. Screw the kids up
while they're young, and you've pretty much screwed them for life,
right? Get them to believe the dishonest suggestion that veg*nism
somehow helps animals before they're old enough to figure out that's
a lie:
_________________________________________________________
Here you come to save the day!
[...]
And while Viacom and the dairy industries are counting
their cash, cows are counting on you to save them. Cows
make milk for their babies, not for people!
[...]
Please don't eat cheese or other dairy products. You'll
be saving some mother cows and their babies if you make
your life cheese-free!

http://www.peta-online.org/kids/kidaction.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
and they'll still believe it when they grow up, particularly because of
cognitive dissonance. A very slimy plan no doubt, but also one that's
no doubt somewhat successful.

>and do an occasional off-the-wall "zap" such as pie-ing a fashion show.
>I really don't see them as a full-fledged animal rights organization
>any longer, but I do think they do a lot of good.

Well we know for a fact that they pull plenty of dishonest slimy stunts,
and fund terrorism and terrorists, etc, so let's hope they actually do SOME
good once in a while to make up for at least a little bit of it.

Y*@damngooddog.com
2006-09-29 22:06:45 EST
On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 21:40:05 -0400, dh@. wrote:

>On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 19:55:55 -0600, Glorfindel <notgiven@all.com> wrote:
>
>>Double O'Malley wrote:
>>
>>> dh pointed out:
>>
>>>> Don't be fooled when they pretend to want to provide decent lives for
>>>> livestock or anything like that, because all that is is a way they
>>>> have of tricking people interested in promoting decent AW, into
>>>> sending money to an organization whose goal is to eliminate the very
>>>> animals people are sending money trying to help.
>>
>>> But they aren't the same thing.
>
> They sure aren't. In fact:
>_________________________________________________________
>. . . Not only are the philosophies of animal rights and animal welfare
>separated by irreconcilable differences, and not only are the
>practical reforms grounded in animal welfare morally at odds with
>those sanctioned by the philosophy of animal rights, but also the
>enactment of animal welfare measures actually impedes the
>achievement of animal rights.
>
>. . . There are fundamental and profound differences between the
>philosophy of animal welfare and that of animal rights.
>
>. . . Many animal rights people who disavow the philosophy of animal
>welfare believe they can consistently support reformist means to abolition
>ends. This view is mistaken, we believe, for moral, practical, and conceptual
>reasons.
>
>. . . welfare reforms, by their very nature, can only serve to retard the pace
>at which animal rights goals are achieved.
>. . .
>
>"A Movement's Means Create Its Ends"
>By Tom Regan and Gary Francione
>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>> Animal Welfare is for animals that actually exist.
>
> That's a dishonest suggestion as to how people should view the
>situation.

Absolutely!

>AW means decent lives for future domestic animals, but
>"ar" means the *elimination* of domestic animals. You're slimy
>attempt didn't work on me, and hopefully not on anyone else either.
>
>>> The PeTA goal is prevention, not elimination.
>>
>>PETA works very hard to encourage spay/neuter for domestic animals,
>>which is a good thing in our current society.
>
> Agreed.
>
>>They used to have a
>>much more absolute attitude toward companion animals, but in recent
>>years they have slid slowly into a position as primarily a fairly
>>mainstream pro-vegetarian/animal welfare organization,
>
> They exploit AW issues for the $$$.

Right!

>>whose main program is improving the situation in particularly horrible
>>factory farm situations,
>
> I haven't checked into it, but would expect the people who are
>actually doing something about that are legitimate AW organizations
>who want to provide lives of positive value for livestock, *not!* do
>away with them. PeTA puts on goofy demonstrations exploiting true
>AW issues to carry them into the spotlight so they can promote
>their vegan/"ara" agenda cheaply. For example a couple of years
>ago they did the McUnhappy Meal trick, pretending to call attention
>to bad conditions in slaughterhouses and battery laying houses
>and whatever else. The main goal though was to promote veg*nism
>by trying to scare kids into it with their gross propaganda.

Yup!

>They may
>or may not have done anything to significantly improve the lives of
>some battery hens, but the main goal was probably just trying to
>force some farmers out of business.
> We can see that problems in slaughterhouses were greatly improved
>years before PeTA went on the road with their show about it:
> _________________________________________________________
> Stunning of beef cattle has greatly improved since the USDA survey done
>by the author in 1996. In 1996 only 30% of the plants were able to stun 95%
>or more of the cattle with one shot. In 1999, 90% of the plants were able to
>do this. Stunning was scored in 41 Federally inspected beef plants in 11
>different states. The percentage of cattle that vocalize (moo or bellow) during
>handling has also greatly improved. Vocalization (mooing, bellowing or
>squealing) is an indicator of animal stress and discomfort. In many plants
>electric prods had been replaced with other driving aids such as flags or plastic
>bags. One remaining problem area in attempting to stun 390 cattle per hour
>with one operator.
>
>A total of 19 Federally inspected pork plants were audited in 8 different states.
>Seventeen out of 19 plants (89%) induced instant insensibility in 100% of the
>pigs. Pig handling has greatly improved and this was reflected by less squealing.
>This fact made it possible to develop a new scoring system for objective scoring
>of the amount of squealing. This was not possible in 1996 because pigs squealed
>continuously in most plants. Eleven plants were evaluated with the new system
>and eight out of 11 plants (72%) had either acceptable or excellent scores.
>[...]
>http://www.grandin.com/survey/99.audits.beef.pork.html
>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>and I hope and expect that things are pretty well humane by now...that PeTA
>was greatly exaggerating whatever they were blowing about. But people are
>often very inconsiderate toward animals, especially toward ones they are about
>to kill. It's just lack of consideration. It doesn't have to be that way but it's hard
>to overcome, and I believe you "aras" are more likely making it worse instead
>of better. In high school I knew kids who worked in broiler houses that said they
>would kill chicks sometimes "for" the "aras".
>
>>medical organizations, fur farms, and
>>entertainment facilities like circuses.
>
> Do you think life could ever be made good enough for such animals that
>you "aras" would be able to actually appreciate it for them, and stop trying
>to prevent any more of them from living? Maybe even be glad for them that
>they got to experience what life they did? No? No, in fact that would work
>*against!* "ar". It would destroy the entire objective.

Excellent point.

>>They have a number of
>>straightforward welfare programs such as providing dog houses and
>>bedding for "outdoor" dogs and mobile spay/neuter vans,
>
> Well if they do stuff like that, great, but their end objective is still certainly
>not going to provide anything at all for domestic animals. Hopefully some
>day people will take an interest in that, which again just comes down to
>having common consideration for "the other guy". If people would just
>learn to be considerate of the poor beasts then most cruelty problems would
>just go away by themselves. But NOOOOOOOOOOOOO! And the worst
>part is that you "aras" are little if any better than another person who honestly
>admits he simply doesn't care.
>
> On that note, we have the perfect example right here. For years I've been
>trying to get people just to have consideration for the fact that the animals
>get to live, and you "aras" have totally freaked out about it, and your special
>froot loop characters like Goo and Dutchy have maniacally opposed the idea
>for the rest of you so you don't have to expose your selfish disregard for
>animals publically for the world to see...at least that's why I think it goes like it
>does. One thing is certain: No one who's interested in promoting decent AW
>has ANY reason to oppose seeing the animals' lives given as much consideration
>as their deaths, so just by that simple fact we see that "aras" are very anti-AW.
>Then on top of that there's the fact that appreciation for lives of positive value
>for livestock would completely trash any hopes you have of getting rid of them.
>
>>helping improve bad shelter situations (such as in Puerto Rico) and
>>hands-on rescue help in situations such as the aftermath of
>>Hurricane Katrina last year. They do also protest
>
> Translation: They also exploit AW issues in order to get free public exposure
>to promote their true objectives, and to encourage contributions.
>
>>and provide anti-dissection help
>
> And what's wrong with dissection?
>
>>and vegetarian information,
>
> Ever see them promote reduced cruelty animals products?

Never!

>I doubt it.
>They'd be more likely to bomb one of the farms or something instead.
>Now that we mention it, I remember a few years back a reduced cruelty
>farmer did come through the ngs, but wouldn't give the URLs for the
>farmer's sites BECAUSE of "aras". Not because of general asshole
>people, or AW people, but "aras"! So not only do you people insanely
>oppose the suggestion that we deliberately provide decent lives for
>livestock instead of becoming "ethically" veg*n, you people even
>attack it when it's going on! That goes way below just plain old
>inconsideration. And their attacks on medical research are even worse
>.....oh, so *that's* why the attack on dissection. You know some kids
>are afraid of it to begin with, so you use that to try scaring them all and
>encouraging bad feelings about it. There was good reason to include
>it to begin with, to DELIBERATELY PREVENT the bad feelings that
>you "aras" are trying to generate, so people would be more likely to
>take an interest in the body and get involved with the medical field.
>And you "aras" are trying to screw that up too. Screw the kids up
>while they're young, and you've pretty much screwed them for life,
>right? Get them to believe the dishonest suggestion that veg*nism
>somehow helps animals before they're old enough to figure out that's
>a lie:
>_________________________________________________________
>Here you come to save the day!
>[...]
>And while Viacom and the dairy industries are counting
>their cash, cows are counting on you to save them. Cows
>make milk for their babies, not for people!
>[...]
>Please don't eat cheese or other dairy products. You'll
>be saving some mother cows and their babies if you make
>your life cheese-free!
>
>http://www.peta-online.org/kids/kidaction.html
>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>and they'll still believe it when they grow up, particularly because of
>cognitive dissonance.

Aren't there laws against lies like that?

>A very slimy plan no doubt, but also one that's
>no doubt somewhat successful.

Slimy!

>>and do an occasional off-the-wall "zap" such as pie-ing a fashion show.
>>I really don't see them as a full-fledged animal rights organization
>>any longer, but I do think they do a lot of good.
>
> Well we know for a fact that they pull plenty of dishonest slimy stunts,
>and fund terrorism and terrorists, etc, so let's hope they actually do SOME
>good

Not nearly enough, if any.

>once in a while to make up for at least a little bit of it.


Glorfindel
2006-09-30 19:32:11 EST
Y*p@damngooddog.com wrote:

> On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 21:40:05 -0400, dh@. wrote:

<snip>

>> (PETA) may
>>or may not have done anything to significantly improve the lives of
>>some battery hens,

I do know they pressured McDonald's into providing somewhat
better conditions for the chickens produced by their
suppliers. Hardly a resounding victory for welfare, but at
least some improvement for the birds.

> but the main goal was probably just trying to
>>force some farmers out of business.

Sounds like a good idea to me.

<snip>
>> In high school I knew kids who worked in broiler houses that said they
>>would kill chicks sometimes "for" the "aras".

That was a truly sick and evil thing to do. Working in a broiler house
must corrupt the minds of the poor victims who do it.

<snip>
>. No one who's interested in promoting decent AW
>>has ANY reason to oppose seeing the animals' lives given as much consideration
>>as their deaths

Every single person, both pro- and anti-AR, agrees that the lives
of *existing* animals should be given consideration. No one
accepts your weird idea that non-existent animals have a welfare
before they are born.

<snip>
>>>and provide anti-dissection help

>> And what's wrong with dissection?

It encourages pointless deaths of animals.

<snip>
>>.....oh, so *that's* why the attack on dissection. You know some kids
>>are afraid of it to begin with, so you use that to try scaring them all and
>>encouraging bad feelings about it.

I don't think many children are "afraid" of dissection, but
many have the good sense to be grossed out by the smelly,
slimy, slowly rotting, dead bodies of harmless little animals
they are supposed to cut up. I remember when I was forced to
do it in high school, the only thing I ( and most of the
other kids involved ) learned was that formaldehyde really,
really smells bad, and long-dead fish are really repulsive.

That was long ago, and today there are a number of excellent
virtual replacements for children learning about animal
bodies. Such models and programs are much better learning
tools, because they show how the organs look without the
disgusting dead body distracting students from the actual
information involved. No grade or high school student needs
to handle an actual corpse to learn about anatomy. Only
the few who will actually be going into advanced biological
study in medicine or research will need to handle actual
bodies, and they can learn on animals who are actually ill, or
have died naturally, or have been euthanized for some valid
reason. There is absolutely *NO* legitimate reason to require
dissection in lower schools, and it does nothing to help
children learn about biology.

In some areas, programs have been put in place which allow
students with ethical objections to opt out of dissection
without their grade suffering as a result. This is an
improvement, but dissection should be banned completely in
lower schools.

> There was good reason to include
>>it to begin with, to DELIBERATELY PREVENT the bad feelings that
>>you "aras" are trying to generate, so people would be more likely to
>>take an interest in the body and get involved with the medical field.

They can always volunteer for a rescue organization or a shelter
if they want to help and get hands-on experience. I started by
nursing a friend's sick guinea pig when I was in grade school.

<snip>

D*@.
2006-10-01 15:37:15 EST
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 17:32:11 -0600, Glorfindel <notgiven@all.com> wrote:

>*p@damngooddog.com wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 21:40:05 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>> (PETA) may
>>>or may not have done anything to significantly improve the lives of
>>>some battery hens,
>
>I do know they pressured McDonald's into providing somewhat
>better conditions for the chickens produced by their
>suppliers.

May be, but it seems more likely they just jumped in and grabbed
some underserved glory--and of course the resulting $$$--from
something that was already in progress and being worked on by
real AW minded people.

>Hardly a resounding victory for welfare, but at
>least some improvement for the birds.

I'm very much in favor of deliberately providing the birds with
decent lives, and glad for them any way they can get them. But
I also encourage that people in favor of decent AW do NOT
contribute to "ar" organizations. Think of it like this: If someone
said they needed money to buy a gun and some amo and drive
to another state to kill someone, and you didn't think they should
kill them, would you still feel good about giving them money for
food and gas provided they didn't spend any of what you gave
them on the gun or ammunition?

>> but the main goal was probably just trying to
>>>force some farmers out of business.
>
>Sounds like a good idea to me.

I'm more in favor of helping farmers provide decent lives for
their animals if they aren't getting them for some reason.

><snip>
>>> In high school I knew kids who worked in broiler houses that said they
>>>would kill chicks sometimes "for" the "aras".
>
>That was a truly sick and evil thing to do.

Completely inconsiderate of the animals' lives.

>Working in a broiler house
>must corrupt the minds of the poor victims who do it.

It's the other people around them that do it. If they could
be encouraged to consider the birds lives, then they would
no longer be inconsiderate toward them, much less deliberately
cruel. That's what AW teaches, NOT "ar".

><snip>
>>. No one who's interested in promoting decent AW
>>>has ANY reason to oppose seeing the animals' lives given as much consideration
>>>as their deaths
>
>Every single person, both pro- and anti-AR, agrees that the lives
>of *existing* animals should be given consideration. No one
>accepts your weird idea that non-existent animals have a welfare
>before they are born.

I don't believe that, and if you REALLY believe I do then you're
an idiot unless you can explain how YOU think a person possibly
COULD believe it. So, either you are an idiot, or you're being
deliberately dishonest. Do you care to explain which it is, and why?

><snip>
>>>>and provide anti-dissection help
>
>>> And what's wrong with dissection?
>
>It encourages pointless deaths of animals.

It's not pointless, and we both are very well aware of it, and we
are both very well aware that the POINT itself is WHY you "aras"
are opposed to it. Would you care to experiment with some honesty
and explain that you reall do understand what the point is and why
you "aras" are opposed to it? Please do.

><snip>
>>>.....oh, so *that's* why the attack on dissection. You know some kids
>>>are afraid of it to begin with, so you use that to try scaring them all and
>>>encouraging bad feelings about it.
>
>I don't think many children are "afraid" of dissection, but
>many have the good sense to be grossed out by the smelly,
>slimy, slowly rotting, dead bodies

They are often afraid to do things they don't like, and you and
I both know it.

>of harmless little animals
>they are supposed to cut up. I remember when I was forced to
>do it in high school, the only thing I ( and most of the
>other kids involved ) learned was that formaldehyde really,
>really smells bad, and long-dead fish are really repulsive.
>
>That was long ago, and today there are a number of excellent
>virtual replacements for children learning

Ah...there's one point.

>about animal
>bodies. Such models and programs are much better learning
>tools,

Both have their particular points.

>because they show how the organs look without the
>disgusting dead body distracting students from the actual
>information involved. No grade or high school student needs
>to handle an actual corpse to learn about anatomy. Only
>the few who will actually be going into advanced biological
>study in medicine or research will need to handle actual
>bodies, and they can learn on animals who are actually ill, or
>have died naturally, or have been euthanized for some valid
>reason. There is absolutely *NO* legitimate reason to require
>dissection in lower schools,

Apparently there is, and you are dishonestly insisting there
is not because you don't want it to be considered. So we
see that not only are you aware there is reason, but you also
are OPPOSED to the reason(s) being taken into consideration.

>and it does nothing to help
>children learn about biology.
>
>In some areas, programs have been put in place which allow
>students with ethical objections to opt out of dissection
>without their grade suffering as a result. This is an
>improvement, but dissection should be banned completely in
>lower schools.

So now you've gone from saying it shouldn't be a requirement,
to the maniacal extreme of saying it should be banned completely.
You've held the extreme position the entire time though, and only
dishonestly exploited the less extreme argument in an attempt to
make yourself appear less maniacal. No offense, but that's what
you did none the less.

>> There was good reason to include
>>>it to begin with, to DELIBERATELY PREVENT the bad feelings that
>>>you "aras" are trying to generate, so people would be more likely to
>>>take an interest in the body and get involved with the medical field.
>
>They can always volunteer for a rescue organization or a shelter
>if they want to

The idea is to ENCOURAGE interest and get people OVER
hesitations that you pointed out in particular.

>help and get hands-on experience. I started by
>nursing a friend's sick guinea pig when I was in grade school.

Well that's more an AW idea. The "ar" idea would be to put
it down so it wouldn't have to live as a slave to man. You can't
have it both ways, and that's all there is to that.

Glorfindel
2006-10-01 22:51:32 EST

dh@. wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 17:32:11 -0600, Glorfindel <notgiven@all.com> wrote:

> >Yip@damngooddog.com wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 21:40:05 -0400, dh@. wrote:

> ><snip>

> >>> (PETA) may
> >>>or may not have done anything to significantly improve the lives of
> >>>some battery hens,

> >I do know they pressured McDonald's into providing somewhat
> >better conditions for the chickens produced by their
> >suppliers.

> May be, but it seems more likely they just jumped in and grabbed
> some underserved glory--and of course the resulting $$$--from
> something that was already in progress and being worked on by
> real AW minded people.

They are AW-minded, and no; this was all their own project. They've
carried out a number of similar efforts, and have had some successes.

<snip>
> >Every single person, both pro- and anti-AR, agrees that the lives
> >of *existing* animals should be given consideration. No one
> >accepts your weird idea that non-existent animals have a welfare
> >before they are born.

> I don't believe that, and if you REALLY believe I do then you're
> an idiot unless you can explain how YOU think a person possibly
> COULD believe it.

I don't see how anyone could believe it, but you evidently do.

<snip>
> > today there are a number of excellent
> >virtual replacements for children learning

> Ah...there's one point.

> >about animal
> >bodies. Such models and programs are much better learning
> >tools,

> Both have their particular points.

> >because they show how the organs look without the
> >disgusting dead body distracting students from the actual
> >information involved. No grade or high school student needs
> >to handle an actual corpse to learn about anatomy. Only
> >the few who will actually be going into advanced biological
> >study in medicine or research will need to handle actual
> >bodies, and they can learn on animals who are actually ill, or
> >have died naturally, or have been euthanized for some valid
> >reason. There is absolutely *NO* legitimate reason to require
> >dissection in lower schools,

> Apparently there is,

Then what is it? Do you really believe that handling
a disgusting half-rotten animal corpse is going to
encourage an interest in medicine? That's pathetic.

<snip>

> >and it does nothing to help
> >children learn about biology.

> >In some areas, programs have been put in place which allow
> >students with ethical objections to opt out of dissection
> >without their grade suffering as a result. This is an
> >improvement, but dissection should be banned completely in
> >lower schools.

> So now you've gone from saying it shouldn't be a requirement,
> to the maniacal extreme of saying it should be banned completely.
> You've held the extreme position the entire time though, and only
> dishonestly exploited the less extreme argument in an attempt to
> make yourself appear less maniacal.

Yes, I believe dissection should be banned completely, but if that
is not possible, it is a small improvement that individuals
with ethical objections not be forced to participate. It respects
the student's individual conscience, but it is not adequate, because
it does nothing to save the animals who are killed for the program.

<snip>
> >> There was good reason to include
> >>>it to begin with, to DELIBERATELY PREVENT the bad feelings that
> >>>you "aras" are trying to generate, so people would be more likely to
> >>>take an interest in the body and get involved with the medical field.

> >They can always volunteer for a rescue organization or a shelter
> >if they want to

> The idea is to ENCOURAGE interest and get people OVER
> hesitations that you pointed out in particular.

Why should we want to make young people calous and unfeelling --
or overcome a repugnance toward slowly-rotting dead bodies
stinking of preservative?

> >help and get hands-on experience. I started by
> >nursing a friend's sick guinea pig when I was in grade school.

> Well that's more an AW idea. The "ar" idea would be to put
> it down so it wouldn't have to live as a slave to man.

That is insane. Why would a person who believes animals have
rights deliberately kill an animal except in extreme circumstances?
You have a truly weird, warped idea of what ARAs believe and how
they treat real animals. No ARA wants to euthanize healthy animals.
AR people want to improve the lives of *existing* animals. I've
worked with rescue and welfare all my life, and every AR person I've
ever met has done so as well. We care about animals; if we didn't,
we wouldn't care about their rights and their welfare.


D*@.
2006-10-02 10:46:47 EST
On 1 Oct 2006 19:51:32 -0700, "Glorfindel" <labrat@cybermesa.com> wrote:

>
>*h@. wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 17:32:11 -0600, Glorfindel <notgiven@all.com> wrote:
>
>> >Yip@damngooddog.com wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 21:40:05 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>> ><snip>
>
>> >>> (PETA) may
>> >>>or may not have done anything to significantly improve the lives of
>> >>>some battery hens,
>
>> >I do know they pressured McDonald's into providing somewhat
>> >better conditions for the chickens produced by their
>> >suppliers.
>
>> May be, but it seems more likely they just jumped in and grabbed
>> some underserved glory--and of course the resulting $$$--from
>> something that was already in progress and being worked on by
>> real AW minded people.
>
>They are AW-minded,

Oh REALLY? So what conditions would PeTA allow people to raise
chickens for food in? Are they now okay with people raising them if they
made the improvements PeTA pressured them into?

>and no; this was all their own project.

I sure could never take your word on anything like that.

>They've
>carried out a number of similar efforts, and have had some successes.
>
><snip>
>> >Every single person, both pro- and anti-AR, agrees that the lives
>> >of *existing* animals should be given consideration. No one
>> >accepts your weird idea that non-existent animals have a welfare
>> >before they are born.
>
>> I don't believe that, and if you REALLY believe I do then you're
>> an idiot unless you can explain how YOU think a person possibly
>> COULD believe it.
>
>I don't see how anyone could believe it,

Wow, then you're even MORE dishonest than I had thought.

>but you evidently do.

The evidence shows that you are a lying asshole, and that's
all it shows.

I remember when I first got involved with these groups, and
amusingly still thought that "aras" must be in some way(s)
respectable because at that point I didn't understand the
difference between AW and "ar", someone pointed out that
all "aras" lie. That was years ago, and I've never known it
to be untrue of a single one of you. I keep hoping to meet
and honest one, but no...

><snip>
>> > today there are a number of excellent
>> >virtual replacements for children learning
>
>> Ah...there's one point.
>
>> >about animal
>> >bodies. Such models and programs are much better learning
>> >tools,
>
>> Both have their particular points.
>
>> >because they show how the organs look without the
>> >disgusting dead body distracting students from the actual
>> >information involved. No grade or high school student needs
>> >to handle an actual corpse to learn about anatomy. Only
>> >the few who will actually be going into advanced biological
>> >study in medicine or research will need to handle actual
>> >bodies, and they can learn on animals who are actually ill, or
>> >have died naturally, or have been euthanized for some valid
>> >reason. There is absolutely *NO* legitimate reason to require
>> >dissection in lower schools,
>
>> Apparently there is,
>
>Then what is it? Do you really believe that handling
>a disgusting half-rotten animal corpse is going to
>encourage an interest in medicine?

It will help some people get over the aversions that you
mentioned.

>That's pathetic.

It's an encouragement technique, and nowhere near as
pathetic as "ar" involvment with children.

><snip>
>
>> >and it does nothing to help
>> >children learn about biology.
>
>> >In some areas, programs have been put in place which allow
>> >students with ethical objections to opt out of dissection
>> >without their grade suffering as a result. This is an
>> >improvement, but dissection should be banned completely in
>> >lower schools.
>
>> So now you've gone from saying it shouldn't be a requirement,
>> to the maniacal extreme of saying it should be banned completely.
>> You've held the extreme position the entire time though, and only
>> dishonestly exploited the less extreme argument in an attempt to
>> make yourself appear less maniacal.
>
>Yes, I believe dissection should be banned completely, but if that
>is not possible, it is a small improvement that individuals
>with ethical objections not be forced to participate.

That depends on what people want to teach. If they want to
teach kids to GET OVER IT, and I certainly support that idea,
then they need to be forced to participate. Duh.

>It respects
>the student's individual conscience, but it is not adequate, because
>it does nothing to save the animals who are killed for the program.

LOL!!! Those animals only have any life at all BECAUSE of disection,
and doing away with it isn't going to "save" a single animal. Since I can't
believe even you aren't aware of that, I must consider this to be more
blatent dishonesty on your part.

><snip>
>> >> There was good reason to include
>> >>>it to begin with, to DELIBERATELY PREVENT the bad feelings that
>> >>>you "aras" are trying to generate, so people would be more likely to
>> >>>take an interest in the body and get involved with the medical field.
>
>> >They can always volunteer for a rescue organization or a shelter
>> >if they want to
>
>> The idea is to ENCOURAGE interest and get people OVER
>> hesitations that you pointed out in particular.
>
>Why should we want to make young people calous and unfeelling --

That's certainly what YOU encourage in ways that you might really
not understand, as well as in ways I imagine you probably do.

>or overcome a repugnance toward slowly-rotting dead bodies
>stinking of preservative?

To reduce their aversion to learning from them.

>> >help and get hands-on experience. I started by
>> >nursing a friend's sick guinea pig when I was in grade school.
>
>> Well that's more an AW idea. The "ar" idea would be to put
>> it down so it wouldn't have to live as a slave to man.
>
>That is insane. Why would a person who believes animals have
>rights deliberately kill an animal except in extreme circumstances?

So it wouldn't have to live as a slave to man, like I said. If it's
a horrible thing for people to raise them as pets, that means they
would be better off with no life instead of life as a pet. You can't
think through what are supposedly your own beliefs very well,
if at all.

>You have a truly weird, warped idea of what ARAs believe

LOL...because "aras" have weird, warped ideas, and I'm
glad to be able to recognise the fact. How horrible it must be
to actually believe all your crap...what a confused and
ignorant way to think about the world...

>and how
>they treat real animals. No ARA wants to euthanize healthy animals.

If they do NOT want animals to have lives as pets, why would
they WANT animals to have lives as pets?

>AR people want to improve the lives of *existing* animals. I've
>worked with rescue and welfare all my life, and every AR person I've
>ever met has done so as well. We care about animals; if we didn't,
>we wouldn't care about their rights and their welfare.

If they WANT animals to have lives as pets, why do they NOT
want animals to have lives as pets?

I want to know your answer to this question too: If someone
said they needed money to buy a gun and some amo and drive
to another state to kill someone, and you didn't think they should
kill them, would you still feel good about giving them money for
food and gas provided they didn't spend any of what you gave
them on the gun or ammunition?

Glorfindel
2006-10-02 14:51:54 EST

dh@. wrote:
> On 1 Oct 2006 19:51:32 -0700, "Glorfindel" <labrat@cybermesa.com> wrote:

<snip>

> >> >>> (PETA) may
> >> >>>or may not have done anything to significantly improve the lives of
> >> >>>some battery hens,
>
> >> >I do know they pressured McDonald's into providing somewhat
> >> >better conditions for the chickens produced by their
> >> >suppliers.

> >> May be, but it seems more likely they just jumped in and grabbed
> >> some underserved glory--and of course the resulting $$$--from
> >> something that was already in progress and being worked on by
> >> real AW minded people.

> >They are AW-minded,

> Oh REALLY?

Yes, really. In the years since PETA was founded, they have moved
more and more into AW-based campaigns to reduce degrees of abuse
rather than abolishing abuses entirely. That is
why Francione defines them as an AW rather than an AR organizaton
in his writings. Get with the program; you're 'way behind the times.

> So what conditions would PeTA allow people to raise
> chickens for food in? Are they now okay with people raising them if they
> made the improvements PeTA pressured them into?

PETA does not encourage raising any animal for food, but they
are now campaigning for "bigger cages; not empty cages" in
many cases.

> >and no; this was all their own project.

> I sure could never take your word on anything like that.

Read PETA's literature then.

<snip>

> >> >Every single person, both pro- and anti-AR, agrees that the lives
> >> >of *existing* animals should be given consideration. No one
> >> >accepts your weird idea that non-existent animals have a welfare
> >> >before they are born.

> >> I don't believe that, and if you REALLY believe I do then you're
> >> an idiot unless you can explain how YOU think a person possibly
> >> COULD believe it.

> >I don't see how anyone could believe it,

> Wow, then you're even MORE dishonest than I had thought.

> >but you evidently do.

> The evidence shows that you are a lying asshole, and that's
> all it shows.

<snip>

Then you had better change your own bizarre dea that
pre-born animals have lives before they exist. We all, pro-
and antiAR agree that is a ridiculous idea, whatever else
we disagree on.

<snip>

> > Do you really believe that handling
> >a disgusting half-rotten animal corpse is going to
> >encourage an interest in medicine?

> It will help some people get over the aversions that you
> mentioned.

Unless someone is going to be a euthanasia tech at a bad
shelter or ( God forbid) a taxidermist, I think an aversion
to half-rotten, smelly animal corpses is to be encouraged.
Normal people feel this as a normal behavior, as they should.

<snip>
> >It respects
> >the student's individual conscience, but it is not adequate, because
> >it does nothing to save the animals who are killed for the program.

> LOL!!! Those animals only have any life at all BECAUSE of disection,

There you go again -- your weird idea about pre-born animals having
a life before they exist. No one accepts that, and it is clearly no
more than self-serving nonsense.

> and doing away with it isn't going to "save" a single animal.

Not until the animals actually exist, no. But if there is no
market for them, they will not be bred or, far worse, in the case
of frogs, who are already threatened in many areas due to
pollution, harvested. That is all to the good.

<snip>

> >Why should we want to make young people callous and unfeeling --
> >or overcome a repugnance toward slowly-rotting dead bodies
> >stinking of preservative?

> To reduce their aversion to learning from them.

They can learn nothing from them that they cannot learn
better and more effectively from computer and 3-D
models -- except how revolting decaying dead bodies are.

> >> I started by
> >> >nursing a friend's sick guinea pig when I was in grade school.

> >> Well that's more an AW idea. The "ar" idea would be to put
> >> it down so it wouldn't have to live as a slave to man.

> >That is insane. Why would a person who believes animals have
> >rights deliberately kill an animal except in extreme circumstances?
>
> So it wouldn't have to live as a slave to man, like I said. If it's
> a horrible thing for people to raise them as pets, that means they
> would be better off with no life instead of life as a pet.

That is not anything any ARA believes should be done to
*existing* animals, who have a right to life once they actually
exist, and deserve our help. What ARAs actually believe is that
animals should not be deliberately *bred to be pets* but once
they do exist, we have an obligation to give them the best life
possible. Every ARA here has expressed this view at one time
or another, and even the most absolute of abolitionists believes
it. Pearl posted a quote freom Francione to that effect just
recently here, and we all agreed with him on that point. You
don't understand the basic idea behind AR at all, which is that
non-human animals have a moral value and status independent
of their utilitarian value to humans. That means every *existing*
animal has a basic right to life and respect for his welfare,
whether or not people can make use of him.

<snip>

> >AR people want to improve the lives of *existing* animals. I've
> >worked with rescue and welfare all my life, and every AR person I've
> >ever met has done so as well. We care about animals; if we didn't,
> >we wouldn't care about their rights and their welfare.

> If they WANT animals to have lives as pets, why do they NOT
> want animals to have lives as pets?

*sigh* see above.


D*@.
2006-10-04 21:22:36 EST
On 2 Oct 2006 11:51:54 -0700, "Glorfindel" <labrat@cybermesa.com> wrote:

>
>*h@. wrote:
>> On 1 Oct 2006 19:51:32 -0700, "Glorfindel" <labrat@cybermesa.com> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> >> >>> (PETA) may
>> >> >>>or may not have done anything to significantly improve the lives of
>> >> >>>some battery hens,
>>
>> >> >I do know they pressured McDonald's into providing somewhat
>> >> >better conditions for the chickens produced by their
>> >> >suppliers.
>
>> >> May be, but it seems more likely they just jumped in and grabbed
>> >> some underserved glory--and of course the resulting $$$--from
>> >> something that was already in progress and being worked on by
>> >> real AW minded people.
>
>> >They are AW-minded,
>
>> Oh REALLY?
>
>Yes, really. In the years since PETA was founded, they have moved
>more and more into AW-based campaigns to reduce degrees of abuse
>rather than abolishing abuses entirely. That is
>why Francione defines them as an AW rather than an AR organizaton
>in his writings. Get with the program; you're 'way behind the times.
>
>> So what conditions would PeTA allow people to raise
>> chickens for food in? Are they now okay with people raising them if they
>> made the improvements PeTA pressured them into?
>
>PETA does not encourage raising any animal for food, but they
>are now campaigning for "bigger cages; not empty cages" in
>many cases.

Blatant exploitation is all that is.

>> >and no; this was all their own project.
>
>> I sure could never take your word on anything like that.
>
>Read PETA's literature then.
>
><snip>
>
>> >> >Every single person, both pro- and anti-AR, agrees that the lives
>> >> >of *existing* animals should be given consideration. No one
>> >> >accepts your weird idea that non-existent animals have a welfare
>> >> >before they are born.
>
>> >> I don't believe that, and if you REALLY believe I do then you're
>> >> an idiot unless you can explain how YOU think a person possibly
>> >> COULD believe it.
>
>> >I don't see how anyone could believe it,
>
>> Wow, then you're even MORE dishonest than I had thought.
>
>> >but you evidently do.
>
>> The evidence shows that you are a lying asshole, and that's
>> all it shows.
>
><snip>
>
>Then you had better change your own bizarre dea that
>pre-born animals have lives before they exist. We all, pro-
>and antiAR agree that is a ridiculous idea, whatever else
>we disagree on.
>
><snip>
>
>> > Do you really believe that handling
>> >a disgusting half-rotten animal corpse is going to
>> >encourage an interest in medicine?
>
>> It will help some people get over the aversions that you
>> mentioned.
>
>Unless someone is going to be a euthanasia tech at a bad
>shelter or ( God forbid) a taxidermist, I think an aversion
>to half-rotten, smelly animal corpses is to be encouraged.
>Normal people feel this as a normal behavior, as they should.
>
><snip>
>> >It respects
>> >the student's individual conscience, but it is not adequate, because
>> >it does nothing to save the animals who are killed for the program.
>
>> LOL!!! Those animals only have any life at all BECAUSE of disection,
>
>There you go again -- your weird idea about pre-born animals having
>a life before they exist.

Since I can't think of things nearly as stupidly as you want
people to think you can, TRY to explain how you think considering
lives of animals raised for dissection has anything to do with your
idiocy "about pre-born animals having a life before they exist."
Of course we both know you can't even back up your own dishonest
idiocy.

>No one accepts that, and it is clearly no
>more than self-serving nonsense.
>
>> and doing away with it isn't going to "save" a single animal.
>
>Not until the animals actually exist, no. But if there is no
>market for them, they will not be bred or, far worse, in the case
>of frogs, who are already threatened in many areas due to
>pollution, harvested. That is all to the good.
>
><snip>
>
>> >Why should we want to make young people callous and unfeeling --
>> >or overcome a repugnance toward slowly-rotting dead bodies
>> >stinking of preservative?
>
>> To reduce their aversion to learning from them.
>
>They can learn nothing from them that they cannot learn
>better and more effectively from computer and 3-D
>models -- except how revolting decaying dead bodies are.

What they learn is what you "aras" don't want them to learn,
otherwise you wouldn't be opposed to them learning it. Duh.

>> >> I started by
>> >> >nursing a friend's sick guinea pig when I was in grade school.
>
>> >> Well that's more an AW idea. The "ar" idea would be to put
>> >> it down so it wouldn't have to live as a slave to man.
>
>> >That is insane. Why would a person who believes animals have
>> >rights deliberately kill an animal except in extreme circumstances?
>>
>> So it wouldn't have to live as a slave to man, like I said. If it's
>> a horrible thing for people to raise them as pets, that means they
>> would be better off with no life instead of life as a pet.
>
>That is not anything any ARA believes should be done to
>*existing* animals, who have a right to life once they actually
>exist, and deserve our help. What ARAs actually believe is that
>animals should not be deliberately *bred to be pets*

1. If it's okay for them to live as pets, why don't you want them
to live as pets?

2. If it's not okay for them to live as pets, why do you want them
to keep living as pets?

3. If someone said they needed money to buy a gun and some amo
and drive to another state to kill someone, and you didn't think
they should kill them, would you still feel good about giving them
money for food and gas provided they didn't spend any of what
you gave them on the gun or ammunition?

D*@.
2006-10-06 19:02:58 EST
On 2 Oct 2006 11:51:54 -0700, "Glorfindel" <labrat@cybermesa.com> wrote:

>
>*h@. wrote:
>
>> "Glorfindel" <labrat@cybermesa.com> wrote:

>> >> >Every single person, both pro- and anti-AR, agrees that the lives
>> >> >of *existing* animals should be given consideration. No one
>> >> >accepts your weird idea that non-existent animals have a welfare
>> >> >before they are born.
>
>> >> I don't believe that, and if you REALLY believe I do then you're
>> >> an idiot unless you can explain how YOU think a person possibly
>> >> COULD believe it.
>
>> >I don't see how anyone could believe it,
>
>> Wow, then you're even MORE dishonest than I had thought.
>
>> >but you evidently do.
>
>> The evidence shows that you are a lying asshole, and that's
>> all it shows.
>
><snip>
>
>Then you had better change your own bizarre dea that
>pre-born animals have lives before they exist. We all, pro-
>and antiAR agree that is a ridiculous idea, whatever else
>we disagree on.

Since you're so incredibly dishonest, and dishonesty
is such an integral part of your "argument", I can't
expect you to even acknowledge much less respect
the truth about what I actually DO believe. In your
particular position you could only consider it to be
a loss to yourself if you were to do so. But I'll go
ahead and post what I do believe again, as I've
done quite a few times over the years--23 times
according to the Google search I just did. I'm copying
this example of it from a post I made almost exactly
seven years ago...seven years and you "aras" are
STILL dependant on lying about it. This quote is from
October 7, 1999!
__________________________________________

Message-ID: <37fcfe0f.557200918@news.mindspring.com>

If there is anything more than this life on Earth for
us, then there must be some type of "self" for each
of us that is not dependant on our body to maintain
its existence. For convenience, I will refer to this
hypothetical "self" as a "soul". Since it is not known
whether this "soul" actually exists or not, IMO there
are three possibilities:

1) There is no soul--if that is the case, the *individual*
animals are totally dependant on the particular sperm
and egg that unite, for their life and individuality. If
humans stop controlling the breeding of animals, *all*
of the individuals that would have been born if we had
continued (and that is a *lot!* of lives), will instead
never get that experience....regardless of how many
animals are born wild, since they are two completely
unrelated groups.
2) The soul is created at some point in the development
of the individual being--if that is the case, what I
said in the previous example is also true in this case
IMO.
3) The soul is created separate from the body it will
reside in--if that is the case, then it is almost certain
that if people stop raising animals for food, the souls
that would have resided in the food animals, will be born
to other bodies instead. My argument with that is: maybe
the animals that are being raised and eaten by humans,
are providing the life experiences for souls that would
have otherwise been born in wild habitats that humans
have destroyed.

Glorfindel
2006-10-07 09:00:54 EST
dh@. wrote:
> On 2 Oct 2006 11:51:54 -0700, "Glorfindel" <labrat@cybermesa.com> wrote:

<snip>
>>>>>>Every single person, both pro- and anti-AR, agrees that the lives
>>>>>>of *existing* animals should be given consideration. No one
>>>>>>accepts your weird idea that non-existent animals have a welfare
>>>>>>before they are born.

>>>>> I don't believe that,

<snip>

What you quote below demonstrates that you do.

<snip>
>I'm copying
> this example of it from a post I made almost exactly
> seven years ago...seven years and you "aras" are
> STILL dependant on lying about it. This quote is from
> October 7, 1999!
> __________________________________________

> Message-ID: <37fcfe0f.557200918@news.mindspring.com>

> If there is anything more than this life on Earth for
> us, then there must be some type of "self" for each
> of us that is not dependant on our body to maintain
> its existence. For convenience, I will refer to this
> hypothetical "self" as a "soul". Since it is not known
> whether this "soul" actually exists or not, IMO there
> are three possibilities:

This is the most ridiculous idea I've ever read. The
possible existence of souls/selves of animals who have
not yet been born justifies breeding them to suffer
and die in factory farms. Reincarnation of non-humans
justifies using and killing them for *our* benefit.

No farmer breeds animals so their souls can be reincarnated.

Secondly, even assuming your absurd claim, reincarnating
animals in bodies would inevitably *decrease* their
welfare, from the state of either complete bliss or
unconsciousness of unborn, non-incarnate souls. This
is why Hinduism and other religions which teach
reincarnation believe it is a misfortune and a result of
sin (kharmic debt). Maybe you should try cross-posting this
drivel to a Hindu newsgroup and see the answers you get.

Religions which teach that animals have souls/selves which
pre-exist also *ALL* teach that humans should respect
animals and see them as equals to humans -- in fact, that
animals have the same rights as humans, and may even
have been human in former lives.

My faith teaches that farming/owning animals is sinful.
Yours evidently is some bizarre perversion of Hinduism.
I don't accept your religion, and it has absolutely no
bearing on any rational ethical argument, as every other
poster, pro- and anti-AR here has noted, for farming
animals.

> 1) There is no soul--if that is the case, the *individual*
> animals are totally dependant on the particular sperm
> and egg that unite, for their life and individuality. If
> humans stop controlling the breeding of animals, *all*
> of the individuals that would have been born if we had
> continued (and that is a *lot!* of lives), will instead
> never get that experience....regardless of how many
> animals are born wild, since they are two completely
> unrelated groups.
> 2) The soul is created at some point in the development
> of the individual being--if that is the case, what I
> said in the previous example is also true in this case
> IMO.
> 3) The soul is created separate from the body it will
> reside in--if that is the case, then it is almost certain
> that if people stop raising animals for food, the souls
> that would have resided in the food animals, will be born
> to other bodies instead. My argument with that is: maybe
> the animals that are being raised and eaten by humans,
> are providing the life experiences for souls that would
> have otherwise been born in wild habitats that humans
> have destroyed.
Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron