Vegetarian Discussion: Is It Unscientific To Say That An Animal Is Happy?

Is It Unscientific To Say That An Animal Is Happy?
Posts: 49

Report Abuse

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

Page: 1 2 3 4 5   Next  (First | Last)

Pearl
2007-02-21 08:25:43 EST
February 20, 2007

Is It Unscientific to Say that an Animal is Happy?

A response to "Feelings Do Not a Science Make": Marian Stamp
Dawkins' review of Jonathan Balcombe's book, Pleasurable
Kingdom: Animals and the Nature of Feeling Good, Macmillan, 2006.

BioScience Jan. 2007. Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 83-84.
http://www.bioone.org/archive/0006-3568/57/1/pdf/i0006-3568-57-1-84.pdf

By Karen Davis, PhD, President of United Poultry Concerns

Many scientists willing to concede that birds and other animals can
experience negative emotions such as fear, cry "anthropomorphism"
and "sentimentality" if you dare to suggest that animals can experience
happiness and pleasure, as well. Marian Stamp Dawkins, a professor
of animal behavior in the Department of Zoology at the University of
Oxford, who has done a lot of experimental research into "what hens
want," scoffs at the presumption that the individuals of other species
showing similar behavior to that of humans when eating, being touched
by their companions, playing together, or having sex, enjoy the
experience. She implies that people who believe that nonhuman animals
have an evolved capacity to enjoy life have abandoned the rigorous
intellectual standards that define the behaviorist science to which she
subscribes. According to these standards, "the existence of conscious
feelings cannot be tested empirically, and so the study of conscious
emotions is outside the realm of science."

Let us stipulate that there are dimensions of reality beyond science,
just as there are scientific prospects that are beyond behaviorism. This
said, there is a correlation in human life between things that we must
do to survive and perpetuate ourselves and the pleasure we derive from
doing these things. We have to eat to live, and eating is a primary
pleasure in human life. We have to have sex in order to perpetuate our
species, and sex is a primary pleasure in human life. We have to play in
order to relieve tension - and (to risk tautology) enjoy ourselves. Why
would it be more plausible, or plausible at all, to assume or conclude
that other animals, engaging in the identical acts of eating, touching,
playing together, and having sex that we do, have not been endowed
by nature with the same incentives of pleasure and enjoyment to do
the things that need to be done in order to survive and thrive?

If we subscribe to the idea that we can never learn or make logical
inferences about emotions, the same restriction applies to the emotions
of human beings as well as to inferences about an animal's, or anyone's,
fear. Why should we believe Marian Dawkins when she writes that
Balcombe's book about animal pleasure left her with a "depressing
feeling"? Why tell us about her feelings, which can't be proved?

In addition, there are studies being done in which the pleasure centers
in nonhuman animals' brains are stimulated in such a way as to
encourage or compel the animal to seek to perpetuate the pleasurable
feeling, as indicated by his or her behavioral response to the stimulus.
Do I err in my recollection that science has identified areas of the brain
in certain species of nonhuman animals that are responsible for feelings
of pleasure in those species?

Also, there is a standard of intellectual inquiry that calls for the
simplest, most reasonable explanation of a given phenomenon. If
I see sad body language such as drooping in one of our chickens,
I conclude that the chicken is not feeling well and that this feeling
probably reflects an adverse condition affecting the chicken.
Conversely, if I see a chicken with her tail up, eating with gusto
(pleasure!), eyes bright and alert, I conclude that her condition is
good and that she feels happy. Why should I doubt these
conclusions when the preponderance of evidence supports them?

What I see in scientists like Marian Dawkins, who scold people for
daring to infer (or to argue) that recognizable expressions of happiness
in an animal most likely mean that the animal is feeling good, is
stinginess, a niggardly attitude and a crabbed spirit hiding behind a
guise of so-called objectivity and principled, never-ending doubt.
Probably when a person views nonhuman animals mainly or entirely,
for years, in laboratory settings that elicit little more than dullness and
dread in the animals being manipulated for study, one loses one's sense
of continuity with these "objects," while extrapolating the deadening
anthropomorphic determinism of the laboratory environment to the
entire world, excepting one's own professional culture.

It could be that, over time, these circumstances have the effect of
eroding the capacity for spontaneous happiness and pleasure in the
behaviorist to such an extent that the behaviorist's own diminished
emotional capacity becomes the scientific standard by which she or
he judges everything else. When this happens, the so-called science
is little more than self-massage, the scientist little more than a
self-medicator, a self-referential system incapable of making a
worthwhile contribution to life outside the institution.

____

Karen Davis is the president and founder of United Poultry Concerns, a
nonprofit organization that promotes the compassionate and respectful
treatment of domestic fowl. For more information, visit:
www.upc-online.org and www.upc-online.org/karenbio.htm.



Jim Webster
2007-02-21 10:09:16 EST

"pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
news:erhh81$lsv$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
> February 20, 2007
>
> Is It Unscientific to Say that an Animal is Happy?
>

probably because we haven't any real definition of human happiness

Jim Webster



Pete ‹•¿•›
2007-02-21 10:55:10 EST
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 13:25:43 -0000, "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie>
wrote:

>February 20, 2007
>
>Is It Unscientific to Say that an Animal is Happy?
>
>A response to "Feelings Do Not a Science Make": Marian Stamp
>Dawkins' review of Jonathan Balcombe's book, Pleasurable
>Kingdom: Animals and the Nature of Feeling Good, Macmillan, 2006.
>
>BioScience Jan. 2007. Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 83-84.
>http://www.bioone.org/archive/0006-3568/57/1/pdf/i0006-3568-57-1-84.pdf
>
>By Karen Davis, PhD, President of United Poultry Concerns
>
>Many scientists willing to concede that birds and other animals can
>experience negative emotions such as fear, cry "anthropomorphism"
>and "sentimentality" if you dare to suggest that animals can experience
>happiness and pleasure, as well. Marian Stamp Dawkins, a professor
>of animal behavior in the Department of Zoology at the University of
>Oxford, who has done a lot of experimental research into "what hens
>want," scoffs at the presumption that the individuals of other species
>showing similar behavior to that of humans when eating, being touched
>by their companions, playing together, or having sex, enjoy the
>experience. She implies that people who believe that nonhuman animals
>have an evolved capacity to enjoy life have abandoned the rigorous
>intellectual standards that define the behaviorist science to which she
>subscribes. According to these standards, "the existence of conscious
>feelings cannot be tested empirically, and so the study of conscious
>emotions is outside the realm of science."
>
>Let us stipulate that there are dimensions of reality beyond science,
>just as there are scientific prospects that are beyond behaviorism. This
>said, there is a correlation in human life between things that we must
>do to survive and perpetuate ourselves and the pleasure we derive from
>doing these things. We have to eat to live, and eating is a primary
>pleasure in human life. We have to have sex in order to perpetuate our
>species, and sex is a primary pleasure in human life. We have to play in
>order to relieve tension - and (to risk tautology) enjoy ourselves. Why
>would it be more plausible, or plausible at all, to assume or conclude
>that other animals, engaging in the identical acts of eating, touching,
>playing together, and having sex that we do, have not been endowed
>by nature with the same incentives of pleasure and enjoyment to do
>the things that need to be done in order to survive and thrive?
>
>If we subscribe to the idea that we can never learn or make logical
>inferences about emotions, the same restriction applies to the emotions
>of human beings as well as to inferences about an animal's, or anyone's,
>fear. Why should we believe Marian Dawkins when she writes that
>Balcombe's book about animal pleasure left her with a "depressing
>feeling"? Why tell us about her feelings, which can't be proved?
>
>In addition, there are studies being done in which the pleasure centers
>in nonhuman animals' brains are stimulated in such a way as to
>encourage or compel the animal to seek to perpetuate the pleasurable
>feeling, as indicated by his or her behavioral response to the stimulus.
>Do I err in my recollection that science has identified areas of the brain
>in certain species of nonhuman animals that are responsible for feelings
>of pleasure in those species?
>
>Also, there is a standard of intellectual inquiry that calls for the
>simplest, most reasonable explanation of a given phenomenon. If
>I see sad body language such as drooping in one of our chickens,
>I conclude that the chicken is not feeling well and that this feeling
>probably reflects an adverse condition affecting the chicken.
>Conversely, if I see a chicken with her tail up, eating with gusto
>(pleasure!), eyes bright and alert, I conclude that her condition is
>good and that she feels happy. Why should I doubt these
>conclusions when the preponderance of evidence supports them?
>
>What I see in scientists like Marian Dawkins, who scold people for
>daring to infer (or to argue) that recognizable expressions of happiness
>in an animal most likely mean that the animal is feeling good, is
>stinginess, a niggardly attitude and a crabbed spirit hiding behind a
>guise of so-called objectivity and principled, never-ending doubt.
>Probably when a person views nonhuman animals mainly or entirely,
>for years, in laboratory settings that elicit little more than dullness and
>dread in the animals being manipulated for study, one loses one's sense
>of continuity with these "objects," while extrapolating the deadening
>anthropomorphic determinism of the laboratory environment to the
>entire world, excepting one's own professional culture.
>
>It could be that, over time, these circumstances have the effect of
>eroding the capacity for spontaneous happiness and pleasure in the
>behaviorist to such an extent that the behaviorist's own diminished
>emotional capacity becomes the scientific standard by which she or
>he judges everything else. When this happens, the so-called science
>is little more than self-massage, the scientist little more than a
>self-medicator, a self-referential system incapable of making a
>worthwhile contribution to life outside the institution.

Crazy, but true I fear. I think they would do better studying those
prepared to work in the meat industry, who still class themselves
human!

>____
>
>Karen Davis is the president and founder of United Poultry Concerns, a
>nonprofit organization that promotes the compassionate and respectful
>treatment of domestic fowl. For more information, visit:
>www.upc-online.org and www.upc-online.org/karenbio.htm.
>

--









Disclaimer

Pete has taken all reasonable care to ensure that pages published by him
were accurate on the date of publication or last modification.
Other pages which may be linked or which Pete may have published are in
a personal capacity. Pete takes no responsibility for the consequences
of error or for any loss or damage suffered by users of any of the information
published on any of these pages, and such information does not form any
basis of a contract with readers or users of it.

It is in the nature of Usenet & Web sites, that much of the information is
experimental or constantly changing, that information published may
be for test purposes only, may be out of date, or may be the personal
opinion of the author.
Readers should verify information gained from the Web/Usenet with the appropriate
authorities before relying on it.

Should you no longer wish to read this material or content, please use your
newsreaders kill filter.

D*@.
2007-02-21 13:06:48 EST
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 15:09:16 -0000, "Jim Webster" <jim@websterpagebank.freeswerve.co.uk> wrote:

>
>"pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
>news:erhh81$lsv$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
>> February 20, 2007
>>
>> Is It Unscientific to Say that an Animal is Happy?
>>
>
>probably because we haven't any real definition of human happiness

Not in her case. She's a real nut case, like Goo:

"Dogs NEVER anticipate, nor do cats, or cattle, or
any other animal you've ever encountered." - Goo

"Animals do not experience frustration." - Goo

"Animals cannot be or feel disappointed." - Goo

"Non human animals experience neither pride nor
disappointment. They don't have the mental ability
to feel either." - Goo

"The dog didn't do what Darwin said. His statement of
the "changes in behavior" is not reliable." - Goo

"Dogs, cats, cattle, almost all animals "lower" than
the great apes have no sense of self." - Goo

"They are not aware that they can see. " - Goo

"They are *not* aware that they can smell." - Goo

"No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing
benefits from coming into existence. No farm animals
benefit from farming." - Goo

"When considering your food choices ethically, assign
ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to
eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Goo

D*@.
2007-02-21 13:10:41 EST
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 13:25:43 -0000, "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote:

>February 20, 2007
>
>Is It Unscientific to Say that an Animal is Happy?
>
>A response to "Feelings Do Not a Science Make": Marian Stamp
>Dawkins' review of Jonathan Balcombe's book, Pleasurable
>Kingdom: Animals and the Nature of Feeling Good, Macmillan, 2006.
>
>BioScience Jan. 2007. Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 83-84.
>http://www.bioone.org/archive/0006-3568/57/1/pdf/i0006-3568-57-1-84.pdf
>
>By Karen Davis, PhD, President of United Poultry Concerns
>
>Many scientists willing to concede that birds and other animals can
>experience negative emotions such as fear, cry "anthropomorphism"
>and "sentimentality" if you dare to suggest that animals can experience
>happiness and pleasure, as well.

What do they "think" is going on when a cat becomes a drooling
idiot, purring and stretching and displaying what appears to be near
ecstasy just because someone gives it some quality scratching?

>Marian Stamp Dawkins, a professor
>of animal behavior in the Department of Zoology at the University of
>Oxford, who has done a lot of experimental research into "what hens
>want," scoffs at the presumption that the individuals of other species
>showing similar behavior to that of humans when eating, being touched
>by their companions, playing together, or having sex, enjoy the
>experience. She implies that people who believe that nonhuman animals
>have an evolved capacity to enjoy life have abandoned the rigorous
>intellectual standards that define the behaviorist science to which she
>subscribes.

Then she's a goober. If they can then they can, and she's just
clueless about the fact. That's all pretty obvious.

>According to these standards, "the existence of conscious
>feelings cannot be tested empirically, and so the study of conscious
>emotions is outside the realm of science."

More evidence that she's a fool then, since she established a
belief (though an apparently stupid one) even so.

>Let us stipulate that there are dimensions of reality beyond science,
>just as there are scientific prospects that are beyond behaviorism. This
>said, there is a correlation in human life between things that we must
>do to survive and perpetuate ourselves and the pleasure we derive from
>doing these things. We have to eat to live, and eating is a primary
>pleasure in human life. We have to have sex in order to perpetuate our
>species, and sex is a primary pleasure in human life. We have to play in
>order to relieve tension - and (to risk tautology) enjoy ourselves. Why
>would it be more plausible, or plausible at all, to assume or conclude
>that other animals, engaging in the identical acts of eating, touching,
>playing together, and having sex that we do, have not been endowed
>by nature with the same incentives of pleasure and enjoyment to do
>the things that need to be done in order to survive and thrive?

It would not be plausible, but would be absurd.

>If we subscribe to the idea that we can never learn or make logical
>inferences about emotions, the same restriction applies to the emotions
>of human beings as well as to inferences about an animal's, or anyone's,
>fear. Why should we believe Marian Dawkins when she writes that
>Balcombe's book about animal pleasure left her with a "depressing
>feeling"? Why tell us about her feelings, which can't be proved?

She is a goober, and goobers often believe they're right even
when they don't have a clue.

>In addition, there are studies being done in which the pleasure centers

LOL. If there are "pleasure centers", how can the fool goober
believe animals can't feel pleasure?

>in nonhuman animals' brains are stimulated in such a way as to
>encourage or compel the animal to seek to perpetuate the pleasurable
>feeling, as indicated by his or her behavioral response to the stimulus.
>Do I err in my recollection that science has identified areas of the brain
>in certain species of nonhuman animals that are responsible for feelings
>of pleasure in those species?

If so, then there goes the argument...so?

>Also, there is a standard of intellectual inquiry that calls for the
>simplest, most reasonable explanation of a given phenomenon. If
>I see sad body language such as drooping in one of our chickens,
>I conclude that the chicken is not feeling well and that this feeling
>probably reflects an adverse condition affecting the chicken.
>Conversely, if I see a chicken with her tail up, eating with gusto
>(pleasure!), eyes bright and alert, I conclude that her condition is
>good and that she feels happy. Why should I doubt these
>conclusions when the preponderance of evidence supports them?

You would have to unlearn what you've learned from your own
experience around animlas, in order to become ignorant enough
to believe what the goobers want you to believe.

>What I see in scientists like Marian Dawkins, who scold people for
>daring to infer (or to argue) that recognizable expressions of happiness
>in an animal most likely mean that the animal is feeling good, is
>stinginess, a niggardly attitude and a crabbed spirit hiding behind a
>guise of so-called objectivity and principled, never-ending doubt.

Yes. Also conceit, sellfishness, shallowness, ignorance, and
a severe handicap in the area of being able to comprehend what
is going on.

>Probably when a person views nonhuman animals mainly or entirely,
>for years, in laboratory settings that elicit little more than dullness and
>dread in the animals being manipulated for study, one loses one's sense
>of continuity with these "objects," while extrapolating the deadening
>anthropomorphic determinism of the laboratory environment to the
>entire world, excepting one's own professional culture.

I hope and believe that most scientists are not as clueless as
this one.

>It could be that, over time, these circumstances have the effect of
>eroding the capacity for spontaneous happiness and pleasure in the
>behaviorist to such an extent that the behaviorist's own diminished
>emotional capacity becomes the scientific standard by which she or
>he judges everything else. When this happens, the so-called science
>is little more than self-massage, the scientist little more than a
>self-medicator, a self-referential system incapable of making a
>worthwhile contribution to life outside the institution.
>
>____
>
>Karen Davis is the president and founder of United Poultry Concerns, a
>nonprofit organization that promotes the compassionate and respectful
>treatment of domestic fowl. For more information, visit:
>www.upc-online.org and www.upc-online.org/karenbio.htm.
>

Pearl
2007-02-21 15:21:09 EST
"Pete <(.\ufffd.)>" <farmingfacts@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:emqot2h0u92stns178clc306dgdigj857u@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 13:25:43 -0000, "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie>
> wrote:
>
> >February 20, 2007
> >
> >Is It Unscientific to Say that an Animal is Happy?
> >
> >A response to "Feelings Do Not a Science Make": Marian Stamp
> >Dawkins' review of Jonathan Balcombe's book, Pleasurable
> >Kingdom: Animals and the Nature of Feeling Good, Macmillan, 2006.
> >
> >BioScience Jan. 2007. Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 83-84.
> >http://www.bioone.org/archive/0006-3568/57/1/pdf/i0006-3568-57-1-84.pdf
> >
> >By Karen Davis, PhD, President of United Poultry Concerns
> >
> >Many scientists willing to concede that birds and other animals can
> >experience negative emotions such as fear, cry "anthropomorphism"
> >and "sentimentality" if you dare to suggest that animals can experience
> >happiness and pleasure, as well. Marian Stamp Dawkins, a professor
> >of animal behavior in the Department of Zoology at the University of
> >Oxford, who has done a lot of experimental research into "what hens
> >want," scoffs at the presumption that the individuals of other species
> >showing similar behavior to that of humans when eating, being touched
> >by their companions, playing together, or having sex, enjoy the
> >experience. She implies that people who believe that nonhuman animals
> >have an evolved capacity to enjoy life have abandoned the rigorous
> >intellectual standards that define the behaviorist science to which she
> >subscribes. According to these standards, "the existence of conscious
> >feelings cannot be tested empirically, and so the study of conscious
> >emotions is outside the realm of science."
> >
> >Let us stipulate that there are dimensions of reality beyond science,
> >just as there are scientific prospects that are beyond behaviorism. This
> >said, there is a correlation in human life between things that we must
> >do to survive and perpetuate ourselves and the pleasure we derive from
> >doing these things. We have to eat to live, and eating is a primary
> >pleasure in human life. We have to have sex in order to perpetuate our
> >species, and sex is a primary pleasure in human life. We have to play in
> >order to relieve tension - and (to risk tautology) enjoy ourselves. Why
> >would it be more plausible, or plausible at all, to assume or conclude
> >that other animals, engaging in the identical acts of eating, touching,
> >playing together, and having sex that we do, have not been endowed
> >by nature with the same incentives of pleasure and enjoyment to do
> >the things that need to be done in order to survive and thrive?
> >
> >If we subscribe to the idea that we can never learn or make logical
> >inferences about emotions, the same restriction applies to the emotions
> >of human beings as well as to inferences about an animal's, or anyone's,
> >fear. Why should we believe Marian Dawkins when she writes that
> >Balcombe's book about animal pleasure left her with a "depressing
> >feeling"? Why tell us about her feelings, which can't be proved?
> >
> >In addition, there are studies being done in which the pleasure centers
> >in nonhuman animals' brains are stimulated in such a way as to
> >encourage or compel the animal to seek to perpetuate the pleasurable
> >feeling, as indicated by his or her behavioral response to the stimulus.
> >Do I err in my recollection that science has identified areas of the brain
> >in certain species of nonhuman animals that are responsible for feelings
> >of pleasure in those species?
> >
> >Also, there is a standard of intellectual inquiry that calls for the
> >simplest, most reasonable explanation of a given phenomenon. If
> >I see sad body language such as drooping in one of our chickens,
> >I conclude that the chicken is not feeling well and that this feeling
> >probably reflects an adverse condition affecting the chicken.
> >Conversely, if I see a chicken with her tail up, eating with gusto
> >(pleasure!), eyes bright and alert, I conclude that her condition is
> >good and that she feels happy. Why should I doubt these
> >conclusions when the preponderance of evidence supports them?
> >
> >What I see in scientists like Marian Dawkins, who scold people for
> >daring to infer (or to argue) that recognizable expressions of happiness
> >in an animal most likely mean that the animal is feeling good, is
> >stinginess, a niggardly attitude and a crabbed spirit hiding behind a
> >guise of so-called objectivity and principled, never-ending doubt.
> >Probably when a person views nonhuman animals mainly or entirely,
> >for years, in laboratory settings that elicit little more than dullness and
> >dread in the animals being manipulated for study, one loses one's sense
> >of continuity with these "objects," while extrapolating the deadening
> >anthropomorphic determinism of the laboratory environment to the
> >entire world, excepting one's own professional culture.
> >
> >It could be that, over time, these circumstances have the effect of
> >eroding the capacity for spontaneous happiness and pleasure in the
> >behaviorist to such an extent that the behaviorist's own diminished
> >emotional capacity becomes the scientific standard by which she or
> >he judges everything else. When this happens, the so-called science
> >is little more than self-massage, the scientist little more than a
> >self-medicator, a self-referential system incapable of making a
> >worthwhile contribution to life outside the institution.
>
> Crazy, but true I fear. I think they would do better studying those
> prepared to work in the meat industry, who still class themselves
> human!

Agreed.

'in\ufffdhu\ufffdman
adj.
1. Lacking kindness, pity, or compassion; cruel.
2. Deficient in emotional warmth; cold.
3. Not suited for human needs: an inhuman environment.
4. Not of ordinary human form; monstrous.
..
inhuman
adj 1: without compunction or human feeling; "in cold blood";
"cold-blooded killing"; "insensate destruction" [syn: cold,
cold-blooded, insensate] 2: belonging to or resembling something
nonhuman; "something dark and inhuman in form"; "a babel of
inhuman noises"

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?qinhuman

A relevant article you posted earlier today:

'Violence Breeds Violence

Research from around the world suggests that people who deliberately
harm animals are more likely to harm people, too. Many infamous
killers, including Mary Bell, Ian Brady and Dunblane murderer
Thomas Hamilton, started out by deliberately hurting animals. But
it's not just high profile killers whose violence can be traced back to
'practise runs' on animals; perpetrators of domestic violence and
other assaults may also have begun by inflicting pain on animals.

Research to date has examined the link between the illegal harming of
animals and people, while the impact that killing animals legally may
have on a person has not been explored. Slaughtermen, butchers and
gamekeepers, for example, routinely make use of equipment that can
kill people. And those who did not possess a propensity for killing
when first entering their profession may have developed this along the
way. At the very least, they are likely to become desensitised to the
suffering of sentient beings. These legally-sanctioned animal killers
harmed people, too.

-Gary Galbraith, a butcher from Galashiels, was convicted of slashing
two men in the street with a knife and jailed for 30 months in February
2007.
-Muhammed Arshad, a butcher from Crumpsall, Manchester murdered
his mother-in-law with a meat cleaver and was jailed for 24 years in
December 2004.
-John McGrady, a former butcher, was sentenced to life for the murder
and mutilation of a 15-year old girl, in Catford, London in May 2006.
-Multiple murderer Fred West worked as a butcher in a slaughterhouse.
-Author of The Corpse Garden wrote that 'evidence suggests that
necrophilia and desire to mutilate corpses began during his period as
a butcher'.
-Somerset gamekeeper Peter O'Hare shot his wife, her child and then
himself in 2002.
-Slaughterman Paul Harry Smith beat up his pregnant girlfriend and
was jailed for 12 months at Burnley Crown Court in November 2001.
-Former slaughterman, Paul Weedon, slit the throat of a 91 year-old
man and was sentenced to life in 2003.
-Infamous killer, Denis Nilsen, was convicted of ten counts of
murder and two of attempted murder in the US in 1983. He was a
trained butcher.
-Australian John Travers sodomised, killed and butchered animals
before raping and murdering a woman in 1986.
-One theory about the identity of Jack the Ripper is that he was a
butcher. The knife used to kill the women was expertly used.

Last month, Robert Pickton, a pork butcher was arrested for the
murder of 49 women in Canada. It is alleged that he butchered
his victims and fed them to the pigs.

http://www.animalaid.org.uk/h/n/NEWS/news_other/ALL/1515//

Being a serial animal killer of course best suits those with
a certain type of personality (disorder), i.e. psychopaths.

'Imagine - if you can - not having a conscience, none at all,
no feelings of guilt or remorse no matter what you do, no
limiting sense of concern for the well-being of strangers,
friends, or even family members. Imagine no struggles with
shame, not a single one in your whole life, no matter what
kind of selfish, lazy, harmful, or immoral action you had
taken.
...
The individuals who constitute this 4 percent drain our
relationships, our bank accounts, our accomplishments,
our self-esteem, our very peace on earth.
...'
http://www.cassiopaea.com/cassiopaea/psychopath.htm




Ronald 'More-More' Moshki
2007-02-21 15:41:32 EST
On Feb 21, 3:21 pm, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
> "Pete <(.¿.)>" <farmingfa...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:emqot2h0u92stns178clc306dgdigj857u@4ax.com...
> > On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 13:25:43 -0000, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie>
> > wrote:
>
> > >February 20, 2007
>
> > >Is It Unscientific to Say that an Animal is Happy?
>
> > >A response to "Feelings Do Not a Science Make": Marian Stamp
> > >Dawkins' review of Jonathan Balcombe's book, Pleasurable
> > >Kingdom: Animals and the Nature of Feeling Good, Macmillan, 2006.
>
> > >BioScience Jan. 2007. Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 83-84.
> > >http://www.bioone.org/archive/0006-3568/57/1/pdf/i0006-3568-57-1-84.pdf
>
> > >By Karen Davis, PhD, President of United Poultry Concerns
>
> > >Many scientists willing to concede that birds and other animals can
> > >experience negative emotions such as fear, cry "anthropomorphism"
> > >and "sentimentality" if you dare to suggest that animals can experience
> > >happiness and pleasure, as well. Marian Stamp Dawkins, a professor
> > >of animal behavior in the Department of Zoology at the University of
> > >Oxford, who has done a lot of experimental research into "what hens
> > >want," scoffs at the presumption that the individuals of other species
> > >showing similar behavior to that of humans when eating, being touched
> > >by their companions, playing together, or having sex, enjoy the
> > >experience. She implies that people who believe that nonhuman animals
> > >have an evolved capacity to enjoy life have abandoned the rigorous
> > >intellectual standards that define the behaviorist science to which she
> > >subscribes. According to these standards, "the existence of conscious
> > >feelings cannot be tested empirically, and so the study of conscious
> > >emotions is outside the realm of science."
>
> > >Let us stipulate that there are dimensions of reality beyond science,
> > >just as there are scientific prospects that are beyond behaviorism. This
> > >said, there is a correlation in human life between things that we must
> > >do to survive and perpetuate ourselves and the pleasure we derive from
> > >doing these things. We have to eat to live, and eating is a primary
> > >pleasure in human life. We have to have sex in order to perpetuate our
> > >species, and sex is a primary pleasure in human life. We have to play in
> > >order to relieve tension - and (to risk tautology) enjoy ourselves. Why
> > >would it be more plausible, or plausible at all, to assume or conclude
> > >that other animals, engaging in the identical acts of eating, touching,
> > >playing together, and having sex that we do, have not been endowed
> > >by nature with the same incentives of pleasure and enjoyment to do
> > >the things that need to be done in order to survive and thrive?
>
> > >If we subscribe to the idea that we can never learn or make logical
> > >inferences about emotions, the same restriction applies to the emotions
> > >of human beings as well as to inferences about an animal's, or anyone's,
> > >fear. Why should we believe Marian Dawkins when she writes that
> > >Balcombe's book about animal pleasure left her with a "depressing
> > >feeling"? Why tell us about her feelings, which can't be proved?
>
> > >In addition, there are studies being done in which the pleasure centers
> > >in nonhuman animals' brains are stimulated in such a way as to
> > >encourage or compel the animal to seek to perpetuate the pleasurable
> > >feeling, as indicated by his or her behavioral response to the stimulus.
> > >Do I err in my recollection that science has identified areas of the brain
> > >in certain species of nonhuman animals that are responsible for feelings
> > >of pleasure in those species?
>
> > >Also, there is a standard of intellectual inquiry that calls for the
> > >simplest, most reasonable explanation of a given phenomenon. If
> > >I see sad body language such as drooping in one of our chickens,
> > >I conclude that the chicken is not feeling well and that this feeling
> > >probably reflects an adverse condition affecting the chicken.
> > >Conversely, if I see a chicken with her tail up, eating with gusto
> > >(pleasure!), eyes bright and alert, I conclude that her condition is
> > >good and that she feels happy. Why should I doubt these
> > >conclusions when the preponderance of evidence supports them?
>
> > >What I see in scientists like Marian Dawkins, who scold people for
> > >daring to infer (or to argue) that recognizable expressions of happiness
> > >in an animal most likely mean that the animal is feeling good, is
> > >stinginess, a niggardly attitude and a crabbed spirit hiding behind a
> > >guise of so-called objectivity and principled, never-ending doubt.
> > >Probably when a person views nonhuman animals mainly or entirely,
> > >for years, in laboratory settings that elicit little more than dullness and
> > >dread in the animals being manipulated for study, one loses one's sense
> > >of continuity with these "objects," while extrapolating the deadening
> > >anthropomorphic determinism of the laboratory environment to the
> > >entire world, excepting one's own professional culture.
>
> > >It could be that, over time, these circumstances have the effect of
> > >eroding the capacity for spontaneous happiness and pleasure in the
> > >behaviorist to such an extent that the behaviorist's own diminished
> > >emotional capacity becomes the scientific standard by which she or
> > >he judges everything else. When this happens, the so-called science
> > >is little more than self-massage, the scientist little more than a
> > >self-medicator, a self-referential system incapable of making a
> > >worthwhile contribution to life outside the institution.
>
> > Crazy, but true I fear. I think they would do better studying those
> > prepared to work in the meat industry, who still class themselves
> > human!
>
> Agreed.
>
> 'in·hu·man
> adj.
> 1. Lacking kindness, pity, or compassion; cruel.
> 2. Deficient in emotional warmth; cold.
> 3. Not suited for human needs: an inhuman environment.
> 4. Not of ordinary human form; monstrous.
> ..
> inhuman
> adj 1: without compunction or human feeling; "in cold blood";
> "cold-blooded killing"; "insensate destruction" [syn: cold,
> cold-blooded, insensate] 2: belonging to or resembling something
> nonhuman; "something dark and inhuman in form"; "a babel of
> inhuman noises"
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?qinhuman
>
> A relevant article you posted earlier today:
>
> 'Violence Breeds Violence
>
> Research from around the world suggests that people who deliberately
> harm animals are more likely to harm people, too. Many infamous
> killers, including Mary Bell, Ian Brady and Dunblane murderer
> Thomas Hamilton, started out by deliberately hurting animals. But
> it's not just high profile killers whose violence can be traced back to
> 'practise runs' on animals; perpetrators of domestic violence and
> other assaults may also have begun by inflicting pain on animals.
>
> Research to date has examined the link between the illegal harming of
> animals and people, while the impact that killing animals legally may
> have on a person has not been explored. Slaughtermen, butchers and
> gamekeepers, for example, routinely make use of equipment that can
> kill people. And those who did not possess a propensity for killing
> when first entering their profession may have developed this along the
> way. At the very least, they are likely to become desensitised to the
> suffering of sentient beings. These legally-sanctioned animal killers
> harmed people, too.
>
> -Gary Galbraith, a butcher from Galashiels, was convicted of slashing
> two men in the street with a knife and jailed for 30 months in February
> 2007.
> -Muhammed Arshad, a butcher from Crumpsall, Manchester murdered
> his mother-in-law with a meat cleaver and was jailed for 24 years in
> December 2004.
> -John McGrady, a former butcher, was sentenced to life for the murder
> and mutilation of a 15-year old girl, in Catford, London in May 2006.
> -Multiple murderer Fred West worked as a butcher in a slaughterhouse.
> -Author of The Corpse Garden wrote that 'evidence suggests that
> necrophilia and desire to mutilate corpses began during his period as
> a butcher'.
> -Somerset gamekeeper Peter O'Hare shot his wife, her child and then
> himself in 2002.
> -Slaughterman Paul Harry Smith beat up his pregnant girlfriend and
> was jailed for 12 months at Burnley Crown Court in November 2001.
> -Former slaughterman, Paul Weedon, slit the throat of a 91 year-old
> man and was sentenced to life in 2003.
> -Infamous killer, Denis Nilsen, was convicted of ten counts of
> murder and two of attempted murder in the US in 1983. He was a
> trained butcher.
> -Australian John Travers sodomised, killed and butchered animals
> before raping and murdering a woman in 1986.
> -One theory about the identity of Jack the Ripper is that he was a
> butcher. The knife used to kill the women was expertly used.
>
> Last month, Robert Pickton, a pork butcher was arrested for the
> murder of 49 women in Canada. It is alleged that he butchered
> his victims and fed them to the pigs.
>
> http://www.animalaid.org.uk/h/n/NEWS/news_other/ALL/1515//
>
> Being a serial animal killer of course best suits those with
> a certain type of personality (disorder), i.e. psychopaths.
>
> 'Imagine - if you can - not having a conscience, none at all,
> no feelings of guilt or remorse no matter what you do, no
> limiting sense of concern for the well-being of strangers,
> friends, or even family members. Imagine no struggles with
> shame, not a single one in your whole life, no matter what
> kind of selfish, lazy, harmful, or immoral action you had
> taken.
> ...
> The individuals who constitute this 4 percent drain our
> relationships, our bank accounts, our accomplishments,
> our self-esteem, our very peace on earth.
> ...'http://www.cassiopaea.com/cassiopaea/psychopath.htm- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Any pet owned by someone who is not inhuman
will generally be happy.

Moshki's cat lives the good life.she is
without question, a happy camperette.


Pearl
2007-02-21 16:10:23 EST
"Ronald 'More-More' Moshki" <sector_four@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1172090492.258042.74060@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Any pet owned by someone who is not inhuman
> will generally be happy.

Yes, but do you believe that we own other beings?

> Moshki's cat lives the good life.she is
> without question, a happy camperette.

"You don't own your cat. The cat owns you. And
the cat owns the house. You just pay the mortgage."




Newschool
2007-02-22 04:24:44 EST
On Feb 21, 12:21 pm, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
> "Pete <(.¿.)>" <farmingfa...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:emqot2h0u92stns178clc306dgdigj857u@4ax.com...
> > On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 13:25:43 -0000, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie>
> > wrote:
>
> > >February 20, 2007
>
> > >Is It Unscientific to Say that an Animal is Happy?
>
> > >A response to "Feelings Do Not a Science Make": Marian Stamp
> > >Dawkins' review of Jonathan Balcombe's book, Pleasurable
> > >Kingdom: Animals and the Nature of Feeling Good, Macmillan, 2006.
>
> > >BioScience Jan. 2007. Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 83-84.
> > >http://www.bioone.org/archive/0006-3568/57/1/pdf/i0006-3568-57-1-84.pdf
>
> > >By Karen Davis, PhD, President of United Poultry Concerns
>
> > >Many scientists willing to concede that birds and other animals can
> > >experience negative emotions such as fear, cry "anthropomorphism"
> > >and "sentimentality" if you dare to suggest that animals can experience
> > >happiness and pleasure, as well. Marian Stamp Dawkins, a professor
> > >of animal behavior in the Department of Zoology at the University of
> > >Oxford, who has done a lot of experimental research into "what hens
> > >want," scoffs at the presumption that the individuals of other species
> > >showing similar behavior to that of humans when eating, being touched
> > >by their companions, playing together, or having sex, enjoy the
> > >experience. She implies that people who believe that nonhuman animals
> > >have an evolved capacity to enjoy life have abandoned the rigorous
> > >intellectual standards that define the behaviorist science to which she
> > >subscribes. According to these standards, "the existence of conscious
> > >feelings cannot be tested empirically, and so the study of conscious
> > >emotions is outside the realm of science."
>
> > >Let us stipulate that there are dimensions of reality beyond science,
> > >just as there are scientific prospects that are beyond behaviorism. This
> > >said, there is a correlation in human life between things that we must
> > >do to survive and perpetuate ourselves and the pleasure we derive from
> > >doing these things. We have to eat to live, and eating is a primary
> > >pleasure in human life. We have to have sex in order to perpetuate our
> > >species, and sex is a primary pleasure in human life. We have to play in
> > >order to relieve tension - and (to risk tautology) enjoy ourselves. Why
> > >would it be more plausible, or plausible at all, to assume or conclude
> > >that other animals, engaging in the identical acts of eating, touching,
> > >playing together, and having sex that we do, have not been endowed
> > >by nature with the same incentives of pleasure and enjoyment to do
> > >the things that need to be done in order to survive and thrive?
>
> > >If we subscribe to the idea that we can never learn or make logical
> > >inferences about emotions, the same restriction applies to the emotions
> > >of human beings as well as to inferences about an animal's, or anyone's,
> > >fear. Why should we believe Marian Dawkins when she writes that
> > >Balcombe's book about animal pleasure left her with a "depressing
> > >feeling"? Why tell us about her feelings, which can't be proved?
>
> > >In addition, there are studies being done in which the pleasure centers
> > >in nonhuman animals' brains are stimulated in such a way as to
> > >encourage or compel the animal to seek to perpetuate the pleasurable
> > >feeling, as indicated by his or her behavioral response to the stimulus.
> > >Do I err in my recollection that science has identified areas of the brain
> > >in certain species of nonhuman animals that are responsible for feelings
> > >of pleasure in those species?
>
> > >Also, there is a standard of intellectual inquiry that calls for the
> > >simplest, most reasonable explanation of a given phenomenon. If
> > >I see sad body language such as drooping in one of our chickens,
> > >I conclude that the chicken is not feeling well and that this feeling
> > >probably reflects an adverse condition affecting the chicken.
> > >Conversely, if I see a chicken with her tail up, eating with gusto
> > >(pleasure!), eyes bright and alert, I conclude that her condition is
> > >good and that she feels happy. Why should I doubt these
> > >conclusions when the preponderance of evidence supports them?
>
> > >What I see in scientists like Marian Dawkins, who scold people for
> > >daring to infer (or to argue) that recognizable expressions of happiness
> > >in an animal most likely mean that the animal is feeling good, is
> > >stinginess, a niggardly attitude and a crabbed spirit hiding behind a
> > >guise of so-called objectivity and principled, never-ending doubt.
> > >Probably when a person views nonhuman animals mainly or entirely,
> > >for years, in laboratory settings that elicit little more than dullness and
> > >dread in the animals being manipulated for study, one loses one's sense
> > >of continuity with these "objects," while extrapolating the deadening
> > >anthropomorphic determinism of the laboratory environment to the
> > >entire world, excepting one's own professional culture.
>
> > >It could be that, over time, these circumstances have the effect of
> > >eroding the capacity for spontaneous happiness and pleasure in the
> > >behaviorist to such an extent that the behaviorist's own diminished
> > >emotional capacity becomes the scientific standard by which she or
> > >he judges everything else. When this happens, the so-called science
> > >is little more than self-massage, the scientist little more than a
> > >self-medicator, a self-referential system incapable of making a
> > >worthwhile contribution to life outside the institution.
>
> > Crazy, but true I fear. I think they would do better studying those
> > prepared to work in the meat industry, who still class themselves
> > human!
>
> Agreed.
>
> 'in·hu·man
> adj.
> 1. Lacking kindness, pity, or compassion; cruel.
> 2. Deficient in emotional warmth; cold.
> 3. Not suited for human needs: an inhuman environment.
> 4. Not of ordinary human form; monstrous.
> ..
> inhuman
> adj 1: without compunction or human feeling; "in cold blood";
> "cold-blooded killing"; "insensate destruction" [syn: cold,
> cold-blooded, insensate] 2: belonging to or resembling something
> nonhuman; "something dark and inhuman in form"; "a babel of
> inhuman noises"
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?qinhuman
>
> A relevant article you posted earlier today:
>
> 'Violence Breeds Violence
>
> Research from around the world suggests that people who deliberately
> harm animals are more likely to harm people, too. Many infamous
> killers, including Mary Bell, Ian Brady and Dunblane murderer
> Thomas Hamilton, started out by deliberately hurting animals. But
> it's not just high profile killers whose violence can be traced back to
> 'practise runs' on animals; perpetrators of domestic violence and
> other assaults may also have begun by inflicting pain on animals.
>
> Research to date has examined the link between the illegal harming of
> animals and people, while the impact that killing animals legally may
> have on a person has not been explored. Slaughtermen, butchers and
> gamekeepers, for example, routinely make use of equipment that can
> kill people. And those who did not possess a propensity for killing
> when first entering their profession may have developed this along the
> way. At the very least, they are likely to become desensitised to the
> suffering of sentient beings. These legally-sanctioned animal killers
> harmed people, too.
>

ok this is just plain ridiculous. this is why the term "Crazy Cat
Lady" was invented.

you need to distinguish between KILLING animals for human NECESSITY
and PUNISHING animals as a RESULT of childhood NEGLECT/ABUSE.

i have "killed" fish i have caught in order to eat them.. this does
not make me an animal "murderer" because malice is not involved in the
activity. it's one of NECESSITY. eating meat fulfills a physical
NECESSITY. so by definition, killing, in this regard, is a GOOD thing
to do.

but you don't make the distinction between killings resulting from
necessity and killings resulting from malice/hate..

when a child makes an animal suffer, it's not a necessity that is
causing such behavior.. it's some form of PARENTAL NEGLECT/ABUSE. so
to erroneously pair the two distinct types of killing is a GRAVE ERROR
that eventually leads to the neglect of HUMAN NECESSITY. this then
becomes the REAL crime-- when good intentions pave the road to hell
(proverbially speaking.)

just as most people agree that PUNISHING CRIMINALS is a GOOD thing too
do, we are, by implication, saying that pain/suffering/death IS GOOD
when used as a tool to combat any threat which seeks to prevent humans
from meeting their necessities.

spanking a child IS a GOOD thing (pain.)

being lonely (suffering) IS a GOOD impetus to appreciating friends/
family/lovers.

having plants die (death) so they can replenish the soil IS a GOOD
thing.

in the proper context, negative events/forces/influences serve as GOOD
things i.e. good tools to shape us, help us, or show us something more
valuable.

you should go down to the store and THANK your local butcher for doing
a thankless, unglamorous job of meeting YOUR necessity.

death makes us appreciate the value of life. it doesn't necessarily
callous us to life as you automatically assume. that is Crazy Cat Lady
logic.

Bitch Management
http://groups.google.com/group/bman101


Pearl
2007-02-22 07:10:22 EST
"newschool" <newschool27@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1172136284.073290.144930@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 21, 12:21 pm, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
..
> Research from around the world suggests that people who deliberately
> harm animals are more likely to harm people, too. Many infamous
> killers, including Mary Bell, Ian Brady and Dunblane murderer
> Thomas Hamilton, started out by deliberately hurting animals. But
> it's not just high profile killers whose violence can be traced back to
> 'practise runs' on animals; perpetrators of domestic violence and
> other assaults may also have begun by inflicting pain on animals.
>
> Research to date has examined the link between the illegal harming of
> animals and people, while the impact that killing animals legally may
> have on a person has not been explored. Slaughtermen, butchers and
> gamekeepers, for example, routinely make use of equipment that can
> kill people. And those who did not possess a propensity for killing
> when first entering their profession may have developed this along the
> way. At the very least, they are likely to become desensitised to the
> suffering of sentient beings. These legally-sanctioned animal killers
> harmed people, too.

ok this is just plain ridiculous. this is why the term "Crazy Cat
Lady" was invented.

-- Starting with argumentum ad hominem.. I can guess what follows.. --

you need to distinguish between KILLING animals for human NECESSITY
and PUNISHING animals as a RESULT of childhood NEGLECT/ABUSE.

-- I do. You shouldn't jump to conclusions. --

i have "killed" fish i have caught in order to eat them.. this does
not make me an animal "murderer" because malice is not involved in the
activity. it's one of NECESSITY. eating meat fulfills a physical
NECESSITY. so by definition, killing, in this regard, is a GOOD thing
to do.

-- Where it is a matter of survival, -then- you may call it necessity,
but there is no actual physical requirement for humans to eat meat.

'Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate
for all stages of the lifecycle, including during pregnancy, lactation,
infancy, childhood and adolescence. Appropriately planned vegetarian
diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate and provide health benefits in the
prevention and treatment of certain diseases.' These 'certain diseases' are
the killer epidemics of today - heart disease, strokes, cancers, diabetes etc.

This is the view of the world's most prestigious health advisory body, the
American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada, after a review of
world literature. It is backed up by the British Medical Association:

'Vegetarians have lower rates of obesity, coronary heart disease,
high blood pressure, large bowel disorders, cancers and gall stones.'
....
http://www.vegetarian.org.uk/mediareleases/050221.html --

but you don't make the distinction between killings resulting from
necessity and killings resulting from malice/hate..

-- Untrue. --

when a child makes an animal suffer, it's not a necessity that is
causing such behavior.. it's some form of PARENTAL NEGLECT/ABUSE.

-- Read on.

'Brain potentials implicate temporal lobe abnormalities in
criminal psychopaths.
Kiehl KA, Bates AT, Laurens KR, Hare RD, Liddle PF
Clinical Cognitive Neuroscience Laboratory, Olin Neuropsychiatry
Research Center, Institute of Living, Hartford, CT 06106, USA.

Psychopathy is associated with abnormalities in attention and
orienting. However, few studies have examined the neural systems
underlying these processes. To address this issue, the authors
recorded event-related potentials (ERPs) while 80 incarcerated men,
classified as psychopathic or nonpsychopathic via the Hare
Psychopathy Checklist -- Revised (R. D. Hare, 1991, 2003),
completed an auditory oddball task. Consistent with hypotheses,
processing of targets elicited larger frontocentral negativities (N550)
in psychopaths than in nonpsychopaths. Psychopaths also showed
an enlarged N2 and reduced P3 during target detection. Similar ERP
modulations have been reported in patients with amygdala and
temporal lobe damage. The data are interpreted as supporting the
hypothesis that psychopathy may be related to dysfunction of the
paralimbic system--a system that includes parts of the temporal
and frontal lobes.

Journal of abnormal psychology. (2006)

http://www.ihop-net.org/UniPub/iHOP/pm/12073506.html?pmid=16866585

"Brain Abnormality Linked To Pathology "
by Erica Goode The New York Times, February 15, 2000

"Ask the average social scientist why people become criminals,
and the answer is apt to center on poverty and abuse, not brain
structure and neurochemicals.

But in a new study, appearing in the February issue of the
Archives of General Psychiatry, researchers report that 21 men
with antisocial personality disorder, a psychiatric diagnosis often
applied to people with a history of criminal behavior, and a history
of violence had subtle abnormalities in the structure of the brain's
frontal lobe.

The abnormalities, the researchers found, distinguished the men
with the disorder from healthy subjects, as well as from subjects
who abused alcohol or drugs, or who suffered from other
psychiatric disorders like schizophrenia.

When combined with the results of previous studies, write the
researchers, led by Dr. Adrian Raine, Robert Wright Professor
of Psychology at the University of Southern California, the
findings suggest ''that there is a significant brain basis to APD
over and above contributions from the psychosocial environment,
and that these neurobehavioral processes are relevant to
understanding violence in everyday society.''

The official diagnostic manual of the American Psychiatric
Association lists a variety of criteria for a diagnosis of antisocial
personality disorder, including 'a failure to conform to social
norms with respect to lawful behaviors,' deceitfulness,
impulsiveness, reckless disregard for the safety of self or others,
lack of remorse and 'consistent irresponsibility.'
.......'
http://www.forensic-psych.com/articles/artGoode.html --

so
to erroneously pair the two distinct types of killing is a GRAVE ERROR
that eventually leads to the neglect of HUMAN NECESSITY. this then
becomes the REAL crime-- when good intentions pave the road to hell
(proverbially speaking.)

-- For the vast majority, there is no necessity to kill animals for meat.
Believing that humans require meat is the *grave error*, which indeed
paves the road to hell, for both humans and non-human animals, the
*needless* killing of whom can then be perceived as a *real* crime. --

just as most people agree that PUNISHING CRIMINALS is a GOOD thing too
do, we are, by implication, saying that pain/suffering/death IS GOOD
when used as a tool to combat any threat which seeks to prevent humans
from meeting their necessities.

-- And when this is the case?..

Am J Clin Nutr 1999 Sep;70(3 Suppl):532S-538S
Associations between diet and cancer, ischemic heart disease,
and all-cause mortality in non-Hispanic white California
Seventh-day Adventists.
Fraser GE. Center for Health Research and the Department of
Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Loma Linda University, CA USA.

Results associating diet with chronic disease in a cohort of 34192
California Seventh-day Adventists are summarized. Most Seventh-day
Adventists do not smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol, and there is a wide
range of dietary exposures within the population. About 50% of those
studied ate meat products <1 time/wk or not at all, and vegetarians
consumed more tomatoes, legumes, nuts, and fruit, but less coffee,
doughnuts, and eggs than did nonvegetarians. Multivariate analyses
showed significant associations between beef consumption and fatal
ischemic heart disease (IHD) in men [relative risk (RR) = 2.31 for
subjects who ate beef > or =3 times/wk compared with vegetarians],
significant protective associations between nut consumption and fatal
and nonfatal IHD in both sexes (RR approximately 0.5 for subjects
who ate nuts > or =5 times/wk compared with those who ate nuts
<1 time/wk), and reduced risk of IHD in subjects preferring whole-grain
to white bread. The lifetime risk of IHD was reduced by approximately
31% in those who consumed nuts frequently and by 37% in male
vegetarians compared with nonvegetarians. Cancers of the colon and
prostate were significantly more likely in nonvegetarians (RR of 1.88
and 1.54, respectively), and frequent beef consumers also had higher
risk of bladder cancer. Intake of legumes was negatively associated
with risk of colon cancer in nonvegetarians and risk of pancreatic
cancer. Higher consumption of all fruit or dried fruit was associated
with lower risks of lung, prostate, and pancreatic cancers.
Cross-sectional data suggest vegetarian Seventh-day Adventists have
lower risks of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and arthritis than
nonvegetarians. Thus, among Seventh-day Adventists, vegetarians are
healthier than nonvegetarians but this cannot be ascribed only to the
absence of meat. - PMID: 10479227

'.. disease rates were significantly associated within a range of
dietary plant food composition that suggested an absence of a
disease prevention threshold. That is, the closer a diet is to an
all-plant foods diet, the greater will be the reduction in the rates
of these diseases.'
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Nov98/thermogenesis_paper.html --

spanking a child IS a GOOD thing (pain.)

-- Then is hitting adults a good thing too? --

being lonely (suffering) IS a GOOD impetus to appreciating friends/
family/lovers.

having plants die (death) so they can replenish the soil IS a GOOD
thing.

in the proper context, negative events/forces/influences serve as GOOD
things i.e. good tools to shape us, help us, or show us something more
valuable.

you should go down to the store and THANK your local butcher for doing
a thankless, unglamorous job of meeting YOUR necessity.

-- I am vegetarian. --

death makes us appreciate the value of life. it doesn't necessarily
callous us to life as you automatically assume. that is Crazy Cat Lady
logic.

Bitch Management
http://groups.google.com/group/bman101


Page: 1 2 3 4 5   Next  (First | Last)


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