|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Will (most) humans one day look back at the 21 century treatment of animals the way we look at 18th century slavery? |
| Yes |
|
7% |
[ 4 ] |
| Probably |
|
5% |
[ 3 ] |
| Maybe |
|
12% |
[ 7 ] |
| Nothing will change |
|
3% |
[ 2 ] |
| No, not at all |
|
24% |
[ 14 ] |
| That's nuts! |
|
35% |
[ 20 ] |
| I hope so |
|
12% |
[ 7 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 57 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 2:57 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| The Bobster wrote: |
By the way, knowing as I do Kuros' political opinions, especially about the situation in the middle east, I personally would prefer he stop moving in such a "right" direction, haha ...
 |
I don't know what the Bobster means by this. Perhaps he disagrees that the US should withdraw from Iraq, economically contain rather than militarily engage Iran, that invading Pakistan would be a bad idea, and that US aid to Israel should be tied to Israel's progress in removing settlers from the West Bank.
At any rate, to clarify my position. While I personally do not have too much stake in the welfare of animals, I would have to agree with Big Bird that we should not be cruel to animals as long as it is not necessary to have to be cruel. Big Bird is getting a lot of flak for saying she would like to see legislation passed to protect animals. I do not understand why this is so controversial. In the US, there are a great deal of laws on the books to protect animals, its just there is a problem with enforcement of these statutes.
Also, and Big Bird can correct me if what I say is a misrepresentation, it does not seem to me that Big Bird is against the consumption of flesh so much as the slavery of animals, as this thread calls it. She seems to argue that animals should live free-ranged (actually, not the BS that they promote on those over-priced eggs they sell you) if they are to be eaten. I cannot say I disagree with her. It is preferable to me, at least, that animals have long and healthy lives, particularly so if I am going to put their flesh in my mouth! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| The Bobster wrote: |
By the way, knowing as I do Kuros' political opinions, especially about the situation in the middle east, I personally would prefer he stop moving in such a "right" direction, haha ...
|
I don't know what the Bobster means by this. Perhaps he disagrees that the US should withdraw from Iraq, economically contain rather than militarily engage Iran, that invading Pakistan would be a bad idea, and that US aid to Israel should be tied to Israel's progress in removing settlers from the West Bank.
! |
While we are on the subject why should U.S aid to Israel be tied to Israel's progress in removing settlers? That would be counter-productive as it logically follows that once said settlers are removed there would be no reason to keep supplying Israel with aid since it is tied to that process. Israel on the other hand would have every incentive to drag out this process all the while seeming to do everything possible to speed it up.
And you just don't change the terms on which a long-standing ally has been receiving aid for years on end unilaterally and tie it to a unrelated issue. The issue of the Palestinians has nothing to do with and should NOT be linked with U.S support for the Israelis. That would set a bad precedent for any future aid. Either cut it off entirely or continue supplying it.
A third reason is that should this happen this would only worsen relations between the Israelis and the Palestinians. You can't implement peace between two cultures by threating to withdraw financial inducements for one side. At best that serves only to paper over the differences for a short while, while incalculating feelings of resentment in one side or the other. And eventually when things break down and the financial carrots are withdrawn, the Israelis then would have even LESS reason to do a lasting deal with the Palestinians. Look at what happened when Hamas came to power and aid was frozen. It made the Palestinians (those who supported Hamas) even more stubborn. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 6:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| The Bobster wrote: |
By the way, knowing as I do Kuros' political opinions, especially about the situation in the middle east, I personally would prefer he stop moving in such a "right" direction, haha ...
|
I don't know what the Bobster means by this. Perhaps he disagrees that the US should withdraw from Iraq, economically contain rather than militarily engage Iran, that invading Pakistan would be a bad idea, and that US aid to Israel should be tied to Israel's progress in removing settlers from the West Bank.
! |
While we are on the subject why should U.S aid to Israel be tied to Israel's progress in removing settlers? That would be counter-productive as it logically follows that once said settlers are removed there would be no reason to keep supplying Israel with aid since it is tied to that process. Israel on the other hand would have every incentive to drag out this process all the while seeming to do everything possible to speed it up.
And you just don't change the terms on which a long-standing ally has been receiving aid for years on end unilaterally and tie it to a unrelated issue. The issue of the Palestinians has nothing to do with and should NOT be linked with U.S support for the Israelis. That would set a bad precedent for any future aid. Either cut it off entirely or continue supplying it. |
You make a good point. The US should cut off aid to Israel entirely, and threaten military reprisal (quiet and backdoors-like, not open and Obama-like) if the Israelis even think about giving American-subsidized military aid to China again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 7:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| The Bobster wrote: |
By the way, knowing as I do Kuros' political opinions, especially about the situation in the middle east, I personally would prefer he stop moving in such a "right" direction, haha ...
|
I don't know what the Bobster means by this. Perhaps he disagrees that the US should withdraw from Iraq, economically contain rather than militarily engage Iran, that invading Pakistan would be a bad idea, and that US aid to Israel should be tied to Israel's progress in removing settlers from the West Bank.
! |
While we are on the subject why should U.S aid to Israel be tied to Israel's progress in removing settlers? That would be counter-productive as it logically follows that once said settlers are removed there would be no reason to keep supplying Israel with aid since it is tied to that process. Israel on the other hand would have every incentive to drag out this process all the while seeming to do everything possible to speed it up.
And you just don't change the terms on which a long-standing ally has been receiving aid for years on end unilaterally and tie it to a unrelated issue. The issue of the Palestinians has nothing to do with and should NOT be linked with U.S support for the Israelis. That would set a bad precedent for any future aid. Either cut it off entirely or continue supplying it. |
You make a good point. The US should cut off aid to Israel entirely, and threaten military reprisal (quiet and backdoors-like, not open and Obama-like) if the Israelis even think about giving American-subsidized military aid to China again. |
And cutting off aid would be the surest way to ensure that the Israelis tell the Americans to go screw themselves and align themselves with China/Russia. And the U.S loses a valuable 'pair of eyes' in the Middle East to which their national security is tied (oil) China meanwhile gains an ally and valuable technological assistance for its military in exchange for its funding. And then the U.S would have little if ANY control over Israel at all in the future.
Let us not forget that the U.S is not in very high standing at the moment, it needs all the friends it can get. Now is not the time to upset Israel and move it into the China camp. Not to mention that the Jewish lobby would very likely seek to punish whatever party is in power. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don Gately
Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Location: In a basement taking a severe beating
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 11:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Don Gately wrote: |
| I'd find this thread pretty damn offensive if I were a person of African ancestry. |
Well Mr Gately, why don't you direct your outrage at the man who wrote the article. His name is Benjamin Zephaniah
And he looks like this:
You can add your outraged comments below his article: The Lives of Others
And for the record, this is not the first time I've heard black animal rights activisits compare our treatment of animals with slavery. |
So because the writer is black persons of African-American ancestry can't find the equating of the plight of 18th century slaves to that of modern-day housepets offensive? I don't care if that *beep* is magenta, that's a pretty rude and stupid thing to say.
For me to suggest the article is offensive to black people and have you answer me that the author is black as if that precludes the notion says, to me, that you believe there is a hegemony of thought in the African-American community about all issues. Nothing could be further from the truth. Many of my black friends and acquaintances think that personalities such as Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, etc. are tilting at the windmills of things like DonImus-gate when much more important work with regards to equalizing of opportunities needs to be done.
It further suggests that you should spend some time trying to get to know people outside of your own ethnic background, possibly as a priority before liberating all those enslaved Fidos and Felixs.
I guess, in summation, what I'm trying to say is I find the sentiments and underlying assumptions in your second post almost as offensive as I do those in your original post.
Almost. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 12:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Show me an animal that understands that the consequences of its actions result in pain to another being like itself, and that this pain is something it can avoid inflicting if it wants to avoid adding to the pain in the world |
I'm pretty sure there is scientific research that indicates this is in fact so. If I come across a related article, I shall bring it to your attention. |
You can do this research on your own. Visit a zoo and make your way into the tiger enclosure, or the crocodile area. Tell me later how much remorse the creatures in question felt or whether they considered it very carefully before biting down. (I've had friends severely bitten by dogs, and every year some of them even kill small children. They don't feel bad about it later.)
| Quote: |
| A bloody pedant wrote: |
We ought to reduce the amount of the pain that exists in the world, among animals and humans - but NOT because animals have some "right" not to feel pain. We should do it because humans are better creatures as a species the more we decide to limit the amount of pain floating around in the world.
|
Now you've admitted that improving the lot of animals is something we should do. All this rambling about rights is just a w@nky distraction. Who gives a bloody toss if it is their 'right' or what have you, so long as the end result is the same. Who cares whether new laws are drawn up on the basis of 'rights' or not - so long as things are improved and animals are no longer forced to suffer excruciating misery. That's just a lot of academic w@nk if you ask me. |
Actually, by starting a thread and using the word "slavery" to describe how people treat animals, you are implicitly ascribing rights to them. So, obviously YOU care.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Persuade me, and anyone else you can. Defintely do that. Do not coerce me to be like you, and do not force me to think as you do or behave or eat as you do, though. |
Bobster, how am I going to force you to do anything? That just sounds overly dramatic and daft, quite frankly. |
[/quote]
Isn't the whole point of this thread to discuss how the human legal system ought to be made to accomodate a class of beings it never has done before? Your whole analogy to human slavery is somewhat distasteful, by the way, and I doubt I'm the first to have said so.
Eat what you like, and be happy. Don't ask me to be forced by law to eat only what YOU like, though, because that IS what I call coercion. Find a way to change people's minds and you don't need to change any laws, because people do what is in their hearts, most of the time.
There is no law that I know of that impels Koreans to take their shoes off when entering a home or certain restaurants, and there is no law that I know of that forces people back in my country to send a card to their mother on her birthday. People do stuff because it makes them feel better and it feels like the right thing.
Like I said, persuade me. You haven't. So far, much of what you have done is say, "I don't eat meat, so I'm better than people who do." THAT line ain't gonna work with me, nor with the whole name-calling thing, either ... bloody pedant, huh? Did I call you anything insulting? Must've missed that part - you vegetarians are so calm and peaceful and rational, and all, right? All a bunch of Mahatma Ghandis, every last one of you, eh?
Kuros and TUM, why you guys working so hard to completely derail a discussion based merely on a joke I made as a casual aside. You guys DID notice it was a joke, right? Sometimes you righties try so hard to make yourselvesd look humorless, it tryly amazes me ...
Second eyeroll of the day : |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 4:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Bobster wrote: |
[
Kuros and TUM, why you guys working so hard to completely derail a discussion based merely on a joke I made as a casual aside. You guys DID notice it was a joke, right? Sometimes you righties try so hard to make yourselvesd look humorless, it tryly amazes me ...
Second eyeroll of the day : |
discussions diverge. Especially on a messageboard. That's the nature of the beast. As for humorless...your reply to BB didn't seem too full of humor...at least good humor. Three fingers pointing back at you...
Anyway to get back on topic. Animals have only the rights we give them. Giving them the same legal rights as humans is silly. To list just one example. If a rabid dog bites a child...do we shut it up in an asylum until it is competent to stand trial? No, we shoot it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 6:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| To list just one example. If a rabid dog bites a child...do we shut it up in an asylum until it is competent to stand trial? No, we shoot it. |
One of the few times we will agree, it appears ... even if the dog does not even have to show symptoms of disease, we will just put it down the same way we throw away a toaster over that is defective and burned our croissant instead of merely warming it. It bit a child, after all.
(BB has regaled us with pics of her offspring, but I strongly suspect that if the bite were serious and committed upon that cute being, she would not shirk from the rights of slaveowners, and ask the that the creature that inflicted the wounds die, and not care very much about the means. Just a suspicion, you uinderstand.)
I know a lot of vegetarians who are cool enough to watch me eat meat and not care. I know a lot of teetotalers who will be happy enough to watch to watch me quaff a beer over dinner, thought they prefer not to. While I'll invite others to drink along with me, I'll never require them to - and I think that's an important distinction. What bothers me are the folks who want to legislate their preferences and force the rest of us to behave as they do.
I'm gonna resist that, whenever I can. They're better off leading thier lives and displaying a quiet example and making their case in the marketplace of ideas, and then letting people make up their own minds.
Maybe the future of the world IS veganism, who knows. Ain't gonna happen by coercion from a minority, that much seems clear to me. Certainly ain't gonna happen in the individual case of The Bobster, fer damn sure. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 8:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't see how Big Bird is talking about coercion, I also don't see how treating animals better needs to lead to animal rights as we know them.
Factory farming and many other cruel practices should be stopped, existing laws should be enforced and new laws should be created to stop cruel practices that are not properly legislated for. This does not have to lead to 'human rights' for all animals, just basic standards of treatment.
As far as the original question goes, I do believe that someday we will look back and see our treatment of animals as abhorrently cruel. As we learn more about how intelligent animals really are, this seems inevitable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 12:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Factory farming and many other cruel practices should be stopped, existing laws should be enforced and new laws should be created to stop cruel practices that are not properly legislated for. This does not have to lead to 'human rights' for all animals, just basic standards of treatment. |
Yep |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 1:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JMO wrote: |
| I don't see how Big Bird is talking about coercion. |
New laws and regs that force me to do somthing or prevent me from doing I watn to do is coercion.
I don't like being forced to live ib away that is not my own choice. Who does, except the people doing the coercing, the people who want others to live loke them? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 2:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Bobster wrote: |
Kuros and TUM, why you guys working so hard to completely derail a discussion based merely on a joke I made as a casual aside. You guys DID notice it was a joke, right? Sometimes you righties try so hard to make yourselvesd look humorless, it tryly amazes me ...
Second eyeroll of the day : |
Yeah, I guessed I missed the fact that it was a joke because one of the distinguishing features of most jokes is that they are funny. Don't worry, they can't all be gold! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 3:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Bobster wrote: |
| JMO wrote: |
| I don't see how Big Bird is talking about coercion. |
New laws and regs that force me to do somthing or prevent me from doing I watn to do is coercion.
I don't like being forced to live ib away that is not my own choice. Who does, except the people doing the coercing, the people who want others to live loke them? |
If those laws apply only to the treatment of animals in factory farms and cruel practices then it is a stretch to call it coercion.
You could call any new law coercion as it it telling you what to do. What aspect do you specifically disagree with? Obviously a ban on eating meat would be coercion but a ban on factory farming(imo) would not. I don't think a ban on eating meat or other extreme measures(by our current standards) would automatically follow from less cruel practices/ban on factory farming. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JMO wrote: |
| You could call any new law coercion as it it telling you what to do. What aspect do you specifically disagree with? |
There are people in the world, and even in these forums, who would happily take away my right to eat any damn thing I please. I will resist them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 4:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Bobster wrote: |
| JMO wrote: |
| You could call any new law coercion as it it telling you what to do. What aspect do you specifically disagree with? |
There are people in the world, and even in these forums, who would happily take away my right to eat any damn thing I please. I will resist them. |
Fair enough. Do you believe that laws against factory farming and animal cruelty would lead to such laws in the future?
I have to say out that i don't think you need to resist too much, vegan laws if they ever happen would be a long way away. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
