|
Korean Job Discussion Forums "The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
RACETRAITOR
Joined: 24 Oct 2005 Location: Seoul, South Korea
|
Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rteacher wrote: |
My position is that animals should not be unnecessarily killed or abused, but PETA's petty-terrorist tactics are counterproductive.
My theory why they act so irrationally is that vegans tend to have nutritional deficiencies which make them less intelligent than omnivores (whereas lacto-vegetarians are more intelligent).
Fanatical vegans (who propagate the fallacious theory that cows milk is not intended for human consumption) also tend to be emotionally unstable.
|
Hey, we agree on something. Well said.
I have a former vegetarian friend who always whines about humans drinking milk, as it's loaded with hormones meant for baby cows that will grow extremely large. Uh, maybe that's a good thing for humans too? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
greedy_bones

Joined: 01 Jul 2007 Location: not quite sure anymore
|
Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
I find the idea of equating animals with humans in regards to rights to life ridiculous for a few reasons.
The first reason is that if you claim that we don't need meat or animal products to survive, you're only partially correct. Yes, I have the means to purchase vegan food, but not everyone does. I also didn't always have the means, especially when I was a college student. It was the wealthy vegan idiots at my university that pushed for the organic vegan food in the food services and in effect drove the prices up to above $10 for a meal. I would have been fine with that except for the fact that the campus was 10 miles away from the nearest restaurant or grocery store.
The second reason is that there are several means by which we can differentiate ourselves from other animals. Other animals don't question the morality of eating meat. They don't question the morality of killing each other. They don't question the morality of anything. They do what works best for themselves and keeps them alive.
While I disagree with inhumane conditions for animals, why is it bad to raise a cow, let it live a relatively easy life, and then kill it humanely. Will it suffer more than it would have if it lived in the wild, starved to death, died slowly from old age or was mauled by another animal?
The fourth reason is that it's a pretty slippery slope you're on. Pain is an adaptive signal which tells you not to do something that will harm you. Plants have signals which tell them to bloom, shed leaves, grow towards light and open their stomata. Plants are alive, Fungi are alive, bacteria are alive, and so are protists. Why is it okay to eat a potato but not okay to eat a clam?
The only difference between an animal and any other organism is a different set of signals. Pain is considered a bad signal to have or cause because it's related to death or incapacitation. The only way you can truly hold a moral high ground is by only eating fruit and then defecating in the habitat of the plant which bore the fruit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Rteacher

Joined: 23 May 2005 Location: Western MA, USA
|
Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2009 8:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Because plants have less developed consciousness, there is less violence involved (at least we can't hear them scream like animals do when they're about to be slaughtered)
There is some karmic reaction, though, because laws of karma are meant to be harsh enough to eventually convince us that the material world is not a very nice place - and our goal should be to get the hell out as soon as we can (without resorting to violence...) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bondrock

Joined: 08 Oct 2006 Location: ^_^
|
Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2009 6:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crusher_of_heads wrote: |
Which group, collectively is more retarded?
PETA, or the candlelight retards protesting American beer this past summer? |
Protesting BEER??? Dang that's harsh---- |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004 Location: All over the map
|
Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2009 6:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Animals are our friends, but they won't give you a ride to the airport.
This, I think, is an important distinction. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
tfunk

Joined: 12 Aug 2006 Location: Dublin, Ireland
|
Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2009 7:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bramble wrote: |
| "Under what circumstances and conditions is it acceptable to kill an animal?" |
It's acceptable to kill an animal for ANY reason, providing the animals living conditions and the means to kill it do not cause a degree of suffering greater than what it would normally encounter in the wild.
| Bramble wrote: |
Are you serious when you say you'd eat a family dog who trusts you and depends on you to provide her with a loving home? |
In theory, yes. In theory I should prefer to eat the family pig (or dog) rather than the factory-kept pig because the animal probably(guessing) endures less suffering throughout its life. In reality I doubt I could do it, although I don't know for sure.
| Bramble wrote: |
| But I'd like to know why you believe this "extra dimension" is important, if it exists at all. It sounds as if this is your justification for valuing human lives more than other lives, or for considering human rights more important than animal rights. |
The extra dimension is important because it adds an extra way in which humans can suffer. A goldfish in a fishbowl isn't feeling like its life isn't going anywhere because it doesn't have the ability to abstract to that level of complexity. Humans live and recreate themselves on the physical and mental plane. Animals also suffer from mental afflictions, such as depression, but the range of their possible mental afflictions isn't as vast as for humans.
Animals do not normally have the capacity to achieve a high quality of life(i.e. stress, pain free) under their own volition in nature. Humans believe that they can achieve a high quality of life and they have managed to do so because of the fruits of our ability to abstract to a high degree (medicine, technology etc.).
Human rights and animal rights should be different because of our respective abilities to exercise those rights. Granting a lamb the freedom to roam freely in lion country isn't much different to keeping it on the farm. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bramble

Joined: 26 Jan 2007 Location: National treasures need homes
|
Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2009 8:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| tfunk wrote: |
It's acceptable to kill an animal for ANY reason, providing the animals living conditions and the means to kill it do not cause a degree of suffering greater than what it would normally encounter in the wild. |
Tfunk, I appreciate your serious reply, but I couldn't disagree more with the position you're advocating. As I said before, I believe it involves sweeping generalizations about which abilities are unique to humans, and we're finding out every day that those generalizations are false. More importantly, your comments represent a very arrogant, human-centred view of our own supposed "specialness" and our place in nature.
Even a couple of supposedly pro-animal philosophers believe that being killed is a "lesser harm" for most nonhuman animals than it would be for most humans. (�Most� because they use adults of average mental capacity as the standard, which raises other problems � but there's no need to belabour those points here.) It sounded as if you were arguing along similar lines by suggesting that mental capacities and the ability to have plans for the future were morally relevant characteristics. Animal rights scholar Gary Francione has provided the clearest, simplest and most concise rebuttals to the above position that I've seen yet. These essays may provide some insight:
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/?p=8
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/?p=7
| Quote: |
| Human rights and animal rights should be different because of our respective abilities to exercise those rights. Granting a lamb the freedom to roam freely in lion country isn't much different to keeping it on the farm. |
Now that�s just silly. I can use my right not to be murdered exactly the same way a lamb can � by not being murdered. Furthermore, humans are the ones who have bred domesticated animals and made them helpless against predators, so we have a responsibility to build sanctuaries for them and keep them safe to the best of our ability.
Here's an example of how animals can exercise their rights:
http://peacefulprairie.org/
Suppose you decide not to murder a member of your family and then he or she dies in an accident, or gets a fatal illness, or is attacked by a wild animal. Would you say the person's rights were meaningless because of that misfortune, and that you should have gone ahead and committed the crime anyway? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Rae

Joined: 10 Oct 2007
|
Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2009 10:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bramble wrote: |
It's hard to believe anyone as shallow, superficial and airheaded as the OP sounds could be a real person (and not a sock or a troll) ... but maybe she's genuine. Maybe she only looked far enough into the issues to decide that fur was "evil," and never actually read any AR books or questioned the morality of other animal exploitation industries.
If so, it's sad, and it shows that we (AR people) have failed to communicate the issues clearly enough. A lot of people don't understand the difference between animal rights and animal welfare, and some people throw themselves headfirst into activism when they haven't really made the connections or stopped to consider why they're doing what they're doing. What's really sad is that some people are capable of not caring once it's no longer convenient.
I hope this turns out to be a troll thread, because it's very disturbing to think the OP might be real.  |
I LOVE THIS! I'm not being facetious, quite literally, this made me smile. Thank you for coming forward with your high horse and validating my thoughts about people who not only impose their beliefs but are quick to belittle and criticize.
I'm not a troll. Excuse me for thinking this is a thread and not a thesis - I didn't know that my lack of stating my love for animals and my beliefs against unnecessary animal cruelty meant that I'm now a sociopath that wants to torture all that is furry.
My opinion is in regards to the common bandwagon mentality that the consumption of animals is mainly profiting large corporations when in fact there are some smalltown, many generation, fur trader families struggling to make a living. That people (especially where I'm from) automatically label a fur hat as something evil, not bothering to realize that it may be something that in some parts of the world, consider a necessity for everyday living.
As for my PETA reference, that was over a decade ago and I wasn't even an adult then. I'm still against animal cruelty today but also realize that the term is relative. For instance, I support the legalization of categorizing dog as edible meat in Korea because it can then be regulated. This will abolish the practice of beating and torturing them for the release of endorphins that some people prize. OMG, did I just say eating dogs should be legalized? I'm satan's helper!? Take a deep breath, I love dogs and would never eat them myself but the fact is, in Korea, people eat them. It's more common than they make it out to be too. In my boonie town, it's prevalent, even if it's not talked about, especially to a Westerner. Agreeing to legalize the consumption of dog in California is outrageous! But given the circumstances, I'd have to agree if it's in Korea and if the prevalence is still what it is today. It's all relative.
Oh and I love how you deleted the little tidbit of you wanting to run me over and kill me. Too bad someone already quoted you on it . Nice try though ...  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bramble

Joined: 26 Jan 2007 Location: National treasures need homes
|
Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2009 11:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I didn't delete anything, and I was only half joking about pushing you into traffic. You're not worth any more of my time, but don't expect a civil response if you're going to compare Q-tips to living animals ... who probably went insane from being caged all their lives before being electrocuted for your "fluffy hat."
Too bad your parents let you circulate petitions you didn't understand when you were still underage, but you really have no excuse now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Rae

Joined: 10 Oct 2007
|
Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2009 11:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Bobster wrote: |
| Bramble wrote: |
| And Rae, no, this isn't ajummahood. Ajummahood is me pushing you into traffic when I see you on the street in your fluffy hat. |
People who claim to love animals are really so very much kinder than the rest of us aren't they ... well, if Rae should ever happen to be hit by bus I think our first question might be to ask where Bramble was at the moment it happened.
Arguing that animals have rights comparable to people is taking a moral position - it's really amusing to see that coming from a person who is threatening someone with murder for crime of making poor fashion choices. In fact, it's downright hilarious. |
I have to point out that it's very unlikely I'll be run-over by anything other than sled-dogs and reindeer since I'll be in the arctic circle. Where they, BTW (in response to others), they eat everything they catch. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
cisco kid

Joined: 13 Nov 2003 Location: Outlaws had us pinned down at the fort
|
Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2009 12:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rae wrote: |
| The Bobster wrote: |
| Bramble wrote: |
| And Rae, no, this isn't ajummahood. Ajummahood is me pushing you into traffic when I see you on the street in your fluffy hat. |
People who claim to love animals are really so very much kinder than the rest of us aren't they ... well, if Rae should ever happen to be hit by bus I think our first question might be to ask where Bramble was at the moment it happened.
Arguing that animals have rights comparable to people is taking a moral position - it's really amusing to see that coming from a person who is threatening someone with murder for crime of making poor fashion choices. In fact, it's downright hilarious. |
I have to point out that it's very unlikely I'll be run-over by anything other than sled-dogs and reindeer since I'll be in the arctic circle. Where they, BTW (in response to others), they eat everything they catch. |
Cheers to you Rae, you're normal - the other one is the mental case. |
|
| 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
|
|