|
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 |
red dog
Joined: 31 Oct 2004
|
 Posted: Thu Nov 23, 2006 11:46 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| laogaiguk wrote: |
| red dog wrote: |
In other words, you're just trolling. Please leave. |
I'm not trolling. Look up the word and stop using it. Grow up.
It's all hypothetical. I set up a situation farther than vegetarians take their beliefs to see if they would go farther if proven to be true. I would normally say I don't believe it right away and just pose it as a hypothetical situation, but AS YOU JUST PROVED, my suspicion was correct that you would do exactly what you just did. |
Bye Lao. You're not welcome on this thread, and you should have taken the hint a long time ago. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 24, 2006 2:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| red dog wrote: |
Bye Lao. You're not welcome on this thread, and you should have taken the hint a long time ago. |
HAHAHA
You're not welcome on this entire board (by many other people), and you should have taken the hint a long time ago  Actually, you did take a bit of a break, why was that again? 
I won't even bring up the free speech issues or the fact that this is an open, public forum. But just out of curiousity, did you leave the Boshintang threads when the vegetarians were asked to leave and allow an actual inquiry to get the answers it wanted? The answer was no.
I could not resist this, I almost think you set it up and have something lying in wait. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 24, 2006 6:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| flakfizer wrote: |
| red dog wrote: |
It's very sad that they come back, no matter why they do it. It shows how helpless we've made them ... they have nowhere to go and no way to survive without returning to their prisons.  |
Out of context, I would have guessed this post was written in reference to ESL teachers who keep returning to Korea. |
and would that be speaking from experience...? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 24, 2006 6:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| laogaiguk wrote: |
| red dog wrote: |
Bye Lao. You're not welcome on this thread, and you should have taken the hint a long time ago. |
HAHAHA
You're not welcome on this entire board (by many other people), and you should have taken the hint a long time ago |
And there are others who like red dog being on the boards. red dog rocks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
red dog
Joined: 31 Oct 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 24, 2006 7:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| laogaiguk wrote: |
| red dog wrote: |
Bye Lao. You're not welcome on this thread, and you should have taken the hint a long time ago. |
HAHAHA
You're not welcome on this entire board (by many other people), and you should have taken the hint a long time ago |
And there are others who like red dog being on the boards. red dog rocks! |
Thanks, BB.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kotakji
Joined: 23 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 3:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think part of the problem that the animal rights factions have in furthering their goals is the lack of uniformity amongst the various proponents. After reading through this thread, I went and read the FAQ's on the ALF's web page as well as the essay (assumed shortened) version of Reagan's Case . Now even in this limited exposure, it seems there are quite a ranged view as to the scope and depth of animal rights. IE, do all animals have rights? Just higher organisms? Heck what is their biological definition of an animal? Do animals have a right to live or simply to not suffer?
The problem is these seemingly small inconsistencies become real problems to a united animal rights front because the crux of the arguments are laid down in ethics not pragmatism. Regan does a decent job of breaking down various ethical philosophies, but at the same time exposes the problem of achieving consensus on ethical grounds and exposes individual movements to infighting. The problem with ethical or moral arguments is that the devil is in the details. People of differing ethical perspectives might come to consensus in some areas, even if the ethical philosophies are mutually exclusive as Regan essentially contends. But convincing a skeptic (a reasonable one who is open to possibility that they are themselves wrong) based on conflicting ethical arguments is going to be a tall task indeed. Essentially, its very difficult to win over even an open minded public based on pure ethics.
Finally, on the ethics subject, if an individual does agree to any of the base philosophies such as Utilitarianism that Regan dismisses, then by definition the ethical approach will fail to win over that individual regardless of how educated or open minded they are.
Thats not to say their aren't pragmatic reasons to be a vegetarian, but rather that those reasons lack the necessary persuasiveness needed to cause a paradigm shift in society at large. IE, the vegetarian lifestyle doesn't offer a sufficient pragmatic advantage over that of a lifestyle that includes animal products. Remember we as humans (not all of course) are quite willing to trade long term health for immediate pleasure, hence alcohol and drugs.
Anyways, I'd love to hear some constructive ideas about the core philosophies of the movement. As Regan put it "the left brain" reasons as opposed to the visceral emotional ones. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 5:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
PETA does do some good things. And they also do some things that are completely, off of the charts, crazy. Case and point.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061125/ap_on_re_us/peta_mistake_2
| Quote: |
Jackie Vergerio, PETA's captive animals in entertainment specialist, said her organization tracks churches nationwide that use real animals in "living nativity scenes."
...
"Those animals are subject to all sorts of terrible fates in some cases," Vergerio said. "Animals have been stolen and slaughtered, they've been raped, they've escaped from the nativity scenes and have been struck by cars and killed. Just really unfathomable things have happened to them." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
red dog
Joined: 31 Oct 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 6:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Kotakji,
You raise very good points, and this part of what you said is especially true:
| Quote: |
| Thats not to say their aren't pragmatic reasons to be a vegetarian, but rather that those reasons lack the necessary persuasiveness needed to cause a paradigm shift in society at large. |
A few posters here at Dave's have talked about their reasons for becoming "ex-vegetarians," and it's always depressing to hear those stories. It often sounds as if they experienced vegetarianism as a burden rather than as a central part of their value systems, something they couldn't change even if they wanted to, at least not without totally blocking out everything they'd learned about animal agriculture and abandoning all the ideals they'd previously cared about ... what we really need is a paradigm shift in society, not just superficial awareness of the benefits of a "plant-based" diet.
I guess part of the problem is that the animal rights movement is still in its infancy, and people who care about animals and sincerely want to help them haven't collectively decided which path to pursue. I know I've followed some blind alleys myself -- of course I hoped my actions would benefit animals in some small way, but I didn't judge wisely and wasn't willing to put my life and freedom on the line like the activists who rescued the hens. The leaders of many of the big organizations that work to help animals may not have the most solid philosophical foundation behind their work ... but there just aren't enough animal rights people with the skills and dedicaton to step in and replace them.
Anyway, I think we can acknowledge the good work of Peter Singer and Tom Regan and still see the need to go beyond their ideas. Gary Francione offers the soundest explanation I've seen so far of which animals have rights, why, and what that means. In the past, I didn't want to accept Francione's criticism of the big animal rights groups because I wasn't sure if the strategies he was proposing would be any more effective -- but now, many years later, I can see the desperate need for animal people to revisit Francione's work and take his ideas very
seriously. The movement needs a new direction, because the current one obviously isn't working.
Here's an interview with an Australia-based activist who expresses this view way better than I ever could:
http://www.satyamag.com/sept06/mark.html
In spite of all this, I don't think Francione supports illegal direct action ... I'm not sure exactly where he stands on this type of rescue, but he's spoken negatively about ALF-type actions. I hope to be able to get a clearer idea of his views when he comes out with a new book ... which I think he's still working on.
Last edited by red dog on Sat Nov 25, 2006 6:46 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
red dog
Joined: 31 Oct 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| huffdaddy wrote: |
PETA does do some good things. And they also do some things that are completely, off of the charts, crazy. Case and point.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061125/ap_on_re_us/peta_mistake_2
| Quote: |
Jackie Vergerio, PETA's captive animals in entertainment specialist, said her organization tracks churches nationwide that use real animals in "living nativity scenes."
...
"Those animals are subject to all sorts of terrible fates in some cases," Vergerio said. "Animals have been stolen and slaughtered, they've been raped, they've escaped from the nativity scenes and have been struck by cars and killed. Just really unfathomable things have happened to them." |
|
It must have been a slow news day ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 10:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Red Dog,
I read the article you posted. Speciesism?
Again, I think there are excellent grounds for discriminating between the species. Recognition of a central self as distinct from others is something babies recognize quickly through peek-a-boo. The whole idea is getting the babies to recognize that the person, while they disappear, do not go anywhere, but still exist outside their vision. This recognition of another autonomous individual helps reinforce the baby's idea of an autonomous self.
There are animals who apparently have the capability to recognize themselves. The most interesting (was it posted here) being elephants. I have heard they not only seem to understand mortality, but they also can recognize themselves in mirrors. With such animals, one has to be very careful. It seems to me that hunting and preying upon elephants is criminal.
Of course, when we get down to lobsters, we aren't talking about organisms that recognize a self. They likely experience pain as a stimulant, but it seems unlikely that they are aware of themselves or other things as distinct entities.
It seems to me that animal rights activists need to start from the top and work down. If they want to make a case for lobster, they need to finish making a case for higher species.
Another impression occurred to me as I read your article. I thought 'hrrmmm, I might be convinced to give up red meat, but there's no way you're going to take away my milk!' I mentioned I'm hypoglycemic before, but Red Dog, you're right in saying I could fulfill my requirements through totally plant-based foods. It's a pain in the ass, but if animals shouldn't be eaten, they shouldn't be eaten. I just don't believe they shouldn't be eaten. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kotakji
Joined: 23 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 11:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ill check it out thanks RD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
red dog
Joined: 31 Oct 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 7:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
Red Dog,
I read the article you posted. Speciesism?
Again, I think there are excellent grounds for discriminating between the species. Recognition of a central self as distinct from others is something babies recognize quickly through peek-a-boo. The whole idea is getting the babies to recognize that the person, while they disappear, do not go anywhere, but still exist outside their vision. This recognition of another autonomous individual helps reinforce the baby's idea of an autonomous self.
There are animals who apparently have the capability to recognize themselves. The most interesting (was it posted here) being elephants. I have heard they not only seem to understand mortality, but they also can recognize themselves in mirrors. With such animals, one has to be very careful. It seems to me that hunting and preying upon elephants is criminal.
Of course, when we get down to lobsters, we aren't talking about organisms that recognize a self. They likely experience pain as a stimulant, but it seems unlikely that they are aware of themselves or other things as distinct entities.
It seems to me that animal rights activists need to start from the top and work down. If they want to make a case for lobster, they need to finish making a case for higher species.
Another impression occurred to me as I read your article. I thought 'hrrmmm, I might be convinced to give up red meat, but there's no way you're going to take away my milk!' I mentioned I'm hypoglycemic before, but Red Dog, you're right in saying I could fulfill my requirements through totally plant-based foods. It's a pain in the ass, but if animals shouldn't be eaten, they shouldn't be eaten. I just don't believe they shouldn't be eaten. |
Green - Many animal rights and welfare experts have done a lot of work in this area -- recently I had a chance to read Rattling the Cage by Stephen (sp?) Wise, who argues that some animals -- great apes -- deserve legal rights on the basis of mental abilities such as the one you mention. The problem is that this approach leaves out so many more animals -- animals who can also feel pain, experience emotional distress, and suffer terribly when denied any semblance of a natural life (e.g., the hens kept in battery cages). It would leave out some humans too.
Blue - I'm reading When Elephants Weep by Jeffrey Masson Moussaieff (sp?) now, but I haven't gotten through much of it yet. I think it's interesting how he, and others such as Wise, shatter myths about human uniqueness and question so many of the deeply ingrained ideas we all have about animals -- and animal advocates are guilty of having them too. But I don't believe it's these complex mental abilities that form the basis for rights ... that would leave humans free to abuse and exploit the vast majority of sentient beings, basically because they aren't similar enough to us and are too difficult for people to relate to.
Pink - This is the important thing to me. Lobsters' ability to feel pain proves that they experience something -- and if an animal feels pain, I think we can reasonably conclude that he or she is also capable of fear and has the same desire that we have for self-preservation.
Orange - I disagree. This is the approach that has prevailed in the animal rights/welfare movement for the past few decades, and IMO it hasn't worked.
Red - Well, this shows how resistant people are to changing old habits. Even though I disagree with you, I do appreciate your serious comments and your willingness to remain civil.
Last edited by red dog on Mon Nov 27, 2006 9:32 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
red dog
Joined: 31 Oct 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 7:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kotakji wrote: |
Ill check it out thanks RD |
Thank you for checking it out, and for your well-thought-out comments. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
red dog
Joined: 31 Oct 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 8:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
By the way, I got this through a mailing list recently. (Unfortunately I haven't had a chance to follow the links yet.) Looks like the animals in NZ have some good friends:
> Media Release: Auckland Animal Action
> Sunday 26th November 2006
> Animal Rights Activists liberate 35 battery hens from Henderson Valley
> 'hell hole'
>
> Animal Rights Activists broke into a Henderson Valley factory farm in
> the early hours of Sunday the 19th of November. The activists
> liberated 35 battery hens from what they call a 'hell hole'.
>
> The activists anonymously contacted local Animal Rights group Auckland
> Animal Action with the following communique:
>
> Early on Sunday morning, the 19th of November, animal rights activists
> broke into a battery hen farm in West Auckland removing 35 chickens.
> Activists gained entry into Eggs R Us on Henderson Valley Road, by
> cutting a large hole in one side of a shed.
>
> The shed contained row after row of caged hens. Dozens of rats could
> be seen running between cages. Many of the birds were in a poor
> condition, having missing feathers and red inflamed skin from rubbing
> on the bars; all the birds were de-beaked.
> ...
> Auckland Animal Action spokesperson Jasmine Gray says "The public of
> Aotearoa agree that battery hen farming is cruel and have called for a
> ban. However the Minister of Agriculture, the Honerable Jim Anderton
> continues to ignore public opinion choosing instead to side with the
> egg industry. In failing to listen to the public the Government has
> really left people no choice but to break the law".
>
> This liberation comes just two weeks after activists rescued 20
> battery hens from a Foxton factory farm.
>
> Footage of raid can be viewed at:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-l9iRXcyEgQ
>
> Photos can be viewed at: www.aucklandanimalaction.org.nz
>
>
> --
> full story:
> http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0611/S00394.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wrench
Joined: 07 Apr 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 10:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| red dog wrote: |
| Quote: |
| But the fact that anyone would choose animals over children is wrong. |
Ugh, how do people come up with this crap? |
Woot so what your saying is that when you have a child I can kill it and eat it so I can spare that Chickens life..... OH the BLISS.
I sure hope Red Dogs children will taste like chicken.. I so love my chicken.
*sarcasm* OFF.
Last time I tried being a VEG head I got extremly ill after about 3 months. My sister was a VEG head when she was born, my parents thought it would be better for her to to raised on NON Meat diet.
Guess what happened.
She had 3 kidney infections. 4 Major ear infections which in the end had to be operated on and had her ear canals lined with tubing. She also developed alergies to lots of fruits and vegies. Most of the food she was o was organic and very expensive. When doctors did a composition check on her; her bones and muscle mass was abnormaly low.
One Doctor basically suggested that her health problems stemed from not eating meat. Parents went to a nutritionist and in the end got a diet that included meat products. 1 Month after the new diet was started all her symptoms started to disapear and she became a health little horse. Infact she is doing so well she is almost as tall as me at age 14.
My Aunty had similar problems when she was a vegiterian her complection was really bad. She had other skin problems, she also developed a heart problem.
Red Dog you just can't get it through your thick skull that eating meat means people can live.
Most of the people in my family don't do well on high veg diets.
In my case I couldn't loost weight untill I removed carbs from my diet now I have no problem loosing weight.
I believe that animals should be treated with respect but you make it sound like its such a great injustice just to have a farm.
Mod Edit: Edited for langauge and flaming. |
|
| 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
