Vegetarianism fights Global Warming

[Revoltingest]

Says who? The law? A couple decades back in America, the idea of blacks having rights was ridiculous.

Is there some other Americastan....other than the one I live in?
As I recall, even many decades ago, black folk had rights.

Are you really that self-centered to not realize that animals are independent species that are successful in their own ways and thus deserve a right to be left alone so they can grow?

Rights are conferred upon people & animals by consensus of people.
Thus people have more, & animals have few.
The standards continually change, & there are no absolutes.

 

[Chakra]

Is there some other Americastan....other than the one I live in?
As I recall, even many decades ago, black folk had rights.

Well, I thought that people would assume that I was talking about the removal of voting barriers that blacks had to go with, since the example given by someone was about pigs voting. I changed decades to centuries to make it more obvious.

Rights are conferred upon people & animals by consensus of people.
Thus people have more, & animals have few.
The standards continually change, & there are no absolutes.

So, what would make you believe that animals are worthy of being left alone (which isn't really a right)?

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, I thought that people would assume that I was talking about the removal of voting barriers that blacks had to go with, since the example given by someone was about pigs voting. I changed decades to centuries to make it more obvious.

That's an improvement.
Btw, I'm not that old.

So, what would make you believe that animals are worthy of being left alone (which isn't really a right)?

I don't know.
What do you have to offer?

Btw, I'd afford more rights to great apes & dolphins than to pigs or chickens.
Their fancy brains inspire this.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Animals have no, that's zero, rights. Just the thought is ridiculous.

Where does this alleged "right" come from?

If you feel that animals have no rights, then what grants either of you (or any of us) our rights? Seriously... are you crazy? To claim animals have no rights and yet expect anyone to respect what you feel are yours - it's lunacy.

And also,humanity is the epitome of intelligent life on Earth, and also of physical weakness. What environment is our awkward body style with its coarse/unrefined survival attributes suited? Dessert? No. Swamp? No. Tundra? No. Water? No. Maybe somewhere tropical than never gets cold and has plenty of easy to reach food sources. 'Cause let's face it - without the implements designed and crafted by our forebears, we're pretty much useless. Most of us wouldn't even get through an encounter with a young deer unscathed, or necessarily alive or capable to overcome our injuries on our own. We're not the best at anything, inherently, except thinking - and using out thoughts to cheat other beings out of their lives. That's right, I said cheat. You think there's any honor to be had in the "sport" of firing a projectile at an animal you'd **** your pants if you were standing face-to-face with, safely doing so from 50 yards away - the distance between you and the animal for the express purpose of not having to deal with wearing a diaper for the pissing-yourself incidents? No, there is no honor in that whatsoever. If you still think there is, then consider yourself in a boxing match against a man whose only advancement on you is better gloves. You have standard boxing gloves, and his can shoot bullets from across the ring. You'd scream foul in a heartbeat - any one of us would. And yet this is what the animals we hunt are up against. Except to make it more like hunting, the man got his "shooting gloves" from his father, who got it from his father before him - none of them actually having even invented or crafted it themselves. And then you add to it that you don't even get to see your opponent before he fires his first shot. In fact you don't even know your life is in danger. That's hunting - there's no denying it. It is one of the most underhanded methods of acquiring anything and yet we have all allowed it to be glamorized and it's even considered "macho".

So, our having "rights" greater than those animals of this Earth who are the greatest runners, strongest fighters, best swimmers? Forget it. It's a complete and utter illusion.

 

[McBell]

So you think animals are here just for us? Do I need to remind you that without humans, almost every single species/ecosystem on Earth would flourish?

interesting that you did not answer the question.

 

[McBell]

If you feel that animals have no rights, then what grants either of you (or any of us) our rights? Seriously... are you crazy? To claim animals have no rights and yet expect anyone to respect what you feel are yours - it's lunacy.

And also,humanity is the epitome of intelligent life on Earth, and also of physical weakness. What environment is our awkward body style with its coarse/unrefined survival attributes suited? Dessert? No. Swamp? No. Tundra? No. Water? No. Maybe somewhere tropical than never gets cold and has plenty of easy to reach food sources. 'Cause let's face it - without the implements designed and crafted by our forebears, we're pretty much useless. Most of us wouldn't even get through an encounter with a young deer unscathed, or necessarily alive or capable to overcome our injuries on our own. We're not the best at anything, inherently, except thinking - and using out thoughts to cheat other beings out of their lives. That's right, I said cheat. You think there's any honor to be had in the "sport" of firing a projectile at an animal you'd **** your pants if you were standing face-to-face with, safely doing so from 50 yards away - the distance between you and the animal for the express purpose of not having to deal with wearing a diaper for the pissing-yourself incidents? No, there is no honor in that whatsoever. If you still think there is, then consider yourself in a boxing match against a man whose only advancement on you is better gloves. You have standard boxing gloves, and his can shoot bullets from across the ring. You'd scream foul in a heartbeat - any one of us would. And yet this is what the animals we hunt are up against. Except to make it more like hunting, the man got his "shooting gloves" from his father, who got it from his father before him - none of them actually having even invented or crafted it themselves. And then you add to it that you don't even get to see your opponent before he fires his first shot. In fact you don't even know your life is in danger. That's hunting - there's no denying it. It is one of the most underhanded methods of acquiring anything and yet we have all allowed it to be glamorized and it's even considered "macho".

So, our having "rights" greater than those animals of this Earth who are the greatest runners, strongest fighters, best swimmers? Forget it. It's a complete and utter illusion.

nice little sermon.
Care to actually answer the question?

 

[Chakra]

interesting that you did not answer the question.

Well, if you really need an answer...

Animal rights come from a basis of ethical guidelines that say that other sentient creatures have a right to live and be free, just like other human beings. It's based off common sense, compassion, and mercy.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

nice little sermon.
Care to actually answer the question?

Sure. THE ANIMALS ARE STRONGER THAN WE ARE. They have as much "right" to be here as any of us, and you'd get your butt kicked by so many of them it is hilarious if you were face-to-face, one-on-one. That's the only true "right" that exists anyway. The right to attempt to defend yourself if challenged and the need arises. And all animals also have this right. And when it boils down to it, a cow would kill you handily if you were stripped down to nudity in order to make it a fair fight, and it had the need to defend itself. Bulls are especially intimidating - and why is it you think we feel that? When we're standing there - mere feet away from those horns that could easily run you through with just a flick of that massive, heavy head. There's really no stopping that kind of momentum.

You also have the right to try and defend yourself, obviously - but you'd be really, really poor at it without a gun in your hand. Bear? Wins. Wolf? Wins. Lion? Wins. Squirrel? Try catching him. Rattlesnake? Toss up - you might get lucky. Cow? Wins. We're basically the lame members of the animal kingdom - we're just too "smart" to realize it. And no rights exist beyond you right to try and survive - a right we completely strip from animals we raise in captivity and keep as slaves all their lives. Which also makes us the a-holes of the animal kingdom.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

nice little sermon.
Care to actually answer the question?

I feel that people who don't get even the basics of animals having the same set of rights to survival and resources as we do live on top of some strange veneer that has been worked into their mind and life by the constant conditioning of society and communal human behaviors. That you must sit on this veneer and think: How can so many people be "wrong"? Animals must be beneath us, right? They have no rights - so we're not really taking anything away from them when we imprison them and their progeny for all posterity, right? We don't have to consider how we'd feel, given the same treatment, because we're "above" them - our minds allow us to simply take them as resources - and we humans have the right to "survival" too anyway, right? That's all we're doing - surviving, right?

Why is it, do you think, that there are so many stories, and stories made into movies, where the main danger that gives the thrills is someone who has been captured, fettered or shackled, and is now in danger, with anything plausible possibly awaiting them? Why do stories use that device to thrill and frighten? Because that's one of our biggest fears - having our freedom stripped from us and in its place having to accept the fact that our captor can do anything he/she wants to us. It is a mind-bogglingly scary thought. Ever see the movie "Hostel"? I don't scare easily, but that has got to be one of the most unsettling movies ever made. The substance of that movie is terrifying, when you place yourself in the shoes of the people going through it - thinking about what it'd be like if you were in their place, the target of the torture and pain, leading ultimately to your death. You even get angry, and think of ways you'd like to try and defend yourself, or even eliminate the threat altogether, or reverse the roles with your captor and put them through what they put you through. Isn't it interesting that we have those reactions to idea like that, and yet when it comes time for us to empathize with animals, WHO UNDERGO THE EXACT SAME TREATMENT, we simply can't, or won't. It's a sad state of affairs - to have so many humans who fail at realization of responsibility on such a fundamental level.

 

[BSM1]

So you think animals are here just for us? Do I need to remind you that without humans, almost every single species/ecosystem on Earth would flourish?

How could you possibly know that?

If you feel that animals have no rights, then what grants either of you (or any of us) our rights? Seriously... are you crazy? To claim animals have no rights and yet expect anyone to respect what you feel are yours - it's lunacy.

And also,humanity is the epitome of intelligent life on Earth, and also of physical weakness. What environment is our awkward body style with its coarse/unrefined survival attributes suited? Dessert? No. Swamp? No. Tundra? No. Water? No. Maybe somewhere tropical than never gets cold and has plenty of easy to reach food sources. 'Cause let's face it - without the implements designed and crafted by our forebears, we're pretty much useless. Most of us wouldn't even get through an encounter with a young deer unscathed, or necessarily alive or capable to overcome our injuries on our own. We're not the best at anything, inherently, except thinking - and using out thoughts to cheat other beings out of their lives. That's right, I said cheat. You think there's any honor to be had in the "sport" of firing a projectile at an animal you'd **** your pants if you were standing face-to-face with, safely doing so from 50 yards away - the distance between you and the animal for the express purpose of not having to deal with wearing a diaper for the pissing-yourself incidents? No, there is no honor in that whatsoever. If you still think there is, then consider yourself in a boxing match against a man whose only advancement on you is better gloves. You have standard boxing gloves, and his can shoot bullets from across the ring. You'd scream foul in a heartbeat - any one of us would. And yet this is what the animals we hunt are up against. Except to make it more like hunting, the man got his "shooting gloves" from his father, who got it from his father before him - none of them actually having even invented or crafted it themselves. And then you add to it that you don't even get to see your opponent before he fires his first shot. In fact you don't even know your life is in danger. That's hunting - there's no denying it. It is one of the most underhanded methods of acquiring anything and yet we have all allowed it to be glamorized and it's even considered "macho".

So, our having "rights" greater than those animals of this Earth who are the greatest runners, strongest fighters, best swimmers? Forget it. It's a complete and utter illusion.

Sooo....you're saying other animals automatically disregard our rights to peacefully co-exists?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Sooo....you're saying other animals automatically disregard our rights to peacefully co-exists?

Is that seriously what you read out of all that? I mean - from some of your replies earlier I thought you either weren't reading at all, or were maybe just a little "off" - I mean be serious with yourself now - did you ever really answer any of the questions I raised, or respond to any of the points I made? No, I don't believe you did. You preferred instead to try and make light - saying things about your "dumb cow shoes". Aren't you clever? So funny, right? Is that what you wanted me to get out of conversing with you? That you're hilarious, and therefore somehow beyond reproach? Well... think again.

I never, EVER said we have the right to peacefully co-exist. You did. And it's an idiotic notion. I said the right to attempt to survive is all you've got. And yeah - if an animal is threatened, it will attempt to defend itself - if it is hungry, it will go and get food - whatever form that takes, and by whatever means are necessary - violence included. The same is true for us - however, without our minds, we are poorer at all forms of survival than any animal in its apportioned environment. And without our implements that have been developed over the course of our existence we would even have trouble today. You think humans are something special - I can tell that you do - and you're simply wrong. We're the cheaters, and thieves of the animal kingdom. This was assured the moment our minds became our primary means of adapting to survive. We can't out-muscle anyone or anything for resources, so we have to be tricky - we have to steal - we have to conspire - we have to entrap and ensnare - we have to sneak and make sure we're not put too closely in harms way because we're fragile, and weak and mostly defenseless. You can deny it to yourself all you want. I honestly don't give a damn.

 

[icehorse]

Revoltingest said:

In order....
1) I oppose environmental destruction. But farm animals needn't cause that.
2) I like my food to be treated humanely, so no veal & no foie gras.
3) Of course they're innocent, but that isn't the issue, ie, they're not being punished for wrongdoing.

I agree with 2 and 3, we all get eaten in the end.

But on #1, can you explain how that works?

 

[McBell]

I feel that people who don't get even the basics of animals having the same set of rights to survival and resources as we do live on top of some strange veneer that has been worked into their mind and life by the constant conditioning of society and communal human behaviors. That you must sit on this veneer and think: How can so many people be "wrong"? Animals must be beneath us, right? They have no rights - so we're not really taking anything away from them when we imprison them and their progeny for all posterity, right? We don't have to consider how we'd feel, given the same treatment, because we're "above" them - our minds allow us to simply take them as resources - and we humans have the right to "survival" too anyway, right? That's all we're doing - surviving, right?

Why is it, do you think, that there are so many stories, and stories made into movies, where the main danger that gives the thrills is someone who has been captured, fettered or shackled, and is now in danger, with anything plausible possibly awaiting them? Why do stories use that device to thrill and frighten? Because that's one of our biggest fears - having our freedom stripped from us and in its place having to accept the fact that our captor can do anything he/she wants to us. It is a mind-bogglingly scary thought. Ever see the movie "Hostel"? I don't scare easily, but that has got to be one of the most unsettling movies ever made. The substance of that movie is terrifying, when you place yourself in the shoes of the people going through it - thinking about what it'd be like if you were in their place, the target of the torture and pain, leading ultimately to your death. You even get angry, and think of ways you'd like to try and defend yourself, or even eliminate the threat altogether, or reverse the roles with your captor and put them through what they put you through. Isn't it interesting that we have those reactions to idea like that, and yet when it comes time for us to empathize with animals, WHO UNDERGO THE EXACT SAME TREATMENT, we simply can't, or won't. It's a sad state of affairs - to have so many humans who fail at realization of responsibility on such a fundamental level.

Sure. THE ANIMALS ARE STRONGER THAN WE ARE. They have as much "right" to be here as any of us, and you'd get your butt kicked by so many of them it is hilarious if you were face-to-face, one-on-one. That's the only true "right" that exists anyway. The right to attempt to defend yourself if challenged and the need arises. And all animals also have this right. And when it boils down to it, a cow would kill you handily if you were stripped down to nudity in order to make it a fair fight, and it had the need to defend itself. Bulls are especially intimidating - and why is it you think we feel that? When we're standing there - mere feet away from those horns that could easily run you through with just a flick of that massive, heavy head. There's really no stopping that kind of momentum.

You also have the right to try and defend yourself, obviously - but you'd be really, really poor at it without a gun in your hand. Bear? Wins. Wolf? Wins. Lion? Wins. Squirrel? Try catching him. Rattlesnake? Toss up - you might get lucky. Cow? Wins. We're basically the lame members of the animal kingdom - we're just too "smart" to realize it. And no rights exist beyond you right to try and survive - a right we completely strip from animals we raise in captivity and keep as slaves all their lives. Which also makes us the a-holes of the animal kingdom.

Perhaps you are confused.
Though I wonder if you are able to stop preaching long enough to actually answer the question....

Where do animal rights come from?
the same place all rights come from.
people.

Though I do find your inconsistency comical.
why does might make right for animals but not when the animals are the ones being "wronged"?

 

[YmirGF]

I have and have had many animals shoes. Thank you dumb cows..

@BSM1

This reminded me of one Christmas, way back in the 80's, a vegetarian lady friend gave all her male friends leather ties for Christmas. I remember well, all of us happy recipients, commenting on the weird contradiction. "So, it's OK to rip their skin off, but you can't eat them. OK, dokie... pokie..."

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Regardless, you ALL need to realize (this includes you @lovesong) that bringing up OTHER suffering and parading it in front of someone talking about a completely separate type of suffering is nowhere near a valid way to dispute the original claim. In other words - why the hell are we talking about people suffering in China when the topic I had posed was the cruelty dealt animals and their suffering?

Because so many of the same problems overlap, and the solution to both is the same.We have to scale back on everything, readjust how our society works, and actually really meaning it when we say we care on and rely on the community. Food especially is where this will make a differene, not only in greenhouse and water effects, but also in restructuring society to reflect a cooperative system of food production and distribution. Just going vegan won't address the larger issues, nor will it advert the inevitable consequences of wanton over consumption.

I feel that people who don't get even the basics of animals having the same set of rights to survival and resources as we do live on top of some strange veneer that has been worked into their mind and life by the constant conditioning of society and communal human behaviors

There is the realization that animals should have rights, but also at the same time the realization that there is no possible way to argue rights to a snake before it kills and eats a rabbit. Life feeds on life. Nature isn't pretty or safe when you look at it close up. We really aren't above other animals as we are all a part of nature, but it can't be pretended that hunting and killing prey is not also a part of nature. Even humans are sometimes killed by other animals.

 

[BSM1]

Is that seriously what you read out of all that? I mean - from some of your replies earlier I thought you either weren't reading at all, or were maybe just a little "off" - I mean be serious with yourself now - did you ever really answer any of the questions I raised, or respond to any of the points I made? No, I don't believe you did. You preferred instead to try and make light - saying things about your "dumb cow shoes". Aren't you clever? So funny, right? Is that what you wanted me to get out of conversing with you? That you're hilarious, and therefore somehow beyond reproach? Well... think again.

I never, EVER said we have the right to peacefully co-exist. You did. And it's an idiotic notion. I said the right to attempt to survive is all you've got. And yeah - if an animal is threatened, it will attempt to defend itself - if it is hungry, it will go and get food - whatever form that takes, and by whatever means are necessary - violence included. The same is true for us - however, without our minds, we are poorer at all forms of survival than any animal in its apportioned environment. And without our implements that have been developed over the course of our existence we would even have trouble today. You think humans are something special - I can tell that you do - and you're simply wrong. We're the cheaters, and thieves of the animal kingdom. This was assured the moment our minds became our primary means of adapting to survive. We can't out-muscle anyone or anything for resources, so we have to be tricky - we have to steal - we have to conspire - we have to entrap and ensnare - we have to sneak and make sure we're not put too closely in harms way because we're fragile, and weak and mostly defenseless. You can deny it to yourself all you want. I honestly don't give a damn.

Soo...you saying we don't have a right to peacefully co-exist with other animals? It's okay with you that other animals will simply see us as a food source and we can't return the favor?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Where do animal rights come from?
the same place all rights come from.
people.

Which means that rights don't exist at all altogether. Perhaps something we are finally in agreement on. I was figuring your understanding of a point like that to be limited, and tailored my comments appropriate to a space I figured you might retain understanding - my mistake. Ultimately my comments boil down to this: if we want to construct arbitrary things called "rights" for ourselves, we are fools not to extend these same ideas to those others surrounding us. Remember that humanity has tried this in the past - more recently when the category of those with rights were "white skinned" and those without rights were "dark skinned". It's an idiotic game that people who want to consider themselves "civilized" or "responsible" simply should not play.

Though I do find your inconsistency comical.
why does might make right for animals but not when the animals are the ones being "wronged"?

I find the number of times I am misinterpreted comical. I never once said "might makes right". I said "self-defense makes right". There is a difference. Whether one is defending oneself from an attacker, invader or hunger, it doesn't matter. Also - I know you know the real point I am trying t make - which is that animals do not have the capacity to commit "wrongdoing". They are never malicious in their motives. It is all about self-defense of the types I listed. A shark will swim around a stranded human for a while - testing the human's limits... seeing if it is safe to move in. It's a move of caution, not one of drawing out suffering. The first bite it takes is not to harm you - but to see what you taste like. If you taste good it may go back for seconds. Once it finds you are no threat and taste good, then it devours you. Is there evil there? Not at all. If you strike a bear, it gets angry. However it does not think in terms of revenge, it thinks in terms of putting a stop to you to protect itself and its territory - to show you who is the boss so that it no longer has to worry about you. However humans are not like this, and you know it. We possess the unique ability to twist things into "right" and "wrong" - mostly to suit our own desires.

Ultimately, we are the ones who can "know better". The only ones who understand "responsibility". Having power, and yet holding back how much of it you use to bend things to your will.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Soo...you saying we don't have a right to peacefully co-exist with other animals? It's okay with you that other animals will simply see us as a food source and we can't return the favor?

You can see anything you want as a food source. Just don't pretend you're anything but a slave-driver if you are driving slaves. Don't pretend you're behaving responsibly when you are abusing your power (mostly the power granted you by your forebears) to keep others on their knees.

Think of it this way - how much respect do you have for the members of royal, or super-rich families who were simply born into their money? The money stays in the family, and generation after generation there are privileged people who have known nothing of hardship doing whatever they want, all the time, without a single care for whether or not they can have something. Do you have the utmost respect for those blue-bloods, born into money? Are they people you look up to? Did they earn their positions in your estimation?

We stand on the shoulders of our ancestors ALL THE TIME - and we call it our "right" to use and abuse anything and everything that has been passed down. Be it implements, knowledge, technology. We are ALL blue-bloods under the umbrella of those categories. And we deserve no respect for the use and abuse of the things we have but did not earn.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Because so many of the same problems overlap, and the solution to both is the same.We have to scale back on everything, readjust how our society works, and actually really meaning it when we say we care on and rely on the community. Food especially is where this will make a differene, not only in greenhouse and water effects, but also in restructuring society to reflect a cooperative system of food production and distribution. Just going vegan won't address the larger issues, nor will it advert the inevitable consequences of wanton over consumption.

There is the realization that animals should have rights, but also at the same time the realization that there is no possible way to argue rights to a snake before it kills and eats a rabbit. Life feeds on life. Nature isn't pretty or safe when you look at it close up. We really aren't above other animals as we are all a part of nature, but it can't be pretended that hunting and killing prey is not also a part of nature. Even humans are sometimes killed by other animals.

You're right. We should be factory farming and leaving the safety, comfort and freedom of the animals as a side-note for the time-being, until we fix everything else. Especially nailing shut those windows in China, am I right? And I never realized that snakes kill rabbits! That totally makes it okay for us to have the greater understanding that our practices harm the animals involved, while the snake only knows his belly is hungry. You're so right. I'm glad you said something.

I love how everyone keeps putting the word "hunting" before the word "killing" - as if that is all we do as a society. We go out and hunt. All that meat at the grocery store? Hunted of course! Stop saying "hunting" for goodness sake. When I talk about the pain and suffering being wrought the animals I'm not talking about hunting. Hunting is a completely separate, cowardly act - that doesn't cause nearly as much pain, nor the length of suffering, etc. as factory farming. You people are chasing yourselves in circles. It's wrong to buy into factory-farmed meat, and only less wrong to consume meat that was procured on a small farm without actually participating in the nasty parts of the process yourself. There is a form of cowardice there - like it or not - because death is involved. You are a coward for not facing it. You always will be. So just own it, eat your meat and shut up about it being "right".

 

[BSM1]

You can see anything you want as a food source. Just don't pretend you're anything but a slave-driver if you are driving slaves. Don't pretend you're behaving responsibly when you are abusing your power (mostly the power granted you by your forebears) to keep others on their knees.

Think of it this way - how much respect do you have for the members of royal, or super-rich families who were simply born into their money? The money stays in the family, and generation after generation there are privileged people who have known nothing of hardship doing whatever they want, all the time, without a single care for whether or not they can have something. Do you have the utmost respect for those blue-bloods, born into money? Are they people you look up to? Did they earn their positions in your estimation?

We stand on the shoulders of our ancestors ALL THE TIME - and we call it our "right" to use and abuse anything and everything that has been passed down. Be it implements, knowledge, technology. We are ALL blue-bloods under the umbrella of those categories. And we deserve no respect for the use and abuse of the things we have but did not earn.

Your example is specious at best. I give anyone as much respect as they earn. Many of these "royals" or "super-rich" that you seem to hate sight unseen are instrumental in doing great humanitarian and philanthropic deeds worldwide. Obviously you have an agenda that probably blurs your perception of reality. Peace out.