Random thought....

So far we have the"vegetarian/ vegan fundie" emotional appeal to consider animals "feelings" based on the premise that humanity cannot consider the lot of the animal kingdom BECAUSE humans don't or won't identify with a) the natural world or b) the suffering our existence causes in the natural world. Have I got that right?

Yet, these self same "avengers" of the rights of animals are quite happy to devastate the "natural world" by inflicting their desire to have whole forests raised and plant ecosystems annihilated to grow their food? Further, these self same "friends of the earth" are extatic over the promulgation of the petro-chemical industry (and the mess it makes) and big pharma (the 'health' pill industry) and then lay "claim" that what they are supporting is life on this planet?

Amazing is all I can say. How a sub-species can take itself so seriously as to think it is beyond the ecosystems of this planet is the height of arrogance and ignorance in my opinion. Just because we don't understand how the plant kingdom thinks and feels, it is ok to murder rape and pillage that Kingdom to feed the self righteous but hey don't you dare lay a finger on the animalia kingdom especially that of the order mammalia for a food source.

And I haven't even begun to get all kumbaya hippy dippy over the mineral kingdom.

Yep Kichi, you have it there!

I said before and I will say it again and again... You want to make your "vegetarianism/ veganism" a religious personality cult? Go for it. You are just as narrow minded as any other religious cult.

You want to just consume vegetable matter as a personal preference? Go for it.

Either way, it comes down to the individual needs of the person indulging in the diet in question. Spare me the moralistic hyperbole. I can get just as stupid about any kingdom or order currently extant on this planet.

Comprende?

(February 1, 2014 at 3:34 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: Yet, these self same "avengers" of the rights of animals are quite happy to devastate the "natural world" by inflicting their desire to have whole forests raised and plant ecosystems annihilated to grow their food? Further, these self same "friends of the earth" are extatic over the promulgation of the petro-chemical industry (and the mess it makes) and big pharma (the 'health' pill industry) and then lay "claim" that what they are supporting is life on this planet?

What is this nonsense about devastating forests? A vegetarian diet takes LESS land to provide your nutrition needs than a meat based one. let me say that again. A vegetarian diets takes LESS land not more land. When you finally get that into your skull and stop creating strawmen then we might have a more productive discussion.

However since a good deal of your position seems to be based on high fiveing each other and repeating the 'hilarious' notion that we veggies should be killed or eaten or alternatively just telling us what you are eating (couple with more High fiveing) it is probably too much to ask

(February 1, 2014 at 6:20 am)là bạn điên Wrote: What is this nonsense about devastating forests? A vegetarian diet takes LESS land to provide your nutrition needs than a meat based one. let me say that again. A vegetarian diets takes LESS land not more land. When you finally get that into your skull and stop creating strawmen then we might have a more productive discussion.

Both Kichi and I live in Australia - I don't know about overseas land, but prove your point or shut it up?

---

And FYI before you answer - grass is a weed do you understand this?

(January 31, 2014 at 4:44 pm)KUSA Wrote:

(January 31, 2014 at 12:17 pm)jg2014 Wrote: Killing for biodiversity is certainly more justified than the murder of animals just to eat them, however the fact remains there are better ways to achieve this end. e.g. supporting the return of predators

I keep shaking my head at the things you say.
I know you realize the predators are just going to eat the animals. I can't understand why you are good with that but are against humans eating them. You make no sense at all. You really don't. You come up with some bullshit concocted explanation that is just down right dumb. Amoral vs moral.
So if I share a meal of meat that my dog and I hunted together I am doing something wrong but my dog is good to go. Stupid!

I dont think it is stupid to only apply ethics to those capable of ethical behavior. It's why very young children or the mentally disabled are not held criminally responsible for crimes, but for example merely put into care for their own and others protection, and not put in jail as a punishment.

Here's another way to think about it. If lighting were to kill a person, would you say that the lightening was wrong to kill them? Do you agree that a lightening strike could not be said to be unethical because it is not an entity to which ethics apply? We might say we should try to avoid it etc but it would not make sense it say the lightening was being unethical when it had no ability to make ethical choices or not. Its the same with animals.

(February 1, 2014 at 6:26 am)Aractus Wrote:

(February 1, 2014 at 6:20 am)là bạn điên Wrote: What is this nonsense about devastating forests? A vegetarian diet takes LESS land to provide your nutrition needs than a meat based one. let me say that again. A vegetarian diets takes LESS land not more land. When you finally get that into your skull and stop creating strawmen then we might have a more productive discussion.

Both Kichi and I live in Australia - I don't know about overseas land, but prove your point or shut it up?

---

And FYI before you answer - grass is a weed do you understand this?

Define 'weed' if you are capable? I don't give a shit where you live.


http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-...resources/

(February 1, 2014 at 3:34 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: Yet, these self same "avengers" of the rights of animals are quite happy to devastate the "natural world" by inflicting their desire to have whole forests raised and plant ecosystems annihilated to grow their food? Further, these self same "friends of the earth" are extatic over the promulgation of the petro-chemical industry (and the mess it makes) and big pharma (the 'health' pill industry) and then lay "claim" that what they are supporting is life on this planet?

Kicky, i try to understand what you mean when you say that these avengers devastate the natural world.
It is well known that to produce a KG. of meat it need over 10 KG of veg. proteins that is why the natural world is today devastated by clearing the land in order to plant veg. proteins like soia to feed the cattle.
Please tell me where i am wrong.

(February 1, 2014 at 8:43 am)enrico Wrote:

(February 1, 2014 at 3:34 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: Yet, these self same "avengers" of the rights of animals are quite happy to devastate the "natural world" by inflicting their desire to have whole forests raised and plant ecosystems annihilated to grow their food? Further, these self same "friends of the earth" are extatic over the promulgation of the petro-chemical industry (and the mess it makes) and big pharma (the 'health' pill industry) and then lay "claim" that what they are supporting is life on this planet?

Kicky, i try to understand what you mean when you say that these avengers devastate the natural world.
It is well known that to produce a KG. of meat it need over 10 KG of veg. proteins that is why the natural world is today devastated by clearing the land in order to plant veg. proteins like soia to feed the cattle.
Please tell me where i am wrong.

The above depends on what meat you are talking about-beef is the most wastefull but yes. However don;t expect any of them to acknowledge this. They are in a religious like denial of any actual facts which is why they can come up with this nonsense about us ripping down forests. Arcturus will next claim he knows a farmer and therefore he is an expert.

(February 1, 2014 at 6:31 am)jg2014 Wrote:

(January 31, 2014 at 4:44 pm)KUSA Wrote: I keep shaking my head at the things you say.
I know you realize the predators are just going to eat the animals. I can't understand why you are good with that but are against humans eating them. You make no sense at all. You really don't. You come up with some bullshit concocted explanation that is just down right dumb. Amoral vs moral.
So if I share a meal of meat that my dog and I hunted together I am doing something wrong but my dog is good to go. Stupid!

I dont think it is stupid to only apply ethics to those capable of ethical behavior. It's why very young children or the mentally disabled are not held criminally responsible for crimes, but for example merely put into care for their own and others protection, and not put in jail as a punishment.

Here's another way to think about it. If lighting were to kill a person, would you say that the lightening was wrong to kill them? Do you agree that a lightening strike could not be said to be unethical because it is not an entity to which ethics apply? We might say we should try to avoid it etc but it would not make sense it say the lightening was being unethical when it had no ability to make ethical choices or not. Its the same with animals.

The ethics you speak of are yours and not mine or for that matter most of the world's. You compare things that are absurd to be compared. Nothing you have said makes sense to me. I see the world different than you and find your arguments bizarre.