Godwin’s law (you can google both) is basically that when a thread devolves so that comparison is made to Nazi’s and/or Hitler, there is no point in following it anymore. The thread is done. The law is that as the thread grows longer the probability of such a comparison being made approaches unity. I tend to use the extended version.

Here’s a link, says it better. Also gets the name right - Godwin’s law. Gresham’s law is “bad money drives out good money” - my apologies again. Both start with G and I am sorry I get weary of taking without giving back in kind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin’s_law

respectfully
BJ

Integrating domesticated farm animals would be comparatively much simpler. They would not be able to breed and will be allowed to live out the rest of their natural lives in peace.

As for your arguments on abortion, homosexuality etc. I can’t see the relevence to animal rights, and this is not the thread to bring them up. But is seems that you are willing to dismiss the views of an entire religious group simply because they are a member of a religious group, and not because you have carefully examined the arguments.

To BJ: I agree the argument should be closed. I just have one question; who is Gresham and what was his/her law?

there were diversions….but the basic ideas of… the environmental destruction wreaked by farming animals for flesh….the negative health impacts on consumers and consumed……the horrendous suffering and pain endured by many of those farmed creatures(short and brutal lives)..and the ‘addictive’ properties of taste and texture inherent in the consumption of flesh..still stand..

conclusions..of course any changes (as in consumption) are a personal matter/journey…and therefor cannot be subject to legislation…cannot be dictated..can only be shown..

but as an incremental advance/lessening of suffering….those horrendous conditions (and pollution) created/sustained by farmers of flesh can be remedied/ended by legislation/regulation……(something for the green pollies to focus on this term..eh..?..)

and as for the effort put into this opus….now..if asked any questions about the reasons for my being vegan….i can just mutely point the inquirer over here….

thanks to the supporters and the foils for making it happen….

phil(whoar.co.nz)

phil(whoar.co.nz)

This thread is now complete.

you haven’t been roped into the iraqi oil scandal….have you…?

um…have you ever been accused of drama queen tendencies..?..:)

phil(whoar.co.nz)

(that comes back..if you go vegan…)

phil(whoar.co.nz)

You talk about me having dealers and being paranoid and now of working for the Meat Board. This obvious lack of respect for those who don’t agree with you …

I always worry about those who seek to impose their values on others, when they lack this respect for others in the public policy debate. As I pointed out earlier, being a vegan/vegetarian - does not require respect for any sanctity of human life.

My point to Kiore is that, it would be a ridicuous world that banned humans killing animals for meat, but which allowed the continued deaths of human beings.

SPC Surely a moral position - respect for life, posed as a truth for humanity to accept, applies across all related areas?

SPC So why do you have a problem with my referring to the moral position as truth line of those arguing for the sanctity of human life? Surely it is only in the establishment of right to life (no death sentence law, no abortion, no war, feeding the poor, overcoming disease in the third World), that would underpin any campaign to extend this to animal right to life?

You call this comparing “apples and oranges”?

one question ..why do you persist in talking apples and oranges..?

what has the abortion debate got to do with what we have been talking about..?

why all the red herrings..? (you don’t work for the meat board ..do you..?..:)

phil(whoar.co.nz)