Aaron

Preaching a moral position at someone whose line in debate is that governments/the ruling class should not have too much empathy and compassion for the people, as this just gets in the way of good government is unproductive (in winning small victories) – unless this is the debate you need to have (to win the big victory).

Think Spock, with all emotion suppressed in service to logic.

Personal moral choices (including advocacy of a moral position for humanity), when faced with a contrarian in service to only logic and personal self interest, remain just that.

Note however, that there is recognition that at some point meat eating could become a humanity survival issue and at that point he might support government/the ruling class ending meat eating, not out of empathy or compassion, but out of necessity (though of course that necessity would imply some need to preserve human life – which implies some government/ruling class need for empathy and compassion for other humans, there is still something human in our sapient).

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Peral Jam? The wild version of Pearl Jam?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Green fight

Sorry I missed it
was off Raging to the mighty Peral Jam with my Kids

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

bliss you say “I want” before “I care” because you are self-absorbed, you lack empathy and compassion, and your selfishness means you think you are the be-all-and-end-all in this world. The meat industry has brainwashed you, and your parents before you.

Woo hoo! Ad hominem plus plus! Dihydrogen Oxide off a Anatidae back.

Then ArronC said, in reply (I think) to my plea not to screw with 1,000,000 years of evolution…

And it was actually recently that we began eating meat, in evolutionary terms, around the same time we harnessed fire. Some of us are not still stuck there. Do you eat it raw like every other carnivore/omnivore does?

Ok! Do not screw with 1,420,000 years of evolution! From this…

The earliest evidence of human usage of fire comes from various archaeological sites in East Africa, such as Chesowanja near Lake Baringo, Koobi Fora, and Olorgesailie in Kenya. The evidence at Chesowanja consists of red clay sherds dated to be 1.42 million years (Ma) Before Present (BP).[2] Reheating on the sherds found at the site show that the clay must have been heated to 400°C to harden.

Arron C and I are in agrement when he says I certainly dont squash bugs unless they are attacking me. me neither. Why would I?

Blissfully

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Greenfly wrote:
ps – are you calling me an animal abuser

If you finance the exploitation, slavery and killing of animals yes. Its obvious whom you’re rewarding for such deeds isnt it?

I dont have a battle here btw. People are greedy and selfish. Thats not going to change.

Who to vote for? I cant vote for a party I dont believe in. Lets see how the policies stack up on the day.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Aaron – my next suggestion to help you win your battle is:
First, win a little battle. Get some people agreeing to a minor point,
then move on to the next, slightly more challenging point, all the while keeping in mind your final goal. ALWAYS aim to win. Don’t engage unless you are going to be successful with the particular stage. Wins accumulate. People notice. Your power grows. Good luck Grasshopper!

ps – are you calling me an animal abuser? That is not a winning ploy.

pps – who are you going to vote for now?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I try to understand these people, I really do. It is the only thing about which I can really say I have failed in my goal.

If Aaron was American it would explain a lot. From the same breed as those in the Palin vid.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Sapient wrote
“I don’t agree with your premise that we should not inflict pain”

I rest my case.

I dont expect any of you animal abusers to change, just dont expect my vote anymore. Food makes the world go round. If you want to sort out the rest of the problems, get the food debate right.

Greenfly the problem is if you tell farmers that less land misuse is ok, your stuck when it comes to fixing the overall problem because they’ve already done what you said.

Ciao

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Greenfly,
Phil 2.0. kind of reminds me of the statement:

Fortune telling has no scientific support?
With all your science can you even explain why it rains? huh!

The answer is of course “yes”.

LOL

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Aaron said:
Greenfly I can assume then that in order to achieve your campaign goals, no-one actually has to change their actions, no-one stands to lose anything. In fact its happiness and celebration all the way

Nope. Most people had to change and it involved land-use, one of the more challenging changes of all, and to add to that, dairy farmers had to refrain from their habit of converting every square metre into grass!
They stood to lose productive pasture, so there were difficulties. I’ve a Suggestion for your campaign – ‘target’ women – wives in particular, rather than blokes – we are notoriously difficult to change, but remember, romantic ideas win people over. My second suggestion is, don’t expect to change everyone – human’s are too variable for that – there will always be those who go the opposite way to you – look past them to the ones you can influence.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Aaron,

Its also amazing that when an animal moves away from something attacking it you do not recognise that this is based on a version of feeling pain. You are over-intellectualising a situation that lends itself to logic. All that first hand experience as a shellfish must come in handy.

I realise that you probally don’t know such, but logic is my domain; logic is what I am using to analyse your statements. Your logic is non-sequitar. I can even show such by an example to phototropism (among other tings). Phototropism allows plants (also fungi, animals, and many other eukaryotes) to move toward or away from light. The top of a plant will generally move toward the light; this is an example of reaction to an environmental stimulas. Would you classify it as likely to be painful for the plant to move toward the light? The roots of the plant will generally move away from light; this is an example of reaction to an environmental stimulas. Would you classify it as likely to be painful for the plant to move away from the light? Moving to or away from, it makes no difference with such simple sensory systems. Just because something moves away from something in its environment does not automatically mean it experiences it as unpleasurable; the plant roots move away from the sun to get closer to the nutrients and the other benefits found in soil.

Yes, animals feel pain. This is not because it is able to sense something from its environment and move away from it. This is because they have developed incredibly complex neural systems which interpret the stimulas as pain. Without those systems to interpret the stimulas as pain there can be no pain.

Just before we go Im so pleased someone stood up for plants!

I honor your concerns about plants in fact I share them. Plants too are complex lifeforms little understood. What do we know here?

1.Humans form complex relationships, feel pain, and the emotions of fear.
2.Humans form complex relationships, feel pain, and the emotions of fear.
3. Plants? We dont know

Therefore: Its a given that animals should be treated in a way so they are free of being subjected to cruelty, and suffering, like the human. Perhaps the plants should too?

In order to honor your concerns about plants though, I require to first acknowledge the plight of animals. shortly we will compare animals and plants but the more pressing immediate issue is to address the link between humans and animals, and the horrid exploitation of our animal friends.

1.Humans form complex relationships, feel pain, and the emotions of fear.
2.Some animals form complex relationships, feel pain, and the emotions of fear.
3.Some animals feel pain, and the emotions of fear.
4.Some animals feel pain.
5.Some animals sense things in their environment but cannot interpret it as pain.
6.Most, if not all, plants sense things in their environment but cannot interpret the sensation as pain.
7.Most, if not all, non-animal eukaryotes sense things in their environment but cannot interpret the sensation as pain.

I don’t agree with your premise that we should not inflict pain, so animals and all else is game for me. For you most animals are not game but some should be. Though if you classify stimuli that are responded to by moving away from as pain as well as the normal definition of pain then you are left with very very little to eat.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Frog- please delete any of my doubleposts? The firefox interface does not seem to be letting me “request deletion” on double-posts. Gotta love dial-up Cheers

[Frog: deleted two that looked like dups]

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Sapient: Its also amazing that when an animal moves away from something attacking it you do not recognise that this is based on its version of feeling pain. You are over-intellectualising a situation that lends itself to logic. All that first hand experience as a shellfish must come in handy.

In science, and science babble, the thinker thinks what the prover proves. No room for logic in your debate.

Greenfly I can assume then that in order to achieve your campaign goals, no-one actually has to change their actions, no-one stands to lose anything. In fact its happiness and celebration all the way. The difference between that and my message on behalf of non-human victims is quite stark:

1: Human offenders need to become aware that they are unknowingly the problem. Arrogance and ego prevents people admitting they are wrong. This discussion here is evidence of this.

2: Denying ones stomach of juicy fats that taste good (we are wired to sugars fats and salts) requires effort. Game over. The animals lose.

Whereas yours is more of a tangent- there are no losers- there is little at stake.

And I don’t expect change, -I’ve already given more time here than I can afford, but people need to realise the suffering that goes into our “banquet everyday” society. We have the power to give other beings respect, yet our guts is more important. Just to poo it down the toilet tommorrow.

OH Great!

Just before I go Im so pleased someone stood up for plants! LMAO!

I honor your concerns about plants in fact I share them. Plants too are complex lifeforms little understood. What do we know here?

1.Humans form complex relationships, feel pain, and the emotions of fear.
2.Animals form complex relationships, feel pain, and the emotions of fear.
3. Plants? We dont know.

Therefore: Its a given that animals should be treated in a way so they are free of being subjected to cruelty, and suffering, like the human. Perhaps the plants should too?

In order to honor your concerns about plants though, I require to first acknowledge the plight of animals. shortly we will compare animals and plants but the more pressing immediate issue is to address the rift between humans and animals, and the horrid exploitation and suffering of our animal friends. Only when that is addressed can we stand up for the plants.

/LMAO

or another version? We harvest and kill plants infront of our children everyday, therefore its ok to kill animals in front of our children too.

When a natural carnivore sees something getting killed, its mouth waters. When we do, we turn away in disgust.

Logic prevails my friends. Farewell for now.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Greenfly,

Don’t worry, I have not had a good philosophical slaughtering for awhile now (it was so hard to hold back on the white ribbon thread ). If this goes on much longer I may get what ive been missing .

—————————-

Aaron,

It is most clean to use [blockquote] … [/blockquote] for quoting (replace [ and ] with angled brackets.

So in your eyes it is ok to inflict uneccesary pain and sufferring upon others then? Please answer.

There is no reason not to inflict unneeded on others. Besides that, is said pain really unneeded. If I want a beef pattie I need to have a bovine die. If I want some psychotic pleasure from shooting animals I need to shoot the animal. Etc. Things are only ever needed for a purpose. Just because things are not needed for survival does not mean that they are entirely unneeded.

Why would your opinion have to be subject to my actions? Is this your shifting moral ethic that you are alluding to? Your abilty to change what is right and wrong to suit your mood?

My actions would not be subject to your opinion (I gather that is waht you actually intended to say), I would do the same regardless. Though my opinion of you may differ based on your opinion as if your opinion is to do to others and then cry foul when another does to you then you are being hypocritical and I disrespect hypocrits. I kill animals, I wont hate an animal that kills me nor will I cry foul. It is the way of life. We all die, if we cannot prevent our deaths then it is our own failure, not one of another.

that is sheer insanity. This is an argument to keep human slaves, rape women, molest children. My point? Do unto others what you would have them do to you. And I’m not referring to a neo-fascist fundamentalist Christian

I find such action repulsive – under my own moral code – but it is none-the-less true that there is no objective justifiable reason not to do those actions. All justification morally is arbitary. These things are forbidden socially because they are the stuff that destroys social fabric, they are not, however, objectively wrong.

~

Rape? LOL.

I never encouraged beastiality. Though I don’t see it as inheriantly wrong. I think there would be all sort of nusences should it become legal (far more so with the male human to female or male animal side of things), but I would not oppose such were the legislation well made.

~

I would recommend using the preview function instead of double posting. Double posting, esspecially when you delete a large part of it, just looks lame.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Its also amazing that when an animal moves away from something attacking it you do not recognise that this is based on a version of feeling pain. You are over-intellectualising a situation that lends itself to logic. All that first hand experience as a shellfish must come in handy.

Greenfly I can assume then that in order to achieve your campaign goals, no-one actually has to change their actions, no-one stands to lose anything. In fact its happiness and celebration all the way. The difference between that and my message on behalf of non-human victims is quite stark:

1: Human offenders need to become aware that they are unknowingly the problem. Arrogance and ego prevents peopeladmitting they are wrong. This discussion is evidence of this.
2: Denying ones stomach of juicy fats that tase good (we are wired to sugars fats and salts) requires effort. Game over.

WHereas yours is more of a tangent- there are no losers- there is little at stake.

And I dont expect change, -I’ve already given more time here than I can afford, but people need to realise the sufferring that goes into our banquet everyday society. We have the power to give other beings respect, yet our guts is more important.

OH Great!

Just before we go Im so pleased someone stood up for plants!

I honor your concerns about plants in fact I share them. Plants too are complex lifeforms little understood. What do we know here?

1.Humans form complex relationships, feel pain, and the emotions of fear.
2.Humans form complex relationships, feel pain, and the emotions of fear.
3. Plants? We dont know

Therefore: Its a given that animals should be treated in a way so they are free of being subjected to cruelty, and suffering, like the human. Perhaps the plants should too?

In order to honor your concerns about plants though, I require to first acknowledge the plight of animals. shortly we will compare animals and plants but the more pressing immediate issue is to address the link between humans and animals, and the horrid exploitation of our animal friends.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

All that study, Sapient, just so that you could infuriate vegans?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Greenfly,

I knew a psychology/neuro-science degree would come in useful at some stage .

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

(whistles nonchalantly and sidles out into the garden…)

Like or Dislike: 1  0 (+1)

Sapient,

Your words are borderline hillarious if they were not so sinister and psychotic…

quote:
And my point was that what you call common decency, and your judgement that it should be followed, is totally arbitary. There is no reason AT ALL that others should follow it.
unquote.

So in your eyes it is ok to inflict uneccesary pain and sufferring upon others then? Please answer.

Quote:
I have no problem with you trying to imprison, and/or kill, my mother if you have no problem with my attempting to do the same to you and the state attempting to apprehend and imprison you. The difference is that our imprisoned animals can rarely fight back, and the state does not for them, and thus we can go about our actions with little fear of reprimand.
Unquote.

Why would your opinion have to be subject to my actions? Is this your shifting moral ethic that you are alluding to? Your abilty to change what is right and wrong to suit your mood?

Quote:
There is no justifiable reason to imprison and kill the animals but likewise there is no justifiable reason not to. You appear to not realise this.
Unquote

that is sheer insanity. This is an argument to keep human slaves, rape women, molest children. My point? Do unto others what you would have them do to you. And I’m not referring to a neo-fascist fundamentalist Christian version either. Im talking respect animals for the same reasons that we respect humans. Life exists for its own reasons, not because we made it in a laboratory.

We already have the animal welfare act, however hunting/pest control/research/vivisection/egg farms/chicken farms/pig farms/greyhound racing/dairy farming etc are not abiding to them.

I wont comment upon sheep farming horse racing etc until I have the evidence on my desk. Our Laws get broken, and nothing happens.

For you to advocate uneccesary killing and sufferring and rape upon the animal kingdom aludes you would have no problem with the same rules applied to humans. Thus your mindset is a danger to us all.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Sapient – that’s the kind of talk I like to hear. Lots of grey areas when it comes to deciding what to eat based on ethics. I’m always appalled when listening to vegans describe the cruelty of killing and eating animals, because they seem to have little care for the life-force of the plants they happily harvest, cook and consume. I’m not suggesting that plants shouldn’t be treated in this way, just that the issue is not cut and dried (like wheat).

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)