|
|
#61
10-29-2009
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
|
#62
10-29-2009
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Just a heads up of the kinds of arguments that will be thrown back to you if you do pursue this so-called noble endeavor of lampooning vegans.
|
|
#63
10-29-2009
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I mean, not that I care, since I don't like milk. The calf can have it all, as far as I'm concerned.
|
|
#64
10-29-2009
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
By the way, I've decided to rob you of your money on a regular basis, money which could be used to support your children (assuming you have some). However, I feel guilty taking all of your money so I'll just split it 50/50 with you. Heck, on second thought, I think I deserve a bit more than that, let's make it 60/40. Sound okay? I'm glad we agree on that because, otherwise, I wouldn't be able to appease my guilty conscience or justify taking anything from you in the first place. Quote:
Last edited by OverMind; 10-29-2009 at 01:16 PM.
|
|
#65
10-29-2009
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
And thanks for the heads up :V
|
|
#66
10-29-2009
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Still, I see your point. Let's see... considering we control so many cows, how about us taking 10%, kind of like the old idea of tithes? That leaves 90% for the cows to feed their calves. Or is that still unreasonable? I ask because I really do want to know.
|
|
#67
10-29-2009
|
||||
|
||||
|
Most dairy cattle produce milk even when they have not birthed recently.
|
|
#69
10-29-2009
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#70
10-29-2009
|
||||
|
||||
|
Overmind is right though,
Either you have no problem eating animals, and using their products, or you do. It's hypocritical to say that you only agree with eating SOME animals based on an "animal rights" argument. There really is no reasonable middle ground. The difference between vegetarianism and veganism can't really be seen as a middle ground. Using the products of an animal, like milk or unfertilised eggs, is different from killing them. And in reality, you're not really depriving the animal's young of the food it would get if the milk the animal produces is continually being produced. You're not really depriving eggs the chance of fertilisation when the hen lays unfertilised eggs without the prescence of a cockerel regardless. Yes, the ways in which these are exploited can be deplorable, but the use of these products in and of themselves, I see no problem with. The problem comes when people get obsessed with WE NEED MORE MORE MORE!! and do horrible things like keeping hens in cages and under conditions which artificially maximise output beyond reason, purely because it's cheaper. Thing is, if people had the choice between battery-hen eggs and free-range eggs of the same price, they'd much more readily choose the free-range. This kind of attitude has been shown when Cadbury's introduced their Fairtrade Dairy Milk bars, they were the same price as non-fairtrade. The result was that the Fairtrade bars consistently sold out, while the non-fairtrade was left behind on the shelves. And before you mention the eating of animals like dogs and cats... well tbh, I can't see the appeal, mainly because I don't see cats or dogs as being very tasty... I've never tried it, I could probably imagine it to be rather tough meat, and not particularly pleasant to eat... But beyond that, I don't really see why not, aside from, of course it would make people happy to keep them alive to love as pets, and that would be preferable to eating the animal... Same as if I had a pet hen, or a pet cow, or a pet pig (and I mean actual pet - not just some sense of favouritism with a view to eating it), I'd be unwilling to kill it for food as well... I dunno, I can sympathise with vegetarians. Some of my friends are vegetarians (although one really has no choice in the matter - he's been a vege since birth and if he eats meat it'll make him ill)... I cannot, however sympathise with vegans. To end, I have a serious question - do vegans breastfeed their children?
|
|
#72
10-29-2009
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Your reasoning, while highly morbid and disturbed, is strangely sound - moreso than I would like >_>
|
|
#73
10-29-2009
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#74
10-30-2009
|
||||
|
||||
|
Your theory does make sense but stopping the hman population for a while would allow the animal population to replenish but wed have to do the same thing were doing with them now anayway. Wed have to limit their population so they dont overpopulate.
MUST DISRUPT PEACE QUIETNESS MEANS THE FORUM IS EPICALLY DEAD O.O
|
|
#75
10-30-2009
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Last edited by Elky; 10-30-2009 at 08:44 PM.
|
|
#76
11-03-2009
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
 Not being a bitch, just saying!
|
|
#77
11-03-2009
|
|||
|
|||
|
do you understand the definition of a right?
Well Animal rights has done a lot of good, but it's also caused some bad too...
I think if you understand what a "right" vs a "privilege" is you'll find that the term "animal rights" is loaded anyways. A right is a power based on what you are born with what you own and what you inherit. In other words i have the right to personal space because I claim the rights to the space around my body. Having a right to something also means that you are responsible for using that right peaceably and you are responsible for protecting it. However since we are "giving animals rights" humans have to "protect them" because animals can't protect the rights they are given. If your "giving" a right to someone or something it's no longer a right it's considered a privilege. A privilege is power given to someone or something by a person or government. In other words since animals are "given" privileges by humans they can also be "taken away" at any time. The very idea of giving something their rights also creates the idea that you can "take away" or "sell" rights. Rights that can be sold, in legal terms, is an "inalienable right". An "unalienable right", as it's written in the United states constitution, can't be bought, gifted, taken away, or sold. An unalienable right is a right you are born with or that is inherited from a parent or grandparent. because we have create the idea that "rights have to be given by authority figures" we have created the idea that government must solve all our rights problems. When in reality any rights written down on paper are only reflecting a claim to a god given right in real life. The giving of rights when they are really privileges is an error that many who do not read the constitution have made. Partly because of this important misunderstanding we have allowed government to create so many laws that the United states code cannot be read in it's entirety by anyone. Many chapters in the united states code actually contradict each other in this sense and there are also many laws that are considered unconstitutional as well. Because PETA thinks it is giving animals rights at some point it decided that it could take them away too. In North Carolina there was a case where a woman was euthanizing animals in her PETA van after she had promised to find them a new home. She dumped many of the bodies in a dumpster because she said "she couldn't stand the smell" A whole website and campaign has been made about this scandal that still continues today, called Petakillsanimals.com Virtually 75% of the animals PETA euthanized at their base in Virginia last year could have found homes in their home state. Last edited by Bluetune; 11-03-2009 at 10:43 PM.
|
|
#78
12-17-2009
|
|||
|
|||
|
I'm a vegetarian. I care for just about all life equally. If we categorised how important a life is based on how intelligent it was (i'm reffering to the argument 'animals don't have the intellectual capacity to enjoy life) then we would also theoretically kill mentally disabled people and eat them.
|
|
#80
12-17-2009
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Quote:
*GAAAAAAAAAASP* AND EAT IT!!! *CRUNCH* "Theoretically" I'm having sex with Angelina Jolie, you know. The argument was that "animals don't have the intellectual capacity to enjoy life". I'm not autistic nor do I know an autistic, but I can tell pretty much that most of the time those people can live normally and don't have problems with enjoying their lives. Not even those maniacs with Aspergers that you see on TV shows that always obsess over their special little activities until they do them perfectly. A guy with Asperger, for example, might be so fixated on atoms until he's capable of atomic diffraction with his bare hands. Hey, they enjoy it, don't they? I can tell they enjoy it a lot more than a typical guy's routine of sleep-work-food-wank-sleep. Meanwhile the aforementioned Asperger kid has no problems with this. 'He's just chilling with his atoms, maaaaan.' In that case, he should be eating me; after all, he's contributing to society (he might be useful in some physician's laboratory) and the overall well-being of humanity, while I? I sit here and I write this lengthy post. Meanwhile an animal? Given that apparently in this world every single feeling or thought process you go through is a work of chemistry in your body. Besides, everyone knows there are animals more intelligent than humans, for example, penguins. They're more intelligent than BBC programme planners (and they qualify as humans). And by the way, why would you kill and eat a member of your own species? Animals have the dignity not to do that (well, most of them. Pity for those suckers who die after their first orgasm. ...Or maybe not. That might actually be quite pleasant.), why would we, barring really horrible circumstances, kill and eat someone of our own? (Yeah, I know, SOYLENT GREEN IS PEEEEEEOPLEEEEEEE!!!!) Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I sure remember I tried. He transplanted the skin off my arm to my ass. Even Phoenix Wright couldn't compete with this argument. Quote:
Remember that awesome right from 1939 that was issued in Poland (and certainly other places of German occupation?)? A German family had the right to enter your house, kick you out and live there with your things! God definitely wanted that. He loves us all! Even the Germans! Quote:
Last edited by Aninamar; 12-17-2009 at 06:11 PM.
|
|
#81
12-17-2009
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Yeah yeah, you can make an argument about how apes and monkeys are really smart and you can train them and everything, but primates are far more intelligent than most of the animals we eat anyways. Most cultures that I know of don't even eat primates. The only ones that would are the ones that don't have supermarkets and such available to them and their only source of food and meat are... well, the animals around them. And what, should these people starve themselves or give up their culture for one like ours just because they need to eat something that has /almost/ as much intelligence as they do? Of course not, that's ridiculous. I respect vegetarianism as a way of life for individuals if they do it out of personal preference. I have a few friends who are vegetarians. But I think to claim that animals as a whole are just as smart as mentally retarded humans is... not accurate.
|
|
#83
12-17-2009
|
||||
|
||||
|
Dolphins?
|
|
#85
12-17-2009
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#86
12-17-2009
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#87
12-17-2009
|
||||
|
||||
|
I think a dog would, but most animals would not.
|
|
#88
12-17-2009
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#89
12-17-2009
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
