New CP, new person - same old arguments!
-
Josh Gray wrote:
Do you not keep a dog for your own pleasure?
He is my buddy, he wants to stay with me. He follows me around everywhere and is constantly bugging me. I can't walk 5 feet without him being right behind me. I didn't buy him or anything, he was stolen *cough* rescued from the owners who were abusing him. If it wasn't for the goodness in my heart he wouldn't be here.
Josh Gray wrote:
Yes we are and you yourself advocated using humans for medical experiments in your post above.
Yeah, we have a choice to take it. Testing it on animals that are not human is like testing it on a newborn human baby. Those who are rotting in jail for murder and such make perfect candidates for the involuntary tests. They get what they deserve and are paying their debt to society at the same time.
Word, write letters and sh*t yo.
:-D I could get to like you! (Not sure who'll pay more for that on this forum though - you or me!) Never mind - non illegitme carborundum, and all that...
-
Josh Gray wrote:
Im all for looking after and being kind to animals. I've always had pets and have always loved them and looked after them
...but you are prepared to support their abuse and torture every time you drink milk, eat cheese, or meat, or buy leather clothing, or any household product or cosmetic that has been tested on animals, or a thousand and one other such products on sale today. But you'd hate it if anyone kicked your kitty. Strange.
You are putting words in my mouth because it suits your predetermined view of my opinion. As an example I dont accept that abuse or torture is required to produce milk for drinking. I would argue that the dairy farmers needs those cows to earn an income to feed his family and will therefore treat them well. He will even pay for medical care from a vet when they require it.
Fred_Smith wrote:
But you'd hate it if anyone kicked your kitty
Because its unnessasary and produces no value. Infecting an animal with a sickness in order to gain a better understanding of that illness may produce value. If you cant see that then this discussion will go nowhere. You use a computer to communicate with me. What effect does the co2 produced to power your pc have on animals? How will the plastic in your PC impact animals when it ends up in land fill? What about the bacteria on your hands that are killed when you wash your hands? What about the animals that lost their habitat when a tree was cut down to make the door to the room you're sitting in? What about the worms that were dug up, disturbed and probably killed when your carrots were harvested? I assume you use roads to get about, do you think of the animals that die as road kill in order for you to be able to use those roads? Can yuo see my point here?
-
You are putting words in my mouth because it suits your predetermined view of my opinion. As an example I dont accept that abuse or torture is required to produce milk for drinking. I would argue that the dairy farmers needs those cows to earn an income to feed his family and will therefore treat them well. He will even pay for medical care from a vet when they require it.
Fred_Smith wrote:
But you'd hate it if anyone kicked your kitty
Because its unnessasary and produces no value. Infecting an animal with a sickness in order to gain a better understanding of that illness may produce value. If you cant see that then this discussion will go nowhere. You use a computer to communicate with me. What effect does the co2 produced to power your pc have on animals? How will the plastic in your PC impact animals when it ends up in land fill? What about the bacteria on your hands that are killed when you wash your hands? What about the animals that lost their habitat when a tree was cut down to make the door to the room you're sitting in? What about the worms that were dug up, disturbed and probably killed when your carrots were harvested? I assume you use roads to get about, do you think of the animals that die as road kill in order for you to be able to use those roads? Can yuo see my point here?
Josh Gray wrote:
Can yuo see my point here?
Yes, and fair enough, to a point - it's partly about where you draw the line, and partly about what one, as an idividual, can realistically do and what one can't. I have lived on farms and seen fior myself how cattle, pigs and other animals fare. All I can say is I'm glad I'm not one of them. You are deluding yourself if you think farming animals is all about fluffly little lambs frolicking in green fields on spring days... I have heard cows crying for three days non-stop when their babies are torn away from them at birth; seen them cooped up ankle deep in their own shit all winter... seen sows spend their entire life penned up in birthing crates thaey can't even turn around in - just stand up and lie down while they suckle one batch of piglets to the next.... I don't have to buy into this - I can easily change my habits and still live in the 21st cebtury, still be a part of society. Without becoming a monk on a mountain-top in Tibet, it's impossible to be completely non-hypocritical about it all, but I do what I can (either physdically or psychologically). Just finding the odd thing - such as having bought ccarrots that (probably) killed a few worms in the process - does not invalidate my point, whcih si that we can do better, and ought to. We can try, step by step, to make a better world. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
-
Josh Gray wrote:
Can yuo see my point here?
Yes, and fair enough, to a point - it's partly about where you draw the line, and partly about what one, as an idividual, can realistically do and what one can't. I have lived on farms and seen fior myself how cattle, pigs and other animals fare. All I can say is I'm glad I'm not one of them. You are deluding yourself if you think farming animals is all about fluffly little lambs frolicking in green fields on spring days... I have heard cows crying for three days non-stop when their babies are torn away from them at birth; seen them cooped up ankle deep in their own shit all winter... seen sows spend their entire life penned up in birthing crates thaey can't even turn around in - just stand up and lie down while they suckle one batch of piglets to the next.... I don't have to buy into this - I can easily change my habits and still live in the 21st cebtury, still be a part of society. Without becoming a monk on a mountain-top in Tibet, it's impossible to be completely non-hypocritical about it all, but I do what I can (either physdically or psychologically). Just finding the odd thing - such as having bought ccarrots that (probably) killed a few worms in the process - does not invalidate my point, whcih si that we can do better, and ought to. We can try, step by step, to make a better world. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
Fred_Smith wrote:
Yes, and fair enough, to a point
Exactly, and its up to each of us to determine for ourselves where that point is. You point out that animals suffer to provide me with the food I eat. I point out that animals suffer for you to have the roads you use to move around. Both are equaly valid points. Neither you nor I have the authority to judge which is greater or lesser than the other. The fact that you do so makes you a hipacrate.
-
Exactly. But all the candidates running right now are religious, even Hillary (or so she claims, and not that I would vote for her even if she was an atheist). With 80-90% of the population being religious, do you think a rational thinker would have much of a chance? :)
Most politicians are as religious as they believe the electore requires of them.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ "also I don't think "TranslateOneToTwoBillion OneHundredAndFortySevenMillion FourHundredAndEightyThreeThousand SixHundredAndFortySeven()" is a very good choice for a function name" - SpacixOne ( offering help to someone who really needed it ) ( spaces added for the benefit of people running at < 1280x1024 )
-
Fred_Smith wrote:
Yes, and fair enough, to a point
Exactly, and its up to each of us to determine for ourselves where that point is. You point out that animals suffer to provide me with the food I eat. I point out that animals suffer for you to have the roads you use to move around. Both are equaly valid points. Neither you nor I have the authority to judge which is greater or lesser than the other. The fact that you do so makes you a hipacrate.
I'm not claiming the authority to judge, but I can still argue the toss about the judgement you or others make if I want - and you can argue back.
Josh Gray wrote:
You point out that animals suffer to provide me with the food I eat. I point out that animals suffer for you to have the roads you use to move around
There is a big difference between these two, and that is in what we, as individuals, can and can't do. Short of opting out of society altogether, I cannot help but "support", at least implicitly, the animal suffering that exists in order for roads to exist. If that makes me a hypocrite, it is at least not of my making. I really can't do much about it. But I can (quite easily) stop eating and buying animal products, and buying into the general abuse of animals in society. It really isn't hard to be vegan, not these days.
-
Fred_Smith wrote:
Yes, and fair enough, to a point
Exactly, and its up to each of us to determine for ourselves where that point is. You point out that animals suffer to provide me with the food I eat. I point out that animals suffer for you to have the roads you use to move around. Both are equaly valid points. Neither you nor I have the authority to judge which is greater or lesser than the other. The fact that you do so makes you a hipacrate.
It's been... fun... nice to give the new forum a good workout! But it's 1 a.m. here and I have to get up in the morning... ...no doubt you'll all be glad to get back to arguing about Global Warming then.... :)
-
Demon Possessed wrote:
That is like an insect advocating the use of bug spray.
Yeah....sure it is.
Word, write letters and sh*t yo.
CataclysmicQuantums wrote:
sure it is.
So that's your comeback? :laugh::laugh::laugh:
-
Well go argue with Schmuck all you like - besides, I have no problem with globalisation. Nor - as I said - do I own leather shoes.
I fear you missed the point... never mind...
------------------------------------------- Don't walk in front of me, I may not follow; Don't walk behind me, I may not lead; Just bugger off and leave me alone!!
-
I just refer to you to my original post that started all this....
And in completing the circle, I refer you to my previous post. ;-)
------------------------------------------- Don't walk in front of me, I may not follow; Don't walk behind me, I may not lead; Just bugger off and leave me alone!!
-
Most politicians are as religious as they believe the electore requires of them.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ "also I don't think "TranslateOneToTwoBillion OneHundredAndFortySevenMillion FourHundredAndEightyThreeThousand SixHundredAndFortySeven()" is a very good choice for a function name" - SpacixOne ( offering help to someone who really needed it ) ( spaces added for the benefit of people running at < 1280x1024 )
Yes. It seems that none of them actually stand for anything. They just want to make as many as possible feel good so they will get votes.
-
Exactly. But all the candidates running right now are religious, even Hillary (or so she claims, and not that I would vote for her even if she was an atheist). With 80-90% of the population being religious, do you think a rational thinker would have much of a chance? :)
Demon Possessed wrote:
With 80-90% of the population being religious
So that leaves you in the 10-20% who aren't. Thats a smaller group than people who believe Elvis is alive or those who believe that aliens create crop circles. Maybe you need to give your outlook on life a long hard look. :-D
I'm pretty sure I would not like to live in a world in which I would never be offended. I am absolutely certain I don't want to live in a world in which you would never be offended. Dave
-
CataclysmicQuantums wrote:
sure it is.
So that's your comeback? :laugh::laugh::laugh:
It doesn't require one. It was just plain stupid. You might have well said "I'm fucking stupid". I wont make a comeback to an insult to yourself.
Word, write letters and sh*t yo.
-
It doesn't require one. It was just plain stupid. You might have well said "I'm fucking stupid". I wont make a comeback to an insult to yourself.
Word, write letters and sh*t yo.
CataclysmicQuantums wrote:
You might have well said "I'm fucking stupid". I wont make a comeback to an insult to yourself.
So pointing out that you are a helpless drug addict who is worthless to society and would be deserving of human experimentation if it was implemented (as you were advocating) is an insult to myself? :laugh: You never cease to amaze me with the utter failure you manage to achieve with every post! By the way the picture in your profile is hilarious. You have dweeb written all over your face.
-
CataclysmicQuantums wrote:
You might have well said "I'm fucking stupid". I wont make a comeback to an insult to yourself.
So pointing out that you are a helpless drug addict who is worthless to society and would be deserving of human experimentation if it was implemented (as you were advocating) is an insult to myself? :laugh: You never cease to amaze me with the utter failure you manage to achieve with every post! By the way the picture in your profile is hilarious. You have dweeb written all over your face.
Demon Possessed wrote:
So pointing out that you are a helpless drug addict who is worthless to society and would be deserving of human experimentation if it was implemented (as you were advocating)
I don't speak stupid, speak English.
Demon Possessed wrote:
By the way the picture in your profile is hilarious. You have dweeb written all over your face.
I have seen pictures of you and your family and I will say you look like quite the dweeb. If it wasn't for my glasses, I would look like someone from the military. Not that it matters, I do like my glasses.
Word, write letters and sh*t yo.
-
Demon Possessed wrote:
So pointing out that you are a helpless drug addict who is worthless to society and would be deserving of human experimentation if it was implemented (as you were advocating)
I don't speak stupid, speak English.
Demon Possessed wrote:
By the way the picture in your profile is hilarious. You have dweeb written all over your face.
I have seen pictures of you and your family and I will say you look like quite the dweeb. If it wasn't for my glasses, I would look like someone from the military. Not that it matters, I do like my glasses.
Word, write letters and sh*t yo.
CataclysmicQuantums wrote:
I have seen pictures of you and your family and I will say you look like quite the dweeb.
Yep, there are some out there from a few years ago that look pretty dumb. Maybe tomorrow I will take a pic of myself.
CataclysmicQuantums wrote:
If it wasn't for my glasses, I would look like someone from the military
Haha that's funny. They say positive self-talk is good but in your case it is dishonest. You just look like a high-strung jumpy little nerd, and I bet all your toughness goes away the second you step out of your pathetic fantasy life on the internet.
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
I do care about animal welfare but I'll have no truck with animal rights, there are no such things so arguing the animals corner is a moot point, they don't have one. The issue is one of human morality, responsibility and stewardship.
That is just being pedantic. You do not care about animal welfare - if you did you would be a vegan, plain and simple. Anyone that says they care about animals and isn't vegan is a hypocrite - sorry if that offends you, but if you don't believe me, just open your eyes to what REALLY goes on in farms and factories around the world (including the USA and UK.)
Fred_Smith wrote:
if you did you would be a vegan, plain and simple
Nonsense I'm afraid Fred, if we were all vegans like you then all the sheep and beef cattle and pigs and chickens would be wiped out, permanently, just great for animal welfare that! I don't condone the bad practices of intensive farming and I buy free range and organic, no to say free-trade to the extent that I can afford it. I don't shirk responsibility for what is done in my name and I actively campaign against the CAP and the EU insanity which hold our agriculture in its grip. What I'm not is a hyprocrite, I simply don't believe that there is any connection between animal welfare and not eating or using animal products, other than the obvious negative consequences for them of being economically useless.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Fred_Smith wrote:
if you did you would be a vegan, plain and simple
Nonsense I'm afraid Fred, if we were all vegans like you then all the sheep and beef cattle and pigs and chickens would be wiped out, permanently, just great for animal welfare that! I don't condone the bad practices of intensive farming and I buy free range and organic, no to say free-trade to the extent that I can afford it. I don't shirk responsibility for what is done in my name and I actively campaign against the CAP and the EU insanity which hold our agriculture in its grip. What I'm not is a hyprocrite, I simply don't believe that there is any connection between animal welfare and not eating or using animal products, other than the obvious negative consequences for them of being economically useless.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
if we were all vegans like you then all the sheep and beef cattle and pigs and chickens would be wiped out, permanently
I'm sorry but that argument (heard all the time...) is so specious it makes me speechless (almost!) What you're saying is "We've bred all these animals for us to eat and experiment on before killing, so we might as well carry on because otherwise they'll die out". I mean, come on... most of them are going to die anyway, and most of them sooner rather than later - all you have to do is stop breding them for your selfish needs. But even that's not really the point; this "if everyone did..." argument (whether it be in relation to this or any other debate) is yet another irrelevancy and red-herring put out to move the argument off-track. "Everyone" will never agree on aything - so never mind what everyone else will or will not do - all you have to do in life is what you believe to be right.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
I simply don't believe that there is any connection between animal welfare and not eating or using animal products
Well, that really does make me speechles. Staggering.
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
if we were all vegans like you then all the sheep and beef cattle and pigs and chickens would be wiped out, permanently
I'm sorry but that argument (heard all the time...) is so specious it makes me speechless (almost!) What you're saying is "We've bred all these animals for us to eat and experiment on before killing, so we might as well carry on because otherwise they'll die out". I mean, come on... most of them are going to die anyway, and most of them sooner rather than later - all you have to do is stop breding them for your selfish needs. But even that's not really the point; this "if everyone did..." argument (whether it be in relation to this or any other debate) is yet another irrelevancy and red-herring put out to move the argument off-track. "Everyone" will never agree on aything - so never mind what everyone else will or will not do - all you have to do in life is what you believe to be right.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
I simply don't believe that there is any connection between animal welfare and not eating or using animal products
Well, that really does make me speechles. Staggering.
Fred_Smith wrote:
"We've bred all these animals for us to eat and experiment on before killing, so we might as well carry on because otherwise they'll die out".
No what I'm actually saying is: We've bred all these animals for us to eat and make shoes and glue and clothes and jam and cheese and other good stuff out of so we should look after them and use them efficiently, reduce their suffering wherever possible, kill them quickly and cleanly and be grateful for what we get from our labour and their lives. Clearly our concepts of animal welfare are entirely different. As far as I can see it is best for an animal to live well to a good purpose, well fed and disease free, breed successfully, die at least as quickly and cleanly as it ever naturally would and serve a good purpose by its death. Your vision would leave it a member of an endangered species, not looked after because it has no economic value, to die of disease or decrepit old age or violent predation with no surety of breeding success and its carcass to go to no better purpose than feeding the crows and foxes. If that's your idea of animal welfare then you can keep it and speechless is not a bad place for you to be.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Fred_Smith wrote:
"We've bred all these animals for us to eat and experiment on before killing, so we might as well carry on because otherwise they'll die out".
No what I'm actually saying is: We've bred all these animals for us to eat and make shoes and glue and clothes and jam and cheese and other good stuff out of so we should look after them and use them efficiently, reduce their suffering wherever possible, kill them quickly and cleanly and be grateful for what we get from our labour and their lives. Clearly our concepts of animal welfare are entirely different. As far as I can see it is best for an animal to live well to a good purpose, well fed and disease free, breed successfully, die at least as quickly and cleanly as it ever naturally would and serve a good purpose by its death. Your vision would leave it a member of an endangered species, not looked after because it has no economic value, to die of disease or decrepit old age or violent predation with no surety of breeding success and its carcass to go to no better purpose than feeding the crows and foxes. If that's your idea of animal welfare then you can keep it and speechless is not a bad place for you to be.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
As far as I can see it is best for an animal to
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
live well to a good purpose
...like our selfish desires
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
well fed and disease free
...tell that to force-fed geese, turkeys, chickens etc; tell that to the hundreds of thousands of cattle recently slaughtered here becuase one of them was suspected of having foot-and-mouth. Tell that to the millions of dairy cows suffering from mastiitis every day. There are 1001 diseases farmed animals get all the time. Tell that to sheep fed the ground up dead remioans of their own kind.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
breed successfully
tell that to the *millions* of sows that spend their entire lives in birthing crates where theya re penned in so tight they can only stand up or lie down, and kept on a permament treadmill of pregnancy and suckling. Tell that to turkeys bred so fat they can't breed naturally and have to be wanked off by humans in order to extract semen.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
die at least as quickly and cleanly as it ever naturally would
Go visit an abbatoir. Go visit a halal shop.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
as it ever naturally would
that's a joke, right? :mad: