Slavery and Animals: A dreaded comparison on the mark

[TheNoNamedOne]

Some hate it when the treatment of animals is compared to slavery. You can almost see them spitting out or choking on whatever it was they were eating when the topic is broached. The common objections of indignance (http://www.japanupdate.com/forum/showpost.php?p=13863&postcount=17) is once again offered and that is due to lack of any real argument.

But the comparison of treatment of animals to slavery is not lost on social justice advocate and poet playwrite Benjamin Zephaniah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Zephaniah):

Slavery is not dead. (http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/benjamin_zephaniah/2007/08/the_new_face_of_slavery.html) Though laws ban it, it lives. Though the enlightened condemn it, it survives. Though the compassionate revile it, it thrives. But the face of slavery has changed. The cruelty of beatings, lynchings and burnings continues today just as in the past. Only the victims are different.

Who wouldn't agree that slavery is wrong? But when I say that I am talking about animal slaves who are beaten and forced to perform, crammed inside battery cages to produce cheap food or systematically tortured in laboratories, people waver.

http://www.mindfat.com/pics/Zephaniah2.jpg

[Fonze]

First of theres already to many retarted threads about the same thing.
Second you bring this topic up Yet you need to not compare it as culture of slavery. That is very stupid and retarted.

[TheNoNamedOne]

First off, Fonze, dk has already ruled on the matter that there can be multiple threads on different aspects of a topic. Hell, I think when he brought the point up, he even used the number "100", so, if you have a problem about how many threads there are about animals, take it up with him.

As for comparing the culture of animal exploitation to the culture slavery and all that entails, not only I make the point in bringing it up, but Mr. Benjamin Zehpaniah does, too. He seems to agree with me that the comparison is quite on the mark.

[Fonze]

So then call it human culture not slavery culture.

On dk he seems to be to buddies with you and i believe he's afraid this forum won't survive without you, I don't know why or believe he should. I'm also not saying you should be off this forum, just your title doesn't fit.

Mr ben and you are also in the minority and he agrees with you cause he's confused like you and probably a hypocrite like you. Example ... I'll take cures that were found thru animal testing. Be a real AR not just a mouthpiece of hypocricy.

[Fonze]

Oh ya you probably keep bringing dif threads cause your cause falls on deaf ears and your other threads are dead with the exception of OFF topic threading and talkin shite to you.
Iv'e been reading lot of your threads that you edit and alot of them are edited a long time after first posted. Then you tell other to read your previous threads but how can they know what you first said when it's been edited to hide your hypocricy.

Anyways like i said it's not a certain culture but a human tragedy. Thats human slavery not as that pussy fuk mr ben tries to compare.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Iv'e been reading lot of your threads that you edit and alot of them are edited a long time after first posted. Then you tell other to read your previous threads but how can they know what you first said when it's been edited to hide your hypocricy.
If editing appears to be a problem, it may be a good idea to suggest to the administrator a time limit. Editing time limits are common on other Internet forums and discussion boards. Fifteen minutes or half-an-hour would be a reasonable limit. Other boards offer the one who starts the thread the choice to allow or disallow edits. That could be another option. I'm sure the management would appreciate your suggestions for improvements to this forum. Most want to make it as good a place to come and exchange information as possible.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Back on topic...

Animal Slaves (http://mindprod.com/animalrights/animalslaves.html)

The man who composed Amazing Grace was a slave trader for many years. During those years it never occurred to him that he was doing anything immoral. He was just earning a living. We find it surprising he did not notice how much suffering he was causing. It was only after he retired did it dawn on him the horror of what he had done. Yet today we blindly do that exact same thing, mistreating domestic animals. We tell ourselves that the suffering does not count, because it is not human suffering.
If we treated humans this way (caging, restraining, scalding, drowning and harpooning) we would consider this treatment sadistic and inhumane. Surely animals suffer just as much as humans even if they cannot articulate their complaints. We are as deliberately blind to that suffering as our forefathers were to the suffering they inflicted on slaves. I suppose it is a bit much to expect people to treat domestic animals well when they ignore even the pleas of fellow humans living in other countries. It is a long slow evolution to becoming a compassionate species.

We use the same blather that our forefathers used to justify mistreating slaves. Slaves have no souls, therefore they cannot feel pain, they just appear to feel it. Slaves are not intelligent like us. We are more important than slaves. It is only fitting to sacrifice the welfare of a slave for the well being of a human. Slaves have no rights in the law, so it is preposterous to talk of the rights of slaves. Slaves are chattels. It is nobody's business what you do with your own property.

Some of the same rhetoric used to justify the persecution of native peoples pervades the justification for the torture and exploitation of animals and expropriating their habitats. Heathens don't have souls. They are just savages, not civilised like us. They are inferior in intelligence. The only good Injun is a dead Injun.

It is only a matter of time until we recognise the right of all species to co-exist with man, unmolested.
People put up with these horrible practices because they buy on price alone. Perhaps if such products were labelled with pictures of the suffering used to produce them, people would be more willing to pay a little more for humane food production. Perhaps one could insert pictures inside the egg cartons to wake people up...The marginal costs of humane livestock treatment is easily borne by society. There is no need for the ever increasing sadism that goes on to shave prices.

[dk]

On dk he seems to be to buddies with you and i believe he's afraid this forum won't survive without you, I don't know why or believe he should. I'm also not saying you should be off this forum, just your title doesn't fit.
This really doesn't have anything to do with being buddies, but yes, we are buddies. I consider a few of you my buddies as well. And for the record, I'm positive that anything I set my mind on will succeed with or without TP, you, NBTP, grandma, the easter bunny, etc. Of course, I need participation for things to be successful, but I'm pretty good at getting things going on the net and if it weren't you (or TP, NBTP, the easter bunny, etc) who registered on these forums to talk, someone else would.

I'm really not all that dependant on individuals. Ideas tend to be enough to get the ball rolling with word of mouth advertising and participation.

Now back on topic, I thought slavery was a human thing. Last I checked, farm animals weren't considered slaves. Well, unless your an AR activist. In my opinion, it's pretty rediculous. But hey, I'm not an AR activist!! Wow!

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Now back on topic, I thought slavery was a human thing. Last I checked, farm animals weren't considered slaves. Well, unless your an AR activist. In my opinion, it's pretty rediculous. But hey, I'm not an AR activist!! Wow!
I'm curious - how and where did you check? Have you been to a feedlot, chicken-house, hog farm, slaughterhouse, and research lab? Have you seen the conditions from farm to plate? For each type of meat? The conditions that drug companies keep (or contract others to keep) lab animals in? If you have, and still eat meat without any reservations, that's your prerogative. Now, your point that common convention is that animals are not considered slaves is generally true. But TP has made a case for why common convention may not be the right way to go here. I wonder what, besides accepting common convention, you have done to check on the situation?

[dk]

I'm curious - how and where did you check?
Well here you go then: (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+slavery)

bondage: the state of being under the control of another person
the practice of owning slaves
work done under harsh conditions for little or no pay
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=0&oi=define&q=http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn%3Fs%3Dslavery&usg=AFQjCNEFEa2AOJGmWlcpLDEjDw6u4fdm7g)

Slavery is a condition of control over a person against their will, enforced by violence or other forms of coercion. Slavery almost always occurs for the purpose of securing the labor of the person concerned. A specific form, known as chattel slavery, implies the legal ownership of a person or persons.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=3&oi=define&q=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery&usg=AFQjCNHIOIBIzc1wbMd4U-4WW6EpyXAHDg)

has the meaning given by section 270.1.
scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/1/686/1/PA005910.htm (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=4&oi=define&q=http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/1/686/1/PA005910.htm&usg=AFQjCNH_y71xUB2g7yleSunvDj4ADyIUdw)

Describes when some individuals are owned by others as their property.
www.uwic.ac.uk/shss/dom/newweb/General/Glossary.htm (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=5&oi=define&q=http://www.uwic.ac.uk/shss/dom/newweb/General/Glossary.htm&usg=AFQjCNHQy386P4h8UqdhwFgJcr0GDX_BMA)

The most extreme, coercive, abusive, and inhumane form of legalized inequality; people are treated as property.
highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072500506/student_view0/chapter14/key_terms.html (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=6&oi=define&q=http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072500506/student_view0/chapter14/key_terms.html&usg=AFQjCNEjMQyKkFeFkHwXug3n65adR7u2jQ)

the state of a person who has been purchased by another: bondage
www.geocities.com/43rdpa/cwterms.html (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=7&oi=define&q=http://www.geocities.com/43rdpa/cwterms.html&usg=AFQjCNE_zSDCtQp6N4pB-8m1gAUWSy1A2Q)

Although slavery existed in nearly all the country from the early colonial days until long after independence, it can not be said to have had a political significance until about the time the cotton gin was invented by Whitney and the Northern States, in which slave-labor was unprofitable, freed the negroes. During about thirty years, or the last generation of its existence, it was a bone of political contention. ...
www.people.virginia.edu/~rmf8a/gaskell/poldict.htm (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=8&oi=define&q=http://www.people.virginia.edu/~rmf8a/gaskell/poldict.htm&usg=AFQjCNGbkSAcxqqI2clF5ID-NvJ8YB8DtQ)

The ownership of a person by another individual.
www.mcps.k12.md.us/curriculum/socialstd/FT/Changes_Vocab_Ans.html (http://www.mcps.k12.md.us/curriculum/socialstd/FT/Changes_Vocab_Ans.html)So far I don't see animals mentioned anywhere.

Have you been to a feedlot, chicken-house, hog farm, slaughterhouse, and research lab? Have you seen the conditions from farm to plate? For each type of meat? The conditions that drug companies keep (or contract others to keep) lab animals in? If you have, and still eat meat without any reservations, that's your prerogative.
Nope, I haven't, and to be honest, your statement should be changed to "if you have or haven't and you still eat meat without any reservations, that's your perogative", because it is. There is no "If". Sorry, I have no need. I know how animals die. I know animals die so that I might eat my beef, chicken, king crab, whatever. I, however, do not put animals on the same plane as humans.

Now, your point that common convention is that animals are not considered slaves is generally true. But TP has made a case for why common convention may not be the right way to go here. I wonder what, besides accepting common convention, you have done to check on the situation?
Good for him. I've quoted common convention. That's adequate for a common guy like me.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

You make some good points dk. It is your prerogative to eat meat, period. And the common definition of slavery does not include animals. So far, we are agreed.

IIUC, the OP's points was that factory farming was analogous to slavery. IMO, that's easier to see when you've been to some of these places and had the chance to make some sort of comparison.

[Fonze]

Back on topic...

Animal Slaves (http://mindprod.com/animalrights/animalslaves.html)

"The man who composed Amazing Grace was a slave trader for many years. During those years it never occurred to him that he was doing anything immoral. He was just earning a living. We find it surprising he did not notice how much suffering he was causing. It was only after he retired did it dawn on him the horror of what he had done. Yet today we blindly do that exact same thing, mistreating domestic animals. We tell ourselves that the suffering does not count, because it is not human suffering."

And were on this does it say culture was to blame. This man whatever good he did is probably in hell. Thats bullshit when he says he didn't realize the evils of slavery until he retired. until he retired that means he knew he just couldn't say it cause he neede them.

My whole point is that stupid people compare whale hunters with slave owners. whale hunters thats culture, slave owners are worse and if you don't believe that then thats your perogative!

[dk]

You make some good points dk. It is your prerogative to eat meat, period. And the common definition of slavery does not include animals. So far, we are agreed.

IIUC, the OP's points was that factory farming was analogous to slavery. IMO, that's easier to see when you've been to some of these places and had the chance to make some sort of comparison.
My relatives own farms. Does that count?

My point is that to be a slave, at least by the current definition, you would have to be human, and at the moment, according to the current definition, cattle is not human. I see the comparrison. It's obvious, but they are not human.

[dk]

And were on this does it say culture was to blame. This man whatever good he did is probably in hell. Thats bullshit when he says he didn't realize the evils of slavery until he retired. until he retired that means he knew he just couldn't say it cause he neede them.
Yeah, I agree. Smells like BS to me as well. It reminds me of a person who says they feel bad about something after they've been caught. They don't feel bad about the act. They feel bad that they got caught!

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

My relatives own farms. Does that count?

Mine too. Depends on what kind of farm. Grain? Ranching? Mixed? Feedlot? Pork producer? Layers & broilers? Farm is rather broad; I tried to be a little more specific in my earlier post.

Many cattle farms and ranches aren't too bad. It's when the animals get to the feedlot (in the case of beef) that things get ugly. Hog farms are worse as manure is often stored under the pens, making air quality atrocious. Chicken houses can have up to 100,000 birds in a single building. Cages so small they cannot even turn around. Light/dark cycles removed to encourage constant feeding. No quality of life whatsoever. Death row cons get better treatment.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Yeah, I agree. Smells like BS to me as well. It reminds me of a person who says they feel bad about something after they've been caught. They don't feel bad about the act. They feel bad that they got caught!
You both missed the point. The guy reflected, and in hindsight realized he may have caused suffering. He wasn't caught doing anything, as he held slaves openly. Your point falls flat on it's face.

[DougP]

I think Carl Cohen put it best. "The holders of rights must have the capacity to comprehend rules of duty governing all, including themselves. In applying such rules, the holders of rights must recognize possible conflicts between what is in their own interest and what is just. Only in a community of beings capable of self-restricting moral judgments can the concept of a right be correctly invoked."

And for those that like to say. "But what about the brain damaged child?"

Cohen states that the test for moral judgment "is not a test to be administered to humans one by one."[30] This is also known as the Argument from Species Normality.

[DougP]

You both missed the point. The guy reflected, and in hindsight realized he may have caused suffering. He wasn't caught doing anything, as he held slaves openly. Your point falls flat on it's face.

Still someone saying that as the tide of public view seems to be changing is a last ditch effort to make themselves look better. Like if Hitler had escaped somewhere and later wrote a book called "I'm Sorry"

[dk]

You both missed the point. The guy reflected, and in hindsight realized he may have caused suffering. He wasn't caught doing anything, as he held slaves openly. Your point falls flat on it's face.
No, the point is he conveniently admitted it was wrong after the fact. He's long gone now, so neither of us will know the whole truth of the situation, but it's easy to admit something in your past was wrong when 1) your're busted or 2) culture goes through a shift and what was once accepted becomes frowned upon or worse.

[dk]

Still someone saying that as the tide of public view seems to be changing is a last ditch effort to make themselves look better. Like if Hitler had escaped somewhere and later wrote a book called "I'm Sorry"
Hey look! He gets it! :first:

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Nathan Nobis (http://www.morehouse.edu/facstaff/nnobis/papers/Journal-of-Applied-Phil-Cohen.pdf) wrote a nice rebuttal of Cohen's arguments.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Fonze said "And were (sic) on this does it say culture was to blame...", dk agrees. Now dk says "...it's easy to admit something in your past was wrong when...culture goes through a shift and what was once accepted becomes frowned upon or worse.
What side of the fence you guys on:rolleyes:

[dk]

I'm sitting on the side of the fence that still agrees that there's nothing wrong with eating meat or using animals.

As of now, culture hasn't gone through a shift. We merely have a small percentage of the human population that would rather give up our spot on the food chain. They're free to jump onto another ladder. I won't stop em, but I'm not coming over with you.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

I'm sitting on the side of the fence that still agrees that there's nothing wrong with eating meat or using animals.

As of now, culture hasn't gone through a shift. We merely have a small percentage of the human population that would rather give up our spot on the food chain. They're free to jump onto another ladder. I won't stop em, but I'm not coming over with you.
Over where? I'm not vegetarian, as I explained in another thread. I'm playing devil's advocate, and rather successfully, it appears.:D I find TP's arguments more logical and compelling than any alternative anyone else has proposed. I have been to the farms, feedlots, abattoirs, research labs, and am fully aware of the situation the animals are in from birth to death. I enjoy a really juicy steak slathered in red dye (http://www.reallynatural.com/archives/general-news/dont_be_fooled_into_buying_red.php) as much as the next guy.

[DougP]

Nathan Nobis (http://www.morehouse.edu/facstaff/nnobis/papers/Journal-of-Applied-Phil-Cohen.pdf) wrote a nice rebuttal of Cohen's arguments.

He did a bit of twisting Cohens words around particularly on the subject that I mentioned before. Many times he spent dwelling on the semantics of a word(kind) in Cohens argument. I admire the fact that he took so much time to dissect Cohens argument word by word. Playing the "What does this really mean and how can we turn it against him" game. I would have to agree that rights can only be assigned to beings who are able to understand them and to reciprocate by observing their own obligations to other beings.

He pointed out the difference between humans as a whole and animals as a whole. and to why they they cannot be granted the same rights as humans.

Nobis used the same old crutch of bringing up isolated incidence "the brain dead" Perhaps we should offer animal rights on a case by case basis as well.
Also the same old argument "he cannot show that animals do not have rights" Well in that case can anyone prove that animals do have rights? Its one of those arguments that can go back and forth for ever.

After he started asking what kind of animal are you and saying "kinds depend on what's normal" it was obvious whos side he was on and that I was reading subjective material.
(again with that word.. )

Cohen might have been biased as well but his writings didn't appear that way

[dk]

I find TP's arguments more logical and compelling than any alternative anyone else has proposed. I have been to the farms, feedlots, abattoirs, research labs, and am fully aware of the situation the animals are in from birth to death. I enjoy a really juicy steak slathered in red dye (http://www.reallynatural.com/archives/general-news/dont_be_fooled_into_buying_red.php) as much as the next guy.
What arguements? That animals are slaves?

There's really no reason for me to keep going back and forth on this, but here, one last time. By modern definition, slavery is the ownership of one person by another person. Where, in that definition, do you see animals being equated to humans? So, if slavery is one PERSON having ownership over another PERSON and ANIMALS are not PEOPLE then....

The logic is simple...


if(is_person==true){
slave_status_availability = true
} else {
slave_status_availability = false
}


If an cow is not a person, slave status availability is false. It does not exist.
The above works based on the current definition of slavery, and I'm sure you'll most likely be able to pull an alternative definition on an AR site if you look hard enough, but it won't be the common definition. It'll be words twisted to fit the AR agenda.

At least that's how it makes sense to me. It seems very simple.

This is TODAY'S standard. I'm sure eventually there will be space for robots and possibly animals in the mix, but those days are not here yet and I have a feeling animals will never make it onto that list.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

I must admit I don't understand people's disdain of animals. If someone invades your home in the USA, you have the right to defend yourself and your family, in many area with deadly force. If you go hiking in the woods and are attacked by a mother bear that feels you are a threat to her cubs, hunters go in to kill the animals.

To the Cohen issue, it's not only isolated issue of brain dead and mentally handicapped being extended rights. It's infants, alzheimer's and senile dementia patients, even criminally insane people are extended rights and moral contracts made.

I have seen no proof or evidence that animals do not have some rights. For me, the issue is one of humans having stewardship and responsibility. The Plains Indians used bison as a source of food and materials. But they respected the animals (regardless of other problems or faults the First Nations people may have had). European settlers came and wiped out the bison in a few decades with sport hunting and complete lack of respect. That same mentality applies to the situation today. Respect for life or not. Even the Dalai Lama has eaten meat for centuries. The environment of Tibet made a vegetarian lifestyle a practical impossibility. But that meat did not come from some sort of factory farm. There was understanding and respect for the sacrifice the animals were forced to make. It was not done lightly. The prayers over meals of some cultures recognize the sacrifice on the part of animals. So many people who cry foul when the Chinese eat cats and Koreans eat dogs never think twice about where the veal cutlet came from, how foie gras is made, or just why bird flu speads so quickly through farms.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

What arguements? That animals are slaves?

There's really no reason for me to keep going back and forth on this, but here, one last time. By modern definition, slavery is the ownership of one person by another person. Where, in that definition, do you see animals being equated to humans? So, if slavery is one PERSON having ownership over another PERSON and ANIMALS are not PEOPLE then....

The logic is simple...


if(is_person==true){
slave_status_availability = true
} else {
slave_status_availability = false
}


If an cow is not a person, slave status availability is false. It does not exist.
The above works based on the current definition of slavery, and I'm sure you'll most likely be able to pull an alternative definition on an AR site if you look hard enough, but it won't be the common definition. It'll be words twisted to fit the AR agenda.

At least that's how it makes sense to me. It seems very simple.
OK, one last time for me too. No-one said by the dictionary definition farm animals are slaves. They said farm animals receive treatment no better than, and often worse than, slaves do/did. These animals are subjected to abuses and lack of respect that mirrors what slaves and oppressed peoples have historically been through. This should give us pause for thought. It really is very simple.

[dk]

The topic is animals and slavery. Not animals and respect. I probably have as much if not more respect for nature than most people, but I will not have AR loonies (not you TP, I don't mind you :p) telling me what I can and can not eat blah blah blah.

I don't mind people arguing their views. That's fine. I'll argue mine as well. But the fact that I eat meat and I get on edge when people try to cry foul or in this case (if I'm understanding how you're turning this arguement on me) you're stating that I/we have a lack of respect... well, that's just BS.

I just don't get teary eyed. As I've stated previously numerous times, I know where my food comes from. I'm sure those cows don't like the cards they've been dealt. But I refuse to feel bad about the way I have accepted and chosen to live just because vegans around the world tell me to. Screw that.

Now, the topic is not food. The topic is not vegetarianism. The topic is Animal Slavery. There are plenty of other threads we can jump into to discuss other aspects of cruelty involved in my carnivorous diet, but this topic is about slavery.

[dk]

OK, one last time for me too. No-one said by the dictionary definition farm animals are slaves. They said farm animals receive treatment no better than, and often worse than, slaves do/did. These animals are subjected to abuses and lack of respect that mirrors what slaves and oppressed peoples have historically been through. This should give us pause for thought. It really is very simple.
Ok. Farm animals are treated no better than slaves.

*Pause*

So what. They're farm animals. They pull plows and make milk. It's what they do. What should we do? Free them all? Let them all go? Hey! Aw hell! Let's do it!

Ok, so... we can make a comparrison between animals and slaves. Now what? Feel bad?

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Pulling plows doesn't bother me too much. As long as the animal is given adequate rest, food, water & shelter. It is often a mutually beneficial arrangement for both people and animals. Milk, also - no problem. Assuming no hormones given to double and triple milk production, and keep the animals producing 24/7/365. I even accept beef cattle raised on pasture and not feedlots, and slaughtered humanely in local abattoirs for individual family or local consumption. Factory farms do make me feel bad. Price over principle can never be good.

[P_chan]

I don't really want to touch this one with a 10 foot pole. Seems like one big headache to me. Humans > Animals, thus we exploit them for our well being and pleasure. Simply as that. They're not humans and don't deserve the same rights as humans. Show me the grizzle bear who shows compassion for someone who happened to stumble upon her and her cubs on accident, then maybe I'll consider it. The only right animals have is the right to be tasty and the right for me to eat them.

But dk has pretty much said how I feel, so I'll leave it at that.

Some great posts by the way dk!

Why is it that AR nut jobs want to project very human things, such as slavery, to something very non-human?

[DougP]

To the Cohen issue, it's not only isolated issue of brain dead and mentally handicapped being extended rights. It's infants, alzheimer's and senile dementia patients, even criminally insane people are extended rights and moral contracts made.

Its simple humans for the most part can understand their rights and reciprocate by observing their own obligations to other human beings.
Animals cannot, at all.

Pointing out things like infancy is erelevent. Why? because for the most part when a baby human matures in can do as Cohen said. A cow(all cows) for instance will never be able to.

Braindead issue. Not all human are braindead and unable to be cognant enough of their rights and so on. How many animals are. In general the statement calls to mind the difference between humans and animals. And even though some, very few humans have the capacity to comprehend rules of duty governing all makes no real basis for the above argument because animals as a whole do not have the capacity to comprehend rules of duty governing all


I have seen no proof or evidence that animals do not have some rights.


I see no proof that animals do:D

[dk]

Pulling plows doesn't bother me too much. As long as the animal is given adequate rest, food, water & shelter. It is often a mutually beneficial arrangement for both people and animals. Milk, also - no problem. Assuming no hormones given to double and triple milk production, and keep the animals producing 24/7/365. I even accept beef cattle raised on pasture and not feedlots, and slaughtered humanely in local abattoirs for individual family or local consumption. Factory farms do make me feel bad. Price over principle can never be good.
Ok, I can agree with most of that.

I do believe that animals shouldn't be downright abused. I do believe they deserve at least a certain amount of humanity. I do believe we should respect all that mother nature has given us and to do our best to not be wreckless.

However, AR's have their own views, and I'm pretty sure TP will disagree with a lot of you've said in that last post, and that's my big beef. He's already stated "cow milk is for baby cows" and "animals do not belong in captivity" (when he himself owns dogs and offers an--in my opinion--weak justification), yada yada yada. This is what I disagree with. Cow milk is good. Meat is good. And man and animal can work together.

[dk]

Here's a question, and it's a genuine question as I sincerely do not know the answer and have not done any research regarding any of this.

You stated the following:

Milk, also - no problem. Assuming no hormones given to double and triple milk production, and keep the animals producing 24/7/365
Would we as humans be any worse off if these animals were not given hormones to triple their production? Would more people starve? Would we just force-feed them soy milk if it became a problem? Is this productivity keeping us out of the red? Or is this literally all greed? And if so, how?

[socalheart]

I don't consider animal labor the same as human labor. I do believe that labor animals should be treated well to do the job required of it. I do agree that there are animals used for labor who have feelings and such that are similar to humans. I don't consider animals the same as humans. (for example) If I need to use a horse or ox to pull a plow, in order to grow crops to feed my family or make a living to do so, I will have the animal do the work. To me, there's a reason humans are (usually) smarter than animals, and animals are often bigger and stronger than humans.

A slave (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/slave) by some definitions is considered a human being, except in a few instances unrelated to animals (not counting the ant).

[DougP]

Hmm then if animals are slaves then maybe they can be slaves of one another. Maybe we sould fight to free ants and bees from their queen-devil-slave masters :)

[dk]

Operation Beehive Liberation!

[DougP]

Yup you know the US is going to jump on it first even without the overall UN approval :D

But what if the Bees don't want to be free:)

[dk]

Invade em anyway! Take their honey and women!

Let's let this get back on topic lmao.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Here's a question, and it's a genuine question as I sincerely do not know the answer and have not done any research regarding any of this.

Would we as humans be any worse off if these animals were not given hormones to triple their production? Would more people starve? Would we just force-feed them soy milk if it became a problem? Is this productivity keeping us out of the red? Or is this literally all greed? And if so, how?
Total greed. The milk industry wants money just the same as Enron, Exxon, and all the rest.

Humans would not be worse off. There are plenty of calcium sources in foods other than dairy. Much of the dairy calcium is an additive used as a sales feature.

The French stand out as a nation that really takes natural food seriously. AFAIK, use of hormones for bulking up beef cattle and swelling udders is not done much, if at all. I don't believe they have any more problem with hunger than Americans. Probably other good examples out there somewhere.

[Fonze]

.
What side of the fence you guys on:rolleyes:

I'm on the side that says this guy new it was wrong ,but he needed them. If people want to be stupid and accept his exuse go ahead but thats still not cultutre to blame.

On the whole animal cruelty, I am not for abuse of animals, but in an AR point of view anything you do to them is animal cruelty even looking at them crooked. Thay can live without meat fine, let me live with it. Don't tell me i'm wrong and try to change my world.

All AR are hypocrites unless they live completely without inventions or cures found thru animals.ALL.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Now, your point[address to dk] that common convention is that animals are not considered slaves is generally true. But TP has made a case for why common convention may not be the right way to go here.

I think, like you said, eelecurb, that we all know animals are not literal slaves, for slaves and the term slavery as it is used in the literal sense in the English language is used in reference to humans. The use of the word slavery with animal treatment is a figurative one based on comparisons of how they are treated, exploited, and the systems that underpin those.

The comparisons are quite observable, and in fact slaves themselves have used the animals and the treatment of them themselves to describe how they have/had been treated.

There is a reason why it is a dreaded comparison. Being uncomfortable or offended about it does not diminish it, though. Unless one can explain why chains and whips in order to force work out of the target have been used on both animals and man.

[TheNoNamedOne]

I see the comparrison. It's obvious, but they are not human.

Ok, at least we can all agree on this.

The next question is whether or not those things that make the comparison observable should be discontinued or phased out or not because of the suffering they cause. ARists say "yes," non Arists say "no.'

Regardless, this question is continuously being addressed through the courts and legislatures. Indeed, the answer to the question based on subtle changes and trends is a "yes," and the slow evolution of animal welfare and animal rights standards being created is testement to that.

Yes, it is slow, and I think dk somewhere in a previous post in this thread, stated that due to the speed of this evolution, that his diet of flesh would not be considerably affected by it.

I agree with his assessment here. I wouldn't be too sure about his grandchildren' situation, though. Like the abolitionist movement to end human slavery, the abolitionist movement for animals, too, is slow.

Uprooting the status quo has NEVER been easy, but future generations are always grateful to past generations for having laid the foundations from which they can continue from.

[TheNoNamedOne]

by dk: It reminds me of a person who says they feel bad about something after they've been caught. They don't feel bad about the act. They feel bad that they got caught!

You both missed the point. The guy reflected, and in hindsight realized he may have caused suffering. He wasn't caught doing anything, as he held slaves openly. Your point falls flat on it's face.

I have to agree with this point by eelecurb. Though perhaps he could have been said to be caught in a different way -- caught by his concience. That I can agree with, and both either by authorities or our conciences can hold us accountable for our actions to some degree. Sometimes the concience can be a raging hell. But many are adept at quelling it.

In the end, we can never really know with 100% certainty about this person who penned Amazing Grace and how he felt -- true remorse, or convenient thought on the matter. ??? Either way, though, interesting.

[dk]

The next question is whether or not those things that make the comparison observable should be discontinued or phased out or not because of the suffering they cause. ARists say "yes," non Arists say "no.'
I'm sure there will eventually be a compromise, and if there is a way for animals to keep doing what they're doing in a less painful way, it will be adopted.

Regardless, this question is continuously being addressed through the courts and legislatures. Indeed, the answer to the question based on subtle changes and trends is a "yes," and the slow evolution of animal welfare and animal rights standards being created is testement to that.
Continuously as in every day? As in how often? The question? Of whether animals are slaves? Of whether animals are being treated the same or worse than slaves? I think the ideal question should be whether or not animals could be treated any better yet still meet the demands of the people. That is the compromise.

I really doubt the ARs will EVER change the diet of the US to the point where meat will be outlawed. Ever. Not in my generation, and not in my grand children's time either. Changes in Animal treatment I can see happening, aside from a small minority, man will most likely continue to flip ARs the bird and keep on eating meat.

[DougP]

I posted a topic not too long ago about this "slow evolution" taking a couple steps back due to economical reasons and human nature. I seriously doubt this movement will be 100% successful by their standards. There are way to many factors involved when it comes to forcing world wide rules and regulations.

[dk]

by dk: It reminds me of a person who says they feel bad about something after they've been caught. They don't feel bad about the act. They feel bad that they got caught!


I have to agree with this point by eelecurb. Though perhaps he could have been said to be caught in a different way -- caught by his concience. That I can agree with, and both either by authorities or our conciences can hold us accountable for our actions to some degree. Sometimes the concience can be a raging hell. But many are adept at quelling it.

In the end, we can never really know with 100% certainty about this person who penned Amazing Grace and how he felt -- true remorse, or convenient thought on the matter. ??? Either way, though, interesting.
Ok, I'll bite. How do you know he wasn't caught openly? I'm sure nobody had to come out and say "You had slaves" or "You sold slaves". Everyone in the area knew it! It's not like you hid that sort of thing!

DougP got the point. I don't see why it continues to elude you two but hey, whatever.

[Fonze]

TP and eelecurb you still can't make a valid point that it was culture and not inhumane humans.

[TheNoNamedOne]

I'm sure there will eventually be a compromise, and if there is a way for animals to keep doing what they're doing in a less painful way, it will be adopted.

I am tempted to agree here, only I don't/can't because if a compromise means an end to improvement on won standards, to create a stagnant situation, then I don't see that as possible. Indeed, things never become stagnant. The ebb and flow have always continued in struggles to alleviate suffering. And, they have always had set backs with their gains -- just as even human slavery is still with us and not condemned by all people, despite laws world wide outlawing it.

The best AR and HR can hope for with man and our desire to exploit the weak is that always we will have two steps forward and one step back.

dk, do you think there will be a point where courts and legislatures will just say, "ok, that is enough. No more improvement for animals. No more abolishing practices that support those exploitations"?

In a legal environment such as ours, I think that is impossible. What do you think is going to happen when today's 60 year old judges begin to retire and those in law who support AR start moving into those positions little by little and cases are brought before them?

Often, changes occurr, and continue to occurr one judge funeral at a time.

I think the ideal question should be whether or not animals could be treated any better yet still meet the demands of the people. That is the compromise.

I think that is a good point. But I think that compromise will never be fixed. It will be on a slide scale. A combination of things will come together to create a society that no longer exploits animals as slaves (figuratively speaking). Those things will be:


Change in perception of animals and our relation to them
Phylosophy
Law
Science
Economics
Environment


I really doubt the ARs will EVER change the diet of the US to the point where meat will be outlawed. Ever. Not in my generation, and not in my grand children's time either. Changes in Animal treatment I can see happening, aside from a small minority, man will most likely continue to flip ARs the bird and keep on eating meat.

And that ties in quite well with the main topic of this thread, because I can say the same thing was viewed by slave holders in the 16th century. Slaves had been a part of world culture for for for, well... since anyone could remember and it was considered just plain natural. They (except for the very small minority wanting to get rid of it) ridiculed even the thought or suggestion that it would one day ever disappear from a legal right to engage in. Ever.

dk, you are committing the same thought processes here.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Ok, I'll bite. How do you know he wasn't caught openly?

I sure don't know. If that information is not provided, then there is no reason for me to consider it equally with what information was provided.

I'm sure nobody had to come out and say "You had slaves" or "You sold slaves". Everyone in the area knew it! It's not like you hid that sort of thing!

Exactly, I think that is exactly what Eelecurb was saying. I haven't seen anything that said his neighbors around him condemned him for it. Have you? Perhaps I missed it if it was posted somewhere. If so, then sorry on that point.

[Fonze]

They (except for the very small minority wanting to get rid of it) ridiculed even the thought or suggestion that it would one day ever disappear from a legal right to engage in. Ever.

.

Also only a minority of people owned slaves and that was the rich and powerful so any dissent fell on deaf ears. I'm sure more people were against it just not with the power to do away with it.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Also only a minority of people owned slaves and that was the rich and powerful so any dissent fell on deaf ears.

Whoa! Sounds like you are talking about the difficulties and challenges of changing the status quo. We understand the path of difficulty in changing the status quo, and you are right, it can be controlled either by the few rich elite, or a well established middle class of the majority. Both have their unique difficulties to overcome.

I'm sure more people were against it just not with the power to do away with it.

Well, that is a pretty bold statement that seems to be at odds with history. Perhaps you can show us a statement or statements in the past on this positive point that support that claim. Surely some literate persons have written in their writings through the ages commenting on his or her observation that the majority of the people are against slavery but are powerless to stop it. I don't think you will find any considerable proof as such.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

TP and eelecurb you still can't make a valid point that it was culture and not inhumane humans.
You mean like Thomas Jefferson?:rolleyes:

[socalheart]

Some have mentioned a culture of slavery versus inhumanity. Suppose that humanity breeds culture. In that, the inhumanity of slavery condones it to the extent of allowing it to imbed itself in a culture. When something like slavery becomes a way of life for a large population, it then becomes acceptable by those that govern the population. It remains the task of the individual citizen to insure that slavery is practised humanely and remains consistent with acceptable ethical principles of human nature. In the same manner, it is the duty of the population to ensure the safety and well-being of those laboring in slavery. Therein rests the loophole. When two separate thoughts on slavery form in large groups of the population, the same happens within the governing bodies of the population. It is there that the culture of slavery can be changed, in spite of the inhumanity of humans to promote slavery.

Even in regards to work animals*, slavery is possibly an applicable adjective in many cultures in describing treatment of work animals. On numerous occassions, opposing sides agree that animals are not humans. This does not negate that humans are the caretakers of those work animals in their custody. In being the caretakers, are responsible for the safety and well-being of the animals. Common sense suggests that such is obvious to maintain a productive relationship between animal and human, and thus continue a successful business. There are people who do not agree. They are a large enough population that it has become culturally acceptable to mistreat work animals in some countries. Again it is the responsibility of people to address the governing body about creating laws and regulations which enforce proper care of those animals. Humans are considered the caretakers of the land, sea and air, which includes all that dwells therein.

*Work animals include, but are not limited to animals used in agriculture, entertainment and sports.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

...It remains the task of the individual citizen to insure that slavery is practised humanely and remains consistent with acceptable ethical principles of human nature. In the same manner, it is the duty of the population to ensure the safety and well-being of those laboring in slavery...
You're caught in an oxymoron there.

[socalheart]

You're caught in an oxymoron there.

How so? Please elaborate. I'll see if I can qualify the statement further.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Forced to perform for profit first entails denying another of their freedom. Chains have been used exactly the same way for both humans and animals. They are very effective in subduing and breaking the spirit of both. They are also good at keeping an investment from running away. The comparison is an easy one.

http://www.tolerance.org/images/dynamic_assets/images_150w/peta_150x150.jpg

[DougP]

Forced to perform for profit first entails denying another of their freedom. Chains have been used exactly the same way for both humans and animals. They are very effective in subduing and breaking the spirit of both. They are also good at keeping an investment from running away. The comparison is an easy one.

http://www.tolerance.org/images/dynamic_assets/images_150w/peta_150x150.jpg

The slave on the right looks like he/she might want to get their foot checked out by a doctor :D

[TheNoNamedOne]

lol. Yeah, and the slave on the left might not want to be as stupid as the one on the right so as to not get caught and put in chains like him/her.

Hey, if humor is gonna be employed, I am all for equal opportunity.

But it is true that zoo and circus elephants often do have severe foot ailments as a result of spending large amounts of time pegged in place and on hard surfaces.

Furthermore, when chained in place a being is forced to wallow in their own feces. Chained slaves endured that on their passage over from Africa as well as do veal calves, gestating sows (if their floor isn't slatted), circus animals being shipped by train across countries etc...

[DougP]

I'll be honest as much as I like to argue against the "Total" liberation of animals I am quite disheartened when I see animals in poor conditions in zoos. Take the okinawa city zoo for example. Sad sad sad right there.

But I'm still sticking to my guns that I should be allowed to stay the omnivore that I am and eat meat. Hell if they do away with farms I'd just go out and hunt for my steaks. :)

[TheNoNamedOne]

I'll be honest as much as I like to argue against the "Total" liberation of animals I am quite disheartened when I see animals in poor conditions in zoos. Take the okinawa city zoo for example. Sad sad sad right there.

Ok, then there is room for us to agree on. But geuss what? When you do agree that some forms are not acceptable and do not support those forms, ARists are stronger for that. That allows ARists to weaken those institutions. Animal Protection orgs are quite deft at divide and conquer. We wouldn't turn you away from a campaign against, for example Saving Dolphins or against foi gra, just because you didn't buy into the whole animal liberation thing or were not a vegetarian. We'd accept you signature on a petition or your willingness to not support such horrendous places by not visiting them, say thank you for your support on that and that would be it.

But, at the same time, those animal exploitation industries are weakened by not having a united populace that accepts that they have the right to do whatever they want with them because of the power of control they are able to exercise over them.

But I'm still sticking to my guns that I should be allowed to stay the omnivore that I am and eat meat. Hell if they do away with farms I'd just go out and hunt for my steaks. :)

lol. Well, I have already told you that all that is far off in the future, at least 100~200 years (hopefully not longer). I am sure there were some southerners a few hundred years ago who when first heard the concept of abolition of slavery muttered something like this:

But I'm sticking to my guns that I should be allowed to stay the slaveowner that I am and keep slaves. Hell, if they do away with slaveowning, I'd just downsize and keep a lower profile deeper into the countryside and still keep my slaves -- or at least one or two or three. Just enough for me to control and keep having lemonade made for me while I sit in the rocker on the wrap around screened porch. After all, slaveowning is a right. Been with us forever. Even in the Bible with God regulating it and not doing away with it. It is natural. The might of strong always rule over the weak and that is what makes it right.

Sounds like hard headed status quo guy to me who can't imagine that the future is not too far off --even if that does mean one or two hundred years.

Refusing to acknowledge one's own life and lifestyle on a traditional point won't change is one thing, but refusing to acknowledge that there is a high probability that it will do so on those points a generation or two after one's death is just being stubborn.

[DougP]

Which one do you think is more natural for humans? Eating meat or being/owning slaves? Which one is more linked to morality than instinct?

If I, along with others, want to continue to eat meat does that really put us in the same category as those who want to own or who have owned slaves?
Are the two one in the same?

[TheNoNamedOne]

Which one do you think is more natural for humans? Eating meat or being/owning slaves? Which one is more linked to morality than instinct?

What is base natural and seemingly a part of human instinct is the strong imposing their will and might upon the weak -- be that human or animal. And the only thing that keeps man from returning to and engaging in whole sale slavery are laws put in place to curb his natural inclination to exploit others work and pervert their integrity of body and will.

Because of that, your question does not go deep enough. It focuses only on two branches of the tree, and not the trunk or roots. Which is more natural for man, to crap outside or in a camode in your bathroom? The deeper answer is that it is just natural to crap.

If I, along with others, want to continue to eat meat does that really put us in the same category as those who want to own or who have owned slaves?
Are the two one in the same?

The phylosophical base of the two are the same in that exploitation of others for profit that causes suffering and violation of integrity of body and will is wrong.

Are things mitigated by the target victim? Yes, but only if from a non anthropocentric view one is also willing to mitigate things within species, for the species barrier is an arbitrary choice based on preference for one's group (i.e. discrimination or prejudice) on where to draw the line.

If John owns a back woods farm and lures a healthy 23 year old lady who has a very fullfilling life (she is married, has 2 children, a scientist etc...) to it, and then enslaves her IS that worse than luring a homeless mentally hadicapped person who has no fullfilling life to his farm and enslaves him instead?

The important thread that links and runs through a chicken's, a cow's, a dolphin's, a chimpanzee's, a homeless retarded person, a well to do and well off family person is that they are ALL SUBJECTS OF A LIFE. The difference is that each subject of life has varying value to the observer. But, to each person their subject of life is just as important to the observer who is making the judgement call on how he can utilize them for himself.

So, are you willing to say John is worse for doing what he does to the lady mother than to the retarded homeless person? Does choosing one to make his slave make him a better person?

This is exactly why moral relativism is a nasty thing to hold on to. It can and does, and has lead to the worst abuses in history that have caused suffering. Exploiting animals is the last remnant of that which is still sanctioned. Keeping it around reminds me of scientists who argue for keeping around strains of small pox in labs so that they can study it. But, we all know that if we do not take the opportunity to wipe it out when we can, justifying keeping it, it can and often does keep rearing its ugly head.

[DougP]

Does the Phrase ALL SUBJECTS OF A LIFE include jelly fish, plants and microbial organisms? The reason why I ask is where do we draw the line? Where can we say it is immoral to exploit or kill one living organism and its ok to do the same to the other? This seems to be the question AR activists are asking. How far down are "we" allowed to dissect this to support our argument as to what has the right to live and what doesn't.

What is base natural and seemingly a part of human instinct is the strong imposing their will and might upon the weak -- be that human or animal. And the only thing that keeps man from returning to and engaging in whole sale slavery are laws put in place to curb his natural inclination to exploit others work and pervert their integrity of body and will.

In this one you still didn't answer my question: Which one do you think is more natural for humans? I don't find that it needs to go any deeper because it is a simple question that asks a simple answer.

Are humans omnivores or are they strictly herbivores? What allows one species to have the right to be both and another not to? If bears can be omnivores why can't humans? I'm asking this because if animals are able to have the same rights as humans shouldn't we be allowed to have the same rights as them?

All I'm asking is do we really have answers to these questions? Answers that really get to the point and don't offer up examples or use stories like John owns a back woods farm and lures a healthy 23 year old lady who has a very fullfilling life (she is married, has 2 children, a scientist etc...) to it, and then enslaves her IS that worse than luring a homeless mentally hadicapped person who has no fullfilling life to his farm and enslaves him instead?

AR supporters are so quick to jump on their opposition when they "feel" that the other side is not offering up a reall argument with facts. Well when I ask questions and get answers like what you gave me I feel as though I'm getting much of the same. Smoke and mirrors.

Its hard for me to take the Ultra AR supporters seriously when they don't seem to take their opposition seriously.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Does the Phrase ALL SUBJECTS OF A LIFE include jelly fish, plants and microbial organisms? The reason why I ask is where do we draw the line? Where can we say it is immoral to exploit or kill one living organism and its ok to do the same to the other? This seems to be the question AR activists are asking. How far down are "we" allowed to dissect this to support our argument as to what has the right to live and what doesn't.

As for jellyfish, a lot of ARists give them the benefit of the doubt, but you won't see most of them expending recourses there when other animals where there is no doubt as to being a Subject Of A Life are available to help.

So, you bring up plants (I had already in the past directed you to a post on that but you never replied to it, so I will leave that so I don't have to repeat myself) and microbes and ask where we draw the line (and good question mind you). We draw the line at the place we choose to not exploit and cause suffering (enslave figuratively) that does not cause us to become neurotic and forfeit our life.

Obviously we do not have to forfeit life by abolishing circuses. Obviously we do not have to forfeit life by abolishing fur. The same can go for hunting and eating meat in this modern world. Giving up either of those would not lead to neurosis or forfeiture of life.

Now, if one were to refuse to move an inch because they knew microbial life would be harmed in that movement of his body, or that insects would be crushed under his feet as he walked, then that person would be neurotic and in the end would forfeit life. AR is not about preventing all death -- it is about preventing suffering by eliminating exploitation of life for profit.

In this one you still didn't answer my question: Which one do you think is more natural for humans? I don't find that it needs to go any deeper because it is a simple question that asks a simple answer.

Then we will disagree here. I addressed your question and the point of that address leads you to a quandary that forces you to consider moral relativism. Phylosophers have been dealing with that for ages, and AR and the issue of slavery is well wedded to that whether you wish to acknowledge that or not. A meat eating culture rests on the morals relative to that time, and introspection that examines the premises on which that rests -- separating prejudice and antropocentrism -- is what lets us see if that premis is in fact valid i.e. worth keeping, or agitating the status quo for change to usher in a different premis to affect what is viewed as moral or ethical.

[Bones]

Kind of off-topic, dk, but why are you dragging my name into this? :eek:

I'm looking at buying my new grill next weekend, with high hopes that I'll be able to cook some serious meat. 1" thick top sirloins, some pepper and garlic will probably be sacrificed to the flames....

Nirvana, IMHO!!!!:D

I'd invite you over, but your feet are too big to fit into our tiny apartment. :first:

On the serious side however, I don't think that my presence has anything to do with how popular your forum is. TP, as well as a lot of the new posters, are the people that keep this thing alive. I'm still lurking in the background, and I've got to say that I'm amused by a lot of the postings.

For those who hate what TP has to write, ignore his posts. You'll be a happier person for it. I know that I am.:D

NBTP

[DougP]

Fair enough TP. What about this one that I poted earlier
Are humans omnivores or are they strictly herbivores? What allows one species to have the right to be both and another not to? If bears can be omnivores why can't humans? I'm asking this because if animals are able to have the same rights as humans shouldn't we be allowed to have the same rights as them?

[TheNoNamedOne]

Are humans omnivores or are they strictly herbivores?

This is getting a little off-topic from comparing treatment of animals to slavery, but... as to the question, there is some controversy on that. I am not sure if you are aware of all those points involved in this question, and I do find the matter interesting, but let me say it is not conclusive, mainlfy because our family tree is not fully documented. Lots of missing links, and who is to say where to begin.

Also, remember, an omnivore does not mean that one does eat both meat and plant. It means they are able to eat both. Eventhough I am a vegetarian by choice, I am still an omnivore i.e. I have the characteristics to allow me to eat meat in my diet. Also, some humans can choose to eat a purely carnivorous diet e.g Eskimos. Again, the point of being an omnivore is one of choice. Because it is a question of choice, it bears little on our ability to survive and, therefore, was are able to live an optimum healthy life without meat.

What allows one species to have the right to be both and another not to? If bears can be omnivores why can't humans? I'm asking this because if animals are able to have the same rights as humans shouldn't we be allowed to have the same rights as them?

First off, remember, ARists are not trying to secure the same rights for animals as those which are enjoyed by humans. For example, we are not trying to get bears the right to vote or to have maternal leave or the right to choose an abortion.

As for bears and their lifestyle, they are trapped in their passions. Humans are not. Our civilizations recognize that we are not to allow our passions dictate our lives from second to second. We accept laws that impose on us and our urges.

A bear, or dog, would not be self restrained when seeing the new bitch on the block if he could get to her. However, eventhough my neighbor is quite good looking, and I may have the urge to spread my seed with her, I check my actions with restraint based on knowing to not do so would be to violate the rules of civilization. We all give up the right to act on our passions as members of civilization.

That is what makes it different for bears, dogs, etc... and us.

All I'm asking is do we really have answers to these questions? Answers that really get to the point and don't offer up examples or use stories like: John owns a back woods farm and lures a healthy 23 year old lady who has a very fullfilling life (she is married, has 2 children, a scientist etc...) to it, and then enslaves her IS that worse than luring a homeless mentally hadicapped person who has no fullfilling life to his farm and enslaves him instead?

Yes, I think we do have answeres to those questions. But, they have to be consistent and not based on prejudice or anthropocentrism. Questions like I asked you, questions that phylosophers of all kind engage in asking by creating scenarios and dilemmas point to those answers. That is why you should wrestle with them and not dismiss them. Those are answers and lead to answers of questions that you had asked.

If I am wrong, then, so, too, are a large number of phylosophers and the tradition of phylosophy which have always used constructs to fett out answers and incite to puzzling questions we are faced with.

[TheNoNamedOne]

What allows one species to have the right to be both and another not to?

Doug, I wanted to add something to this question.

Might makes one to have the ability to be allowed to engage in exploitation i.e. slavery. Without might, the stronger position, then it would not be possible. But, we already accept that "Might does not make right." It can't, for if that were a pure truism, then it should be right to utilize that in our dealings in ways that would maximize our life's pleasures and position regardless of the result to others. To say that is ok to use to target for animals and not humans is not consistent and based on prejudice. If it were based on an altruistic truth, then there would be no laws needed to protect man from himself.

[DougP]

First off thank you for answering my questions. It makes perfect sense. Now I may disagree with some of the philosophy behind the OP but I need not bring that up anymore.

Also thank you for this:
First off, remember, ARists are not trying to secure the same rights for animals as those which are enjoyed by humans. For example, we are not trying to get bears the right to vote or to have maternal leave or the right to choose an abortion.

Seriously made me laugh, I needed that :D

[DougP]

Doug, I wanted to add something to this question.

Might makes one to have the ability to be allowed to engage in exploitation i.e. slavery. Without might, the stronger position, then it would not be possible. But, we already accept that "Might does not make right." It can't, for if that were a pure truism, then it should be right to utilize that in our dealings in ways that would maximize our life's pleasures and position regardless of the result to others. To say that is ok to use to target for animals and not humans is not consistent and based on prejudice. If it were based on an altruistic truth, then there would be no laws needed to protect man from himself.

I can accept that. I can accept the fact that there is something wrong with the massproduction and captive ways of the meat industry. I am not as blind to it as some may think. But one would have to realize that there are and may be instances were eating meat (killing animals) are necessary. Take my other thread for example.

[dk]

Kind of off-topic, dk, but why are you dragging my name into this? :eek:
You were just one of the first people to pop into my mind when I thought "JU Forum" lol. Sorry... \:-)

[TheNoNamedOne]

I can accept that. I can accept the fact that there is something wrong with the massproduction and captive ways of the meat industry.

Ok. Then I am cool with this.

I am not as blind to it as some may think.

I don't think you are blind, just someone as myself who enjoys a good discussion on topics with those one disagrees with them.

But one would have to realize that there are and may be instances were eating meat (killing animals) are necessary.

I accept lifeboat situations. Men will even eat each other in such situations when the chips are down.

[Mad Hatter]

I accept lifeboat situations. Men will even eat each other in such situations when the chips are down.

When the "chips are down"? I have to say your partly right... if the two of us were on an island with no food... you would have to die in order for my survival.
Sorry, but the "chips were down"!

I can see the comparison between slavery and using animals. Both were / are used to better someone else. Both were treated in substandard ways. And both were necessary for the time.

We used slaves to build great things all over the world. without the slaves, we might actual be a less advanced race. They were the labor that was needed to project great ideas. Example: I talked to my Dad the other day. He is a contractor in Panama city Beach,FL. we got on the topic of illegals in the USA. At the end of the conversation he told me something that made good sense. " Why did you hire that bunch of Mexicans?" I asked. "Most Americans don't want to get up at 5 in the morning to go and dig a 200 yard 3 in deep ditch for 7 dollars on hour. Most of the lazy ass Americans around here don't want to get up that early or think that they are worth twice that much." my dad replied.

As blunt as he was, he was right...

Now the animals. We use them and kill them to benefit us in almost ever fashion of our lives. We wear their skins, drink their milk, eat their flesh, and like the slaves... cage them for our amusement.

We might evolve in the future to get to the point that we no longer need to commit these acts to animals on order to survive and and crave our satisfactions, but until then... CAGE THE "ANIMALS", KILL THE "COWS" AND PASS THE SALT!!:thumbup:

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

So MH, can we boil your position down to "the ends always justify the means"?

I like you dad's story about illegals being willing to work harder for less, but therein lies the point. They had the choice to go to the US, and to accept that job or not. Slaves don't have any choices. That's a rather large distinction.

[DougP]

So MH, can we boil your position down to "the ends always justify the means"?

I like you dad's story about illegals being willing to work harder for less, but therein lies the point. They had the choice to go to the US, and to accept that job or not. Slaves don't have any choices. That's a rather large distinction.

*raises hand* oh oh and there's also a difference between those who don't have any choices and those who can't make choices:D

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

*raises hand* oh oh and there's also a difference between those who don't have any choices and those who can't make choices:D
If you're saying animals can't make choices, you're contradicting decades of research into animal behavior.

[Mad Hatter]

I really don't think that the cow could stop the farmer from killing it. You know, maybe the cow likes to be milked... I know I do!!


And about the illegals... it's just the lesser of two evils... it's still evil though

[DougP]

If you're saying animals can't make choices, you're contradicting decades of research into animal behavior.

Ok so if they can (make the kind of choices I was thinking of) then why aren't they the front runners of the AR movement? :D Ofcourse they can make some choices.. "I'm gonna poop." "I'm gonna eat." "I'm gonna sleep."

and my favorite.... "I'm gonna taste real good later."

[Mad Hatter]

lol... I still don't even think that they have a choice with how they taste... but if they could... is that why almost everything tastes like chicken?

[DougP]

blame it on the chickens :D

I also think nature has a specific design for everything. If nature didn't want animals to be "exploited" killed and eaten it wouldn't have made these animals taste so damn good. It would have made vegies the most tastefull thing on the planet.

But then again in some sort of twisted fate it probably would have granted vegies the ability to sense pain and have human like emotions. I wonder what the world would be like if carrots screamed when you pulled them out of the ground...

[dk]

I wonder what the world would be like if carrots screamed when you pulled them out of the ground...
What? You don't hear them scream? :ohmy:

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Perhaps DougP is unfamiliar with L. Ron Hubbard.

[TheNoNamedOne]

I also think nature has a specific design for everything. If nature didn't want animals to be "exploited" killed and eaten it wouldn't have made these animals taste so damn good. It would have made vegies the most tastefull thing on the planet.

Hmmm...bringing back on topic.

Some also think nature has a specific design for everything. If nature didn't want the weaker humans to be enslaved and worked for those in power over them, it wouldn't have made these humans weaker and so damn easy to put into chains and trained to work for them. It would have made another nonhuman animal the most capable and profitable doing all those tasks that had been hoisted upon human slaves.

Hmmm... yeah, that exposes that reasoning rather nicely for its falsity, or ridiculousness.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Ok so if they can (make the kind of choices I was thinking of) then why aren't they the front runners of the AR movement? :D Ofcourse they can make some choices.. "I'm gonna poop." "I'm gonna eat." "I'm gonna sleep."

and my favorite.... "I'm gonna taste real good later."
Feral animals choose their group, their mates, when and what they will eat, when and where they will go. They choose to run or fight. They are only limited by their own biology and the geographic feature of their range. This is not so different from you and I. Domestic animals, similar to slaves, have far fewer, if any choices. It doesn't take much stretch of imagination to understand that.

[Fonze]

There is it's called a roach.

[Fonze]

. Domestic animals, similar to slaves, have far fewer, if any choices.

You hear that TP your a slave owner according to this cause you own domestic animals. Time to put them down and stand by your principles.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

You hear that TP your a slave owner according to this cause you own domestic animals. Time to put them down and stand by your principles.
I'm sure he will just as soon as you explain how his pet(s) suffer in ways similar to animals on factory farms. Go ahead, finish your spliff, save the roach for later, and get back to us.

[Fonze]

Domestic animals, similar to slaves, have far fewer, if any choices. It doesn't take much stretch of imagination to understand that.

Damn dude read what you wrote you compared pets to slave for their few choices in life.
Nowhere did I state animals in farm factories.
So you see I wrote slave owner not cruel factory farm owner.

[DougP]

Hmmm...bringing back on topic.

Some also think nature has a specific design for everything. If nature didn't want the weaker humans to be enslaved and worked for those in power over them, it wouldn't have made these humans weaker and so damn easy to put into chains and trained to work for them. It would have made another nonhuman animal the most capable and profitable doing all those tasks that had been hoisted upon human slaves.

Hmmm... yeah, that exposes that reasoning rather nicely for its falsity, or ridiculousness.

Wasn't meant to be the "deepest" thought on the subject:D

But I'm glad you found it profound enough to respond to:)

[DougP]

Perhaps DougP is unfamiliar with L. Ron Hubbard.

No more than Tom Cruise:D

[TheNoNamedOne]

Wasn't meant to be the "deepest" thought on the subject:D

But I'm glad you found it profound enough to respond to:)

Lest I thought, another actually would think it a deep thought. Besides, it took only a few seconds to deal with. I just had to substitute values in the appropriate spots of the construct. I guess you did most of the work.

[DougP]

hmm? well if it was instrumental to your cause then hurray for you:)

Just trying to bring a little humor into things and lighten it up a bit.

You made it clear that you don't believe in a natural design of things (all things) Care to explain? If not in this thread maybe in another.

[TheNoNamedOne]

You made it clear that you don't believe in a natural design of things (all things) Care to explain? If not in this thread maybe in another.

Does that mean you, too, do not believe in the natural design of things if you choose to not crap outside where you (man figuratively), being an animal, too, came up through nature doing so?

I think I have already explained this several pages back.

[DougP]

Well it means I believe in a natural design of things however I'm not the one to make a call if humans are meant to crap outside or not. I do not know if crapping outside might have been or might not have been part of the design.
I do think in accordance with things that lead up to taking a crap and where it is to be taken a design might have been in place as to what that crap is supposed to be made of.

Meat might have been part of that design.

And also remember not all humans take a crap in a western style toilet or any style toilet for that matter. Some do it O' natural as its called.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Ok, well then, I think that we can both agree, that as it goes for man and our relation with nature, we are no longer obligated to rest our decisions on whatever is natural -- at least in regards to behaviour where our personal lifestyle choices, such as crapping and eating, will not preclude our death.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Damn dude read what you wrote you compared pets to slave for their few choices in life.
Nowhere did I state animals in farm factories.
So you see I wrote slave owner not cruel factory farm owner.
Animals on factory farms, yes. Pets...I don't think so. Perhaps you could go back and review - you may have me confused with another poster, or just didn't understand what you read. I've no love for pet owners who keep their dog on a short chain all day and night their entire lives. But I haven't brought pets into my points on AW & AR.

[Fonze]

Animals on factory farms, yes. Pets...I don't think so. Perhaps you could go back and review - you may have me confused with another poster, or just didn't understand what you read. I've no love for pet owners who keep their dog on a short chain all day and night their entire lives. But I haven't brought pets into my points on AW & AR.

Well according to you in your statement that pets are slaves. Why does it have to be a chain I mean is a dog allowed to go out doors down the street to a nieghbors, NO. I could be extreme and say that your holding them behind a door is just as bad as tied to a chain cause their choices are extremely limited.

Oh ya TP is a animal slave owner.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Oh ya TP is a animal slave owner.

I think the discussion of "pets" as slaves is a legitimate one to explore. For the most part when ARists refer to animal slavery, they are referring to factory farms, family farms, circuses, fur farms, beasts of burden etc....

The pet as slave has always been an off-shoot of the analogy that sits on the margin. It is the argument in reducto form and perhaps a little more deserving of individual analysis and argument. I don't mind going into it and have set up a discussion soley focusing on it HERE (http://www.japanupdate.com/forum/showthread.php?p=18277#post18277).

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Well according to you in your statement that pets are slaves. Why does it have to be a chain I mean is a dog allowed to go out doors down the street to a nieghbors, NO. I could be extreme and say that your holding them behind a door is just as bad as tied to a chain cause their choices are extremely limited.

Oh ya TP is a animal slave owner.
Fonze, you're confused. You can't find a single post of mine to quote where I said that. Your saying that I made such a statement doesn't make it so. You need to review this thread, find out who (if anyone) made such a statement, quote them, and provide a coherent counterargument.

I have discussed hard-core AR people, who do hold such a view, but if you bother to acutually read (and take the time to fully grasp) what's been posted, you'll see you are in error (again). I have also explained my own views, which are not completely in line with either the pure AR folks, or with TP.

[Fonze]

Domestic animals, similar to slaves.

Wow talk about not knowing WTF their talkin about.

And on the coherent counter argument I must of confused forum to anal english master debate forums.:thumbup1:

[TheNoNamedOne]

Fonze, you may want to consider asking DougP to mentor you on debate form. He could help you out a lot.

[Fonze]

Once again this isn't a debate forum, on JU it says have an opinion then let us know or something similair.

You know better than anyone else you don't have to answer, but it would be nice to hear your answers on many things Iv'e ask that do pertain to the topic. For me at least because of your stance.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Wow talk about not knowing WTF their talkin about.
Domestic animals is a rather more broad category than merely pets. Also, please note that the word "similar" has subtle, but distinct difference from the word "same". But if you'd like to pat yourself on the back for another incorrect answer, please enjoy.

[Fonze]

you wrote it YOUR BAD.

I like what you said though that same and similair are not the same. As are comparisons to different topics.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

you wrote it YOUR BAD.

I like what you said though that same and similair are not the same. As are comparisons to different topics.
So you're all for the removal of metaphor and similie from the English language?

[Fonze]

Oh ya I said that on post 109. You got me

No i'm not. But when were trying to stay on topic stay on topic.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Oh ya I said that on post 109. You got me

No i'm not. But when were trying to stay on topic stay on topic.
Any discussion and exchange of opinions is naturally going to use comparisons. Teachers do it when instructing. Friends do it when talking. Comparisons are a conerstone of conversation. Imagine a chat where people merely spoke directly and factually. Do you really want all conversation to turn into FedSpeak? Comparisons are a completely natural and valid way to express and explain oneself.

BTW: post 109 belongs to me!

[P_chan]

let's calm down children.

[Mad Hatter]

I know that I would let my slave run free through the yard, but the damn thing never wants to come back... so I have to keep'em caged. But I still let my dog poop wherever he wants.

I'm sorry... are we still talking about slaves and animals?

[DougP]

I'm allergic to most animals anyway so I can't be a "slave" owner.. or guardian.

[Mad Hatter]

hahaha... that means I still own "slaves".... THE SOUTH WILL RISE AGAIN!!!!

[TheNoNamedOne]

Once again this isn't a debate forum, on JU it says have an opinion then let us know or something similair.

Yes, it says that, and it also says this describing this particular Rights Issues forum (just look at the top):

Rights Issues: Debate controversial issues such as gun control, death penalty, free speech, etc.

When opinions are pushing against one another and arguments are being used to support those opinions, debate is taking place. Or are you saying you are not using any arguments to support your opinion? If not, then just what are you using?

[Mad Hatter]

Notice how this thread died

[TheNoNamedOne]

It's just resting. But, death and resurrection is a good metaphore, too.

[atb35]

I just need some threads so I can play the arcade, might as well throw my negativity here.....

Who gives a shit? They are animals, they have no free will. Im sure AR idiots would argue they do have free will, but until ANY animals tells me what they want...that is BS. I hate AR idiots more then I hate terrorists, because they are retarded....at least terrorists are smart. To compare animals to humans proves they are retarded. When animals devlop reasoning and the ability to speak, then maybe I will believe it.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

I just need some threads so I can play the arcade, might as well throw my negativity here.....

Who gives a shit? They are animals, they have no free will. Im sure AR idiots would argue they do have free will, but until ANY animals tells me what they want...that is BS. I hate AR idiots more then I hate terrorists, because they are retarded....at least terrorists are smart. To compare animals to humans proves they are retarded. When animals devlop reasoning and the ability to speak, then maybe I will believe it.
No free will, eh? Let's use pets as an example. When your dog or cat drinks, it's because they were made to? They didn't choose to get a drink? When your cat comes looking for attention, it's because you told it to? When a pet lies in a sunbeam, it's because that's what it was trained to do? When it runs away from a beating for misbehavior, that fear and escape is not its choice?

As for hating AR supporters more than terrorists. Do you extend that to preferring terrorists for neighbours? Friends?

Animals need to speak to communicate, is that right? So if your wife or girlfriend doesn't tell you she's in the mood, you'd have no way of knowing? If someone you knew was angry, you'd have no idea unless they said something? Body language and behaviour have no role in communication. That's news to me.

[atb35]

When a pet gets a drink, they do it because they need to. When they lay in the sun it is because they are tired. Does your cat go to McDonalds and pick up a Big Mac and Shake? How do you know your animal is looking for attention vice just needing to get rid of an itch or irritation? Now I wont be so stubborn as to not admit that ok, free will might not have been the right term. IMO, they dont have free will, but others can argue that they do, impossible to prove either way, so again, probably not the best term.

What body language does an animal have? I guess again, you could argue if a lion roars, he wants to eat something...ok, I guess that is body language. If you want to group that and classify it the same as speaking...more power to you. If you ever feel like recording a conversation between you and your pet via body language...PLEASE let me see it...I need a good laugh.

Would I rather have a terrorist live next to me then an AR activists? **** yes I would. At least the terrorist would leave me the hell alone and mind their own business. Most people that live next to terrorists dont even know it until they perform some act of terrorism.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

When a pet gets a drink, they do it because they need to. When they lay in the sun it is because they are tired. Does your cat go to McDonalds and pick up a Big Mac and Shake? How do you know your animal is looking for attention vice just needing to get rid of an itch or irritation? Now I wont be so stubborn as to not admit that ok, free will might not have been the right term. IMO, they dont have free will, but others can argue that they do, impossible to prove either way, so again, probably not the best term.
What term would be better?

What body language does an animal have? I guess again, you could argue if a lion roars, he wants to eat something...ok, I guess that is body language. If you want to group that and classify it the same as speaking...more power to you. If you ever feel like recording a conversation between you and your pet via body language...PLEASE let me see it...I need a good laugh.
Roaring would probably be an audible type of communication. The posture and stance the lion had, whether the hair on his neck and back was standing up, the way his ears and tail are held...that's body language and most definitely communication.

Would I rather have a terrorist live next to me then an AR activists? **** yes I would. At least the terrorist would leave me the hell alone and mind their own business. Most people that live next to terrorists dont even know it until they perform some act of terrorism.
Um, ok.

[atb35]

I will ask again, please show me a conversation between you and an animal....I cant wait to see this.

[silviasichigo]

I tell you this I would drop a brick on the dog that barks at "anything" in the house next to me everyday at 0530 in the damn morning and not think twice about it. The dog is making me a slave to it's barking, so I should fight back and crush it with a brick. I hate dogs and cats..and people. Oh an PETA can suck a fat one.

[atb35]

LOL< hey, but that dog would have the free will to not bark the next morning at 0530....

[silviasichigo]

True..I guess I am a true lover of animals to not enslave them to a life of waking up neighbors because he is trapped in a life of "waiting to be walked on a leash to piss and crap" I would free him with a brick. DAMN I am a hippocrite I should join PETA

[atb35]

Well another option is you could sit down with this said dog, enjoy some biscuits and tea, have a good conversation about the benefits of barking vice the detriments (brick to the head). Im sure after you talk/body language for a few hours, the dog will reason with you......

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

I will ask again, please show me a conversation between you and an animal....I cant wait to see this.
Why, I think I'm having one right now... :D

[silviasichigo]

Well another option is you could sit down with this said dog, enjoy some biscuits and tea, have a good conversation about the benefits of barking vice the detriments (brick to the head). Im sure after you talk/body language for a few hours, the dog will reason with you......

That's a good Idea oh wait :ohmy: turns out this dog (with it's own free will) hates to be told what to do (or maybe just don't understand the commands given by it's owner to stop barking) So our little discussion over biscuts and tea would be but a loss of my time........:dead: so instead of boot to da head it will be brick to da head......

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

True..I guess I am a true lover of animals to not enslave them to a life of waking up neighbors because he is trapped in a life of "waiting to be walked on a leash to piss and crap" I would free him with a brick. DAMN I am a hippocrite I should join PETA
Please think about it. The dog did not choose to spend a long life on a short rope. It knows that if it makes the ground around its rope a mess of urine and feces a)it will be punished, and b)it will have to walk/lie down in its own mess. So it barks to tell the "guardian" that it want to go for a walk so it can relieve itself without the problems just mentioned. That's free will and communication right there together. Choosing not to soil the tiny patch of land it lives on, and communicating the desire to go out and soil the street.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

That's a good Idea oh wait :ohmy: turns out this dog (with it's own free will) hates to be told what to do (or maybe just don't understand the commands given by it's owner to stop barking) So our little discussion over biscuts and tea would be but a loss of my time........:dead: so instead of boot to da head it will be brick to da head......
I suppose if you don't mind trespassing, animal cruelty, and whatever other crimes this little plan of yours entails. You are aware of the ins and outs of the Japanese system of justice, it take it. If you are on base, I'm sure they'll find room for you in the brig.

[silviasichigo]

eelecurb..........dog gets brick to the head..................... maybe I should have been a little more clear the dogs roams the yard as it chooses (to poop and pee where it will) it barks because it is a dog and has nothing better to do than be a dog....the owner/slave master of the dog gets a brick to the head to for being lazy and not disicplining the dog not to bark at anything....so there I go again being a model PETA member yeah cookies for meeee!!!

[Fonze]

I tell you this I would drop a brick on the dog that barks at "anything" in the house next to me everyday at 0530 in the damn morning and not think twice about it. The dog is making me a slave to it's barking, so I should fight back and crush it with a brick. I hate dogs and cats..and people. Oh an PETA can suck a fat one.

Send me a Private message with your problems address and pay a low introductory fee and you will be happy in 5 days or less(case the joint check it's sched etc...). Specifics are required as in death,toungue cut off or kidnapping of said problem.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Hey Silvia, there are a few threads created specifically for you to bash PETA. Why not go to one of those for your PETA comments, since you seem to be itching to let loose on them? This thread is more specifically created for comparing pets and slavery. Thanks in advance.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

eelecurb..........dog gets brick to the head..................... maybe I should have been a little more clear the dogs roams the yard as it chooses (to poop and pee where it will) it barks because it is a dog and has nothing better to do than be a dog....the owner/slave master of the dog gets a brick to the head to for being lazy and not disicplining the dog not to bark at anything....so there I go again being a model PETA member yeah cookies for meeee!!!
Your beef is definitely with a negligent pet owner. I wouldn't recommend assaulting him or her, but you should make your complaints known and work within the system (I mean using whatever social and/or legal pressures you can) to resolve your issue.

[silviasichigo]

Hey Silvia, there are a few threads created specifically for you to bash PETA. Why not go to one of those for your PETA comments, since you seem to be itching to let loose on them? This thread is more specifically created for comparing pets and slavery. Thanks in advance.

I could careless about PETA either way, however I do aplogize for getting off topic. But it does not take away from me wanting end the barking spree of the animal that is waking my family everyday. and I do enjoy seeing eelecurb's annoyance :thumbup1:

[dk]

Call the police? Public disturbance?

Yeah, I know. The police probably won't do anything, but still... Maybe they will.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

I could careless about PETA either way, however I do aplogize for getting off topic. But it does not take away from me wanting end the barking spree of the animal that is waking my family everyday. and I do enjoy seeing eelecurb's annoyance :thumbup1:
Not annoyed. But I do want to stick with the issues. I'll be happy to debate the issues with you anytime you like. If you have another topic in mind, start a thread, and if it's interesting I'll join in the fun.:)

[TheNoNamedOne]

... and I do enjoy seeing eelecurb's annoyance :thumbup1:

I haven't seen him showing any annoyance. He seems to be replying to you quite calmly.

[Fonze]

I haven't seen him showing any annoyance. He seems to be replying to you quite calmly.

<3<3<3<3<3<3<3:D

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

<3<3<3<3<3<3<3:D
I love you too man!:D

[silviasichigo]

Your beef is definitely with a negligent pet owner. I wouldn't recommend assaulting him or her, but you should make your complaints known and work within the system (I mean using whatever social and/or legal pressures you can) to resolve your issue.

Darn and from the famous words of Barf when you are right you are right, ( I will leave out the other portion of his quote as you are not always right to everyone else)

[atb35]

I still think the best resolution is to sit down with the dog, the dog owner, a cat as a mediator, maybe a couple of goldfish and have a nice, need intellectual conversation with them....since it is possible considering that animals are the same as humans. Some tips though, when a dog barks, it means they need to go for a walk, or there is a disturbance...or they are in pain.....or it needs attention.....or it sees something it likes......damn, so much for body language and communication......

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Call the police? Public disturbance?

Yeah, I know. The police probably won't do anything, but still... Maybe they will.

In some places they will and do. (http://animal.discovery.com/fansites/mapd/about/asu.html) It's a start. Definitely better than taking the law into your own hands.

[dk]

In some places they will and do. (http://animal.discovery.com/fansites/mapd/about/asu.html) It's a start. Definitely better than taking the law into your own hands.
Somehow I doubt anything would happen on Okinawa. Do they even have a department like this on island? If so, got the number? If anyone has information on that, feel free to make a thread. I'm sure it'll come in handy.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

I lived next to a neighbor with a noisy dog (life on a short chain outdoors 24/7/365 and inadequate shelter). I went over and talked to them when it got to be too much. You'd be surprised how these people don't understand that not everyone appreciates their dog's whining and barking at all hours night and day. You've got to start by letting people know. They really can be ignorant to the problem in the first place. Only after you've done the civilized thing and discussed it do you take further action.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Somehow I doubt anything would happen on Okinawa. Do they even have a department like this on island? If so, got the number? If anyone has information on that, feel free to make a thread. I'm sure it'll come in handy.

http://www3.pref.okinawa.jp/site/view/contview.jsp?cateid=76&id=10955&page=1

野犬等の取締りと飼えなくなった犬、ねこの引取について

　県では、狂犬病予防法や市（町村）飼い犬条例に基づき、野犬等の捕獲を市町村と協力して行っ ています。
　やむをえず飼えなくなった犬やねこの引取りも行っていますので、県動物愛護センターまで御相 談ください。

問い合わせ先
●県動物愛護センター　TEL：098-945-3043　FAX：098-945-0224
●県薬務衛生課　TEL：098-866-2215　FAX：098-866-2241


http://www3.pref.okinawa.jp/site/view/cateview.jsp?cateid=97

[dk]

LMAO...

Yeah, my Japanese sucks. But there it is folks! Hope you know someone who speaks Japanese!

I only say LMAO because to me, that big wall o' kanji could be about a mission to mars and I wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Quick & dirty...

Regarding the managment of stray dogs and other animals unable to receive care, and their removal:
The prefecture will cooperate with municipalities to enforce local rabies and stray animal regulations. If you are unable to provide care for your animal, please contact the prefectural humane society.

Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals TEL：098-866-2215　FAX：098-866-2241

[TheNoNamedOne]

Send me a Private message with your problems address and pay a low introductory fee and you will be happy in 5 days or less(case the joint check it's sched etc...). Specifics are required as in death,toungue cut off or kidnapping of said problem.

I know you are joking, but conspiracy to commit a crime is not always looked upon as a joking matter, just like joking about a bomb in your carry on luggage on a flight -- regardless of how much you protest that it was a joke. No reason to put JU in a position where they would even have to possibly (no matter how small that possibility exists) explain themselves or you to investigators just for humor.

Whether it is an animal or a human, joking about conspiracy to kill something is not funny. Likewise, I am sure dk would not want people joking about killing President Bush or base commanders on Okinawa.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

LMAO...

Yeah, my Japanese sucks. But there it is folks! Hope you know someone who speaks Japanese!

I only say LMAO because to me, that big wall o' kanji could be about a mission to mars and I wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
No need to be flippant about it. We are living in Japan. Were you looking for the ASPCA?

[atb35]

This is for eelecurb......

Why don't blind people like to skydive?



It scares the shit out of their dogs.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

This is for eelecurb......

Why don't blind people like to skydive?



It scares the shit out of their dogs.

:thumbup: Heard it, but still laugh every time!

I have seen folks paragliding with their dogs.:ohmy:

[dk]

No need to be flippant about it. We are living in Japan. Were you looking for the ASPCA?
I was laughing at my own inadequacy.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

I was laughing at my own inadequacy.
OK. I need to go for a run and blow off some steam.

[newvalor]

I know you are joking, but conspiracy to commit a crime is not always looked upon as a joking matter, just like joking about a bomb in your carry on luggage on a flight -- regardless of how much you protest that it was a joke. No reason to put JU in a position where they would even have to possibly (no matter how small that possibility exists) explain themselves or you to investigators just for humor.

Whether it is an animal or a human, joking about conspiracy to kill something is not funny. Likewise, I am sure dk would not want people joking about killing President Bush or base commanders on Okinawa.

A little off topic there TP, you could've just said don't make statements of conspiracy to commit a crime. But no you had to go and say those statements as if you are conspiring yourself.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

A little off topic there TP, you could've just said don't make statements of conspiracy to commit a crime. But no you had to go and say those statements as if you are conspiring yourself.
He's clearly drawing a line so those who don't understand "technical" English will be able to follow along.

[DougP]

He's clearly drawing a line so those who don't understand "technical" English will be able to follow along.

And clearly not everyone has seen it that way:D

[TheNoNamedOne]

And clearly not everyone has seen it that way:D

And how do you clearly interpret what I was saying, Doug? The other examples I gave were clearly adding back-up to the one originally posted. You have been rational in discussions here with me, are you saying I was conspiring by putting those back-up examples to reinforce the point? Surely back-up examples to compare with do not constitute going off-topic if they are just that -- back-up support to drive the point home.

[DougP]

Now now hold your horses ( in a humane way please )

Just pointing out that at least one other member did not clearly see it as BruceLee did :D

Apparently I didn't make my post clear enough. :D

And I do agree we shouldn't have any talk of killing someone else or conspiring to do so on this forum.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Fair enough, Doug. But I really don't see the need to point out that the person who can't see the clarity of something clearly disagrees. That is just obvious.

[newvalor]

Ha, you had to add to the point of making a comment like that.

Just like I said in my posting of your quote, you could have said that it was not a joking matter and not to do that. But you kept using more comparisons before you finished your post.

Get the clue thru your measily head Captain Obvious, not everybody is going to agree with you.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Get the clue thru your measily head Captain Obvious, not everybody is going to agree with you.

Calm down, NV. No reason to get your panties in a bunch.

Of course I know a lot of people are not going to agree with me. Why would I presume otherwise when I know, and have readily admitted that my views on a lot of things are in the minority? If I wanted to address people who would only agree with me every time I spoke, and considering for the most part I am a progressive, don't you think I would post on a progressive site, or even not spend time on anything other than an AR site, rather than posting here?

Explain why that is false, or why the opposite of all that is true, please.

But, since this is getting off of slavery and animals, it may be better to just copy and paste this post into TheProsecutor thread and answer it there.

Do you have any more points you would like to make about animals and slavery that have not been covered yet, NV?

[commando]

Meat: the slavery of our time
How the coming vegetarian revolution will arrive by force.
http://www.animaldefense.com/A_images/cowheads.jpg
I have a prediction: Sooner than you might think, this will be a vegetarian world. Future generations will find the idea of eating meat both morally absurd and logistically impossible. Of course, one need only look at the booming meat industry, the climbing rates of meat consumption in the developing world, and the menu of just about any restaurant to call me crazy. But already, most people know that eating red meat is bad for their health and harmful for the planet. It's getting them to actually change their diet that's the hard part -- and that's exactly why it won't happen by choice.

Going by the numbers, eating meat is pretty hard to justify for the even moderately health-conscious. A National Cancer Institute report released last March found that people who ate the most red meat were, as the New York Times put it, "most likely to die from cancer, heart disease and other causes." The biggest abstainers "were least likely to die." Those who eat five ounces of meat daily, (the equivalent of one and a half Quarter Pounders or Big Macs) increase their risk from cancer or heart disease by 30 percent compared to those who eat two-thirds of an ounce daily -- a stark difference.

The environmental impact is also crystal clear -- and similarly appalling. "Livestock's Long Shadow," a 2006 report by the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organzation (FAO), found that livestock is a major player in climate change, accounting for 18 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions (measured in carbon dioxide equivalents), or more than the entire global transportation system.

The obvious solution to both health and environmental disasters is to stop eating meat altogether. But this is easier said than done. Even the studies addressing the impact of meat on the planet downplay vegetarianism, as if the authors are nervous to press it on people. Going veggie is not even proposed as one of the FAO's "mitigation options" (which instead include conservation tillage, organic farming, and better nutrition for livestock to reduce methane gas production). Nor is it emphasized in "Happier Meals: Rethinking the Global Meat Industry," a report by Danielle Nierenberg at the Worldwatch Institute. The study's author is herself a vegan, but she told me, "Food choices are a very personal decision for most people. We are only now convincing them that this is a tool at their disposal if they care about the environment."

She has a point: Giving up meat is tough, and arguing people into it is probably a losing proposition. Even with all the statistics out there about the dangers of meat, there are fewer vegetarians in the world than you'd think. A Harris poll conducted in 2006 for the Vegetarian Resource Group found that only 2.3 percent of American adults 18 or older claim never to eat meat, fish, or fowl. A larger group, 6.7 percent, say they "never eat meat," but often that means they only avoid the red kind. Worldwide, local vegetarian societies report high participation in just a few places - for example, 40 percent in India, 10 percent in Italy, 9 percent in Germany, 8.5. percent in Israel, and 6 percent in Britain.

So how will we become a vegetarian planet? The numbers suggest that we won't stop eating meat simply because it's "the right thing to do." People love it too much. Instead, we'll be forced to stop. By 2025, we simply won't have the resources to keep up the habit. According to the FAO report, 33 percent of the world's arable land is devoted to growing crops for animal feed, and grazing is a major factor in deforestation around the world. It's also incredibly water-intensive. The average U.S. diet requires twice the daily amount of water as does an equally nutritious vegetarian diet, reports the Worldwatch Institute. Meanwhile, there will be more than 8 billion people on this earth, and two-thirds of the world's population will live in water-stressed regions.

Sounds like a mess -- and one that doesn't bode well for our cattle cravings. Meat will disappear -- except as a luxury available to few -- and the ethical issues will evolve, too. In the way that slavery, once a broad social norm, later became an unthinkable crime, we can expect to see a similar shift once meat-eating disappears from our planet. Perhaps, some day, the very idea of eating animal flesh will seem as remote as the idea of owning humans does now. So if you're a carnivore, enjoy now -- before the inevitable vegetarian revolution begins.http://experts.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/06/03/meat_the_slavery_of_our_time

[Tanimaga]

The revolution will come by force? Or.. may possibly, with a slim chance, somehow maybe eventually come by.. maybe.

[commando]

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/lifestyle/2007-03/01/xin_4103040111234481347113.jpg