Political Crossfire Forums

[Plodder]

mmmn. seal tasty and good with broccoli.
i panicked when i saw this thread, i thought that canada was gonna buthcher people. Instead as ususl im decived by those almost terrorists, the environmentalists.


(eg Earth First....)

[Gnostic]

Plodder wrote: mmmn. seal tasty and good with broccoli.
i panicked when i saw this thread, i thought that canada was gonna buthcher people. Instead as ususl im decived by those almost terrorists, the environmentalists.


(eg Earth First....)

What a ridiculous post.

[Kindred]

Quote: Rights must stem from somthing, this is my attempt at a extension of Lockes concept of rights steming from personhood.

Eveything else, be it social contract, or emotional construct is a fallible base for rights, and if rights are fallible they are no more than opinions and well.


Rights are simply conceptions of a moral base. They are what we in the west generally regard as the most important ethical code, but they are a code and not a fact of nature. Locke’s concept of self ownership is flawed because it is logically fallacious to flow from self-ownership to resource ownership, and hence property. I would agree that if we have to define everything as either ‘owned’ or ‘unowned’ (which is a fallacious dichotomy at any rate, and one which I only entertain when debating libertarians) then the ‘self’ and all things which are directly and indisputably a part of that are indeed ones ‘property’. Does labour satisfy this criterion? Perhaps, perhaps not. Labour is the product of energy, and energy, like all other natural resources, seems to be philosophically untenable. If you think of it simply as inputs and outputs, with resources and labour containing total throughput, even owning ones own labour a priori seems contentious.

Of course, once we have satisfied ourselves in our labour is intimately and inherently ‘ours’ a prior, then comes the task of justifying the ownership of other resources, which is more philosophically troubling than the labour problem. Lockes response is mixing labour with nature confers ownership of the product, but this leaves open to many holes to accept whilst retaining intellectual honesty. For example, what precisely constitutes ‘the fruits of our labour’, and why, philosophically, does mixing something which is yours with something that is not confer ownership of the mixed product? As Nozick and Singer both point out; if I poor a bottle of apple juice into the ocean, have I gained an ocean? OR have I foolishly squandered my apple juice?

Then you have the Lockean proviso: that we can take as much as we want as long as we leave enough for others to satisfy their needs. Do you accept this proviso? If so, have we not surpassed it?

Quote: Im not going to pretend this is a any question to answer, i would simply say at this stage basing rights on personhood and then trying to analyse what is personhood is the least fallible stance on rights.

Honeslty give me a few years to work on this one.

There is already a substantial body of literature on Lockean notions of personhood and their application to rights, including animal rights.

Quote: No no noe, you've misunderstood, at no point (i hope) have i claimed that only humans have rights, what im trying to say is that rights stem from the faculty of reason. Anything with the faculty of reason will have rights.

But how does reason confer rights?

Quote: What else can a man base his opinions on if not emperical evidence. Belife requires evidence.

First you say that a conception of rights is based on reason i.e. a priori faculties, the you switch to empiricism. Which is it?

Quote: I know a lot of peter singer, indeed a very intresting ethicist. however the principle of utility is fundamentally flawed, and in all the material his i've read or hear in lectures this appears to be his starting point.

Also quite clearly i don't agree with his stance of suffering being the centre point of any ethical debate.


You should read ‘Writings on an Ethical Life’

[Kindred]

Quote: I can't agree here. You compare evolutionary roots to our legs, but there's a key difference. The leg does not influence our thought process. In contrast, our reasoning is directly impacted by evolutionary history. And if not on the outside, then certainly on the subconscious level, which is where it really matters anyways. If you are unable to alter the way you think subconsciously, then it is irrelevant what one espouses because they do not determine actions.

I am able to stop consuming meat, so your entire contention re: this issue is obviously either flawed or irrelevant.

Quote: That's interesting. I always associated it with the natural tendency of males to seek out sexual partners in one way or another, with some being overly aggressive (perhaps provoked by the stresses of war, for example). In any case, I agree that those traits that are less essential and less prominent in evolutionary history can be better managed to accomodate society. It could even be explained by a need to have a stable and functioning society that will ultimately benefit the individual, making it in their interests to abstain from destructive behavior in most cases.

Luckily, consuming meat is another trait which is only of peripheral need, and is almost totally not-required in modern society.

But you miss the point, which is the established difference between biological fact, and an ethical value. If I could recommend a book for you to read, it would be Singer’s ‘The Expanding Circle’ which analyses E.O Wilsons argument that perhaps ethics should be placed in the hands of scientists rather than moral philosophers. It clearly shows the difference between fact and value, but I do believe you’re smart enough to recognise this already.

[social]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: social wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Eveything else, be it social contract, or emotional construct is a fallible base for rights, and if rights are fallible they are no more than opinions and well....we must first apply universal sceptisim to all of our belifes.

If you search for infallibility in philosophy or in political science, I can assure you, you won't find it... And using global scepticism to find such infallibility is not, as Wittgenstein and G. E. Moore have pointed out, the most fruitful approach. I take it you're aware of the problems of Cartesian philosophy?
If you can't find infallibility in philosophy it cannot be found. I can be quite confident in saying that within logic it can be found.

Yes, within language systems and mathematics - so-called 'meaning systems' - infallibility can be found in the form of analytical propositions. Yet such infallibility is analytical in nature - it does not relate to the empirical world of matter, much less explain it.

Quote: Fundamentally barking up the wrong tree, but irregardless incredibility clever.

Err... What exactly are you trying to say?

Quote: Moore on the other hand was overrated, to the point i would even call him a hack.
Common sense philosophy, pfft!

I think you'll find Moore was trying to steer philosophy away from the kind of highbrowed academic pursuit that it has became today. He recognised the flaw in the over-intellectualisation of everyday social life, and made an effort to make philosophy less abstruse and more - God forbid - accesable. What an overrated idiot aye?

Quote: Im aware of most of the criticisms leveled by Wittgenstein and Moore against global sceptism, doubt being a black whole, moore two hands argument.

Again were as they would critise Descartes as being able to identify what could be rationalty doubted, i would say they failed to identify what could rationally not be doubted.

That's exactly thier point! People like you always suggest that failing to identify what can be doubted is a weakness, but doubt in and of itself is the real weakness because everything - everthing - can be doubted in some way... One has to accept that some things - or, to be more precise, most things - cannot withstand the test of doubt.

Quote: Other objections like Putman are largely tied up like Wittgenstein in an analysis of language an interesting field no doubt but one ultimately tied up far too much in the expression of concepts and not the concepts them selves.

This is more a description of Wittgenstein's language philosophy than a 'criticism' of it. Wittgestein argued that the meaning of language is determined by how it is used in a social context. In other words, how one expresses something is just as important (perhaps more important) than what one is, in the first place, expressing.

Quote: Cogito ergo sum is in essence infallible and i challenge you to prove otherwise.

The fact that one thinks does not neccesarily mean one exists: How can one draw the link - in all certainty, and without the possibility of doubt - between a single thought - a thought about thinking, to be more preicise - and absolute existence? Thought is not a pre-requisite for existance. Nor does the statement, "I think" follow logically to the statement, "I am."

[thefranzkafkafront]

social wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: social wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Eveything else, be it social contract, or emotional construct is a fallible base for rights, and if rights are fallible they are no more than opinions and well....we must first apply universal sceptisim to all of our belifes.

If you search for infallibility in philosophy or in political science, I can assure you, you won't find it... And using global scepticism to find such infallibility is not, as Wittgenstein and G. E. Moore have pointed out, the most fruitful approach. I take it you're aware of the problems of Cartesian philosophy?
If you can't find infallibility in philosophy it cannot be found. I can be quite confident in saying that within logic it can be found.

Yes, within language systems and mathematics - so-called 'meaning systems' - infallibility can be found in the form of analytical propositions. Yet such infallibility is analytical in nature - it does not relate to the empirical world of matter, much less explain it. The empirical world is one seperate from our minds, we can only find infalliblity in our analysis of it, never in the world itself for it is seperate from us and to accsept its existance requires assumption.

Quote:
Quote: Fundamentally barking up the wrong tree, but irregardless incredibility clever.

Err... What exactly are you trying to say?
From all i've read they seem to consider languge as unifed with thought, i see and will day hope to prove that languge is mearly an expression of thought.

Quote:
Quote: Moore on the other hand was overrated, to the point i would even call him a hack.
Common sense philosophy, pfft!

I think you'll find Moore was trying to steer philosophy away from the kind of highbrowed academic pursuit that it has became today. He recognised the flaw in the over-intellectualisation of everyday social life, and made an effort to make philosophy less abstruse and more - God forbid - accesable. What an overrated idiot aye?
Philosophy is what it is, most people without deliberate force of will with understand nor apricate it, sitting in our ivory tower we may be but its the nature of the universe.

Quote: Im aware of most of the criticisms leveled by Wittgenstein and Moore against global sceptism, doubt being a black whole, moore two hands argument.

Again were as they would critise Descartes as being able to identify what could be rationalty doubted, i would say they failed to identify what could rationally not be doubted.

That's exactly thier point! People like you always suggest that failing to identify what can be doubted is a weakness, but doubt in and of itself is the real weakness because everything - everthing - can be doubted in some way... One has to accept that some things - or, to be more precise, most things - cannot withstand the test of doubt.
[/quote]
Indeed, but is this truely a fault, if we can say that we hold most things truely on assumption are we not better for it?

Quote:
Quote: Other objections like Putman are largely tied up like Wittgenstein in an analysis of language an interesting field no doubt but one ultimately tied up far too much in the expression of concepts and not the concepts them selves.

This is more a description of Wittgenstein's language philosophy than a 'criticism' of it. Wittgestein argued that the meaning of language is determined by how it is used in a social context. In other words, how one expresses something is just as important (perhaps more important) than what one is, in the first place, expressing.
Ill admit i need to learn more on wittgenstein, you seem fairly well verse in it. However 'from what i have read' he seems to make a direct link between ideas and languge and that as some one put it rather intrestinly to me 'society melds our ideas through languge'. I can't help but disagree, we are indeed restricted and melded by languge, but on the most basis level a mans mind is an island.

Quote:
Quote: Cogito ergo sum is in essence infallible and i challenge you to prove otherwise.

The fact that one thinks does not neccesarily mean one exists: How can one draw the link - in all certainty, and without the possibility of doubt - between a single thought - a thought about thinking, to be more preicise - and absolute existence? Thought is not a pre-requisite for existance. Nor does the statement, "I think" follow logically to the statement, "I am."

I don't ever belive Descartes stated that it meant he existed and irregarless after that point in a meditation he starts making stupid assumptions anyway. Rather he has indetified one core infalible principle.

It is impossible to doubt the existance of doubt, for so long as you are doubting or thinking, that doubting or thinking intself exists, not prehaps in the same manner as an apple on the table 'exists' but rather as a atomos against sceptism. It is the one rock from which we can begin to climb.

Indeed that my exernal body exists is an assumption (Which is why moore's two hands is infuriation), but so long as one knows one exists soley in the mechanism of doubt or thought, one can then start to cohere assumptions, such as the realibility of sense data and build from this.

Sorry about the lateness of my responce.

[thefranzkafkafront]

A.D wrote: Quote: Rights must stem from somthing, this is my attempt at a extension of Lockes concept of rights steming from personhood.

Eveything else, be it social contract, or emotional construct is a fallible base for rights, and if rights are fallible they are no more than opinions and well.


Rights are simply conceptions of a moral base. They are what we in the west generally regard as the most important ethical code, but they are a code and not a fact of nature.
I would say firslty that rights are a diffrent part of Axiology to ethics, they are not the codes of society or the rules. But instead the codes of action.

Quote:
Locke’s concept of self ownership is flawed because it is logically fallacious to flow from self-ownership to resource ownership, and hence property. I would agree that if we have to define everything as either ‘owned’ or ‘unowned’ (which is a fallacious dichotomy at any rate, and one which I only entertain when debating libertarians) then the ‘self’ and all things which are directly and indisputably a part of that are indeed ones ‘property’. Does labour satisfy this criterion? Perhaps, perhaps not. Labour is the product of energy, and energy, like all other natural resources, seems to be philosophically untenable. If you think of it simply as inputs and outputs, with resources and labour containing total throughput, even owning ones own labour a priori seems contentious.
Indeed the very idea of propety is a mystery yet to be solved, on your advice i am now collecting information on Bakunin and Proudhon, and i would agree it has been a given for far too long.

Now you know im not going to start shouting property is theft, but ill admit even if we take that the internal person existance is in essence infallible unless you take the idea of a sophist landlord as it were. it is hard to justify the jump.

Just becuase no ones manged it yet dosent mean it can't be done.

Quote:
Of course, once we have satisfied ourselves in our labour is intimately and inherently ‘ours’ a prior, then comes the task of justifying the ownership of other resources, which is more philosophically troubling than the labour problem. Lockes response is mixing labour with nature confers ownership of the product, but this leaves open to many holes to accept whilst retaining intellectual honesty. For example, what precisely constitutes ‘the fruits of our labour’, and why, philosophically, does mixing something which is yours with something that is not confer ownership of the mixed product? As Nozick and Singer both point out; if I poor a bottle of apple juice into the ocean, have I gained an ocean? OR have I foolishly squandered my apple juice?
I see what your saying, however lets look at the product of labour in meathods of production, it would be taken by people like marx prehaps that even if you enter into a factory use the tools 'owned' (lets just imagine ownership exists for a second) by another the product produced would be your own.

But if we take that this man could rightfully deny you a right to use that tool? Could then the use of the tool itself be concurrent to the ownership of the product.
I would say no, simply becuase your labour is not entierly internal, in order to produce that product you have to enter into a contract with the owner of the tool, should he wish that the product should be his for a sum of money. Then you had either accsept that or pack your bags and find a better deal.

Contracts which are voluntary cannot be unjust, when a man works in a facotry as a free man and is in essence alienated and expolited, on the most base level he has no one to blame but himself.

Quote:
Then you have the Lockean proviso: that we can take as much as we want as long as we leave enough for others to satisfy their needs. Do you accept this proviso? If so, have we not surpassed it?

An intresting thing i've been stugling with, do we have a right to consume resorces. Honeslty i don't know.

Quote:
Quote: Im not going to pretend this is a any question to answer, i would simply say at this stage basing rights on personhood and then trying to analyse what is personhood is the least fallible stance on rights.

Honeslty give me a few years to work on this one.

There is already a substantial body of literature on Lockean notions of personhood and their application to rights, including animal rights.
I need to find it then, suffice to say im not happy that there allready is :lol: Need a new bread winner.

Quote:
Quote: No no noe, you've misunderstood, at no point (i hope) have i claimed that only humans have rights, what im trying to say is that rights stem from the faculty of reason. Anything with the faculty of reason will have rights.

But how does reason confer rights?
Reason is the footpint of an actual existance in the world, without somthing showing reason (and many 'animals' do as i've said previously) you cannot say that a creature moving around is anything more than a moblie automton.

Quote:
Quote: What else can a man base his opinions on if not emperical evidence. Belife requires evidence.

First you say that a conception of rights is based on reason i.e. a priori faculties, the you switch to empiricism. Which is it?
Both. A priori reason can only justify our own existence, after than we have to swtich to empiricism, the diametric seperation of epricism has for a long time been nothing but useless trouble.

Quote:
Quote: I know a lot of peter singer, indeed a very intresting ethicist. however the principle of utility is fundamentally flawed, and in all the material his i've read or hear in lectures this appears to be his starting point.

Also quite clearly i don't agree with his stance of suffering being the centre point of any ethical debate.


You should read ‘Writings on an Ethical Life’
What good a man could do with Ritalin, a secured income and a personal libary.

I have some notes on it somewhere, once my term ends ill dig em out and we can go a few rounds on them.

[X-Shocker]

The strong kills and may or may not eat the weak. This is the law of Nature.

There is nothing wrong with clubbing a few baby seals for their furs.

Man is superior to his other fellow animals; and because of that, Nature gives man the right to wear the furs of his kills.

[ieatfood]

X-Shocker wrote: The strong kills and may or may not eat the weak. This is the law of Nature.

There is nothing wrong with clubbing a few baby seals for their furs.

Man is superior to his other fellow animals; and because of that, Nature gives man the right to wear the furs of his kills.

there is no such thing as a "law of nature"
laws are made by man
nature was not creaed by man
thus, nature contains no laws

but you're right
if we can kill cows to satisfy our taste buds, surely we can kill seals to satisfy our sense of fashion
I don't see a difference.

To the rest of you all: and don't give me the--we need to kill cows to eat. We don't. We can be vegetarian. We kill cows because it tastes good.

[social]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: social wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: social wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Eveything else, be it social contract, or emotional construct is a fallible base for rights, and if rights are fallible they are no more than opinions and well....we must first apply universal sceptisim to all of our belifes.

If you search for infallibility in philosophy or in political science, I can assure you, you won't find it... And using global scepticism to find such infallibility is not, as Wittgenstein and G. E. Moore have pointed out, the most fruitful approach. I take it you're aware of the problems of Cartesian philosophy?
If you can't find infallibility in philosophy it cannot be found. I can be quite confident in saying that within logic it can be found.

Yes, within language systems and mathematics - so-called 'meaning systems' - infallibility can be found in the form of analytical propositions. Yet such infallibility is analytical in nature - it does not relate to the empirical world of matter, much less explain it. The empirical world is one seperate from our minds, we can only find infalliblity in our analysis of it, never in the world itself for it is seperate from us and to accsept its existance requires assumption.
I don't think you understand the nature of analytical propositions. An analytical proposition is one that is tautological, which is the only reason why it can be classed as infallible. All other statements - "I think, therefore I am", "There are natural, free-born rights", etc. - are value judgments, and are not, nor are they ever capable of becoming, infallible.

Quote: Quote: Quote: Fundamentally barking up the wrong tree, but irregardless incredibility clever.

Err... What exactly are you trying to say?
From all i've read they seem to consider languge as unifed with thought, i see and will day hope to prove that languge is mearly an expression of thought.

I seriously doubt that Wittgenstein beleived langauge was seperate from thought. It's seems unreasonable to assume he did, since this would create an unneccsary problem in explaining the (required) link between thought and language. Moreover, from what I've read, I gather that Wittgestein's impetus came not so much from a desire to explicate how thought relates to language, as from an urge to explain how language expresses thought, even clarifies it, in a social context.

Quote: Quote: Quote: Moore on the other hand was overrated, to the point i would even call him a hack.
Common sense philosophy, pfft!

I think you'll find Moore was trying to steer philosophy away from the kind of highbrowed academic pursuit that it has became today. He recognised the flaw in the over-intellectualisation of everyday social life, and made an effort to make philosophy less abstruse and more - God forbid - accesable. What an overrated idiot aye?
Philosophy is what it is, most people without deliberate force of will with understand nor apricate it, sitting in our ivory tower we may be but its the nature of the universe.

That's a bold statement. Personally I avoid at all costs the 'nature of the universe' argument, because it leads inevitably to racism, sexism and elitism. If one accepts that things are the way they are because of the 'nature' of the universe, sexual inequality and racial and economic disparities become inconsequential, insignificant - trivial. This is a very, very dangerous beleif to have, given the state of the planet and the nature of the society we live in...

Quote: Quote: Quote: Im aware of most of the criticisms leveled by Wittgenstein and Moore against global sceptism, doubt being a black whole, moore two hands argument.

Again were as they would critise Descartes as being able to identify what could be rationalty doubted, i would say they failed to identify what could rationally not be doubted.

That's exactly thier point! People like you always suggest that failing to identify what can be doubted is a weakness, but doubt in and of itself is the real weakness because everything - everthing - can be doubted in some way... One has to accept that some things - or, to be more precise, most things - cannot withstand the test of doubt.

Indeed, but is this truely a fault, if we can say that we hold most things truely on assumption are we not better for it?

The point Wittgestein et al are making is that everything can be doubted on some level. One can doubt all memory and therefore all subsequent expereince. One can doubt the existance of others, even one's existance. One can doubt morality, feelings, emotions and (important for epistemological purposes) ideas and thoughts. There is - if one is consistent - no end to hyperbolic doubt, and if you indulge in it you become so detatched from the real world that your life becomes, essenatially, empty. This is not practiced philosophy; it is what my father calls "philosophical masturbation."

Quote: Quote: Quote: Other objections like Putman are largely tied up like Wittgenstein in an analysis of language an interesting field no doubt but one ultimately tied up far too much in the expression of concepts and not the concepts them selves.

This is more a description of Wittgenstein's language philosophy than a 'criticism' of it. Wittgestein argued that the meaning of language is determined by how it is used in a social context. In other words, how one expresses something is just as important (perhaps more important) than what one is, in the first place, expressing.
Ill admit i need to learn more on wittgenstein, you seem fairly well verse in it. However 'from what i have read' he seems to make a direct link between ideas and languge and that as some one put it rather intrestinly to me 'society melds our ideas through languge'. I can't help but disagree, we are indeed restricted and melded by languge, but on the most basis level a mans mind is an island.

This talk of a woman/man's mind being an 'island' ignores the fact that language is a collective as opposed to individual activity. The meaning of the words we use when we speak, the symbols we communicate with when we write, are determined entirely by their use in a social context. Thus even if you coin a word and make it your own, its meaning is essentially empty until it is actually used in discourse by other people.

Quote: Quote: Quote: Cogito ergo sum is in essence infallible and i challenge you to prove otherwise.

The fact that one thinks does not neccesarily mean one exists: How can one draw the link - in all certainty, and without the possibility of doubt - between a single thought - a thought about thinking, to be more preicise - and absolute existence? Thought is not a pre-requisite for existance. Nor does the statement, "I think" follow logically to the statement, "I am."

I don't ever belive Descartes stated that it meant he existed and irregarless after that point in a meditation he starts making stupid assumptions anyway. Rather he has indetified one core infalible principle.

It is impossible to doubt the existance of doubt, for so long as you are doubting or thinking, that doubting or thinking intself exists, not prehaps in the same manner as an apple on the table 'exists' but rather as a atomos against sceptism. It is the one rock from which we can begin to climb.

Indeed that my exernal body exists is an assumption (Which is why moore's two hands is infuriation), but so long as one knows one exists soley in the mechanism of doubt or thought, one can then start to cohere assumptions, such as the realibility of sense data and build from this.

Sorry about the lateness of my responce.

That one thinks one is doubting does not logically, or neccesarily, follow on to the proposition that one actually exists. Nor does it mean doubting or thinking is a form of existance, however rudimentary such existance may be. Descartes' cogito is not an analytical proposition; it is based, despite his assertion to the contrary, on the experience he derives from the empirical world of matter, and is therefore fallible... I could critique his argument further but I'm sure you're aware of the problems associated with his philosophy

[geddy]

The seal season is what, 3 days? 3 days of the year, Country's from all over the world, (Canada barely takes part in it) go to Canada to kill Hundreds of Thousands, YES, Hundreds of Thousands in only 3 days. It is the largest, most populated hunt in the history of the world.

But Hundreds of Thousands? The seals will surely go extinct. Well no little Jimmy, you see, the seal hunt has been going on for decades, and Seals have still managed to increase in numbers.

But why does Canada, quite possibly the greatest country in the world let this happen?
Well little Jimmy, you see, in the times past, seal hunting used to happen everyday, for things like food and clothing, until one day the government of Canada realiized that walking up to a seal and clubing it in an instant pain free death was just to easy. So the Canadian government made a law.... Only for 3 days of the year may people in canada kill seals. And because of this law, people from all over the world combine 50% of the seal killing that normally would happen into 3 days.

Well hey, that seems the fairest and most civilized solution ever, but why are people still angry? Well Jimmy, people like cute and cuddly things, no one jimmy, not even me, likes the idea of innocent thing being killed, but you see jimmy, what people dont seem to realize jimmy, is that humans are the dominant species, and as dominat species, they do things to hurt other species, such is the way of any animal. Animals also hurt other animals jimmy. If people let the seals grow and grow in numbers, the fish that the seals eat would die, and soon the seals would die also. The reason Humans remain as the dominant speices is because of Evolution, something that the seals seem to lack, they still go to the same place and get themselves killed so easily every year.

But what about Cows? there is no hunting season for cows and they are also killed so easily. Why you are right Jimmy, millions of cows are slaughteres each month, 500X more cows die in a year than seals. It is the way of life jimmy.

And such is a video from the big evil "Corporate America"

I fooled you

[jasonireland]

your point is flawed.
most humans do it out of desire - not out of need , every other creature on the planet does it because it HAS to, that is natural. not for fashion or for the taste of it or not in the modern, disgusting way we treat animals merely as "products" in a part of our diet.

please follow this link,at least read the LAST few posts on it, i am sure it will make for some upsetting reading for meat eaters. oh and please leave a message there no one seems to have anything to add!!!!
here it is
http://politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=51922&start=40

[X-Shocker]

jasonireland wrote: your point is flawed.
most humans do it out of desire - not out of need, every other creature on the planet does it because it HAS to, that is natural. not for fashion or for the taste of it or not in the modern, disgusting way we treat animals merely as "products" in a part of our diet.


Why does a cat play with a mouse instead of quickly killing it and consume it? It is desire, not need. :wink:

I've read your posts on that link. They might have look alittle more convincing if the facts did not come from Vegans.com.

Did you know that plants are alive too. By eating plants and nuts, you are hurting and/or killing them as well.

Let's look at a nut. All you see is the protein requirement for your vegan diet. What you don't see is it is a whole new life: it is like an embryo. When you eat the nut, you are committing an abortion (in human terms).

Let's look at a leaf of green. Plucking a leaf off of a plant is like hacking a limb off of an animal. Sure, you can not hear the plant scream in pain, but that plant has just sent some fixing liquid to the very site where the leaf came off so that it may defend itself from parasites and viruses.

Whatever we eat or wear has some kind of effect on the lives around us, whether that is plants, animals, insects, or fungi.

[Infinite911911]

Well, let the Murder of innocence begin. The Seal Hunt starts tomorrow 03-25-06.

I'm sorry seals..... :cry:

















Quote: To my mind, the life of a lamb is no less precious than that of a human being. The more helpless the creature, the more that it is entitled to protection by man from the cruelty of man. -Mahatma Gandhi

[thefranzkafkafront]

Pictures prove nothing.

People post picutres of dead kids to argue that war in wrong on a regular basis.

[Infinite911911]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: Pictures prove nothing.

People post picutres of dead kids to argue that war in wrong on a regular basis.

Good ahead I don't give a f**k, start a new thread about. This thread is about Seals, stop going off topic!!!!

[jasonireland]

X-Shocker wrote: jasonireland wrote: your point is flawed.
most humans do it out of desire - not out of need, every other creature on the planet does it because it HAS to, that is natural. not for fashion or for the taste of it or not in the modern, disgusting way we treat animals merely as "products" in a part of our diet.


Why does a cat play with a mouse instead of quickly killing it and consume it? It is desire, not need. :wink:

I've read your posts on that link. They might have look alittle more convincing if the facts did not come from Vegans.com.

Did you know that plants are alive too. By eating plants and nuts, you are hurting and/or killing them as well.

Let's look at a nut. All you see is the protein requirement for your vegan diet. What you don't see is it is a whole new life: it is like an embryo. When you eat the nut, you are committing an abortion (in human terms).

Let's look at a leaf of green. Plucking a leaf off of a plant is like hacking a limb off of an animal. Sure, you can not hear the plant scream in pain, but that plant has just sent some fixing liquid to the very site where the leaf came off so that it may defend itself from parasites and viruses.

Whatever we eat or wear has some kind of effect on the lives around us, whether that is plants, animals, insects, or fungi.

:lol: your viewpoint is laughable. actually i almost fell off my chair reading your post. that is some of the most absurd philosophy i have ever read! :roll:
the points didnt come from vegans.com, they originated from The US dept of agriculture and the UN and university studies. dont criticise what you dont understand.

[mathurin]

so fur is evil?

what about other countries and up north in our own, it is impossible to live without a fur coat, i have been to russia and had girls ask me honestly if people throw paint on coats in america, they need theirs to keep warm, synthetics just dont work as well

[thefranzkafkafront]

Infinite911911 wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Pictures prove nothing.

People post picutres of dead kids to argue that war in wrong on a regular basis.

Good ahead I don't give a f**k, start a new thread about. This thread is about Seals, stop going off topic!!!!

You've misunderstood me, i coulnt prove anything by posting picture of kids.

Becuase pictures can't settle debates.

[social]

Alongside words, they can.