Which rights for which animals? (was: problem with this newsgroup)

"Bob LeChevalier" wrote in message ...
"pearl" wrote:

"Bob LeChevalier" wrote in message ...

The redefinition of "murder" to include animals is one such
redefinition,

'murder
..
v.tr.
1. To kill (another human) unlawfully.
2. To kill brutally or inhumanly.
..
http://www.answers.com/murder&r=67

"The time will come when men such as I will look upon the
murder of animals as they now look on the murder of men."
- Leonardo da Vinci, artist and scientist.

So what excuses killing vegetables from this definition. What we do
to prepare vegetables is at least as "brutal" as what we do to
animals.

'bru·tal (brut'l)
adj.
1. Extremely ruthless or cruel.
...
Causing sharp, often prolonged discomfort:
...'
http://www.answers.com/brutal

'Do Plants Feel Pain ?

No scientific evidence supports such a contention. For instance
Ted W. Altar, Simon Fraser Univ. (plant molecular biology dept)
Burnaby, Canada, wrote (Dec 18, '92): (http://tinyurl.com/35p983)

"1. Our best science to date shows that plants lack any semblance
of a central nervous system or any other system designed for such
complex capacities as that of a conscious suffering from felt pain.

2. Plants simply have no evolutionary need to feel pain. Animals
being mobile would benefit from the ability to sense pain; plants
would not. Nature does not create gratuitously such complex
capacities as that of feeling pain unless there should be some
benefit for the organism's survival.

With respect to all mammals, birds, and reptiles, we know that
they possess a sufficiently complex neural structure to enable pain
to be felt plus an evolutionary need for such consciously felt states.
They possess complex and specialised organisations of tissues
called sense organs. They also possess a specialised and complex
structure for processing information and for centrally orchestrating
appropriate behaviours in accordance with mental representations,
integrations and reorganizations of that information. The proper
attribution of felt pain in these animals is well-justified, but it is not
for plants by any stretch of the imagination."
...'
http://web.archive.org/web/200208290...article_43.htm

Of course, it is hard to argue that killing plants or animals is
"inhuman"

'in·hu·man
adj.
1. Lacking kindness, pity, or compassion; cruel.
...'
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?qinhuman

since we've been doing it as a norm since we've existed as a
species.

'In a position paper by the American Dietetic Association entitled
"Position paper on the vegetarian approach to eating", the protein
myth is indirectly addressed. In one section it is stated that "the
A.D.A. recognizes that most of mankind for much of human history
has subsisted on near-vegetarian diets. The vast majority of the
population of the world today continues to eat vegetarian or semi-
vegetarian diets..."
...'
http://www.uga.edu/vegsoc/news1_2.html

'Ethnographic parallels with modern hunter-gatherer communities
have been taken to show that the colder the climate, the greater the
reliance on meat. There are sound biological and economic reasons
for this, not least in the ready availability of large amounts of fat in
arctic mammals. From this, it has been deduced that the humans of
the glacial periods were primarily hunters, while plant foods were
more important during the interglacials.
...'
http://www.phancocks.pwp.blueyonder..../devensian.htm

"Studies of frugivorous communities elsewhere suggest that dietary
divergence is highest when preferred food (succulent fruit) is scarce,
and that niche separation is clear only at such times (Gautier-Hion
& Gautier 1979: Terborgh 1983). " Foraging profiles of sympatric
lowland gorillas and chimpanzees in the Lopé Reserve, Gabon, p.179,
Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences vol 334, 159-295,
No. 1270.

In article ,
"pearl" wrote:

[SNIP]

With respect to all mammals, birds, and reptiles, we know that
they possess a sufficiently complex neural structure to enable pain
to be felt plus an evolutionary need for such consciously felt states.

You avoided responding to this issue in a previous thread, so I'll try
again: We agree that animals possess sensors for various dangerous
stimuli (intense heat, cold, pressure, etc.), and that they are
neurologically complex enough to consistently respond in ways to avoid
such stimuli; BUT, the scientific state of the art is currently unable
to tell us if they have any SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE analogous to our
feelings of pain, or for that matter any subjective experience of
anything at all. One could build a small mobile robot that senses and
avoids extreme environmental conditions, but surely from seeing its
purposeful behaviour you would not leap to the conclusion that it had
"consciously felt states". Or would you?

Note that I am not asserting that higher animals definitely lack
subjective experience, but rather that our ignorance of the material
underpinnings of subjective experience is so vast that we can not even
begin to answer questions such which animals (if any) have "consciously
felt states".

Over to you. And please try to respond with your own thoughts, rather
than another large cut-and-paste.

[SNIP]

--
---------------------------
| BBB b \ Barbara at LivingHistory stop co stop uk
| B B aa rrr b |
| BBB a a r bbb | Quidquid latine dictum sit,
| B B a a r b b | altum viditur.
| BBB aa a r bbb |
-----------------------------

"Barb Knox" wrote in message ...
In article ,
"pearl" wrote:

[SNIP]

With respect to all mammals, birds, and reptiles, we know that
they possess a sufficiently complex neural structure to enable pain
to be felt plus an evolutionary need for such consciously felt states.

You avoided responding to this issue in a previous thread,

But I did respond to this in a previous thread, and I reproduce
that response - which _you_ avoided responding to - below.

so I'll try
again: We agree that animals possess sensors for various dangerous
stimuli (intense heat, cold, pressure, etc.), and that they are
neurologically complex enough to consistently respond in ways to avoid
such stimuli; BUT, the scientific state of the art is currently unable
to tell us if they have any SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE analogous to our
feelings of pain, or for that matter any subjective experience of
anything at all. One could build a small mobile robot that senses and
avoids extreme environmental conditions, but surely from seeing its
purposeful behaviour you would not leap to the conclusion that it had
"consciously felt states". Or would you?

Of course not. Your robot lacks a central nervous system, and life.

Note that I am not asserting that higher animals definitely lack
subjective experience, but rather that our ignorance of the material
underpinnings of subjective experience is so vast that we can not even
begin to answer questions such which animals (if any) have "consciously
felt states".

'We address the question of pain perception in fish by first accepting
the assumption that it is unlikely that the conscious perception of pain
evolved to simply guide reactions to noxious events, or to provide an
experiential dimension to accompany reflexes, but rather it allowed
an organism to discriminate their environment in ways that permitted
adaptive and flexible behaviour (Chandroo et al. 2004). The neural
systems involved in nociception and pain perception, and the
cognitive processes resulting in flexible behaviour function, probably
evolved as an interactive dynamic system within the central nervous
system (Chapman and Nakamura 1999).
.........'
http://www.aquanet.ca/English/resear...erspective.pdf

'Neurophysiologists have so far discovered no fundamental difference
between the structure or functions of neurons in men and other
animals."[19] Anthropomorphism he calls an obsolete straitjacket.

After I read Griffin's book, my quest for a context into which an
understanding of ocean mind might grow met with another stroke of
luck. At the 1980 Conference on Cetacean Intelligence in Washington
DC, I met psychologist Dr Michael Bossley of Magill University,
South Australia. Later he sent me an extraordinary unpublished
manuscript - his review of the scientific evidence for non-human mind,
which was a global survey of formal research into cognitive ethology
since Griffin had defined it. I read this with utter delight and suggested
a title, Continuum, which Dr Bossley accepted.

The implications of Bossley's survey could upset many. He insists
that an entirely new ethical system is required, and presents compelling
evidence for a continuity between human psychological processes and
those of other life forms. He urges our species to climb down from its
imaginary pedestal: 'Everything grades into everything else. We are part
of the natural world.' Much of the research Bossley examines is recent
and ongoing. For the most part it has appeared only in highly technical
literature accessible to specialised academics. It may be several
generations before the full implications are heeded. Like the
Copernican and Darwinian revolutions, it could alter the way we view
our place on this planet, how we treat other life forms and each other.

Legitimate evidence that five vital aspects of being human can be traced
to other animals exists in the published work of established scientists.
In each of five chapters, Bossley summarises that evidence.
...'
http://www.wadedoak.com/projectinterlock.htm

'Anthropocentrism
By Penelope Smith

Albert Einstein is quoted as saying, "A human being is part of the whole,
called by us 'Universe', a part limited in time and space. He experiences
himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest,
a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind
of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection
for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves
from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all
living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."

Many humans have an attitude that restricts their ability to understand
or empathize with non-human animals and other life forms and has
some serious consequences for all life on this planet. It is called
anthropocentrism, or viewing man as the center or final aim of the
universe. I refer to this in my book, Animal Talk, as the "human
superiority complex" considering humans as superior to or the
pinnacle of all forms of life. From the anthropocentric view, non-
human beings that are most like human are usually considered more
intelligent, for example, chimpanzees who learn to use sign language
or dolphins who signal word or thought comprehension through
touching electronic devices in their tanks. Animals or other life forms
that don't express themselves in human ways by language or in terms
easily comprehensible by common human standards are often
considered less developed, inferior, more primitive or mechanistic,
and usually of less importance than humans.

This viewpoint has been used to justify using animals as objects for
human ends. Since humans are the superior creatures, "dumb,
unfeeling" non-humans can be disregarded, mistreated, subjugated,
killed or whole species eliminated without much concern for their
existence in itself, only their usefulness or lack of it to humankind.

Many humans, as they see other animals are more like them in
patterns of behavior and expression of intelligence, begin to respect
them more and treat them with more regard for their rights. However,
this does not transcend the trap of anthropocentrism. To increase
harmony of life on Earth, all beings need to be regarded as worthy
of respect, whether seen as different or similar to the human species.

The anthropocentric view toward animals echoes the way in which
many humans have discriminated against other humans because they
were of different cultures, races, religions, or sexes. Regarding others
as less intelligent or substandard has commonly been used to justify
domination, cruelty or elimination of them.

Too often people label what they don't understand as inferior, dumb,
or to be avoided, without attempting to understand a different way of
being. More enlightened humans look upon meeting people, things or
animals that are different than themselves as opportunities to expand
their understanding, share new realities, and become more whole.

Anthropocentrism does not allow humans to bridge the artificial gap
it creates. It leaves humans fragmented or alienated from much of their
environment. We see the disastrous consequences of this in human
disruption of the earth's ecology, causing the disintegration of health
and harmony for all including human life.

Anthropocentrism causes humans to misjudge animal intelligence
and awareness. Humans can get too fixed in the view or model that
they indeed are the center of and separate from the universe and
therefore the most intelligent and aware. They then see or seek only
to prove that point.

Anthropocentric humans also tend to judge non-human animals
according to human cultural standards, as human groups often do
with other human cultures. Instead of viewing and evaluating animals
according to the their own cultural experience, heredity, training and
environment, they impose human environments, tests, standards and
methods and evaluate animals, according to the ability to exhibit
human-like behavior.

This is similar to the bias that was found in college preparatory and
intelligence tests, which caused anyone unfamiliar with a white middle
class upbringing to score lower and therefore to be considered less
intelligent. Individuals with different ethnic backgrounds could not
comprehend the tests' frames of reference and therefore were not
able to express their intelligence through them.

When we respectfully regard animals as intelligent, sensitive fellow
beings with whom we walk upon the Earth, our whole perspective of
life changes. In cooperation instead of alienation, we can create a new
balance and joy in living for all us here. Lets each of us do our part.

http://animalliberty.com/animalliber...pe/pene-2.html

Over to you. And please try to respond with your own thoughts, rather
than another large cut-and-paste.

Please try to stop being such a control freak.

Here's another "large cut-and-paste" for you, Barb.

'February 20, 2007

Is It Unscientific to Say that an Animal is Happy?


A response to "Feelings Do Not a Science Make": Marian Stamp
Dawkins' review of Jonathan Balcombe's book, Pleasurable
Kingdom: Animals and the Nature of Feeling Good, Macmillan, 2006.


BioScience Jan. 2007. Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 83-84.
http://www.bioone.org/archive/0006-3...68-57-1-84.pdf


By Karen Davis, PhD, President of United Poultry Concerns


Many scientists willing to concede that birds and other animals can
experience negative emotions such as fear, cry "anthropomorphism"
and "sentimentality" if you dare to suggest that animals can experience
happiness and pleasure, as well. Marian Stamp Dawkins, a professor
of animal behavior in the Department of Zoology at the University of
Oxford, who has done a lot of experimental research into "what hens
want," scoffs at the presumption that the individuals of other species
showing similar behavior to that of humans when eating, being touched
by their companions, playing together, or having sex, enjoy the
experience. She implies that people who believe that nonhuman animals
have an evolved capacity to enjoy life have abandoned the rigorous
intellectual standards that define the behaviorist science to which she
subscribes. According to these standards, "the existence of conscious
feelings cannot be tested empirically, and so the study of conscious
emotions is outside the realm of science."


Let us stipulate that there are dimensions of reality beyond science,
just as there are scientific prospects that are beyond behaviorism. This
said, there is a correlation in human life between things that we must
do to survive and perpetuate ourselves and the pleasure we derive from
doing these things. We have to eat to live, and eating is a primary
pleasure in human life. We have to have sex in order to perpetuate our
species, and sex is a primary pleasure in human life. We have to play in
order to relieve tension - and (to risk tautology) enjoy ourselves. Why
would it be more plausible, or plausible at all, to assume or conclude
that other animals, engaging in the identical acts of eating, touching,
playing together, and having sex that we do, have not been endowed
by nature with the same incentives of pleasure and enjoyment to do
the things that need to be done in order to survive and thrive?


If we subscribe to the idea that we can never learn or make logical
inferences about emotions, the same restriction applies to the emotions
of human beings as well as to inferences about an animal's, or anyone's,
fear. Why should we believe Marian Dawkins when she writes that
Balcombe's book about animal pleasure left her with a "depressing
feeling"? Why tell us about her feelings, which can't be proved?


In addition, there are studies being done in which the pleasure centers
in nonhuman animals' brains are stimulated in such a way as to
encourage or compel the animal to seek to perpetuate the pleasurable
feeling, as indicated by his or her behavioral response to the stimulus.
Do I err in my recollection that science has identified areas of the brain
in certain species of nonhuman animals that are responsible for feelings
of pleasure in those species?


Also, there is a standard of intellectual inquiry that calls for the
simplest, most reasonable explanation of a given phenomenon. If
I see sad body language such as drooping in one of our chickens,
I conclude that the chicken is not feeling well and that this feeling
probably reflects an adverse condition affecting the chicken.
Conversely, if I see a chicken with her tail up, eating with gusto
(pleasure!), eyes bright and alert, I conclude that her condition is
good and that she feels happy. Why should I doubt these
conclusions when the preponderance of evidence supports them?


What I see in scientists like Marian Dawkins, who scold people for
daring to infer (or to argue) that recognizable expressions of happiness
in an animal most likely mean that the animal is feeling good, is
stinginess, a niggardly attitude and a crabbed spirit hiding behind a
guise of so-called objectivity and principled, never-ending doubt.
Probably when a person views nonhuman animals mainly or entirely,
for years, in laboratory settings that elicit little more than dullness and
dread in the animals being manipulated for study, one loses one's sense
of continuity with these "objects," while extrapolating the deadening
anthropomorphic determinism of the laboratory environment to the
entire world, excepting one's own professional culture.


It could be that, over time, these circumstances have the effect of
eroding the capacity for spontaneous happiness and pleasure in the
behaviorist to such an extent that the behaviorist's own diminished
emotional capacity becomes the scientific standard by which she or
he judges everything else. When this happens, the so-called science
is little more than self-massage, the scientist little more than a
self-medicator, a self-referential system incapable of making a
worthwhile contribution to life outside the institution.
__


Karen Davis is the president and founder of United Poultry Concerns,
a nonprofit organization that promotes the compassionate and
respectful treatment of domestic fowl. For more information, visit:
www.upc-online.org and www.upc-online.org/karenbio.htm.

Rupert wrote:
On Dec 5, 6:40 pm, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
Rupert wrote:
There are plenty of respectable arguments for ethical vegetarianism.

All based on assumptions that are peculiar to the ethical vegetarian,
and hence utterly meaningless to all the rest of us that reject those
assumptions.

No, actually, that's not right.


It inherently must be right. Otherwise everyone else would be ethical
vegetarians.

We can have a serious discussion of these arguments if you want.

I never have a serious discussion about ideology.

You have given no evidence that you are aware of what they are.

There are meaningless to me, so I have tuned them out.

I don't think you've actually encountered the strongest arguments.

That would require that people who have discussed the topic in my
witness have avoided their strongest arguments, which strikes me as
implausible.

There are no arguments that I would consider, since I consider the
subject to be silly. (Indeed, I consider the topic of ethics to be
not subject to serious theoretical discussion - in order to make it
theoretical, you have to make assumptions, and I reject unnecessary
assumptions).

You are welcome to laugh at ethical vegetarianism if you want,

I laugh at all isms.

Well, that's pretty silly.

I'm glad you see the humor.

It's very interesting that you can dismiss a belief system purely on
the grounds that it is "ideological". What's your definition of an
ideology?

The inherently flawed idea that a group of assumptions is Truth and
that they can be systematically applied to real life. This usually
ends up involving the redefinition of words from the meaning used by
everyone else to some peculiar form that is a nice inside-joke for the
True Believers.

The redefinition of "murder" to include animals is one such
redefinition, and it begs the question of why killing animals is
murder, but not killing vegetables? Hence the song I posted.

Yes, well this really is incredibly stupid.

The topic is, indeed. I don't much care what someone else eats. If
they tell me what to eat (or tell me what to do in general) based on
their personal choices of assumption, my *least* offensive response is
to laugh.

We can try to have a
serious discussion about it if you like. I don't get the impression
that you're interested.

I'm not.

I apologize if your newsgroups have been polluted with a topic you
don't regard as worthy of serious consideration. It was David Harrison
who did that, for reasons best known to himself, not the ethical
vegetarians.

No apology is necessary. One merely had to look at the header lists to
see that it wasn't serious discussion.

It is your contributions that are not serious.

If you want serious philosophy (an oxymoron), stick to philosophy
groups. If you post about vegetarianism and mention killing of
animals on the education newsgroups, where the topic is almost
invariably spam, then it will likely remind me of that song, which
causes most anyone who doesn't take themselves too seriously to laugh.

lojbab

On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 18:08:39 -0800 (PST), Rupert wrote:

On Nov 28, 11:22 am, dh@. wrote:
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 13:34:46 -0500, "LarryLook" wrote:
The problem with this newsgroup is the following. The anti's here are under
the assumptions:

1. That vegetarians don't think modern lifestyle kills anything.

Some of us don't believe you're honestly too stupid to understand
that you contribute to most of the same wildlife deaths that everyone
else does. Some of us believe deep down you are actually aware
of it, meaning that we think you lie to everyone else in your attempts
to promote veg*nism, and possibly even lie to yourselves in order to
reduce the discomfort of your cognitive dissonance which results
from it.


Did you listen to him? He acknowledged that deaths occur in order to
support his lifestyle.

That's crazy.

You are the ones who give the impression that you're too stupid
to understand, so if anyone has that impression it is YOUR fault.

Show us a quote from him where he denied that deaths occur in order to
support his lifestyle.

Show us a quote from him acknowledging that he's aware of
the deaths he contributes to.

As I pointed out above, some of us believe you are really more
dishonest than you are stupid, though maybe not by much.

I must kill and occassional ant driving to work. I admit it. So
there.

· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
in order to be successful:

Tires, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water
Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides,
Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen,
Heparin, Insulin, Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides,
Gelatin Capsules, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products,
Plywood, Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane
Wrap and Tape, Abrasives, Steel Ball Bearings

2. The anti's don't think we vegetarians care about numbers. But clearly
the death of one animal is better than the death of 1000. It's not a hard
concept.

Here we see plowing:http://tinyurl.com/8fmxe

and here harrowing:http://tinyurl.com/zqr2v

both of which kill animals by crushing, mutilation, suffocation,
and exposing them to predators. We can see that planting
kills in similar ways:http://tinyurl.com/k6sku

and death from herbicides and pesticides needs to be
kept in mind:http://tinyurl.com/ew2j5

Harvesting kills of course by crushing and mutilation, and
it also removes the surviving animals' food, and it exposes
them to predators:http://tinyurl.com/otp5l

In the case of rice there's additional killing as well caused
by flooding:http://tinyurl.com/qhqx3

and later by draining and destroying the environment which
developed as the result of the flooding:http://tinyurl.com/rc9m3

Cattle eating grass rarely if ever cause anywhere near
as much suffering and death. ·http://tinyurl.com/q7whm


That statement requires more argument than a picture of some cows.

Most beef on the market requires a lot of crop inputs.

Not grass raised cattle

And cattle
suffer significantly when confined on intensive feedlots,

According to the people I've known who have had
experience around feedlots, cattle LIKE to eat grain all
day. From personal experience I believe that is true,
since if they get a chance cattle will eat themselves
to death eating grain.

and when
being transported and slaughtered. If you think that ethical
vegetarians could significantly reduce their contribution to suffering
and death by including some grass-fed beef in their diets, you may or
may not be right, but you've got to argue the point in more detail,
and tell us which grass-fed beef you're talking about. A lot of beef
labelled "grass-fed" is still grain-fed.
__________________________________________________ _______
Grass (Forage) Fed Claim Comments and Responses

By the close of the comment period for the December 30, 2002
notice, AMS received 369 comments concerning the grass (forage) fed
claim from consumers, academia, trade and professional associations,
national organic associations, consumer advocacy associations, meat
product industries, and livestock producers. Only three comments
received were in general support of the standard as originally
proposed. Summaries of issues raised by commenters and AMS's responses
follow.

Grass (Forage) Definition and Percentage

Comment: AMS received numerous comments suggesting the percentage
of grass and forage in the standard be greater than the 80 percent
originally proposed. Most comments suggested the standard be 100
percent grass or forage. Other comments recommended various levels of
90, 95, 98 and 99 percent grass and forage as the primary energy
source.
.. . .

AMS determined the most appropriate way to integrate the
grass (forage) fed claim into practical management systems and still
maximize or keep the purest intent of grass and/or forage based diets
was by changing the standard requirements to read that grass and/or
forage shall be 99 percent or higher of the energy source for the
lifetime of the animal.
.. . .

http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0509.txt
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 13:19:13 -0000, "pearl" wrote:

"Bob LeChevalier" wrote in message ...
Rupert wrote:
On Dec 3, 4:11 am, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Nov 28, 11:22 am, dh@. wrote:
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 13:34:46 -0500, "LarryLook" wrote:
The problem with this newsgroup is the following. The anti's here are under
the assumptions:

1. That vegetarians don't think modern lifestyle kills anything.

Some of us don't believe you're honestly too stupid to understand
that you contribute to most of the same wildlife deaths that everyone
else does. Some of us believe deep down you are actually aware
of it, meaning that we think you lie to everyone else in your attempts
to promote veg*nism, and possibly even lie to yourselves in order to
reduce the discomfort of your cognitive dissonance which results
from it.

Did you listen to him? He acknowledged that deaths occur in order to
support his lifestyle.

Screams of the Vegetables
by The Arrogant Wormshttp://www.arrogant-worms.com/

Listen up brothers and sisters,
come hear my desperate tale.
I speak of our friends of nature,
trapped in the dirt like a jail.

Vegetables live in oppression,
served on our tables each night.
This killing of veggies is madness,
I say we take up the fight.

Salads are only for murderers,
coleslaw's a fascist regime.
Don't think that they don't have feelings,
just cause a radish can't scream.

Chorus:
I've heard the screams of the vegetables (scream, scream, scream)
Watching their skins being peeled (having their insides revealed)
Grated and steamed with no mercy (burning off calories)
How do you think that feels (bet it hurts really bad)
Carrot juice constitutes murder (and that's a real crime)
Greenhouses prisons for slaves (let my vegetables go)
It's time to stop all this gardening (it's dirty as hell)
Let's call a spade a spade (is a spade is a spade is a spade)

I saw a man eating celery,
so I beat him black and blue.
If he ever touches a sprout again,
I'll bite him clean in two.

I'm a political prisoner,
trapped in a windowless cage.
Cause I stopped the slaughter of turnips
by killing five men in a rage

I told the judge when he sentenced me,
This is my finest hour,
I'd kill those farmers again
just to save one more cauliflower

Chorus

How low as people do we dare to stoop,
Making young broccolis bleed in the soup?
Untie your beans, uncage your tomatoes
Let potted plants free, don't mash that potato!

I've heard the screams of the vegetables (scream, scream, scream)
Watching their skins being peeled (fates in the stirfry are sealed)
Grated and steamed with no mercy (you fat gourmet slob)
How do you think that feels? (leave them out in the field)
Carrot juice constitutes murder (V8's genocide)
Greenhouses prisons for slaves (yes, your composts are graves)
It's time to stop all this gardening (take up macrame)
Let's call a spade a spade (is a spade, is a spade, is a spade, is a
spade.....- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I hope, for your sake, that you are just having a joke and that you
realize how stupid this is.

The whole topic is a joke.
When someone mentions "vegetarian" and "kill" in the same sentence, I
think of that song, and I laugh.

All ideologies are wrong. It is appropriate to laugh at them.
Someone posts ideological discussion to the education newsgroups, and
I will laugh at them (especially if they crosspost it to the dog and
cat newsgroups)

lojbab

Don't be so foolish. Think of this song, and cry.

Meat Is Murder / The Smiths

Heifer whines could be human cries
Closer comes the screaming knife
This beautiful creature must die
This beautiful creature must die
A death for no reason

· Since the animals we raise for food would not be alive
if we didn't raise them for that purpose, it's a distortion of
reality not to take that fact into consideration whenever
we think about the fact that the animals are going to be
killed. The animals are not being cheated out of any part
of their life by being raised for food, but instead they are
experiencing whatever life they get as a result of it. ·

And death for no reason is murder

And the flesh you so fancifully fry
Is not succulent, tasty or kind
Its death for no reason
And death for no reason is murder

And the calf that you carve with a smile
Is murder
And the turkey you festively slice
Is murder

· The meat industry includes habitats in which a small
variety of animals are raised. The animals in those
habitats, as those in any other, are completely dependant
on them to not only sustain their lives, but they also
depend on them to provide the pairing of sperm and egg
that begins their particular existence. Those animals will
only live if people continue to raise them for food.

Animals that are born to other groups--such as wild
animals, pets, performing animals, etc.--are completely
different groups of animals. Regardless of how many or few
animals are born to these other groups, the billions of animals
which are raised for food will always be dependant on consumers
for their existence. ·

Do you know how animals die ?

Kitchen aromas arent very homely
Its not comforting, cheery or kind
Its sizzling blood and the unholy stench
Of murder

Its not natural, normal or kind
The flesh you so fancifully fry
The meat in your mouth
As you savour the flavour
Of murder

No, no, no, its murder
No, no, no, its murder
Oh ... and who hears when animals cry ?

· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
in order to be successful:

Tires, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water
Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides,
Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen,
Heparin, Insulin, Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides,
Gelatin Capsules, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products,
Plywood, Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane
Wrap and Tape, Abrasives, Steel Ball Bearings

The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
being vegan.
From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·

On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 14:08:35 -0800 (PST), Michael Gordge wrote:

I only ever eat vegetarian meat.

Don't forget that pigs and poultry are omnivorous.

Troll dh@. spammed in message ...
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 13:19:13 -0000, "pearl" wrote:
..
Meat Is Murder / The Smiths

Heifer whines could be human cries
Closer comes the screaming knife
This beautiful creature must die
This beautiful creature must die
A death for no reason

· Since the animals we raise for food would not be alive

"We don't raise cattle out of consideration for them
either, but because they're fairly easy to raise.."
David Harrison Sep 26 2005 http://tinyurl.com/qcp23

"obtaining meat and gravy are at least two reasons to
promote life for farm animals" - dh@. 22 Mar 2006.

From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised

GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE
"Cattle are the scourge of the Earth."
................'
http://www.wasteofthewest.com/Chapter6.html

Rupert wrote:
You don't have any reasonable grounds for saying this ethical issue is
not worthy of serious discussion.

No ethical issue is worthy of serious discussion without shared
systematic assumptions about the ethical framework. "Shared
systematic assumptions" = "ideology"

There are no arguments that I would consider, since I consider the
subject to be silly. (Indeed, I consider the topic of ethics to be
not subject to serious theoretical discussion - in order to make it
theoretical, you have to make assumptions, and I reject unnecessary
assumptions).

Well, that's completely absurd. You've never thought seriously about
ethics.

I've thought seriously enough to realize that thinking seriously about
it is a waste of time.

No, it's not true that you have to "make assumptions".

Without assumptions, you cannot exercise logic. But logical thinking
is only as good as the quality of the assumptions. If one assumption
is actually false or even inaccurate, then the whole intellectual
framework is meaningless.

You're not qualified to dismiss the entire field of ethics.

Of course I am. I dismiss the entire field of philosophy as well.

Yes, well this really is incredibly stupid.

The topic is, indeed.

Well, if you think so, why bother to talk about it? Your attempts at
criticizing the ethical vegetarian position are a joke.

It is intended to be a joke. But of course only people who take
themselves too seriously can't take a joke.

I don't much care what someone else eats. If
they tell me what to eat (or tell me what to do in general) based on
their personal choices of assumption, my *least* offensive response is
to laugh.

If someone has an argument for an ethical position that they think is
worth considering,

Arguments are based on assumptions. Assumptions might be incorrect,
therefore arguments are worthless.

you can either make a serious attempt to engage
with the argument, or you can acknowledge that you haven't considered
that argument yet and you don't know if you have a satisfactory
response to it.

I don't need a satisfactory response to it. It's only an argument.
It is "theory". I prefer to deal with reality - that which works most
effectively (effectivity being a subjective evaluation based on
personal preferences).

Good. So just acknowledge that you're not qualified to make fun of my
views and move on to something else.

I don't care about your views. But you posted them to this forum, so
I will respond to them.

lojbab