Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Post Reply
Page 3 of 7  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Israel to ban fur?
7 years ago  ::  Apr 22, 2010 - 10:39AM #21
d_p_m
d_p_m
Posts: 11,236

Apr 22, 2010 -- 1:17AM, bluehorserunning wrote:

I gotta say, I'm with Solf on this one.  The fur industry might not be inherently cruel, but the way it actually functions is:  either fur farms with many animals confined to small cages in close proximity, or traps that exert far too much cruelty because they must not damage the pelt in the process of killing the animals.


You may be right about the way a lot of this is done, BHR, but I still think the distinction is important. If the way in which it is done is needlessly cruel, then reform the method. Don't say that the product of the method should be banned. There are a lot of products that can be produced in responsible ways or irresponsible ways.... probably most of them. The answer is not to ban the products but to supervise the methodology.

"If you aren't confused by quantum physics, you haven't really understood it."
― Niels Bohr

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."
-- Albert Einstein

"If one is going to engage with the primordial forces of darkness, one must expect a bit of social awkwardness."
-- Penny Dreadful, season one, episode two
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Apr 22, 2010 - 10:42AM #22
d_p_m
d_p_m
Posts: 11,236

Apr 22, 2010 -- 1:17AM, bluehorserunning wrote:

I gotta say, I'm with Solf on this one.  The fur industry might not be inherently cruel, but the way it actually functions is:  either fur farms with many animals confined to small cages in close proximity, or traps that exert far too much cruelty because they must not damage the pelt in the process of killing the animals.


You may be right about the way a lot of this is done, BHR, but I still think the distinction is important. If the way in which it is done is needlessly cruel, then reform the method. Don't say that the product of the method should be banned. There are a lot of products that can be produced in responsible ways or irresponsible ways.... probably most of them. The answer is not to ban the products but to supervise the methodology.

"If you aren't confused by quantum physics, you haven't really understood it."
― Niels Bohr

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."
-- Albert Einstein

"If one is going to engage with the primordial forces of darkness, one must expect a bit of social awkwardness."
-- Penny Dreadful, season one, episode two
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Apr 22, 2010 - 11:05AM #23
allthegoodnamesweretaken
allthegoodnamesweretaken
Posts: 11,634

But, strangely enough, I know exactly where you're coming from in much  of what you've said, because when I was younger I was a meat-eater,  too.  I enjoyed the taste of meat and ate it often, never giving a  thought to where it came from.



 


That is the thing Solf, that is not where I am coming from. 


 


See, it is possible that some people have exactly the same information that you do, yet make a different decision. 


 


In fact, I've probably got more information than you do.  It's not like I don't give a thought about where my diet comes from.  I've actually worked in many of the areas to put myself through school.  Which I have a lot of.  I have the little piece of paper that says I'm a Doctor, after all. 


 


So the attitude that all who don't come to the same immediate conclusion that you do because they are ignorant kind of bugs me.  Especially when it is repeated.  Over and over, and done so without looking at the information that the other interested party tries to say. 


 


all

Yesterday, in America, 100 million gun owners did nothing.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Apr 22, 2010 - 11:12AM #24
allthegoodnamesweretaken
allthegoodnamesweretaken
Posts: 11,634

Apr 22, 2010 -- 1:17AM, bluehorserunning wrote:

On the subject of rights, I absolutely disagree that rights are absolute; our rights come from the humans around us, not from some preternatural source.



I neither think that our rights come from people around us, or that some preternatural source bestowed them.  They are inherent in us because we are human.  We don't have a lot of rights, for instance, we don't have the right to succeed, but we do have the right to try. 


Apr 22, 2010 -- 1:17AM, bluehorserunning wrote:


Further, reasonable limitations are absolutely necessary to prevent our more antisocial impulses from running amok.



 


A person can decide to curtail certian choices for the good of the  whole, but those rights aren't limited.


Apr 22, 2010 -- 1:17AM, bluehorserunning wrote:


In a sparsely populated world, you can let your dog run around and poop wherever it wants without picking it up; in New York City, the dog needs to be leashed for its own sake and you better not leave that poo lying.  There are too many of us in this world, now, to have the tribal freedoms that we might like.




 


Privileges. 


 


all

Yesterday, in America, 100 million gun owners did nothing.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Apr 22, 2010 - 1:59PM #25
d_p_m
d_p_m
Posts: 11,236

Apr 22, 2010 -- 1:17AM, bluehorserunning wrote:

On the subject of rights, I absolutely disagree that rights are absolute; our rights come from the humans around us, not from some preternatural source.


I would claim that there are three bases that one can use to argue for the existence and nature of rights....

1. Arguments from philosophical positions.

2. Arguments from obeserved nature (which may be a subset of 1, above)

3. Arguments from law and legal precedent.

Oh, I suppose you could have

4. Arguments from religious belief, but that is probably both a subset of 1, and is inherently weak, unless made among adherents of the same sub-relgious group.

Depending on what you think under the categories of (1) and (3) some rights may or may not be regarded as absolute, or quasi-absolute (absolute unless conflicting with the same right, or another right of the same order of precedence.

"If you aren't confused by quantum physics, you haven't really understood it."
― Niels Bohr

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."
-- Albert Einstein

"If one is going to engage with the primordial forces of darkness, one must expect a bit of social awkwardness."
-- Penny Dreadful, season one, episode two
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Apr 22, 2010 - 2:09PM #26
d_p_m
d_p_m
Posts: 11,236

Apr 22, 2010 -- 1:17AM, bluehorserunning wrote:

On the subject of rights, I absolutely disagree that rights are absolute; our rights come from the humans around us, not from some preternatural source.


I would claim that there are three bases that one can use to argue for the existence and nature of rights....

1. Arguments from philosophical positions.

2. Arguments from obeserved nature (which may be a subset of 1, above)

3. Arguments from law and legal precedent.

Oh, I suppose you could have

4. Arguments from religious belief, but that is probably both a subset of 1, and is inherently weak, unless made among adherents of the same sub-relgious group.

Depending on what you think under the categories of (1) and (3) some rights may or may not be regarded as absolute, or quasi-absolute (absolute unless conflicting with the same right, or another right of the same order of precedence.

"If you aren't confused by quantum physics, you haven't really understood it."
― Niels Bohr

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."
-- Albert Einstein

"If one is going to engage with the primordial forces of darkness, one must expect a bit of social awkwardness."
-- Penny Dreadful, season one, episode two
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Apr 22, 2010 - 11:35PM #27
solfeggio
solfeggio
Posts: 10,753

allthegood -


I can't imagine where you got this idea that I was ever impugning your intelligence or implying that you're ignorant, because I certainly never said or implied that. 


All I've been trying to do here is explain where I stand.  As I must have said fifty times over the years I've posted in this forum, I honestly believe that all sentient life is equally valuable, whether human or nonhuman.  I also believe that it is morally wrong to take a life for no good reason.  And I do not believe that taking an animal's life because you want to eat its flesh is a good reason.


Furthermore, I reject the regulation of animal exploitation, and I base this thinking on animal sentience and cognition.


As I have pointed out, my beliefs have to do with my own experiences through life and how my thinking has evolved. 


This has nothing to do with you or your profession, so I don't know why you would insist upon making it personal. 


 
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Apr 23, 2010 - 12:49PM #28
allthegoodnamesweretaken
allthegoodnamesweretaken
Posts: 11,634

Apr 22, 2010 -- 1:59PM, d_p_m wrote:

I would claim that there are three bases that one can use to argue for the existence and nature of rights....  1. Arguments from philosophical positions.  2. Arguments from obeserved nature (which may be a subset of 1, above)  3. Arguments from law and legal precedent.  Oh, I suppose you could have   4. Arguments from religious belief, but that is probably both a subset of 1, and is inherently weak, unless made among adherents of the same sub-relgious group.  Depending on what you think under the categories of (1) and (3) some rights may or may not be regarded as absolute, or quasi-absolute (absolute unless conflicting with the same right, or another right of the same order of precedence.



 


I will use arguments from 1 and 2, but not 3.  I do not think it has been done, or has been set up is a valid argument for whether something is correct or not. 


 


And I never will use 4. 


 


all

Yesterday, in America, 100 million gun owners did nothing.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Apr 23, 2010 - 12:55PM #29
allthegoodnamesweretaken
allthegoodnamesweretaken
Posts: 11,634

Apr 22, 2010 -- 11:35PM, solfeggio wrote:


allthegood -


I can't imagine where you got this idea that I was ever impugning your intelligence or implying that you're ignorant, because I certainly never said or implied that.



 


You keep saying that the only reason why people would continue to eat meat is that they haven't thought about it.  How else am I supposed to take that?


 


Apr 22, 2010 -- 11:35PM, solfeggio wrote:


All I've been trying to do here is explain where I stand.



No.  You also offer reasoning why people come to different conclusions than you have.  In and of itself, this is fine.  We all do it.  The difference is that most people change that reasoning in the face of new evidence.  You don't.  You keep saying the same things over and over. 


Apr 22, 2010 -- 11:35PM, solfeggio wrote:


  As I must have said fifty times over the years I've posted in this forum, I honestly believe that all sentient life is equally valuable, whether human or nonhuman.  I also believe that it is morally wrong to take a life for no good reason.  And I do not believe that taking an animal's life because you want to eat its flesh is a good reason.



 


Good.  You can believe that. 


 


The disconnect happens when you assert it is the only conclusion that one can come to. 


Apr 22, 2010 -- 11:35PM, solfeggio wrote:


This has nothing to do with you or your profession, so I don't know why you would insist upon making it personal. 


 




 


You did it first. 

Yesterday, in America, 100 million gun owners did nothing.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Apr 23, 2010 - 4:20PM #30
solfeggio
solfeggio
Posts: 10,753

'You did it first'?  What is this, sixth grade?  LOL


Enough already. 


I have no intention of changing my mind about animal exploitation, meat-eating, or animal rights in general because nobody has ever presented any real, incontrovertible scientific evidence anywhere to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that animals are not sentient creatures or that the eating of meat is good for people.


You can talk about 'moderation' and 'protein' all you want, but the bottom line always is that all flesh (except fish) contains at least some saturated fat, and that is not something that humans should consume.  Even your own American Heart Association states that 'saturated fats and trans fats raise blood cholesterol.  A high level of cholesterol in the blood is a major risk factor for coronary heart disease, which leads to heart attack and also increases the risk of stroke.'


My point has always been that if even some saturated fat is bad for you, why eat any?


Nobody has conclusively proved that humans are true omnivores.  And the jury is still out on just how much animal flesh Homo habilis actually consumed.    (Just as nobody has ever conclusively proved that there actually is a god, that flying saucers do not exist, or that near-death experiences are nothing more than the brain closing down.)
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 3 of 7  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Post Reply
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook