Feb 24, 2012 -- 2:35PM, Erey wrote:

That is the problem with people who have narrow minds and can't see past the bridge of their own nose.  Mouse has repeatedly advanced how he makes choices that he feels are the kindest for the animals that he eats - over and again. 

Kind of like the man who beats his kids has a rationalization to do it in the way that he "feels (is) kindest"

Feb 24, 2012 -- 2:35PM, Erey wrote:

I would much, much rather be one of Mouse's vennison sausages vs. something dying a slow painfull death

It's really not for you to choose how some other living being is to be killed

Feb 24, 2012 -- 2:35PM, Erey wrote:

.....because I was poisoned for a vegetarian's crop or heaven forbid a feedlot animal. 

You're not going to get very far basing your argument on such an easily overturned, hairbrained claim

Feb 24, 2012 -- 2:35PM, Erey wrote:

It shows you have zero ability to respect another point of view because it is not your point of view. 

The accusation is out of place.  Mytmouse could have elected to participate in an adult discussion instead of making such a snide remark.

Feb 24, 2012 -- 2:35PM, Erey wrote:

Now you don't have to agree with Mouse, you can certainly remain a dedicated vegetarian.  But to not be able to comprehend how his lifestyle is valid and based on thoughtfull compassion shows me a real short-comming in charecter. 

Another ad hom that is out of place.  It's not about "comprehending" how his chosen "lifestyle" is valid, or based on "thoughtful compassion" (whatever the H that is).  It's about rejecting it as compassionate. 

Can you, or Mytmouse show how or why the researchers are wrong, other than using your personal religious beliefs about animals? 

Feb 24, 2012 -- 2:49PM, rabello wrote:

Feb 24, 2012 -- 2:35PM, Erey wrote:

That is the problem with people who have narrow minds and can't see past the bridge of their own nose.  Mouse has repeatedly advanced how he makes choices that he feels are the kindest for the animals that he eats - over and again. 

Kind of like the man who beats his kids has a rationalization to do it in the way that he "feels (is) kindest"

Feb 24, 2012 -- 2:35PM, Erey wrote:

I would much, much rather be one of Mouse's vennison sausages vs. something dying a slow painfull death

It's really not for you to choose how some other living being is to be killed

Feb 24, 2012 -- 2:35PM, Erey wrote:

.....because I was poisoned for a vegetarian's crop or heaven forbid a feedlot animal. 

You're not going to get very far basing your argument on such an easily overturned, hairbrained claim

Feb 24, 2012 -- 2:35PM, Erey wrote:

It shows you have zero ability to respect another point of view because it is not your point of view. 

The accusation is out of place.  Mytmouse could have elected to participate in an adult discussion instead of making such a snide remark.

Feb 24, 2012 -- 2:35PM, Erey wrote:

Now you don't have to agree with Mouse, you can certainly remain a dedicated vegetarian.  But to not be able to comprehend how his lifestyle is valid and based on thoughtfull compassion shows me a real short-comming in charecter. 

Another ad hom that is out of place.  It's not about "comprehending" how his chosen "lifestyle" is valid, or based on "thoughtful compassion" (whatever the H that is).  It's about rejecting it as compassionate. 

Can you, or Mytmouse show how or why the researchers are wrong, other than using your personal religious beliefs about animals? 

Rab, why WTF, what are you trying to accomplish here? 

Yes it is for me to decide how another animal might die IF I am doing the killing and/or choosing the source for the meat.   It is imperfect but I can choose a variety of sources and each one has a different objective for the life and death of that animal. 

yes Rab, you are very far from being able to speak on parenting but parents often have to think of the kindest way to deal with correcting their children.  And Mouse is trying to FEED his children in this circumstance, not beat them.  Something your own myopia is having trouble distinguishing. 

The rest of your stuff I don't even care to comment on becuase it was so cobbled together I don't see a salient point to grab hold of and respond to. 

Feb 24, 2012 -- 2:32PM, solfeggio wrote:

...This is because humans simply cannot make the imaginative leap from believing that they are the only living beings whose lives have value to accepting that other sentient individuals' lives have equal value.

As I expected, an unwarranted attack on those that do not agree with you. Just because some here take the rational route, not an emotional one, and realize that cetaceans, and great apes if you wish, are not humans does not mean in any way that we do not believe their lives have value, a great value, and deserve protection. I'll even go along with giving them special protections. But I cannot go along with the hyperbolic argument of calling them "persons."

Feb 24, 2012 -- 4:04PM, mountain_man wrote:

Feb 24, 2012 -- 2:32PM, solfeggio wrote:

...This is because humans simply cannot make the imaginative leap from believing that they are the only living beings whose lives have value to accepting that other sentient individuals' lives have equal value.

As I expected, an unwarranted attack on those that do not agree with you. Just because some here take the rational route, not an emotional one, and realize that cetaceans, and great apes if you wish, are not humans does not mean in any way that we do not believe their lives have value, a great value, and deserve protection. I'll even go along with giving them special protections. But I cannot go along with the hyperbolic argument of calling them "persons."

Would you please stop thinking in terms of 'attack' when someone else has a different opinion?  When you accuse people of attacking, it no longer is a conversation.  When you say people are attacking you, you are actually escalating the conversation to attack level.  I don't know why you do that.  

What is a person anyway?

Feb 24, 2012 -- 4:00PM, mountain_man wrote:

Feb 24, 2012 -- 2:00PM, christine3 wrote:

Oh come on.  My biggest impression of people who would say such, don't think animals deserve kindness and respect.  You don't understand pain?

Don't you understand "personhood"? Not granting fully human status to other animals does not in any way mean that we want to mistreat them or that they deserve no kindness. Such ad hominem attacks just detract from your argument.

Other animals are not humans. They are not "persons." The very definition of those words prohibit their rational use for any animal other than human. Just because I do not think that other animals can be called "human" and given fully human status in no way includes any thought of mistreating them in any way.

Yes, cetaceans should have all kinds of protections but in no way could they ever be, or should be, given "personhood" status.

I agree and I concur.

It seems very bizzare to me declaring animals people. I have a hard time imagining they WANT to be people.  Shoot they might be offended by it all.  It also seems unneccessary.  It reminds me of the recent minor fracas in the news where Mormons were being called out for baptizing dead jews as mormons.  Where did the mormons in this case get off thinking the dead jews were interested in being baptized or that they were not offended in some way.  But then again dead jews, being dead can't be aware of the baptism to be offended. Just like the whales we baptize as people are not aware of this bizzare turn of events and know enough to be offended by it. 

What is wrong with the typical method of  addressing protection for whales?  What is wrong with laws against hunting whales?  What is wrong with dophin friendly fishing nets?  you know the usual stuff.  Why do we need these large, and largely meaningless gestures.  Because I assure you personhood is not going to change anything.