Back to the whole being gracious while dining with other people.  A few years ago I read an article written by the man who had been the editor of the Vegetarian Times for over 20 years.  Clearly he had been a vegetarian and he and his wife ran a vegetarian household that included several children. 

One day his wife had a sudden accident, broke some bones and had to be bed ridden.  People, mostly neighboors wanted to help.  They brought dinners.  The thing is they brought alot of meat dishes.  At first he did not know what to do, he was not supposed to eat meat.  Then he realized that this had been prepared for him and his family and he should focus on the gratitude for the food given to him.  He said grace and ate his food. 

Feb 22, 2012 -- 1:31AM, Erey wrote:

Back to the whole being gracious while dining with other people.  A few years ago I read an article written by the man who had been the editor of the Vegetarian Times for over 20 years.  Clearly he had been a vegetarian and he and his wife ran a vegetarian household that included several children. 

One day his wife had a sudden accident, broke some bones and had to be bed ridden.  People, mostly neighboors wanted to help.  They brought dinners.  The thing is they brought alot of meat dishes.  At first he did not know what to do, he was not supposed to eat meat.  Then he realized that this had been prepared for him and his family and he should focus on the gratitude for the food given to him.  He said grace and ate his food. 

I wonder if it made him sick, until his system adjusted to digesting meat.  Did he say?  Probably not, that would ruin his moralizing.

I've gotten quite used to the right wing knee jerk responses certain people make time after time.

Ever notice someone will make a knee jerk response about animals being here for humans to use. Or not caring about human caused extinction of whole populations of. Habitat etc.. But these same people, hate people too. The animals for human use really only applies to themselves. They don't give a sh_t about other human beings. Any more then they do the animals suffering, or the planet being used into dust.

This same type of person (generically) will oppose all sorts of things that actually help humanity, the planet and a host of other things as long as their selfishness is being satisfied.

It always comes down to that same tired old belief shared by the human animal, which is that humans believe themselves to be the 'superior' species on this planet.  People think that we as a species are actually central to the existence of the universe.  And, if that is true, then it must follow that the other species that share our world are, in varying degrees, inferior and can be used as we please.

Are humans truly the superior species?  Not necessarily.  We have complex brains, and we can talk, but that doesn't make us superior.  We think we are self-aware, but so are many other species.  And there is the fact that all other species on this planet have unique talents of their own and can accomplish things that humans cannot.

In other words, all species have inherent value.

It's true that, generally speaking, we're a smart species.  But that same intelligence of which we're so proud has worked to our disadvantage in helping us dream up ways in which we can ruin our world and liquidate ourselves.

Darwin wrote that humans differ from other animals only in degree, not in kind.

If we succeed in making our planet uninhabitable, which could just possibly happen, given our living habits, causing ourselves and other species to die out, what's so intelligent about that?

As the noted biologist Stephen Jay Gould once observed: For species superiority, bacteria win hands down.  And Gould sumed things up perfectly when he wrote that humans are nothing more than a tiny little twig representing one species in the enormous tree of life.

Feb 22, 2012 -- 1:52PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Feb 21, 2012 -- 7:44PM, arielg wrote:

Things have been killing and eating other things since the world began. There's no "morals" about it, and animals certianly don't give a shit. (Although, some of them eat that too.)

Animals don't need morals.  They go by instincts.  Morals are for people who have a conscience. 

Bully for consciene. 

Hence a sound egological land ethic... via the philosophy of Aldo Leopold (who was a hunter), a regard for animal welfare, the practice of ethical hunting within reasonable limits and only for what I plan to eat or feed to my family and pets. 

Sure, if there is a need...  But in today's world there is no such need.  Hunting today is just a left over from another period in the evolution of humans, when the survival instinct was needed. 

 Today is like the coxis bone,  that was  useful when we had a tail.

The   ethics  of Aldo Leopold  are ways  to rationalize the explotation of the planet for the benefit of humans. It is a way to justify manipulation, based on the mindset that humans are the stewards of the earth and were given the right to manipulate the environment for their benefit. 

It is a more thoughtful way than the mindlessness of some, but still sees the planet as an inert lump of stuff that has no meaning except to serve humans.  The classical materialistic approach.  It doesn't see the planet as a living organism deserving of respect.

No irrational "animal rights" philosophy needed. Nature finds no wrong in one organic entity killing and eating another.

Nature would find no wrong if you wanted to kill and eat your daughter either.  That is apt to our morals.

Hey, maybe someday a cougar will kill and eat me.  Yummy for him!