Post Reply
Page 6 of 9  •  Prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Meat Grown in Lab, No Animals Required
2 years ago  ::  Feb 22, 2012 - 1:18AM #51
Erey
Posts: 18,369

Rabello,


I am not your typical misanthrop that we see here.  I support people and advocate for people.  It just so happens that people will thrive best in a world that can better support them.  I don't expect people to en-mass off themselves so elephants can live.  How about we just kill all the people that live in teh elephant territory? Make sure the elephants are taken care of - that is one way to do it. 


Humans appear to be the primary species of the planet.  We shape the world and bend it to our will.  It is not a matter of do we have the right to do this, we just do.  It is not a question of if we should allow ourselves to do this, we just do it.  We always have since the begining of human civilization.  Even the plains indians who we see as more noble and in touch with nature used to set huge scorching fires  alter the landscape  If you are more comfortable opperating out of the idea that there is no God then the idea is we came out of the natural world.  We are what the natural world created, a species to dominate the planet.  Damn the natural world then.  This seems to be what the natural world created.   


All the other species, regardless of their intelligence or lack thereof can't even fathom the idea of taking responsibility for the world, they can't fathom the idea of sacrificing for another species.  They would not know where to begin.



There appear to be animals that are easy prey for humans, they are here for us to eat.  You don't have to eat them if you don't want to do so but here they are.  There appear ato be animals that take to domestication very easily and humans are able to raise them for food.  YOu don't have to eat them if you don't want to do so but here they are.  These kinds of animals don't typically survive very well out in the wild.   The animals appear to be here for us. 


Don't be stupid and extrapolate that out to mean I think they are here for us to tease and torture.  But they are here for people to eat.  You can however choose not to eat them if you choose. 




Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Feb 22, 2012 - 1:31AM #52
Erey
Posts: 18,369

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. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Feb 22, 2012 - 1:54AM #53
rabello
Posts: 20,358

Feb 22, 2012 -- 1:18AM, Erey wrote:


But they are here for people to eat. 




No they aren't.


What makes you think so?


If it weren't for the plants and animals on this earth, human beings wouldn't have evolved to be what they are.  


Feb 22, 2012 -- 1:18AM, Erey wrote:


I don't expect people to en-mass off themselves so elephants can live.  How about we just kill all the people that live in teh elephant territory? Make sure the elephants are taken care of - that is one way to do it. 




???


The elephants were killed by poachers, who kill them for their ivory tusks, and it was on a animal preserve, not a habitat where it was human lives vs elephant lives.


Your previous post made it sound like you are unconcerned about the extinction of species because of human behavior.  This post of your's which is clearly off the mark when it comes to these killed elephants reinforces that appearance.  It's not a queston of human lives vs siberian tigers, or human lives vs mountain gorillas, either, or any other of the huge number of endangered species on god's used-to-be-green-and-good earth.




Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Feb 22, 2012 - 1:58AM #54
rabello
Posts: 20,358

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.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Feb 22, 2012 - 9:40AM #55
TemplarS
Posts: 6,562

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. 




People can be excused for doing things out of ignorance.


But otherwise it is common courtesy to accommodate people's preferences. I would hope that most people, if they had Jewish or Muslim guests, would not serve pork or ham; or, meat to Catholic guests on Good Friday.   I see no reason why such courtesy should not be extended to vegetarians. This is common sense.  BTW, being a gracious host also extends to not interrogating the person about why they choose to be a vegetarian.  Likewise, of course, being a gracious guest means not sitting at the table lecturing others about the evils of eating meat. It is a two way street.  But it is not difficult.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Feb 22, 2012 - 1:04PM #56
mainecaptain
Posts: 21,759

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.

A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side. Aristotle
Never discourage anyone...who continually makes progress, no matter how slow. Plato..
"A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives" Jackie Robinson
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Feb 22, 2012 - 1:52PM #57
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

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. 


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


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

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Feb 22, 2012 - 4:45PM #58
solfeggio
Posts: 8,897

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.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Feb 22, 2012 - 6:28PM #59
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

Solf, I disagree with that point of view. 


But so what? Some things, folks might not ever agree on.


Meat grown in labs would result in less cattle on the land (ecologically sound) and certainly, with fewer cows being raised just to be killed for meat. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Feb 22, 2012 - 6:53PM #60
arielg
Posts: 9,115

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!   



Laughing

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 6 of 9  •  Prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook