Animal Rights?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saucie

Do you believe that animals have or should have rights? If so, what would those rights include?

---

No, I don't believe animals have any rights whatsoever nor do I believe they should. I believe that when God created us, He gave us dominion over all animals.

"God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." Genesis 1:28

"Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything." Genesis 9:1-3

However, along with the dominion, we were given responsibility. I have no problem with eating meat, wearing leather (or even fur if I could afford it), medical testing, hunting, fishing, entertainment, etc. I have a problem with people who can torture an animal to death by putting it in a microwave, pouring gasoline on it and setting it on fire, starving it, etc. Most serial killers begin with cruelty to animals before moving on to bigger and better prey, so I'm all for those people being kept away from the rest of us. *nods a lot*

"If you see the donkey of someone who hates you fallen down under its load, do not leave it there; be sure you help him with it." Exodus 23:5

"A righteous man cares for the needs of his animal, but the kindest acts of the wicked are cruel." Proverbs 12:10

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Voodoo_Child

[COLOR="DarkGreen"]No, I don't believe animals have any rights whatsoever nor do I believe they should. I believe that when God created us, He gave us dominion over all animals.

---

But what reason do you have to believe that the animals are Christian? You can't just force your religion on them based on...yeah...exactly what do you base this on? How is this not just what you want?

It sounds a lot like you're greedy, (like me) but don't like to reconcile that fact, and therefore hide behind an arbitrary religious text. Isn't that so?

I wonder they even know or understand the meaning of "rights" who tries to defend for animal rights.
Rights are ethical principles–principles that identify and empower man’s freedom of action in the social order. The authentic foundation of rights is man’s possession of a rational ability.
The capability to reason includes the option to focus consciously one’s intellect and to incorporate perceptual facts into conceptual knowledge.
The notion of human rights protects man’s liberty of action in the social order. It allows him to use to his own rational verdict to lead his life and well-being.
Rights are the power, which provides a man, to objectify is options regarding any issue. Just like right to vote, every right provides a man, to say Yes or No.
The set of rights protects the freedom of all by prohibiting the instigation of any sort of physical or mental force by one man or group of men against another person.
Children have rights because they are the developing form of adult with an increasing intellectual faculty to reason out and explain/express.
To express is a quality, which defines the rationale basis, hence helps in determining the rights and wrongs. The freedom of expression is a fundamental right, which helps in furtherance of liberty. As freedom of expression is one’s power, to safeguard and further his living and well-being, the press, the media and individual expressive liberty must be free of any corporeal force at any level.
Unless a person in coma is not fully brain-dead, he has proper set of rights, because of the likelihood of their gaining of the full-functional rational-faculty, concept of rights is futile when applied to living beings inept of reason.
Can animal rights have any moral ground?
A human must not cause harm to animals because they can feel pain and compassion is a virtuous concept, but it cannot be a basis of any moral or constitutional right. We cannot stop medical researchers from experimenting on animals on regards of any moral or legitimate right. We cannot and should not say that it will be morally illegal to experiment on an animal even though it may result in a cure of a deadly disease of human kind.
The attitude of human towards animals and other beings should be compassionate, but one must avoid creating debates over vegetarian or non-vegetarian habits of eating, or medical researches over animals.

taken from

Reason for Liberty

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TomOfSweden

Originally Posted by Voodoo_Child View Post
No, I don't believe animals have any rights whatsoever nor do I believe they should. I believe that when God created us, He gave us dominion over all animals.
But what reason do you have to believe that the animals are Christian? You can't just force your religion on them based on...yeah...exactly what do you base this on? How is this not just what you want?

---

I'm not sure I understand how you make the connection between the quoting of a religious text with the concept of animals being Christian. All I see is the use of the bible to justify our use of animals, whether for food or clothing or even medical testing. It has nothing to do with the possible religious leanings of your cat!

Like Redhead, I don't have a problem with the use of animals for these things. Nothing better than a nice thick slice of cow, or a juicy pig thigh. Want to shoot a Bambi for its meat? Go right ahead! I don't particularly care for venison, but if you enjoy it, have a ball. I don't even have a problem with those people who enjoy eating dog or cat, though I would be hesitant to try them. We each have our own tastes.

But, also like Redhead, I draw the line at wanton cruelty for its own sake, the sadistic and malicious torture of animals for no other reason than torture.

Medical testing, done properly, is not torture, though you could argue that it is certainly torturous for the animals. Most researchers are aware of the pain they cause, and will minimize it when they can. But if you can save even one human life with animal testing, how can you protest it? Are the lives of laboratory animals, most of which have been specifically bred and raised for that purpose, more valuable than the lives of people? I don't think so!

Sure, many of the tests which at one time were performed on live animals are now able to be done virtually, mainly because of all of the data derived from live animal testing in the past. But eventually you have to test your products on living animals. It's the only way to be sure. Unless, of course, there are some volunteers out there?

Accidental duplication removed.

slides in the thread, naked, sweaty, my slave heat running down my thighs, my little bell on my clit ring jingels as i slaunter over, a collar and leash restrain me, a wanton beast, a kajira, under the dominion of her owner, property just like all his other possessions

Where is the line drawn?

throughout all recorded human history patriarchial systems of dominance over the female form have existed in one form or another until very recently such standards extended much further than today, not long ago a woman couldnt even legally refuse the sexual advances of her husband own land, vote, wear certian clothes etc etc

yes i am my owners property, but i am also perhaps his most valuable possession and if mistreated he would be angry, just like he would be angry if someone abused his other property, like our cat, or our feed animals etc etc, right is right, wrong is wrong

animal rights? why yes, i have rights to some degree the glass cieling hasnt been comletely removed,nor the collars from some necks weg thank god and no matter what anyone says i shall never really be truelly equal in everyones eyes

why compare myself to an animal?

simple, different degrees of "self initiated control" apply to all mankinds possessions, we as a species do own the earth and all thats in it, as a species we dominate all the other species on the planet, even the really slow ones like trees.

a hierachy of dominion (as my owner would say) exists, it is undeniable, and apparent to any observer, predators hold over prey, as beasts of the field take what they can of the grassess and berries, so too we from then and so forth, my owner likens it to a massive state of coexistance and war for survival, a struggle for dominance

different levels of freedom exist for those in different parts of the hierachy, and with this dominace comes responsibility to see whats under our dominion grow and prosper

what is acceptable in these matters is ussually greatly contested by any society that has risen above the general nessesities of basic survival (the cavemen never questioned animal rights in there day, they killed and ate it),

where do we draw the lines? i dont personally know unless i see a specific circumstance, i know what feels right and wrong to me, cruel mistretment and slaughter for the sole purpose of entertainment seems wholey wrong to me. raising an animal for food, is still a nessesity in my opinion alltough i certianly dont agree with how some are comercially kept, mabey the old ways were best,

if all our food could be chemically produced and no living thing had to die, i would be all for it,

but why stop at animals? why not plant rights too? they are certianly living creatures abet if differently constructed from us, and dont give me the they dont feel pain spin, plants pull away from pain too (at least the ones that have developed some movement skills), just slower than us, do we not deny the plants thier lives too?

perhaps the utilitarian principles of Mills could work best here

I see the "she-sleen" training took hold rather well my little beast. LOL.

blushes thanku Master

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

raising an animal for food, is still a nessesity in my opinion alltough i certianly dont agree with how some are comercially kept, mabey the old ways were best

---

I completely disagree with this. Our agriculture has reached the point where we no longer need herd animals to convert inedible grasses into edible meat for us. We don't even really graze our herd animals anymore. We feed them foods which are also edible to us. Raising animals for food wastes a lot of arable land.

From a Darwinian standpoint, human consumption of animals is very beneficial to the animals themselves. It isn't good for us. And it gets worse for us as the population rises. There is an increasing paucity of food in the poor areas of the world. There are food shortages. There is a great deal of starvation.

There are food shortages. There is a great deal of starvation.

If all changed to vegetarian food, it is a known fact that many millions will starve to death.

Its a well observed and reasonified fact that raising animals for food is a necessity and will remain a necessity.

Furthermore, its not only reprehensible but ultimate cruelty against individual humans to forcefully try to decide what should they eat, or should they eat non-vegetarian food or not.

Such talks only confirms the reality that animal rights activists are actually "Anti-human".

Animal Rights Activists—the Terrorists
What about killing an Indian farmer just because he is poor and cannot afford a tractor to plough his farm? What about some animal rights activist attacks that farmer just because 'he' thinks that the farmer is exploiting the bulls which he uses for ploughing his fields?
What about the animal rights activists who bombs and threatens to kill scientists just because scientists are involved with researches on mouse?
Vlasak said the bombers likely were not trying to hurt Feldheim, but were instead "trying to send a message to this guy, who won't listen to reason, that if he doesn't stop hurting animals, more drastic measures will be taken ... it's certainly not an initial tactic, but a tactic of last resort."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...4HSI.DTL&tsp=1
Last week in America at CA, the animal rights activists bombed two UC Santa Cruz biologists; they exploded the car of one of the scientists and bombed the house of other scientist which caused him some minor injuries while he was trying to safeguard his family against the attack.
Obviously such an attack on a researcher or scientist whose work includes introducing genes into living mouse brains, and is aimed at understanding how brain connections form during development, with special focus on the visual system and is important to learn how to fix these connections after damage due to injury or disease is reprehensible. After all it will be we, the beneficiaries of such researches and scientific discoveries, won't we be?
What if some mad animal rights activist had stopped Alexander Fleming from researching over cows to discover cure of the smallpox, the penicillin?
It is not surprising when supporters of animal 'rights' use violence and intimidation, because their cause is fundamentally anti-human.
Animal rights activists assert that their purpose is to stop gratuitous torture inflicted for no reason. But that is just a false smokescreen. They fight against such benign practices as keeping animals in circuses and zoos, or even as pets--no matter how well-loved and well-cared-for they are. To worsen things, they oppose the use of animals in scientific research, no matter how compassionately they are treated and no matter how many lives could be saved from the medical advances this makes possible.
And all this happens because of the false notion that animals have 'rights'. But the concept of 'rights' properly only applies to rational beings, who can recognize and respect the rights of others. In the name of the imagined 'rights' of animals, they have no hesitation about assaulting the actual rights of individual people.
"It is a mistake to regard these criminals as 'extremists' who are hijacking an otherwise valid cause. It is the cause of animal 'rights,' itself that is vicious and anti-human."

I'm an anti-human terrorist because I am a proponent of vegetarianism.

That's lovely.

Well, looks like I'll be hittin' the old dusty trail now. You guys enjoy the thread.

Oh dont go Shwenn, please, i admit thier are many levels of rights activism and not all of them are wrong,, thier are radical extremists in every movement that give it a bad name,

i believe its very wrong to do certian things to animals, but i also believe they are our property to be controlled for our benifit, unnessesary cruelty is not in my opinion to be condoned, just as farming the old fashioned way isnt mean if donr right, yu mistreat your farm animals and you wont have a good farm with traditional agriculture at any rate, animal consumption for food is going to be around for a very very long time, we are not genitically nor socially natural herbivours, a purely vegetarian diet is full of problems as its very difficult to get everything the body needs then without suplements etc

An interesting topic Saucie. Clearly animals do in fact enjoy limited rights as every state has laws prohibiting animal cruelty but just as clearly they don’t enjoy personal rights to the degree that we as human beings do. The idea that the use of animals by human beings for food, clothing, entertainment, and as medical research subjects is morally acceptable springs mainly from two sources. First, there is the idea of a divine hierarchy based on the biblical concept of “dominion.” While the concept of dominion need not entail property rights, it has, over the centuries, been interpreted to imply some form of ownership. Second, is the idea that animals are inferior, because they lack language, souls, the ability to reason or perhaps even consciousness, and as such are worthy of less consideration than human beings. Except among those who hold very extremist views with respect to the rights of animals, society in general accepts that animals can be used for the benefit of mankind as long as they are not treated with wanton cruelty and a species is not threatened with extinction.

One reason that this topic resonates with me is because one of my most cherished interests is backpacking. In a very few places that I sometimes go (Yellowstone NP and parts of New Mexico and Alaska) bears still exist in the wild. Occasionally when humans and bears happen to come into contact with one another in the wild, humans are injured and more infrequently killed as a result. I have heard many espouse the opinion that the bears should be eradicated to insure that no human is ever injured or killed by one. Thankfully the National Park Service does not agree. Here is an example of competing rights. I believe that bears have a right to exist in their natural habit with minimal interference and disturbance from me. I have the right to visit and enjoy the beautiful wilderness areas as long as I do so in an ethical manner. Yet when I choose to venture into the wilderness then I have to accept that there even as a human being, I am no longer at the top of the food chain and my rights are not superior to those of the bears.

Clearly I do think some people overly personify animals (attribute to them human qualities). I have been guilty of that myself on occasion. But just as clearly to me at least, there is much more to an animal that meets the eye. Consider this excerpt from the writings of Voltaire;

“Hold then the same view of the dog which has lost his master, which has sought him in all the thoroughfares with cries of sorrow, which comes into the house troubled and restless, goes downstairs, goes upstairs; goes from room to room, finds at last in his study the master he loves, and betokens his gladness by soft whimpers, frisks, and caresses.
There are barbarians who seize this dog, who so greatly surpasses man in fidelity and friendship, and nail him down to a table and dissect him alive, to show you the mesaraic veins! You discover in him all the same organs of feeling as in yourself. Answer me, mechanist, has Nature arranged all the springs of feeling in this animal to the end that he might not feel?”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by In2kink

The idea that the use of animals by human beings for food, clothing, entertainment, and as medical research subjects is morally acceptable springs mainly from two sources. First, there is the idea of a divine hierarchy based on the biblical concept of “dominion.” While the concept of dominion need not entail property rights, it has, over the centuries, been interpreted to imply some form of ownership. Second, is the idea that animals are inferior, because they lack language, souls, the ability to reason or perhaps even consciousness, and as such are worthy of less consideration than human beings. Except among those who hold very extremist views with respect to the rights of animals, society in general accepts that animals can be used for the benefit of mankind as long as they are not treated with wanton cruelty and a species is not threatened with extinction.

---

While it is true that the Judeo-Christian-Islamic based religions (among others) justify the domination of animals, I don't agree that they represent the source of this idea. Basically, we developed from our tree dwelling ancestors into omnivorous ground dwellers, where meat was an important part of our diets. All animals were fair game, and most were as dangerous as they were delicious. The idea of domesticating animals could only come about when the value of the work the animals did exceeded the nutritional value to the tribe. Formalizing this concept through religion was only a way to justify it.

Quote:

---

One reason that this topic resonates with me is because one of my most cherished interests is backpacking. In a very few places that I sometimes go (Yellowstone NP and parts of New Mexico and Alaska) bears still exist in the wild. Occasionally when humans and bears happen to come into contact with one another in the wild, humans are injured and more infrequently killed as a result. I have heard many espouse the opinion that the bears should be eradicated to insure that no human is ever injured or killed by one. Thankfully the National Park Service does not agree. Here is an example of competing rights. I believe that bears have a right to exist in their natural habit with minimal interference and disturbance from me. I have the right to visit and enjoy the beautiful wilderness areas as long as I do so in an ethical manner. Yet when I choose to venture into the wilderness then I have to accept that there even as a human being, I am no longer at the top of the food chain and my rights are not superior to those of the bears.

---

I agree with you 100% here. If the bear were to come into your home, or your neighborhood, you would not be unjustified in killing it, if you can, in order to protect your family or your neighbors. And the reverse is true: if you go into the bear's neighborhood, expect to be attacked.

In fact, I would venture to offer a suggestion to those activists who place more value upon the lives of animals than they do upon the lives of humans: take your manifestos and your speeches out to the African veldt and preach to the lions. They are eagerly waiting to hear from you, and will undoubtedly invite you to dinner. Perhaps you can convert them into vegetarians as well!

LOL. Well said Thorne, invite the Lions to dinner.

Some people have too much time on thier hands or are lured into some of these militant vegan groups to easily. Hipocracy comes in many forms. My favorite is the animal rights advocate that eats "Whoppers from McDonalds" and wears designer leather jackets.

Cost of production and or desire for a paticular product will allways out wiegh the "rights" of that which is under our dominion.

Which by the way, has its roots from a latin word to signify what is under the domination or control of one. Not a word of christian origin. The King James translation of the Bible just happens to be the western worlds "easiest to remember source for it".

All that being said, I do not condone unnessesary cruelty to animals. This does not stop me from "hunting". Nor does it stop me from appreciating the wild, I in fact love it, and wish we could all live in a much more primative and natural setting. Animal rights activists didn't complain when we cruel hunters fed them back then, now did they? LOL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

Oh dont go Shwenn, please, i admit thier are many levels of rights activism and not all of them are wrong,, thier are radical extremists in every movement that give it a bad name,

i believe its very wrong to do certian things to animals, but i also believe they are our property to be controlled for our benifit, unnessesary cruelty is not in my opinion to be condoned, just as farming the old fashioned way isnt mean if donr right, yu mistreat your farm animals and you wont have a good farm with traditional agriculture at any rate, animal consumption for food is going to be around for a very very long time, we are not genitically nor socially natural herbivours, a purely vegetarian diet is full of problems as its very difficult to get everything the body needs then without suplements etc

---

I wasn't insulted by what Meena wrote about me. I just have a personal rule about debating wackadoos.

I don't know that it is totally accurate to say that we are genetically omnivorous. There is a great deal of debate about that. It's not entirely certain what 'genetically herbivore' would even mean. Most herbivores will eat meat if they are hungry enough. And, it's very odd that we have to cook our meat for it to be safe and edible. We have to modify it. A big clue that you were genetically designed to eat a certain food is that you don't have to put it over a fire in order to keep from dying when you eat it. See what I mean?

Also, just about every single plague that has whiped out huge populations was a result of our consumption of meat. Every single one started in a different animal and jumped species. The vast majority jumped from our cattle to us. The current one is bird flu.

I also want to stress that a purely vegetarian diet is no more full of problems than any other diet. Getting everything your body needs without suplements is difficult and it's not something a lot of people do or try, even the meat eaters.

And there is a HUUUUUGE problem with including meat in your diet and not being careful about it:

Meat becomes very unhealthy if you eat too much. You get high blood pressure and cholesterol problems and heart attacks. Eating too many vegetables isn't going to kill you the way too much meat will. A diet with meat can be life threatening if done wrong. A vegetarian diet can possibly only lead to poor nutrition, but so can an omnivorous diet.

I pay close attention to my nutrition and getting what would otherwise have gotten from meat is the easy part.

i think the need to cook our food stems from the fact that we have been cooking it for so long we lost the ability to safely digest it raw in some cases , most omnivoes like chimps, dont eat a great deal of meats, evolutionaraly speaking however our digestive system has gotten smaller than that of our more herbivoreistic cousins and allowed for larger brain development becuase we took meat and especially becuase we took cooked meat into our diets, (any cooked food takes less work to break down and in some cases provides more nutrients animal fat is very high in these things), science has found a direct correlation-relationship between this, larger brains take up lots of energy and are the primary competer with the digestive track for the bodies energy, muscular structure aside, a smaller more efficent digestive system is not possible without cooked food especially high energy content cooked foods such as meat

Support your right to arm bears. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

i think the need to cook our food stems from the fact that we have been cooking it for so long we lost the ability to safely digest it raw in some cases...

---

Fair enough but you can't really express certainty on this point. It's very debatable and very speculative.

Once you walk into the realm of 'what nature intended' or start using terms like 'genetically designed', you're in a quagmire. And that is especially true when you are talking about homo sapiens sapiens. We're bipedal mammals with the highest brain size/body size ratio who use tools and have a highly sophisticated language.

We still have no idea how any of these things impacted each other, which of them came first, which were causes and which were effects.

Let's look at humans as they are now.

I think it would be great if humans ate meat on rare occasions, the way chimps eat monkeys (doesn't that seem like cannibalism? I know it isn't but it still creeps me out). But that isn't how we do it. Not even close. Don't you agree at least that that is a problem?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shwenn

Fair enough but you can't really express certainty on this point. It's very debatable and very speculative.

Once you walk into the realm of 'what nature intended' or start using terms like 'genetically designed', you're in a quagmire. And that is especially true when you are talking about homo sapiens sapiens. We're bipedal mammals with the highest brain size/body size ratio who use tools and have a highly sophisticated language.

We still have no idea how any of these things impacted each other, which of them came first, which were causes and which were effects.

Let's look at humans as they are now.

I think it would be great if humans ate meat on rare occasions, the way chimps eat monkeys (doesn't that seem like cannibalism? I know it isn't but it still creeps me out). But that isn't how we do it. Not even close. Don't you agree at least that that is a problem?

---

I agree that determining which came first is speculative at best, since no one was there at the time. However, it is fairly well agreed upon that the addition of meat to our ancient ancestors' diets played a significant role in their survival, and learning to cook that meat made it even more important, as denuseri has noted. Meat allows us to take in larger amounts of protein per pound than vegetables, and in the type of environment they lived in that was important.

Besides, there are many kinds of vegetables which require a lot of processing before they are able to be eaten. Some can be poisonous if not prepared properly. So I don't think the need for cooking can be considered an indicator of a problem.

And as for looking at us the way we are now, there are some of us who enjoy meat and some who don't. Personally, I'll take a good steak over a salad any day. So what if it's not as good for me as the salad? It's my life. If I want to shorten it by eating things I enjoy, who are those animal rights fanatics to deny me that? What about my rights?

And besides, I don't consider it healthy to be so concerned over every gram of food I put into my mouth, worrying about cholesterol and fats and trans-fats and all that other crap. If I enjoy something, I'll eat it. If I don't, I won't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

I agree that determining which came first is speculative at best, since no one was there at the time. However, it is fairly well agreed upon that the addition of meat to our ancient ancestors' diets played a significant role in their survival, and learning to cook that meat made it even more important, as denuseri has noted. Meat allows us to take in larger amounts of protein per pound than vegetables, and in the type of environment they lived in that was important.

Besides, there are many kinds of vegetables which require a lot of processing before they are able to be eaten. Some can be poisonous if not prepared properly. So I don't think the need for cooking can be considered an indicator of a problem.

---

This was all talk about the whole 'genetically designed' argument. I don't think it is possible to determine nor do I think it has bearing. The question we should address is our current consumption of meat. Today. 2008. Is is helping us or hurting us as a species?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

And as for looking at us the way we are now, there are some of us who enjoy meat and some who don't. Personally, I'll take a good steak over a salad any day. So what if it's not as good for me as the salad? It's my life. If I want to shorten it by eating things I enjoy, who are those animal rights fanatics to deny me that? What about my rights?

And besides, I don't consider it healthy to be so concerned over every gram of food I put into my mouth, worrying about cholesterol and fats and trans-fats and all that other crap. If I enjoy something, I'll eat it. If I don't, I won't.

---

My point about meat being bad for you answered the claim that a purely vegetarian diet is bad for you. My problem with meat, the problems I've offered on my own, not in response to arguments put to me, have nothing to do with the welfare of an individual as regards his consumption of meat.

My issues with it tend toward the global. Almost all of my issues with things have that tendency. Plagues and starvation. Those are the problems I've raised.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saucie

Do you believe that animals have or should have rights? If so, what would those rights include?

---

I have this kind of weird ambivalence towards animal rights. I would never wear fur but I do wear leather. I adore my pets but feel no guilt eating meat. I enjoy fishing but can't abide seeing whales being slaughtered (Yes, yes, i know they're not fish, but it's still weird, isn't it?)

Meat becomes very unhealthy if you eat too much.


Its getting funnier.

One thing which I must clear out, Being an Indian and a Hindu by birth (atheist by choice) me and my whole family is strict vegetarian. I never ate any meat, I never ate any egg too. I am an strict vegetarian.

The only thing which i want to clear out is, "If you eat too much WHEAT, or RICE or ladyfingers or carrot or apple or mangoes etc it will be very very very unhealthy for you."

Irrespective of being a borne vegetatrian, I know on the basis of reason, that animal rights activists and all those environmentalists are culprits and criminals against humanity.

One more thing which should be clarified is, I didn't commented about Shwenn, I commented about "Animal rights activists, environmentalists, and other similar exteremists. it may be the case that Shwenn feels he is one of them, but my intentions were not to write about or against Shwenn, I wrote about the Animal rights activists and environmentalists.

actually we have more and more data accumulating in the scientific community to support my earlier explanations conserning human evolution and diet in regards to brain size etc, a good special was even on the history channel about it recently too, so its becoming more widely accepted and not near as speculative but emperical as time goes by and more scientific experiments support the theories involved

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meena

One more thing which should be clarified is, I didn't commented about Shwenn, I commented about "Animal rights activists, environmentalists, and other similar exteremists. it may be the case that Shwenn feels he is one of them, but my intentions were not to write about or against Shwenn, I wrote about the Animal rights activists and environmentalists.[/B]

---

I am an environmentalist. It's how I make my living. I work exclusively on Green initiatives. I help green companies and products make themselves available to the public. I help them get their products into the marketplace. And I help further the discussion of future products. These are people who are making much less money than they could be making but they would rather save the human race.

I work with the kinds of environmentalists who have things like....I don't know....PhDs from MIT. Good people. Smart people. Reasonable rational people who want to do good for humanity.

You didn't just say those things about me. You said them about a whole host of people I respect and care about.

Some environmentalists my be crazy and they may do horrible things. That doesn't mean it is true of every environmentalist. It doesn't excuse what you wrote.

Stalin was an atheist. By your logic, that makes you a mass murderer and a tyrant.

I don't care if you realized the claims you made applied to me. You were wrong to make them regardless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

actually we have more and more data accumulating in the scientific community to support my earlier explanations conserning human evolution and diet in regards to brain size etc, a good special was even on the history channel about it recently too, so its becoming more widely accepted and not near as speculative but emperical as time goes by and more scientific experiments support the theories involved

---

The one on evolution? I found that special contained incredibly dated information. Their explanation of bipedalism was pretty much dug out of the trash bin. Thier explanation was one pretty much nobody subscribes to anymore. It was the greater visibility explanation which is old hat.

that doesnt refute the science of it, i only mentioned the show because it was a mainstream thing that laymen have ready access to without having to resort to boolean serches and the like, its no more preposterous then the shell fish diet and water wading explanations propoessed in the late 80's which were used to support the ideas of why humans had larger brains and swim unlike most primates.

biological data and actually medical experiments are beging to erudite the fields of anthropology and archeology in conjunction with other convergent fields of study between disiplines to give us a better picture of the how and why all the time

and respectfully when someone apologizes its rather rude to just slap thier face all over again, there are a lot of enviromentalists and animal rights activists giving those areas of study and consern a bad name with over zealous and illegal practices, much akin to the anti-abortionist movements, its allways sad to see such violence used in the name of causes that by their own offical dogmas shouldnt condon such measures

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shwenn

This was all talk about the whole 'genetically designed' argument. I don't think it is possible to determine nor do I think it has bearing. The question we should address is our current consumption of meat. Today. 2008. Is is helping us or hurting us as a species?

---

To be honest, I don't care if it's helping or hurting the species. I'm more concerned with myself. Odds are the species will outlive me by a couple of years, at least.

Quote:

---

My issues with it tend toward the global. Almost all of my issues with things have that tendency. Plagues and starvation. Those are the problems I've raised.

---

Well, chances are, if we eliminate meat from mankind's diet, millions will starve because there won't be enough vegetables to go around. There isn't enough to go around now. Instead of worrying about whether eating meat will harm the species, you should be worrying about the amount of food which is wasted instead of feeding the hungry. Although, if you aren't one of the hungry ones, why should you care?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shwenn

I am an environmentalist. It's how I make my living. I work exclusively on Green initiatives. I help green companies and products make themselves available to the public.

---

Okay, now I see why you care. More power to you. I appreciate your dedication.

I don't claim to understand it, though. Basically, I'm a selfish person. I'm a consumerist. Use it while we've got it, because like it or not it will get used up. If not by people like us, then by the very rich and privileged who will be the only one's able to afford it when politically correct legislators tax it up the wazoo.