Freethought & Rationalism Archive

John Page · 04-12-2002, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by free12thinker:
Bottom line: Until people are conditioned to eat non-meat products from birth, than we cannot expect to ever see a vegetarian society.

Is non-sentient offal OK?

free12thinker · 04-12-2002, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by John Page:


Is non-sentient offal OK?

I have to plead ignorance. What is "offal"

John Page · 04-12-2002, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by free12thinker:

I have to plead ignorance. What is "offal"

Entrails, internal organs and yellow wobbly parts in general. Why non-sentient? See here <a href="http://www.hosppract.com/issues/1999/07/gershon.htm" target="_blank">enteric nervous system</a> that indicates our guts have a mind of their own.

So, we need to heed our gut feelings. I feel really badly that nobody's speaking up for the poor vegetables. Time for the morels[sic] of
<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000164" target="_blank">George the Turnip</a>.

[ April 12, 2002: Message edited by: John Page ]

Boro Nut · 04-15-2002, 03:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by John Page:
Oh yes, final point, train the rabbits into carnivores to keep guard against vegans.

There are many stories about animal rights activists raiding laboratories and releasing the animals in their care, without any thought for the future welfare of the animals. These people are often vegans themselves.

Most of the near-20% of white rabbits that make a break for it die within hours by predation or road death. They have no camouflage and no idea of what a predator is, and absolutely no road sense.

The remaining fraction of free rabbits die a lingering death from starvation, as they do not know how to obtain the carrots which are underground.

Over 80% actually return voluntarily to the labs in less than 2 days, as they are invariably dying for a fag.

Boro Nut
Boro Nut

hal9000 · 04-18-2002, 04:09 PM

Yeh they do stuff that feels good for them and to hell with what happens to the animals. Boro Nut, Fag is a cigarette, not a gay rabbit yes?

Kachana · 04-18-2002, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by hal900069:
Yeh they do stuff that feels good for them and to hell with what happens to the animals. Boro Nut, Fag is a cigarette, not a gay rabbit yes?

A friend of mine was staying in America recently and caused rather a stir when he announced that he was 'just going out to smoke a fag'.

Boro Nut · 04-19-2002, 03:22 AM

Yeah, I can see how the FBI could turn that one around on you.

Don't you think that Brits in the US suffer generally because of the natives' ignorance of their own mother tongue? Do you recall that young English nanny who was jailed/let-out the other year for supposedly killing a baby? She suffered terribly from her testimony in court, which was completely misunderstood by the jury and totally twisted out of context by the media. What she actually said was:-

"I popped him down" = ie placed carefully but efficiently in place.

"Sorted him out" = ie changed his nappy.

"Battered the little cunt" = put him to sleep.

Boro Nut

[ April 19, 2002: Message edited by: Boro Nut ]

hal9000 · 04-20-2002, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by David Payne:
As I thought, no vegetarian fundamentalists have been able to come up with a reasonable regime for achieving the desired result without resorting to some form of authoritarian social system to achieve their goals. MeBeMe gave it a go, but he was into killing those who would defy his rule as king. (I guess, I missed his reply and only got a few bits and pieces of what he said before he got banned for it.)
In the end it is impossible for those like PETA, or my personal favorites the ALF, (Animal Liberation Front) who espouse extreme solutions to ending the practice of eating meat, to articulate any meaningful way to get to that stage without resorting to some form of authoritarian social structure. You guys talk the talk, but you can�t walk the walk, without destroying democracy in the process. There are worse things than eating meat, and extremism in the name of anything is one of them. In this regard you are no different than the religious fundies who would kill us all to save us from our sins. Take a good look in the mirror, for you are them, with a different �Holy� agenda. So all your talk leaves you <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

[ April 11, 2002: Message edited by: David Payne ]

I think this got lost. Time to put it up again.

Boro Nut · 04-23-2002, 03:20 AM

I probably gave the wrong impression. I am very very into animal rights, so much so that I feel it is even cruel to keep an animal as a pet. This is the reason I have a pet turnip. They are no trouble at all, and you should see the looks I get when I take it for a walk.

Boro Nut

PS - This is the second turnip I have had and I can thoroughly recommend them. Do be careful of the roads though, as they have absolutely no traffic sense whatsoever. My first turnip was severely injured by a car. We thought it would be kindest to have it destroyed after we found out it would be a cabbage for the rest of its life.

NON-theist · 04-23-2002, 08:19 PM

I sorta think it's a strange question. While a perfect vegetarian utopia seems unlikely, so does a humanitarian one. I mean, what would we have to do to achieve a perfect humanitarian utopia? We all know that even the threat of death won't keep people from committing crimes against their fellow humans. Even instituting some kind of authoritarian regime would not prevent all crimes against humans.

Nevertheless, in today's world, we do not tolerate certain behavior: murder, institutional racism, sexism, etc. If we were to expand these to include crimes against animals, how would that be any more "authoritarian" than our current system? While in the end it would not achieve utopia, would it be any more fascist than our current system? I think eating meat is not a morally justifiable act (in fact, it's probably "immoral"); it is physically unnecessary; refraining from eating it does not seriously interfere with our daily lives. I don't see such a society as seriously restricting our freedom (I mean, we're not concerned about our freedom to kill and maim other people). Indeed, IMO freedom should be restricted where it destroys other sentients' lives. If something is capable of suffering, shouldn't we refrain from causing such suffering? We do it with humans; why not with animals?

04-19-2002, 03:22 AM	#37
Boro Nut Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Middlesbrough, England Posts: 3,909	Yeah, I can see how the FBI could turn that one around on you. Don't you think that Brits in the US suffer generally because of the natives' ignorance of their own mother tongue? Do you recall that young English nanny who was jailed/let-out the other year for supposedly killing a baby? She suffered terribly from her testimony in court, which was completely misunderstood by the jury and totally twisted out of context by the media. What she actually said was:- "I popped him down" = ie placed carefully but efficiently in place. "Sorted him out" = ie changed his nappy. "Battered the little cunt" = put him to sleep. Boro Nut [ April 19, 2002: Message edited by: Boro Nut ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-18-2002, 04:09 PM	#35
hal9000 Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: just over your shoulder Posts: 146	Yeh they do stuff that feels good for them and to hell with what happens to the animals. Boro Nut, Fag is a cigarette, not a gay rabbit yes?

04-23-2002, 03:20 AM	#39
Boro Nut Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Middlesbrough, England Posts: 3,909	I probably gave the wrong impression. I am very very into animal rights, so much so that I feel it is even cruel to keep an animal as a pet. This is the reason I have a pet turnip. They are no trouble at all, and you should see the looks I get when I take it for a walk. Boro Nut PS - This is the second turnip I have had and I can thoroughly recommend them. Do be careful of the roads though, as they have absolutely no traffic sense whatsoever. My first turnip was severely injured by a car. We thought it would be kindest to have it destroyed after we found out it would be a cabbage for the rest of its life.

04-23-2002, 08:19 PM	#40
NON-theist Junior Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Chiang Mai, Thailand Posts: 12	I sorta think it's a strange question. While a perfect vegetarian utopia seems unlikely, so does a humanitarian one. I mean, what would we have to do to achieve a perfect humanitarian utopia? We all know that even the threat of death won't keep people from committing crimes against their fellow humans. Even instituting some kind of authoritarian regime would not prevent all crimes against humans. Nevertheless, in today's world, we do not tolerate certain behavior: murder, institutional racism, sexism, etc. If we were to expand these to include crimes against animals, how would that be any more "authoritarian" than our current system? While in the end it would not achieve utopia, would it be any more fascist than our current system? I think eating meat is not a morally justifiable act (in fact, it's probably "immoral"); it is physically unnecessary; refraining from eating it does not seriously interfere with our daily lives. I don't see such a society as seriously restricting our freedom (I mean, we're not concerned about our freedom to kill and maim other people). Indeed, IMO freedom should be restricted where it destroys other sentients' lives. If something is capable of suffering, shouldn't we refrain from causing such suffering? We do it with humans; why not with animals?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.