KATHMANDU, Nepal - Authorities in Nepal tranquilized an elephant and trimmed its tusks after it was blamed for a dozen deaths in the country’s east over the past six weeks, wildlife officials said on Sunday.
“We first darted the elephant with tranquilizers on Saturday and cut its tusks by a handsaw,” said Murari Prasad Pokharel, a senior forest officer from Sunsari district, about 125 miles east of Kathmandu, where the operation was carried out.
The rampaging elephant had killed at least 12 people in Sunsari, and neighboring Morang district since October

Ouch! (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15796526/) :hitout:

This story brings to mind the classic Orwell essay Shooting an Elephant (http://www.george-orwell.org/Shooting_an_Elephant/0.html).

Very much worth reading.

Waiting for P.E.T.A.'s Reaction

That's an interesting story, but in your chosen title, I see something that is all-too-common in the U.S.

You're "waiting for PETA" to say something, for no other reason that to have a soapbox to climb on to lambaste the evil Leftwing.........so that you can ridicule them and grandly proclaim to the world just how silly all things of a "liberal" nature are.

PETA does act stupidly on many occasions, and invariably they invite scathing criticism from the Rightwing crowd.......they all too often give the yapping dogs of conservatism the ammo they are so desperate to find and exploit.

I wish they'd act with a bit more tact and with more of a sense of the political ramifications of their protests, but they are what they are.

Sad.

PETA are a bunch complete asshole nutjobs.

Any group that can put up a billboard showing a kid eating a burger and then proclaim it to be 'child abuse' deserves to be raided at dawn and dragged off to Gitmo.

It's killed 12 people. I think they are acting in an extremely humane manner.

That's an interesting story, but in your chosen title, I see something that is all-too-common in the U.S.

You're "waiting for PETA" to say something, for no other reason that to have a soapbox to climb on to lambaste the evil Leftwing.........so that you can ridicule them and grandly proclaim to the world just how silly all things of a "liberal" nature are.
PETA are fucking nutjobs. In one instance, they killed more animals than they 'liberated'. They don't value a human life as highly as an animals' life and they hired an arsonist to burn down buildings.

I was waiting for the response so I could laugh a little more at them for how retarded their organization is, but believe me, they do not represent liberals anymore than skinheads represent conservatives.

PETA does act stupidly on many occasions, and invariably they invite scathing criticism from the Rightwing crowd.......they all too often give the yapping dogs of conservatism the ammo they are so desperate to find and exploit.
PETA may be more liberal than conservative, but they sure as hell don't represent any liberals that I know. Plenty of liberals bash on PETA too.

I was waiting for the response so I could laugh a little more at them for how retarded their organization is, ........

I believe you. Likewise, every rightwinger in the country delights in pointing out when PETA does something assinine.

But attitudes like that tend to dismiss out of hand the instances where PETA is making a very sound and rational protest over animal mistreatment. The issue of raising calves for veal on factory farms comes to mind.


......but believe me, they do not represent liberals anymore than skinheads represent conservatives.

No they don't. You're right.

But what is important here is what the perception is.......and that is that a vast segment of the conservative faction in the U.S. does view P.E.T.A. as the very epitome of "liberalism".

When PETA does something silly, invariably the RightWing talking heads come out in force over the airwaves to whip the herd into a frenzy of hatred for liberalism, using that silliness as a wedge issue, and a chance to lambaste ALL things liberal.

But what is important here is what the perception is.......and that is that a vast segment of the conservative faction in the U.S. does view P.E.T.A. as the very epitome of "liberalism".

When PETA does something silly, invariably the RightWing talking heads come out in force over the airwaves to whip the herd into a frenzy of hatred for liberalism, using that silliness as a wedge issue, and a chance to lambaste ALL things liberal.
If a rightwinger confused PETA with liberalism, I would probably just laugh at their ignorance. I don't think our general population is that stupid though.

I'm all for treating animals ethically - but PETA sure as hell isn't working towards that goal (especially if you consider people as animals).

That's an interesting story, but in your chosen title, I see something that is all-too-common in the U.S. Sad.

It's apparent that you enjoy reading into things. There was no political motivation in my choosing a titile. I don't view P.E.T.A. as political so much as a collective of lunatics. I enjoy watching them go off in senseless directions, while relaxed in the knowledge that virtually no one pays them any significant attention other than to ridicule their antics.

I'd get about the same enjoyment out of thowing a bundle of lit Black Cat (very small) firecrackers into a kop's meeting just to see how many shoot one another in their panic.

:rant:

I agree with ES - I've never once thought of PETA as a political issue, I've always simply known, like almost everybody else does, that they a bunch of whack jobs. Anybody involved with PETA is a moron - plain and simple.

I would compare P.E.T.A. more to the ACLU.

I would compare P.E.T.A. more to the ACLU.
Ummm...No.

PETA thinks all animals should have the same rights as humans and that everyone should be vegetarian. (but of course they wouldn't force tigers to eat salad, hypocracy much?)

ACLU believes people should be able to speak freely.

(but of course they wouldn't force tigers to eat salad, hypocracy much?)
I think they like to point out that humans have the choice to eat meat. Because we can get all the nutrients that are in meat elsewhere. Such as using vitamins etc. However a Tiger does not have those options...

I think they like to point out that humans have the choice to eat meat. Because we can get all the nutrients that are in meat elsewhere. Such as using vitamins etc. However a Tiger does not have those options...

Yes, and it is also possible to survive on a diet of soy beans and vitamin pills, but we don't.

Anyways, why is it wrong to eat meat?

Are you a vegetarian, Overdose?

Do you use medicines that are derived from animals or that have been tested on animals?

Do you wear leather shoes or belts?

LMAO @ Frogger. I eat meat. I love meat. I am just pointing out that they do have some valid points. I find it funny how I am asked questions in response to a valid point. I mean, it is far easier to avoid the actual point and start trying to attack the messenger.

LMAO @ Frogger. I eat meat. I love meat. I am just pointing out that they do have some valid points. I find it funny how I am asked questions in response to a valid point. I mean, it is far easier to avoid the actual point and start trying to attack the messenger.

I still don't think it's a valid point. Where is the wrong in eating meat?

Thanks for playing devil's advocate (if you actually were a vegetarian I would have to eat you)

Yes, and it is also possible to survive on a diet of soy beans and vitamin pills, but we don't.

Anyways, why is it wrong to eat meat?
For some people and their metabolism nothing. For others high cholestral and a host of other things. We do not need to eat meat two and three or more times a day. We are not meant to eat as much meat as the average Westerner does. It is unhealthy. Diabetes, cancer, heart problems. Meat is part of the culprit. We could cut our slaughter by over half and do the animals a favour as well as ourselves.

For some people and their metabolism nothing. For others high cholestral and a host of other things. We do not need to eat meat two and three or more times a day. We are not meant to eat as much meat as the average Westerner does. It is unhealthy. Diabetes, cancer, heart problems. Meat is part of the culprit. We could cut our slaughter by over half and do the animals a favour as well as ourselves.

I'm not a vegetarian, and have no bone to pick (HAH!) with those who refuse to eat meat, however, I do find arguments such as the above to be questionable in that for several million years humans have eaten meat (http://archive.salon.com/travel/food/feature/2000/05/18/meat/) whenever they could get it (http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_087.html), and lived to tell their grandkids and great-grandkids about it. (The common view among anthropologists, in fact, is that increased meat consumption was a key element in the development of human culture, since getting and distributing the stuff requires cooperation.)

Think pre-historic African veldt. Think the Bible.* Think Wild West.

Additionally, the number of Americans living to the ripe old age of 100 is growing exponentially (see below). And you KNOW not all these people are vegetarians. In fact, we can assume (because they were born in an era when people ate even more meat than we do today, and because studies show that the number of US vegetarians currently stands between 1-4% of the population) that less than, say, 2% of these oldsters are vegetarians, and the other 98% ate meat at least once a day (if not more) for their entire, LOOOONG lives.

The number of centenarians in the U.S. is growing rapidly, according to a new report from the U.S. Census Bureau. During the 1990s, the ranks of centenarians nearly doubled, from about 37,000 counted at the start of the decade, to more than an estimated 70,000 today. And analysts at the Census suggest that this per-decade doubling trend may continue, with the centenarian population possibly reaching 834,000 by the middle of the next century.

The report, funded by the National Institute on Aging (NIA) at the National Institutes of Health, does point out significant problems with information on the true ages of people 95 and older, though the data are becoming more accurate with improvements in birth records. But as scientists work to improve data quality, the trends in the growth and characteristics of the very elderly are now becoming evident, say NIA experts, as researchers intensify their study of this population.

"We are increasingly interested in the lives of these remarkable people," notes Richard M. Suzman, Ph.D., Associate Director of the NIA for Behavioral and Social Research. "The growing numbers of extremely old people give us the opportunity to examine their lives in more detail. By doing so, we will be able to discover the genetic, medical, social, and behavioral factors contributing to longevity and robustness in very advanced age."

So, while stuffing yourself with meat day in and day out is probably not going to do a lot for your cholesterol levels, eating meat on a daily basis is hardly going to sound your death knell.




* 'And [Peter] saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: wherein were all manner of four-footed beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.' (Acts 10: 1113)

ACLU believes people should be able to speak freely.

ya, as long as you agree with them

a pissed off elephant with no tusks can still kill you, they should have just shot it, period.

(The common view among anthropologists, in fact, is that increased meat consumption was a key element in the development of human culture, since getting and distributing the stuff requires cooperation.)

Think pre-historic African veldt. Think the Bible.* Think Wild West.]

Also brain development requires protein. So it may have been rather cyclical in how meat thus protein, cooperation, combined to help us to evolve.

I'm not a vegetarian, and have no bone to pick (HAH!) with those who refuse to eat meat, however, I do find arguments such as the above to be questionable in that for several million years humans have eaten meat (http://archive.salon.com/travel/food/feature/2000/05/18/meat/) whenever they could get it (http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_087.html), and lived to tell their grandkids and great-grandkids about it.
I am not advocating a meatless society. That would in fact be a dietary disaster. Most people don’t know that sodium and salt are the same thing let alone knowing how to prepare food in order to arrive at the complex protein that meat provides.
In fact you have actually touched upon the solution in your own argument and made the point I was trying to. Humans have eaten meat “whenever they could get it”. And that wasn’t 365 days a year, three meals a day. It was when they were lucky enough to bring game down. And then they shared they didn’t wolf down the whole brontosaurus although they probably ate huge quantities it wasn’t daily. And I doubt there were many fat game hunters. I would venture to say that is why men carry their fat on their gut. It burns faster than hip fat. It has to for energy bursts.

Additionally, the number of Americans living to the ripe old age of 100 is growing exponentially (see below). And you KNOW not all these people are vegetarians. In fact, we can assume (because they were born in an era when people ate even more meat than we do today, and because studies show that the number of US vegetarians currently stands between 1-4% of the population) that less than, say, 2% of these oldsters are vegetarians, and the other 98% ate meat at least once a day (if not more) for their entire, LOOOONG lives.
Agreed and they will be the last generation to do so unless we radically alter our lazy asses, and over-indulgent ways. My parents walked everywhere. So did I as a teen. Ask for a ride home from school or to work and they would have thought I had become simple. Take a gander just walking down the street. Here’s what I see. Lean or rather chubby people out jogging or walking for fitness. Yay them, they get it. Walk the mall and take a jaunt past the food court. I see people waddling towards their chairs with mounds of deep fried food and burgers with enough fat in them to keep a cave man happy for a week. We are killing ourselves with food and the rest of the world starves. It there not some kind of a retributive justice thing here? We are obese.
So, while stuffing yourself with meat day in and day out is probably not going to do a lot for your cholesterol levels, eating meat on a daily basis is hardly going to sound your death knell.

It’s not just the meat, it’s what we put with it. It’s how we cook it. It’s the quantity. It’s the chemical additives that our old people didn’t have. I eat meat. I had the best prime rib of my life last night. One serving not five. It was fatty and highly caloric. Today I will make sure my diet is low in fat and high in fiber. We are killing ourselves.


* 'And [Peter] saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: wherein were all manner of four-footed beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.' (Acts 10: 1113)[/QUOTE]

Yeah the lord didn't say "heave your fat self up and attempt to move. That elk will just stand still for your slovenly ass". Fat people didn't exist. And he said eat, not gorge. Everything in moderation seems to work. :)

a pissed off elephant with no tusks can still kill you, they should have just shot it, period.
yeah I kinda wonder who he will trample when he realizes they have de-tusked him?

Everything in moderation seems to work. :)

Oh, I completely agree. Which is why I think strict vegetarians are nuts (and fruits and berries....).

:D

Oh, I completely agree. Which is why I think strict vegetarians are nuts (and fruits and berries....).

:D
Yeah I still want to die healthy though. :D

Yeah I still want to die healthy though. :D

How does one die healthy? Unless by accident, suicide or other tragedy, if by natural causes it's because the body is "done".

I still don't think it's a valid point. Where is the wrong in eating meat?
Innocent creatures are being slaughtered to feed our faces, when we really don't need to eat them.

We have other options to get the nutrients that are in meat. Basically, the only reason why humans eat meat is for the taste. And many find that wrong, since an innocent creature is dying in the process.

Innocent creatures are being slaughtered to feed our faces, when we really don't need to eat them.
Innocence and guilt are human traits, non-existent in animals.

Why should be feel bad for one second about eating an animal? Because we have less violent options? Cry me a river.

*eats a steak*

LMAO @ Frogger. I eat meat. I love meat.
LOL - yeah, we know...

Let me guess - a little tube steak in a savory underwear wrap and you're set for the night, right?

(Relax, it's a joke, OD...) :)

Most people don’t know that sodium and salt are the same thing[..]

Um they aren't. Sodium chloride is the same as ordinary table salt :banana:
And on the topic - Why shouldn't we eat meat? It's been on the menu ever since our species arose and before that as well. It's natures way! (And it tastes really really good!)

Innocence and guilt are human traits, non-existent in animals.
Right. What's your point?

Why should be feel bad for one second about eating an animal? Because we have less violent options? Cry me a river.
You are being very ignorant about this entire debate.

How can you justify eating meat (which once was an innocent animal) when you have other options? We are the most advanced species and we take pride in that. We don't have to eat meat. We just do so because it tastes good. Whereas other animals eat meat because they don't have the other options that we have.

Your whole "*eats a steak*" part shows you really don't care about the other side of this debate and are un-willing to look at how eating meat could be wrong.

Right. What's your point?
You just agreed with me that animals are not innocent, only humans have that capacity, yet later in this post you claim that the animal was "innocent."
We don't have to eat meat. We just do so because it tastes good.
Precisely, the rest is irrelevant.

You just agreed with me that animals are not innocent, only humans have that capacity, yet later in this post you claim that the animal was "innocent."
I was being sarcastic. Animals are innocent. They are innocent because they kill out of survival and having balance in the food chain. Humans are not innocent because we kill innocent creatures because of the taste, not because of survival reasons.

Precisely, the rest is irrelevant.
And you think it is OK to kill an innocent animal for pure selfish reasons? Such a selfish and horrible viewpoint you have regarding animals.

And you think it is OK to kill an innocent animal for pure selfish reasons? Such a selfish and horrible viewpoint you have regarding animals.
A: Animals cannot be innocent.
B: There is nothing wrong with eating meat, be it for pleasure or necessity.
C: You eat meat, therefore you support the "inhuman, wholesale slaughter of po', po' wittle foh-est kweechures." Meaning you have no believable platform to preach from.

A: Animals cannot be innocent.
Why?

B: There is nothing wrong with eating meat, be it for pleasure or necessity.
Actually, there is something wrong with eating meat for pleasure. You are advocating the murder of an innocent creature for no reason other then taste. That is immoral. Period.

Not to mention, if you were to kill a cat or dog for food you would be charged with animal abuse etc. And you would face many things in regards to the law. Why do we allow the killing of cows, pigs etc.? Why do we allow the abuse and murder they face daily in slaughter houses? Hypocrisy at its best. Cats and dogs are cute and we love them. Pigs and cows are ugly and we don't care if they get beat, ripped apart and slashed to bits and pieces for humans to eat on their plates.

C: You eat meat, therefore you support the "inhuman, wholesale slaughter of po', po' wittle foh-est kweechures." Meaning you have no believable platform to preach from.
I have been in the process of questioning if I should or should not eat meat. But that has nothing to do with the debate at hand. Regardless of if I eat meat or not, we are debating the points PETA and other groups bring up. And you admit you support murder for selfish reasons. Which I think should be put into question by the law.

Why?
Animal actions are inherently neutral. Morality (innocence/guilt/etc) is invented by the human mind to explain our actions. Animals lack the cranial capacity to reflect upon their actions, they act out of instinct, we don't.
You are advocating the murder of an innocent creature for no reason other then taste. That is immoral. Period.
Morals are relative. Using this world's resources for my own survival or enjoyment can be moral or immoral, depending on the person. I'm not one who will point fingers at someone who enjoys his Mcburger. You apparently don't practice what you preach, as you have admitted, so you're hardly a beacon of morality on this issue in any case.

Why do we allow the killing of cows, pigs etc.?
Because they are plump balls of meat that we have historically eaten. Not eating dogs is a cultural thing. In a place like China, you could find things on the menu from snakes to dogs. Americans cringe at that thought, the Chinese don't.
Cats and dogs are cute and we love them. Pigs and cows are ugly and we don't care if they get beat, ripped apart and slashed to bits and pieces for humans to eat on their plates.
Yes.
And you admit you support murder for selfish reasons. Which I think should be put into question by the law.
Murder? Law?

mur‧der [mur-der] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).
2. Something extremely difficult or perilous: That final exam was murder!
3. a group or flock of crows.

Animal actions are inherently neutral. Morality (innocence/guilt/etc) is invented by the human mind to explain our actions. Animals lack the cranial capacity to reflect upon their actions, they act out of instinct, we don't.
They act out of instinct. Which is why they kill other animals in order to survive.

Morals are relative. Using this world's resources for my own survival or enjoyment can be moral or immoral, depending on the person. I'm not one who will point fingers at someone who enjoys his Mcburger. You apparently don't practice what you preach, as you have admitted, so you're hardly a beacon of morality on this issue in any case.
Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. "Morals are relative" I've heard that one before. The fact of the matter is you cannot come up with a better reason then "taste" for the murder of innocent animals. Also, what I do has nothing to do with this debate. So shut the hell up about it. The fact is that you cannot come up with a better argument and have to resort to what I personally do as your only defense.

Because they are plump balls of meat that we have historically eaten. Not eating dogs is a cultural thing. In a place like China, you could find things on the menu from snakes to dogs. Americans cringe at that thought, the Chinese don't.
Culture my ass. All animals should be treated equally. Just like all humans should be treated equally. You are for the un-fair treatment of some animals and then the fair treatment of other animals. You are a hypocrite and have a double standard. Period.

Yes.
That's all you have? You really don't give a flying fuck about the other side of this debate and will just stubbornly say "yes" when confronted with the fact that you support the slaughter of innocent creatures for selfish reasons such as taste. Why are you even debating this if you are just going to be a a prick and say "Yes" and give no defense to why you would support the killing of innocent creatures on this earth.

Murder? Law?

mur?der [mur-der] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).
2. Something extremely difficult or perilous: That final exam was murder!
3. a group or flock of crows.
I said I think the law should pull it into question. But I realize that the law is bias and does not give regard for innocent animals.

They act out of instinct. Which is why they kill other animals in order to survive.
Exactly, so if you say there is such a thing as an "innocent" animal, I will summarily give you a cyber smack.
The fact of the matter is you cannot come up with a better reason then "taste" for the murder of innocent animals.
I do not need a better reason. That alone serves all my debating purposes. I win the debate with that point. Bam.
The fact is that you cannot come up with a better argument and have to resort to what I personally do as your only defense.
Actually I'm pointing out your hypocrisy.
Culture my ass. All animals should be treated equally.
Whoa, man that's funny.
You are a hypocrite and have a double standard. Period.
You're the one who eats meat and tells me eating meat is immoral. I have committed no sin of hypocrisy, I'm being plain-spoken and honest.

Let me ask you a question, do you give ant-piles poison to eliminate them from your property? Okay, if you do (like many people in America), then you are slaughtering thousands of poor, innocent creatures. Why the double standard when we're talking about animals that produce meat?
I said I think the law should pull it into question. But I realize that the law is bias and does not give regard for innocent animals.
Wha-? You did it again.

*cyber smack*

For some people and their metabolism nothing. For others high cholestral and a host of other things. We do not need to eat meat two and three or more times a day. We are not meant to eat as much meat as the average Westerner does. It is unhealthy. Diabetes, cancer, heart problems. Meat is part of the culprit. We could cut our slaughter by over half and do the animals a favour as well as ourselves.

So exercise moderation, but that doesn't rule out eating meat in moderate amount.

Innocent creatures are being slaughtered to feed our faces, when we really don't need to eat them.

We have other options to get the nutrients that are in meat. Basically, the only reason why humans eat meat is for the taste. And many find that wrong, since an innocent creature is dying in the process.

So you would be OK with eating guilty animals? ;)


Ok, so we kill an animal and eat it. You're saying that we shouldn't kill it and eat it because the animal is innocent? Why does that matter? We kill plants when we eat them, but there's nothing wrong with that. The plants are innocent.

Um they aren't. Sodium chloride is the same as ordinary table salt :banana:
Heh, yea - I'd love to see someone try eating pure sodium - KaBOOM!

Actually, there is something wrong with eating meat for pleasure. You are advocating the murder of an innocent creature for no reason other then taste. That is immoral. Period.
Wait wait. Hold up - we are killing and eating the animals (not murdering, murder means to kill another human), but that is not immoral - morality is based on what the culture views as right and wrong, and the majority of our culture eats meat, so it is morally acceptible to eat meat.

Not to mention, if you were to kill a cat or dog for food you would be charged with animal abuse etc. And you would face many things in regards to the law. Why do we allow the killing of cows, pigs etc.? Why do we allow the abuse and murder they face daily in slaughter houses? Hypocrisy at its best. Cats and dogs are cute and we love them. Pigs and cows are ugly and we don't care if they get beat, ripped apart and slashed to bits and pieces for humans to eat on their plates.
If you killed your cat or dog quickly and relatively painlessly, you would not be charged with animal abuse. Animal abuse is only when you cause unacceptable suffering or harm. Plus people like cats and dogs more because they keep them as pets, it is the norm. If you act outside the norm you are more likely to be sided against if the law is in question.

All animals should be treated equally.
Oh come on, you know that's not true. We should treat a flea with the same care that we treat a horse?

Exactly, so if you say there is such a thing as an "innocent" animal, I will summarily give you a cyber smack.
They are innocent in the sense that they should not be punished for killing to survive. So they are innocent of that crime IMO. Whereas humans are not innocent of that crime since we don't have to kill animals to survive.

I do not need a better reason. That alone serves all my debating purposes. I win the debate with that point. Bam.
If you honestly think taste is a good enough reason, then you are a sick, sad and pathetic human. How can you justify taking a life to satisfy your taste buds?

Actually I'm pointing out your hypocrisy.
How is bringing up a valid point PETA has, making me a hypocrite? I have my own reasons as to why I think it is OK to eat meat. However, I was correcting 500 when he said PETA was a hypocritical group on the point that they expect humans to not eat meat, but then they don't expect animals to not eat meat. That's all I was saying. Then you and others had to jump all over my back, when all I was doing was pointing out that PETA does have some valid points.

You're the one who eats meat and tells me eating meat is immoral. I have committed no sin of hypocrisy, I'm being plain-spoken and honest.
You think it is OK for people to kill and eat cows, but not dogs. That is being a hypocrite. What makes a dog any different then a cow? They are both animals and both deserving of life.

Let me ask you a question, do you give ant-piles poison to eliminate them from your property? Okay, if you do (like many people in America), then you are slaughtering thousands of poor, innocent creatures. Why the double standard when we're talking about animals that produce meat?
I don't own property.

Wha-? You did it again.

*cyber smack*
I didn't do anything again.

Wait wait. Hold up - we are killing and eating the animals (not murdering, murder means to kill another human), but that is not immoral - morality is based on what the culture views as right and wrong, and the majority of our culture eats meat, so it is morally acceptible to eat meat.


If you killed your cat or dog quickly and relatively painlessly, you would not be charged with animal abuse. Animal abuse is only when you cause unacceptable suffering or harm. Plus people like cats and dogs more because they keep them as pets, it is the norm. If you act outside the norm you are more likely to be sided against if the law is in question.
1. I don't think the term murder should just apply when a human kills another human.
2. The majority isn't always right, in fact it has been proven incorrect many times. Such as when woman didn't have the right to vote and blacks were treated un-fairly in the south. Just because a culture accepts eating meat does not make it correct.
3. If you killed a dog or a cat you would be charged with something.
4. Do you honestly think animals aren't abused in most of the slaughter houses? If someone were to treat their cat the way a cow is treated in a slaughter house, they would be charged with abuse, I'm sure of it.
5. The "norm" isn't and hasn't always been correct.

1. I don't think the term murder should just apply when a human kills another human.
The impact that the word "murder" has is because of it's meaning. If you change the meaning of the word, it isn't going to have the same impact anymore. To kill an animal is just that, killing - not murdering.

2. The majority isn't always right, in fact it has been proven incorrect many times. Such as when woman didn't have the right to vote and blacks were treated un-fairly in the south. Just because a culture accepts eating meat does not make it correct.
Correct in the eyes of whom? In the eyes of our culture, eating meat is acceptible.

3. If you killed a dog or a cat you would be charged with something.
Why?
4. Do you honestly think animals aren't abused in most of the slaughter houses? If someone were to treat their cat the way a cow is treated in a slaughter house, they would be charged with abuse, I'm sure of it.
Depends on how you would define abuse. As long as they kill the animal quickly and relatively painlessly, I think it's just fine.

If they killed the cat in the same manner, and the lawyer presented it as such, only an incredibly biased jury would convict the person of abuse.

5. The "norm" isn't and hasn't always been correct.
Again, correct to whom? Morals are just what we as a society believe is right. When slavery existed, I'm sure there were some people who owned slaves and thought it was wrong, but I bet the majority believed it was OK. So at that time, it was acceptable behavior to own a slave - ie morally correct. We look back on that and are horrified by that behavior, because now owning another human is absolutely wrong.

There are no absolutes in morality. There is morally acceptable behavior for a time and a place, but there is no moral behavior that is and has been ALWAYS acceptable among all groups of people.

In a few years, the morally acceptible behavior of eating meat may change, but at the moment our society has no qualms with eating meat.

They are innocent in the sense that they should not be punished for killing to survive. So they are innocent of that crime IMO. Whereas humans are not innocent of that crime since we don't have to kill animals to survive.
What if the animal is gorging itself due to abundant food supply? Is that survival or pleasure? Is it not innocent and I can eat it now?
If you honestly think taste is a good enough reason, then you are a sick, sad and pathetic human.
Great.
How can you justify taking a life to satisfy your taste buds?
Easily. The innocent animals do it all the time.
You think it is OK for people to kill and eat cows, but not dogs. That is being a hypocrite. What makes a dog any different then a cow? They are both animals and both deserving of life.
I have no problem with eating dogs, and I think you misunderstand the meaning of the term "hypocrisy."
I don't own property.
Way to fiddle around the issue. Is killing a pile of ants because they are a pestilence the same as killing a cow for food?

Everytime you shower you destroy animals living on you, or if you shave you eliminate their food supply.

You sad, murderous person. How can you kill bugs!!

The impact that the word "murder" has is because of it's meaning. If you change the meaning of the word, it isn't going to have the same impact anymore. To kill an animal is just that, killing - not murdering.
Semantics.

Correct in the eyes of whom? In the eyes of our culture, eating meat is acceptible.
Our culture has been wrong many times throughout history. To base your opinion on what our culture finds OK is laughable.

Why?
Because you are taking a life. Stop playing dumb.

Depends on how you would define abuse. As long as they kill the animal quickly and relatively painlessly, I think it's just fine.
If you think slaughter houses are clean and that the animals aren't abused before they are slaughtered you are insane. But even if it was "relatively painless" why do you advocate killing to satisfy your taste-buds?

If they killed the cat in the same manner, and the lawyer presented it as such, only an incredibly biased jury would convict the person of abuse.
Go kill a cat and then see what the police will do to you.

Again, correct to whom? Morals are just what we as a society believe is right. When slavery existed, I'm sure there were some people who owned slaves and thought it was wrong, but I bet the majority believed it was OK. So at that time, it was acceptable behavior to own a slave - ie morally correct. We look back on that and are horrified by that behavior, because now owning another human is absolutely wrong.
Slavery was wrong even when people thought it was morally OK. And I think killing animals for taste is wrong, even if the majority don't think so.

There are no absolutes in morality. There is morally acceptable behavior for a time and a place, but there is no moral behavior that is and has been ALWAYS acceptable among all groups of people.
And I'm telling you my moral opinion. That if the only reason you have for killing animals is taste, then you are morally in the wrong because you are taking an innocent life away from this earth. And I think if you were to be morally honest you would understand that position. Stop playing semantics and trying to use the whole "there are no absolutes in morality" as your excuse. Because I call that a cop-out and bullshit.

In a few years, the morally acceptible behavior of eating meat may change, but at the moment our society has no qualms with eating meat.
I don't give a fuck what society thinks right now. I'm asking for a reason other then taste for killing animals. Society has been wrong and to use society as your argument is pointless, since society has been proven wrong many times in the past.

---------

Great.
When you are confronted with the reality of what you support, you just say something snide and pig-headed. Which suggests you are not mature enough to actually debate this issue. You just don't care. You don't give a shit and that's sad. It speaks volumes about you as a person and how you don't care that innocent animals die at the expense of your taste-buds.

Easily. The innocent animals do it all the time.
Animals do it to survive. You do it for selfish reasons.

I have no problem with eating dogs, and I think you misunderstand the meaning of the term "hypocrisy."
No, I know exactly what it means. Thanks.

Way to fiddle around the issue. Is killing a pile of ants because they are a pestilence the same as killing a cow for food?
If ants are invading your space, eating your food and biting you then you have every right to get rid of them. But what has a cow done?

Everytime you shower you destroy animals living on you, or if you shave you eliminate their food supply.

You sad, murderous person. How can you kill bugs!!
Keep trying to play a game. You have yet to give a good reason for the slaughter of innocent animals.

PS: I'm flying out to Idaho for Thanksgiving. I won't be able to respond to your replies. But I'll most likely do so once I get back.

You have yet to give a good reason for the slaughter of innocent animals.
I've given a good reason for the wholesale slaughter of our bovine and porcine friends; they taste good. They provide nutrients. If you don't find that a good enough reason to eat them, then you are either not human or a severely misguided human.

Semantics.
Gibberish.
Keep trying to play a game. You have yet to give a good reason for the slaughter of innocent animals. Because they taste good? No but seriously different people have different nutritional requiremnets. Just because you can survive and are happy eating lettuce doesn't mean others will or can.

Another thing is you can't naturally get all the vitamins/minerals/etc you need from vegetables alone. Highly processed and synthetic foods aren't necessarily good for you.

Now this doesn't mean that people don't eat too much meat as it stands. Americans and other industrialized countries most definatly do.

Now what I see as the real travesty and horror is how the animals are treated. facoty hens, veal, recombinant Bovine Growth Hormones, Being pumped full of antibiotics 24 hours a day to 'plump up'....

How does one die healthy? Unless by accident, suicide or other tragedy, if by natural causes it's because the body is "done".
Okay let me put it this way, I don't want to linger for ten years attached to a portable oxygen machine or so weak I lay abed for a year. Ideally a massive coronary from total over exertion for my age would be ideal, but then most would probably think so too and we don't get to chose ultimately. We can only affect it by our life style choice the rest is up to the fates.

So exercise moderation, but that doesn't rule out eating meat in moderate amount.
agreed

Um they aren't. Sodium chloride is the same as ordinary table salt :banana:
And on the topic - Why shouldn't we eat meat? It's been on the menu ever since our species arose and before that as well. It's natures way! (And it tastes really really good!)
daaaaamn, ya caught me with my wording on that one... :o
As for me, how about a little salted pork... ;)

some animals are more equal then others

Animals are innocent. They are innocent because they kill out of survival and having balance in the food chain. Humans are not innocent because we kill innocent creatures because of the taste, not because of survival reasons.
Actually, there is something wrong with eating meat for pleasure. You are advocating the murder of an innocent creature for no reason other then taste. That is immoral. Period.
Chimpanzees eat meat because it tastes good. (From the article I linked to earlier... )

Not all anthropoid apes are exclusively vegetarian. The primatologist Jane Goodall established more than 20 years ago that wild chimpanzees kill other animals once in a while and eat the meat with relish. Other primates (although apparently not gorillas) do so as well. It's true chimps and other apes eat a mostly veggie diet, but for that matter so do most humans. Hunter-gatherers today consume only about 35 percent meat to 65 percent vegetables (Lee and Devore, 1976). The Straight Dope (http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_087.html)

Why, those nasty, EEEEVIL, selfish, non-innocent, immoral, MURRRDERRRRING monkeys! :rant:

Here's a story you might find interesting....

I raise chickens. I like chickens. I don't eat my birds; they're egg producers (I sell the blue, green, and brown eggs produced by my happy, well-fed, 100% organic, free-range chickens). My chickens are pets. I take great care of them - I'm sure you'd approve of the wonderful life I provide for my birds. They have a large, secure house to live in (heated in winter), a very large fenced yard to roam around in. They get more feed and scratch than they could ever eat, plus as many treats as they want. I cook pasta and rice for my birds most mornings, and they get all the apples and plums that fall of my trees. I have an organic vegetable garden (I also sell the veggies), and they eat more from that garden than I do. In short, I honor and respect my birds, and treat them better than any "backyard chickens" I've ever seen (and there are PLENTY of folks who keep chickens out here in the hinterlands, in decidedly terrible conditions).

Yesterday morning (while I was here reading what you lot are going on about), I heard a commotion in the chicken yard out back. Looked out the window and saw a huge, very healthy looking coyote pacing back and forth along the fenceline of the chicken yard. He weighed at least 60 lbs (I'm also a pet sitter - I have an idea what canine-type creatures weigh), and had a beautiful silver-gray coat and a large fluffy tail. This creature was clearly not starving and did not need to eat a chicken right now in order "to survive."

I grabbed my shotgun and ran outside as quickly as my feet could carry me, and got off three rounds before he disappeared into the trees. I don't think I hit him, but I hope I did. (Yes, I'm immoral like that; I protect my own.)

Now, here are some questions for you:

Which "innocent" animal should be eliminated from the equation? If I were not home, which creature would you prefer have lived to see tomorrow? An "innocent" pet minding its own business behind a fence, or an "innocent" coyote looking for a light snack that it clearly didn't need "to survive"?

Should I have interceded or not?

If not, what purpose would it serve to allow "innocent" pet chickens to die so an "innocent" coyote could have a light snack that it obviously didn't need "to survive"?

Should I allow my birds out of their fenced yard to give the "innocent" coyotes a better chance at a meal so they can "survive?" If so, don't my pets have a right to "survive" too?

I grabbed my shotgun and ran outside as quickly as my feet could carry me, and got off three rounds before he disappeared into the trees. I don't think I hit him, but I hope I did.
I think you may be cooler than I originally thought...

Semantics.
Exactly, the meaning of a word. Murder means one thing. Killing means another.

Our culture has been wrong many times throughout history. To base your opinion on what our culture finds OK is laughable.
I'm not talking about my opinion. I'm talking about what is acceptible behavior in society, what is morally correct - and morality is determined by society.

Because you are taking a life. Stop playing dumb.
I'm not playing dumb. Taking a life is not all that wrong. If you kill an ant, or a mosquito or a fly, it is not such a bad thing.

If you think slaughter houses are clean and that the animals aren't abused before they are slaughtered you are insane. But even if it was "relatively painless" why do you advocate killing to satisfy your taste-buds?
Why shouldn't I. I not only satisfy my tastebuds, but my health as well. I don't feel that there is something wrong with raising livestock for food.

Go kill a cat and then see what the police will do to you.
Cats have been pets for ages. We have grown to accept them as closer to us, so more emotions will be involved if a cop sees me kill a cat (it also depends on how I killed the cat), but if the cop arrested me and brought me to court, I would win the case and be let free.

Slavery was wrong even when people thought it was morally OK. And I think killing animals for taste is wrong, even if the majority don't think so.
Slavery was wrong to whom at the time? If the majority of the people thought it was acceptible, then at the time it was not wrong.

To you and me slavery was wrong. To them it wasn't. There are no moral absolutes - and that is not a cop-out, that is how it is. You could say it is always wrong to kill, I would give you a scenario of a man about to launch a nuke and the only way to stop him is to kill him. What would be the morally correct thing to do? Kill him of course.

And I'm telling you my moral opinion. That if the only reason you have for killing animals is taste, then you are morally in the wrong because you are taking an innocent life away from this earth. And I think if you were to be morally honest you would understand that position. Stop playing semantics and trying to use the whole "there are no absolutes in morality" as your excuse. Because I call that a cop-out and bullshit.
Your opinion does not make something morally correct. A society as a whole determines what is morally correct. If you want to use the word moral, use it correctly.
At this time, in the US it is morally acceptible to eat meat.

Also, in my opinion, it is not wrong to raise a cow, chicken or most other animals for food. That means the animal has to die. I would prefer it if we could eat them without killing them, but sadly we can't.

I don't give a fuck what society thinks right now. I'm asking for a reason other then taste for killing animals. Society has been wrong and to use society as your argument is pointless, since society has been proven wrong many times in the past.
Here are my reasons for eating meat:
Taste
Health (and if you're going to say that it is possible to get the benefits of meat elsewhere, then I would change that to 'saving time')


Here, let me sum up my opinion:

I believe the tradeoff of an animal's life for my being able to eat meat is acceptible.

btw Overdose - thanks for sticking around in this thread.

I raise chickens. I like chickens. I don't eat my birds; they're egg producers (I sell the blue, green, and brown eggs produced by my happy, well-fed, 100% organic, free-range chickens) I have Araucanas too. They rock.

I have Araucanas too. They rock.
Your poor chickens! You raise them in Arizona?

My chickens are pets. I take great care of them - I'm sure you'd approve of the wonderful life I provide for my birds. They have a large, secure house to live in (heated in winter), a very large fenced yard to roam around in. They get more feed and scratch than they could ever eat, plus as many treats as they want. I cook pasta and rice for my birds most mornings, and they get all the apples and plums that fall of my trees. I have an organic vegetable garden (I also sell the veggies), and they eat more from that garden than I do. ?
Can we move in with you? I can scratch and cluck. He's quite the rooster. :)
I grabbed my shotgun and ran outside as quickly as my feet could carry me, and got off three rounds before he disappeared into the trees. I don't think I hit him, but I hope I did. (Yes, I'm immoral like that; I protect my own.)
Pleeeeeeeease.

Now, here are some questions for you:

Which "innocent" animal should be eliminated from the equation? If I were not home, which creature would you prefer have lived to see tomorrow? An "innocent" pet minding its own business behind a fence, or an "innocent" coyote looking for a light snack that it clearly didn't need "to survive"?
For me I say if you were not there to intercede, the coyote gets an easy Swiss Chalet meal.

Should I have interceded or not? You were there, therefore yes.

Should I allow my birds out of their fenced yard to give the "innocent" coyotes a better chance at a meal so they can "survive?" If so, don't my pets have a right to "survive" too? I say your birds are not a "natural" part of the environment therefore no I would not allow them out of their fenced yard to give cool coyote a free meal. If he was starving and and got his chops around one, well, so sorry for the bird but adios. Nature isn't cruel it just is.

some animals are more equal then others
hehe...two legs good, four legs baaaaaaaaaaad!

I think you may be cooler than I originally thought...

:D (Despite my somewhat left-of-center leanings on most things, I was raised in Texas and it's true what they say: You can take the girl out of Texas, but you can't take Texas out of the girl. Still a bit of a crazy redneck, after all these years.)

I have Araucanas too. They rock.

Don't they? :)

Here's my big boy (Easter Egger) with his girlfriends, and one of his miniature cousins who is a purebred bantam. Also, PRETTY EGGS!! (Yes, you're correct; that little guy has no tail.)

http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/9832/1204snowsv4.th.jpg (http://img215.imageshack.us/my.php?image=1204snowsv4.jpg) http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/1861/brutuste5.th.jpg (http://img215.imageshack.us/my.php?image=brutuste5.jpg) http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/8048/eggtrays8ja9.th.jpg (http://img214.imageshack.us/my.php?image=eggtrays8ja9.jpg) (Click on thumbnails for larger images.)

I say your birds are not a "natural" part of the environment therefore no I would not allow them out of their fenced yard to give cool coyote a free meal. If he was starving and and got his chops around one, well, so sorry for the bird but adios. Nature isn't cruel it just is.

You oughta see what a hawk can do in a chicken enclosure.... :(

Can we move in with you? I can scratch and cluck. He's quite the rooster. Pleeeeeeeease.

Uhhh.... can you lay eggs? :D



(Yanno, when the chicks first arrived in the mail, I hadn't yet built the coop or fenced the yard, so I raised them in the house for two months. :banana: Nobody loves their chickies more than Frannie!)

Reminds me of the time my mother decided to raise chickens when I was quite young. Eating the eggs was ok with everyone, but not one adult member of the household could bring themselves to kill a bird for dinner. It took one of the neighbor ladies to come over & do the deed. Even then, I don't think the yardbird actually made it to our table. My parents were both raised in the city & transitioning to country life was really a shock.

I have Araucanas too. They rock.

I had to go look in the freezer; I have the Piggly Wiggly type chicken. ;)

So what was PETA's reaction?
Was it less than this forum's?

I'm not talking about my opinion. I'm talking about what is acceptible behavior in society, what is morally correct - and morality is determined by society.
You keep talking about society and what society finds morally justified. However, I keep telling you that I do not care what society finds justified or not. Just because society believes one thing does not mean I have to go along with it. Period. Society has and will continue to be wrong.

Taking a life is not all that wrong. If you kill an ant, or a mosquito or a fly, it is not such a bad thing.
Taking a life is not all that wrong? Don't make me laugh buddy.

Why shouldn't I. I not only satisfy my tastebuds, but my health as well. I don't feel that there is something wrong with raising livestock for food.
Your health can be satisfied by using other means. As for your tastebuds, well, that is a sad, pathetic reason. Period.

Cats have been pets for ages. We have grown to accept them as closer to us, so more emotions will be involved if a cop sees me kill a cat (it also depends on how I killed the cat), but if the cop arrested me and brought me to court, I would win the case and be let free.
History is by no means something to go off of. Cats are animals. PERIOD. Why we treat them differently is beyond me. And if you think you would get off easy if you killed at cat, you are insane.

Slavery was wrong to whom at the time? If the majority of the people thought it was acceptible, then at the time it was not wrong.
BULLSHIT. Something can be wrong, even if the majority find it OK. How can you even begin to say that? Just because the majority was brainwashed and un-educated does not mean it was correct just because the majority supported it. That is the most insane position I have ever heard in my entire life. If something is wrong, it is wrong. Regardless of if the majority support it or not. The Supreme Court decides if something is wrong or not, REGARDLESS of how the majority feel. They do so BECAUSE the majority is not always correct nor is something correct just because the majority supports it.

The Supreme Court said that un-fair treatment of blacks was wrong, even though the majority in the South believed it was morally OK. That suggests that what the majority thinks is not always OK nor morally correct.


You could say it is always wrong to kill, I would give you a scenario of a man about to launch a nuke and the only way to stop him is to kill him. What would be the morally correct thing to do? Kill him of course.
That man wouldn't be innocent. He would be trying to commit a crime. An animal, however, is innocent. There is a huge difference. Also, I never said it is always wrong to kill. Don't put words in my mouth.

At this time, in the US it is morally acceptible to eat meat.
Just because it is accepted does not make it correct, nor does it make it justifiable.


Here are my reasons for eating meat:
Taste
Health (and if you're going to say that it is possible to get the benefits of meat elsewhere, then I would change that to 'saving time')

If you honestly think time and taste are good enough reasons to take an innocent life, then I would call you a horrible person. I don't care if there are no "moral absolutes" I am telling you my moral opinion. I don't care if the majority of people disagree with me, I am telling you that taste and time are never good enough reasons to justify murder of innocent animals.

The Supreme Court said that un-fair treatment of blacks was wrong, even though the majority in the South believed it was morally OK.

Morality cannot be legislated. The Court decided that treatment of blacks was not in line with law as written in the Constitution. It had nothing to do with morality.

Morality cannot be legislated. The Court decided that treatment of blacks was not in line with law as written in the Constitution. It had nothing to do with morality.
Morality was legislated in the Civil Rights Act of 1968. Which deemed in a moral way that discrimination against others was not OK in any form and that the federal government could use force/power if state's went against it. That is a moral opinion that conflicted with the laws in the South that were usually formed by the moral opinion that blacks were not equal to whites.

It was a matter of law, not emotions. Morals are statements of emotion. The law cannot mandate emotion, only behavior.

I love reading Overdose's posts. They remind me that we, as humans, protect our fools rather than kill them. We not only protect them, we give them computers so they can spout their idiocy outside their immediate neighborhood.

OD, you get yourself so worked up over every issue. You start with an almost, not quite but almost reasonable point and before you are finished you have gone off the deep end into complete idiocy.

Please stop posting for a bit will you. Your posts are making me laugh and my lips are chapped so it hurts.

http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/images/smilies/icon_rofl.gif

You keep talking about society and what society finds morally justified. However, I keep telling you that I do not care what society finds justified or not. Just because society believes one thing does not mean I have to go along with it. Period. Society has and will continue to be wrong.
No one ever said that you have to go along with what everyone else does or thinks. You described eating meat as 'immoral', that's what brought about society, because morals are defined by society. I'll go more in depth at the end.

Taking a life is not all that wrong? Don't make me laugh buddy.
You kills bugs all the time, you kill germs and viruses and plants. It is not that big of a deal.

Your health can be satisfied by using other means. As for your tastebuds, well, that is a sad, pathetic reason. Period.
Why do people eat the foods that they enjoy? Simple, because of taste (and consistancy, aroma etc... but that is beside the point). I could use your same argument against you if you ever ate something that you enjoyed eating.

History is by no means something to go off of. Cats are animals. PERIOD. Why we treat them differently is beyond me. And if you think you would get off easy if you killed at cat, you are insane.
OD..... Bugs are animals too. If a cop saw me squash one he wouldn't care. That is why I brought up our relation to cats. A cop would care more if I squashed a cat. This is not that difficult of an issue here.

The point I was making was that I am not breaking any laws by humanely killing my cat. The cop has no basis for arresting me.

BULLSHIT. Something can be wrong, even if the majority find it OK.
According to whom is it wrong? I've asked you at least 3 times and you have not answered me yet. Wrong to you? I'm sorry, but your judgement does not define morality.

How can you even begin to say that? Just because the majority was brainwashed and un-educated does not mean it was correct just because the majority supported it.
If the people believed it to be a correct act at the time, then in their eyes it was a correct act at the time. It was a moral act at the time. I don't care how horrible the act was, it changes nothing.

That is the most insane position I have ever heard in my entire life. If something is wrong, it is wrong.
AGAIN, who is the judge? In who's mind is it wrong?

Regardless of if the majority support it or not. The Supreme Court decides if something is wrong or not, REGARDLESS of how the majority feel. They do so BECAUSE the majority is not always correct nor is something correct just because the majority supports it. The Supreme Court said that un-fair treatment of blacks was wrong, even though the majority in the South believed it was morally OK. That suggests that what the majority thinks is not always OK nor morally correct.
All that means is that the Superme Court believes that something is wrong or not; the supreme court does not dictate morals either. It has an affect on society, just as all laws do - but notice that there are laws which society in general feels are not right. That's why, in general, we change them to fit what society feels is right.


That man wouldn't be innocent. He would be trying to commit a crime.
My god OD, I never said he was innocent. I said what would be the most moral thing for him to do? In his shoes would you allow him to murder millions, or would you kill him?

An animal, however, is innocent. There is a huge difference. Also, I never said it is always wrong to kill. Don't put words in my mouth.
Show me where I put those words in your mouth.

Just because it is accepted does not make it correct, nor does it make it justifiable. I'll explain this in detail at the end

If you honestly think time and taste are good enough reasons to take an innocent life, then I would call you a horrible person. I don't care if there are no "moral absolutes" I am telling you my moral opinion. I don't care if the majority of people disagree with me, I am telling you that taste and time are never good enough reasons to justify murder of innocent animals.
What about bacteria? What about killing mosquitoes because they are annoying? What about killing plants? Not all life is equal. You apparently believe that too since you are advocating eating plants instead of meat. An animal has less worth than a human.



My 2 cents on morality - right and wrong:
Right and wrong boil down to what is socially acceptible, the same thing as morality. If you feel that an act is wrong, or immoral, that does not make it so. It means that you do not believe that it is a socailly acceptible act.

A praying mantis eats her mate after sex and it is not wrong in our eyes, yet if a wife ate her husband that would be morally wrong because our society does not accept that as a moral act.

The judge is society. The acts which we call 'correct' or 'moral' are those acts which society has determined as acceptible.


This means that in the US eating meat is moral, correct, acceptible and any other synonym that you care to use. To you it is not, to society it is.

You keep talking about society and what society finds morally justified. However, I keep telling you that I do not care what society finds justified or not. Just because society believes one thing does not mean I have to go along with it. Period. Society has and will continue to be wrong.

Except for when it makes money, or makes people like Paris Hilton have googly-eyed obsessive followers like yourself LOL.. Sorry to go off on a tangent, but tell me, why is a wanna-be-whore, spoiled-filthy, pro-starvation, piece of crap like her your "idol"?

As for your assumption, society DOES justify what is moral... which is sad. But the masses speak, and people like you and me listen. Are you saying that a select few people should decide what is moral? Or do people themselves get to make the decision? Or are they not good enough to do that?


Taking a life is not all that wrong? Don't make me laugh buddy.

Yea, we all kill many things every day... its just reality - the way the world works. You can bawl your eyes out every few steps you take on a sidewalk knowing that you just killed an ant's mother... or you can learn to live with it.



Your health can be satisfied by using other means. As for your tastebuds, well, that is a sad, pathetic reason. Period.

I like animals.. but most mammals are meat eaters.. thats just what we do.


BULLSHIT. Something can be wrong, even if the majority find it OK. How can you even begin to say that? Just because the majority was brainwashed and un-educated does not mean it was correct just because the majority supported it. That is the most insane position I have ever heard in my entire life. If something is wrong, it is wrong. Regardless of if the majority support it or not. The Supreme Court decides if something is wrong or not, REGARDLESS of how the majority feel. They do so BECAUSE the majority is not always correct nor is something correct just because the majority supports it.

The Supreme Court said that un-fair treatment of blacks was wrong, even though the majority in the South believed it was morally OK. That suggests that what the majority thinks is not always OK nor morally correct.

Here is where i have beef with you, my aquaintence.... You can't judge things in history by today's standards... that is just bastardizing it. Because chances are, if you grew up in the time of slavery.. you would actually accept it because it was so acceptable in society. We probably all would. Just like we all accept driving cars, even though they kill so many people every year. Just like we accept alcohol being sold everywhere, even though it does nothing to help a human body. In the future, that stuff might seem like MADNESS.. but right now its okay...

I mean, if it helps your ego, at least admit you have to jack yourself off.. dont act like you would have single-handedly lead the anti-slavery movement because you would have the same point of view back then as you do now.. because that is just a lie.

Your health can be satisfied by using other means.
So....?

I can also ride my bicycle to work, but will I? Probably not.
As for your tastebuds, well, that is a sad, pathetic reason. Period.
Listen buddy - I didn't climb to the top of the food chain to eat fuckin' tofu....

That aside, you should preach your alternative diet palaver to lions and bears, and when you're done doing so, you should let me know how that works out.

You kills bugs all the time, you kill germs and viruses and plants. It is not that big of a deal.
Typically when you kill a bug, germ or virus it is because they are somehow interfering with your life or hurting you in some way. How are the cows lined up in slaughter houses interfering with your life? And to be honest, if I see a bug in my house I will take it outside and not kill it. So your theory that I kill bugs all the time is incorrect. Next, bugs, germs, viruses and plants are completely different than animals. Firstly, animals are said to feel happiness and sadness. They are far more complex and intellectually developed. Killing animals is far different then killing a plant, which does not even have a brain nor feeling.

Why do people eat the foods that they enjoy? Simple, because of taste (and consistancy, aroma etc... but that is beside the point). I could use your same argument against you if you ever ate something that you enjoyed eating.
You are forgetting that the process to your enjoyment involved the slaughter of an innocent animal.

OD..... Bugs are animals too. If a cop saw me squash one he wouldn't care. That is why I brought up our relation to cats. A cop would care more if I squashed a cat. This is not that difficult of an issue here.
Comparing a bug to a cat is like comparing apples and oranges.

The point I was making was that I am not breaking any laws by humanely killing my cat. The cop has no basis for arresting me.
If you have no reason to kill the cat, they would question why you didn’t put it in the humane society. They would also question your mental stability, as to why you would kill an innocent creature.

According to whom is it wrong? I've asked you at least 3 times and you have not answered me yet. Wrong to you? I'm sorry, but your judgement does not define morality.
I have told you time and time again that it is I who find it wrong. This is a forum to discuss our own viewpoints with others. Obviously I find it wrong. I am telling you my moral opinion. And I don’t think it is enough justification to just say “animals are tasty so I kill them”

If the people believed it to be a correct act at the time, then in their eyes it was a correct act at the time. It was a moral act at the time. I don't care how horrible the act was, it changes nothing.
You are missing the point. The point is that the action itself is incorrect. I don’t know why you brought up the whole “society finds it OK to eat meat” because this debate is not about what society thinks, but what I, myself, think. And it is also about what is right or wrong. It has nothing to do with society.

My god OD, I never said he was innocent. I said what would be the most moral thing for him to do? In his shoes would you allow him to murder millions, or would you kill him?
This question has no relevance to this debate nor does it prove anything you are advocating.


Show me where I put those words in your mouth.
Look for yourself. I don’t do other people’s homework.

What about bacteria? What about killing mosquitoes because they are annoying? What about killing plants? Not all life is equal. You apparently believe that too since you are advocating eating plants instead of meat. An animal has less worth than a human.
Bacteria and mosquitoes can all cause harm to humans. And if a human comes in contact with either of those things they should protect themselves. You know, self-defense. However, animals in slaughter houses are doing nothing to harm us. As for plants, well, they don’t have brain activity or feel pain. Animals feel pain, have bran activity and have emotions. Also, we eat plants for survival reasons. We need the nutrition that is in plants. However, we eat animals for taste, because we can get the nutrition that is in animals elsewhere. There is a huge difference.


My 2 cents on morality - right and wrong:
Right and wrong boil down to what is socially acceptible, the same thing as morality. If you feel that an act is wrong, or immoral, that does not make it so. It means that you do not believe that it is a socailly acceptible act.

The judge is society. The acts which we call 'correct' or 'moral' are those acts which society has determined as acceptible.
I disagree. Society says what the majority of individuals think. That does not mean, however, they are correct. And since the majority of society always changes its opinion on issues, you must learn to never accept with society is saying currently, since you know in the future it will, without a doubt change.

-------------------------

Listen buddy - I didn't climb to the top of the food chain to eat fuckin' tofu....

That aside, you should preach your alternative diet palaver to lions and bears, and when you're done doing so, you should let me know how that works out.

1. You didn’t get humans to the top of the food chain.
2. Aren’t humans supposed to be far more advanced then animals and aren’t we supposed to pride ourselves on being far more intellectually sound? Honestly. Don’t use lions and bears as your excuse for the human race.

-------------------------

Dear Frogger,

You love to make comments about me and say how all my posts make you laugh. Yet, if you can't prove or use examples as to why my posts are so "wrong" then you are posting a worthless reply that proves nothing.

---------------------

Dear Decka,

Your "points" are basically replied to all throughout this thread already and or in this reply. Sometimes I don't even know what you are trying to say, though...can you type better, maybe?

1. The Supreme Court said that un-fair treatment of blacks was wrong, even though the majority in the South believed it was morally OK.
2. If you honestly think time and taste are good enough reasons to take an innocent life, then I would call you a horrible person. 1. I think OD is onto something here. Even though the Supreme Court doesn't per se legislate morality, they do have discretion in the cases they will hear.
Although "the South" may have been comfortable with the treatment of blacks, much of the country wasn't. If the public pressure leans a certain way they will be much more likely to hear a case. Voting rights, affirmative action, etc., would not have even made their docket a hundred years ago.
So even though their decisions are based (hopefully) on objective law, they can and do bend to the zeitgeist and contemporary morals.
I think considering Supreme Court decisions in the context of current morality is an interesting thought.

2. That's well put, but I'd just like you to re-summon that compassion on the next abortion thread.

Good point Brooks... I'm pro-choice and a devout carnivore!

Dear Decka,

Your "points" are basically replied to all throughout this thread already and or in this reply. Sometimes I don't even know what you are trying to say, though...can you type better, maybe?

*Chris Tucker Voice*

"CAN YOU UNDERSTAND THE WORD THAT ARE COMMIN OUTTA MY MOUTH!!!"

http://www.ticon.net/~bugzy/rushhoura.jpg

Well here re-read this paragraph, it's not that hard, and it's in english...

Here is where i have beef with you, my aquaintence.... You can't judge things in history by today's standards... that is just bastardizing it. Because chances are, if you grew up in the time of slavery.. you would actually accept it because it was so acceptable in society. We probably all would. Just like we all accept driving cars, even though they kill so many people every year. Just like we accept alcohol being sold everywhere, even though it does nothing to help a human body. In the future, that stuff might seem like MADNESS.. but right now its okay...

I mean, if it helps your ego, at least admit you have to jack yourself off.. dont act like you would have single-handedly lead the anti-slavery movement because you would have the same point of view back then as you do now.. because that is just a lie.

Overdose, you are a gem! :)

Typically when you kill a bug, germ or virus it is because they are somehow interfering with your life or hurting you in some way. How are the cows lined up in slaughter houses interfering with your life? And to be honest, if I see a bug in my house I will take it outside and not kill it. So your theory that I kill bugs all the time is incorrect. Next, bugs, germs, viruses and plants are completely different than animals. Firstly, animals are said to feel happiness and sadness. They are far more complex and intellectually developed. Killing animals is far different then killing a plant, which does not even have a brain nor feeling.
Good, we're getting somewhere. So you believe that the more advanced an animal is, the better we should treat it? And the more feelings (happiness and sadness for example) that is experiences, the more humane we should treat it?

Why?

Comparing a bug to a cat is like comparing apples and oranges. It is! An apple and an orange are both alive! Which is exactly the point I was trying to get you to see. There is a difference in the values of different forms of life. We care less for a bug than we do for a cat. We will kill a bug and not care about it, but we will care if we kill a cat.

If you have no reason to kill the cat, they would question why you didn’t put it in the humane society. They would also question your mental stability, as to why you would kill an innocent creature.
I killed the cat to eat it. I was hungry. I killed it with an ax so it wouldn't feel any pain.

I have told you time and time again that it is I who find it wrong. This is a forum to discuss our own viewpoints with others. Obviously I find it wrong. I am telling you my moral opinion. And I don’t think it is enough justification to just say “animals are tasty so I kill them”
Society's viewpoints have made their way into our discussion when you brought up morality, which is defined by society.

This question has no relevance to this debate nor does it prove anything you are advocating.
If it doesn't why are you unwilling to answer the question. It's a very simple question. Would you be willing to kill one person in order to save the lives of millions of people?

Look for yourself. I don’t do other people’s homework.
You said I put words in your mouth. I don't believe that I did, which is why I asked you where I put words in your mouth.

However, animals in slaughter houses are doing nothing to harm us. As for plants, well, they don’t have brain activity or feel pain. Animals feel pain, have bran activity and have emotions.
What about if we kill the animals painlessly? Why does it matter if they have emotions or not?

Also, we eat plants for survival reasons. We need the nutrition that is in plants. However, we eat animals for taste, because we can get the nutrition that is in animals elsewhere. There is a huge difference.
It is possible to get the nutrition elsewhere, but it is difficult. It is possible to live without killing any plants either, but we don't do that for obvious reasons.

I disagree. Society says what the majority of individuals think. That does not mean, however, they are correct. And since the majority of society always changes its opinion on issues, you must learn to never accept with society is saying currently, since you know in the future it will, without a doubt change.
With issues that we can prove, like gravity or the world being round, we can determine if a society was right or wrong. However, morals are determined by society so they changes as the way the society thinks changes. There is no universal right or wrong. As you said yourself, the way society thinks will change, so what is right and wrong will change as well.

1. I think OD is onto something here. Even though the Supreme Court doesn't per se legislate morality, they do have discretion in the cases they will hear.
Although "the South" may have been comfortable with the treatment of blacks, much of the country wasn't. If the public pressure leans a certain way they will be much more likely to hear a case. Voting rights, affirmative action, etc., would not have even made their docket a hundred years ago.
So even though their decisions are based (hopefully) on objective law, they can and do bend to the zeitgeist and contemporary morals.
I think considering Supreme Court decisions in the context of current morality is an interesting thought.
OD was onto something. I liked that point a lot. The thing is, our Supreme Courts influence morals and act upon them in relation to our laws; they do not dictate morals.

2. That's well put, but I'd just like you to re-summon that compassion on the next abortion thread.
We can go back to that one on a different thread, but the major difference is that, at least for me, a fetus is not equivalent to a fully grown human being.

So what was PETA's reaction?
Was it less than this forum's?

Yes, it was less.

A favorite pastime of the Archie Bunkers of the world [iow, the hardcore conservative faction in America] is to track PETA's moves --and to wait aroud for them to wiegh in on an issue of animal cruelty-- for the express reason of gaining a platfrom from which to launch scathing criticisms of the e-ville PETA group, and thusly to also lambaste the dreaded anti-god, anti-American, anti-allthingsgoodandholy leftwingers in America.

Anything of a *liberal* nature (i.e., that which would grant human beings more freedom or would result in greater equality for the People) terrifies and repulses the Rightwing personality. Tracking what PETA says about issues provides the rightwingers a base from which to attack all things in any way related to "liberalism".

Yes, it was less.

A favorite pastime of the Archie Bunkers of the world [iow, the hardcore conservative faction in America] is to track PETA's moves --and to wait aroud for them to wiegh in on an issue of animal cruelty-- for the express reason of gaining a platfrom from which to launch scathing criticisms of the e-ville PETA group, and thusly to also lambaste the dreaded anti-god, anti-American, anti-allthingsgoodandholy leftwingers in America.

Anything of a *liberal* nature (i.e., that which would grant human beings more freedom or would result in greater equality for the People) terrifies and repulses the Rightwing personality. Tracking what PETA says about issues provides the rightwingers a base from which to attack all things in any way related to "liberalism".
I know your point.:thumbs:

A favorite pastime of the Archie Bunkers of the world [iow, the hardcore conservative faction in America] is to track PETA's moves --and to wait.... You're right about this. We also do it with the environmentalists. The shame of it is that PETA and the environmentalists have some important work to do (in my opinion) but they are their own worst enemies in the PR department and leave themselves incredibly vulnerable to criticism.

Originally Posted by Freethinker
A favorite pastime of the Archie Bunkers of the world [iow, the hardcore conservative faction in America] is to track PETA's moves --and to wait....

You're right about this. We also do it with the environmentalists.

Your candor is refreshing.

The shame of it is that PETA and the environmentalists have some important work to do (in my opinion) but they are their own worst enemies in the PR department and leave themselves incredibly vulnerable to criticism.

Only when (not with PETA necessarily, but with environmental researchers and scientists) the people leveling said (ceaseless) criticisms are ignorant reactionary types who despise and fear those things of a progressive or liberal nature.

....ignorant reactionary types who despise and fear those things of a progressive or liberal nature.Why are those things "of a liberal nature"? Politically, they are liberal issues, but the issues themselves are non-partisan.
Maybe I'm rationalizing, but I think some of the advocates' anti-government and anti-business venom has chased conservatives away.

Maybe I'm rationalizing, but I think some of the advocates' anti-government and anti-business venom has chased conservatives away.

Errrr, the advocates of.......what??

Good, we're getting somewhere. So you believe that the more advanced an animal is, the better we should treat it?
What I said was how is a cow or a pig hurting you? And the fact is, they aren't. Period. However, when humans kill bugs it is typically because they are invading our homes or biting and causing harm to us. They are vastly different situations.

And the more feelings (happiness and sadness for example) that is experiences, the more humane we should treat it?
We don't really slaughter bugs for reasons as pathetic as taste.

It is! An apple and an orange are both alive! Which is exactly the point I was trying to get you to see. There is a difference in the values of different forms of life. We care less for a bug than we do for a cat. We will kill a bug and not care about it, but we will care if we kill a cat.
If you want to compare an apple to an animal who has a brain, FEELING and emotions you are not thinking clearly. Just because it is living does not mean it can feel pain or have a sense of what is going on around it.

I killed the cat to eat it. I was hungry. I killed it with an ax so it wouldn't feel any pain.
And? They would wonder why you didn't go and get something at the store. You would not be able to kill a cat and get away with it. I can assure you.

Society's viewpoints have made their way into our discussion when you brought up morality, which is defined by society.
Morality is not defined by society. Morality is defined according to each person.

Would you be willing to kill one person in order to save the lives of millions of people?
It has nothing to do with this debate. If you want to discuss it give me a PM.

You said I put words in your mouth. I don't believe that I did, which is why I asked you where I put words in your mouth.
I had the quote of what you posted and then I said you put words in my mouth (refering to the quote). Look where I said that and you will find where you did.

What about if we kill the animals painlessly? Why does it matter if they have emotions or not?
It is un-fair to get rid of an animals right to a life of happiness.

It is possible to get the nutrition elsewhere, but it is difficult. It is possible to live without killing any plants either, but we don't do that for obvious reasons.
Plants have no sense of feeling and no brain activity. They also have no chance at a happy life. The comparsion falls flat in my book. Maybe you think the death of a plant is equal to the death of a living, breathing, thinking animal...but I sure don't.

With issues that we can prove, like gravity or the world being round, we can determine if a society was right or wrong. However, morals are determined by society so they changes as the way the society thinks changes. There is no universal right or wrong. As you said yourself, the way society thinks will change, so what is right and wrong will change as well.
Again. I think each person defines morality and that society is just representing the majority-view on the moral issue at hand...but that does not mean it is correct nor something to use as your argument IMO.

Errrr, the advocates of.......what??
Uhhhh - Environmentalism???

And the problem with PETA is they're not really about animal rights. Think about it - it's clever artifice that's ancillary to their real goal: anti-conservatism. The same issue exists when examining Green Peace. They're an anti-conservative political group that exists under the guise of being all about the environment (which, by implication, basically insinuates republicans (or conservatives in general, for that matter) DON'T care about the environment - a calculated lie, at best - but I guess that's just a matter of perspective, isn't it?

Bomb away, Mr. Gore...

Uhhhh - Environmentalism???

And the problem with PETA is they're not really about animal rights. Think about it - it's clever artifice that's ancillary to their real goal: anti-conservatism. The same issue exists when examining Green Peace. They're an anti-conservative political group that exists under the guise of being all about the environment (which, by implication, basically insinuates republicans (or conservatives in general, for that matter) DON'T care about the environment - a calculated lie, at best - but I guess that's just a matter of perspective, isn't it?

Bomb away, Mr. Gore...
When was the last time you heard a conservative rightwinger call for lower CO2 emmisions, a stop to clear cutting of forests or oil extraction in Alaska? Face it you guys are concerned with the almighty dollar first, the environment is something that our grand kids will have to deal with in your mind, not our problem. I should say no problem.
The truth hurts, no perspective invoved here!

When was the last time you heard a conservative rightwinger call for lower CO2 emmisions, a stop to clear cutting of forests or oil extraction in Alaska? "Conservatives" don't want higher CO2 emissions but they also don't want industries to shut down and people to be out of work. Everytime a regulation is enacted, someone loses a job. So it becomes a balancing act.
I think the disadvantage conservatives have in this discussion is that liberal advocates who are idealistic and unrealistic call for ideas that even they know are unworkable (but they sound sooooo nice). And then conservatives answer them in a realistic manner (and sound sooooo mean).

I agree with you on Alaska though.

And the problem with PETA is they're not really about animal rights.

That is a claim that you have no way of substantiating.....even if it did happen to be true.

It is a claim that in my view only an ignorant person would make; it seems very much akin to the constant lament of the ignoramuses on the Right that --""Aw, them ACLU types is just a buncha communists who hate America!!""

....think about it - it's clever artifice that's ancillary to their real goal: anti-conservatism.

Wow.

ROTFLOL.

An animal rights group that doesn't really care about animals, but was formed for no other reason than its ""hatred for Conservatives"".......that's hilarious.

PETA has about as much influence on the national political dialogue as the teevee show Aqua Teen Hunger Force.


The same issue exists when examining Green Peace.

LOL. The *same* issue exists only in the sense that it's equally preposterous as your allegations about PETA.

They're an anti-conservative political group that exists under the guise of being all about the environment ......

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight. The millions they spend trying to promote pro-environmentalist causes is just a sham.....when all they really want to do is hurt Conservatives.

:hahanot:

...which, by implication, basically insinuates republicans (or conservatives in general, for that matter) DON'T care about the environment

Huh?!?!

Conservative politicians in Washington -in general- decidedly DON'T care about the environment.


Bomb away, Mr. Gore...

No 'bombs'.

Just facts backed up by science..........extremely difficult for rightwing dogmatists to get their minds around.

Conservative politicians in Washington -in general- decidedly DON'T care about the environment.

I don't think it's that they don't care, I think they weigh other things before they make their decision.
For example, when paper companies want to cut down, and then replant, trees for their raw materials, the new forest is not as good as "old growth" but they need the trees. So replanting is a compromise.
The environmentalists, on the other hand, don't compromise on the issue. They want to ban cutting in old-growth forests.
They KNOW that's not going to fly, but it makes their opponents look bad and is a very effective fund-raising issue.
I don't like the idea of cutting down old-growth, but we need the wood, paper, etc.

I don't think it's that they don't care, I think they weigh other things before they make their decision.
That's exactly it.

LOL. The *same* issue exists only in the sense that it's equally preposterous as your allegations about PETA.
Come to think of it, I shouldn't have referenced PETA as being anti-conservative. A lot of their members aren't. However, I'm sticking to my guns on Greenpeace. That's PRECISELY what they're all about, and if you ever bothered to attend one of their "rallies", then you'd know exactly what I'm talking about. Check out Penn & Teller's "Bullshit", in particular, the episode in which dealt with environmental hype. They cut through Greenpeace like a knife (while artfully debasing their consensus view on the state of our "environment"). They attended a rally outside of San Francisco where they got something like 85% of the attendees there (READ; college bozos) to sign a petition banning the use of "dihydrogen monoxide", or better known as water. It was fucking brilliant. Watching all these anti-Bush, sign carrying, numb nuts place their John Hancock on a "petition" they knew nothing about (or couldn't piece together using 8th grade logic) was just gravy. I personally thought it spoke volumes about the reactionary idiots that are so willing to "march" in lockstep with one another over a "problem" that's nonexistent. Oh, and their tone (I'd say to the tune of 85% - coincidence much???) was decidedly anti-conservative. Go figure....

I don't think it's that they don't care, I think they weigh other things before they make their decision.
For example, when paper companies want to cut down, and then replant, trees for their raw materials, the new forest is not as good as "old growth" but they need the trees. So replanting is a compromise.
The environmentalists, on the other hand, don't compromise on the issue. They want to ban cutting in old-growth forests.
They KNOW that's not going to fly, but it makes their opponents look bad and is a very effective fund-raising issue.
I don't like the idea of cutting down old-growth, but we need the wood, paper, etc.

Very good post.

I fully understand what you're getting at, and you have it right for the most part. I do NOT think you have it right --by any stretch of the imagination-- when you claim the *environmentalists refuse to compromise*.

The environmentalists have NO choice but TO compromise, since the rightwing government is holding almost all of the cards. The environmentalist movement in America is perpetually and continually forced TO compromise, on every issue, from the largest to the smallest.

Also, your comment --""I don't think it's that they don't care, I think they weigh other things before they make their decision"' -- is to me nothing but an admission that conservative politicians are quite willing to put profits in the short term (profits that, incidentally, will flow to some of said politicians major political contributors....) ahead of the long term health of the planet.

I think that THAT is the bottom line as far as the basis disagreement the two sides have.

In terms of a thumbnail sketch, the conservative view could be said to be one of --"Aww, so what if what we're doing is destroying some of the planet. We must remain productive and profitable!"

In terms of a thumbnail sketch, the environmentalist view could be said to be one of --"Excuse me, you fellows in Washington, but we only have this ONE planet, and if we destroy it, there won't BE any more productivity OR profits, for anyone".

Oh, and their tone (I'd say to the tune of 85% - coincidence much???) was decidedly anti-conservative.

I agree with you Prae that their tone turns out to be decidedly anti-conservative. Since the Conservative bloc opposes them at every turn, I fail to see how it could play out differently.

What I strongly disagree with is the contention that 'anti-conservatism' is the raison d'ętre of the environmentalist movement.

What I strongly disagree with is the contention that 'anti-conservatism' is the raison d'être of the environmentalist movement.
Maybe not, but as Brooks said, "the disadvantage conservatives have in this discussion is that liberal advocates who are idealistic and unrealistic call for ideas that even they know are unworkable (but they sound sooooo nice). And then conservatives answer them in a realistic manner (and sound sooooo mean)."

Having said that, a HUGE portion of their (Greenpeace's) campaign inextricably involves supporting democrats (Eww, I feel dirty even typing that word). If you think about it, it's that nasty doctrine of infallibility at work again: "if you don't wanna support our cause, then you must be against protecting the environment"...

Well it just so happens that a large portion of their "cause" involves buttressing an agenda that's decidedly liberal, and I find that concept somewhat repugnant. IOW, I see them using Greenpeace as a clever ruse (a device, if you will) to camouflage their machinations. Look, if their sole purpose were really to "protect" the environment, then I'd feel differently, but that's NOT the case here, and given the evidence, I find myself feeling the way I do.

Listen, FT, I know this is gonna sound odd coming from me, but the current Republican Party makes me ill. There's just one group of people I hate more, and I think you know who they are. I will not support the democrats. Hell, I wouldn't do that at gunpoint (not that those pussies would ever have the stones to wield an icky handgun (unless it were fashioned in the shape of a penis), but whatever......you get the point).

God, I miss the actor with a two-digit IQ...:( ;)

"I don't think it's that they don't care, I think they weigh other things before they make their decision"' -- is to me nothing but an admission that conservative politicians are quite willing to put profits in the short term ahead of the long term health of the planet.

There are certain realities that a politician who is being honest will deal with.
If the Sierra Club wants to greatly reduce the amount of cutting in our forests, then thousands of people are out of work and the cost of paper products, furniture and construction go up.
Sierra Club doesn't concern themselves with these facts, but the politicians whom they target do have to answer to this.

Having said that, a HUGE portion of their (Greenpeace's) campaign inextricably involves supporting democrats. If you think about it, it's that nasty doctrine of infallibility at work again
And the Democrats don't even have to do anything for that support because Greenpeace's support is all but presumptive (like the black community).

It reminds me of when Ted Kennedy railed against the defense budget and then lobbied the Pentagon to keep Bedford Hanscom Air Force Base open in Massachussetts.
The people who support closing military bases will still support him because of his words rather than his actions.