Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Bubbles on July 23, 2015, 12:34:02 PM
-
.
-
They wouldn't see it as trivialising, they see eating meat as being as bad and horrific as child abuse. You can disagree with that but they are not saying child abuse is like how you see eating meat. They are saying how you see child abuse, they see meat eating.
-
Good grief!
http://youtu.be/yAEqcsvuHYI
They are not prepared to respect your choices of food and your right to make your own choices.
What a nut case!
I feel sorry for victims of child abuse, that their suffering is being trivialised by such people.
:o
What say you?
They are perfectly entitled to say that the choice you and I make to eat meat is an abhorrent one. I disagree with them. They disagree with me. What are you getting so het up about? They, unlike us, believe that the way animals are treated in the meat industry is as appalling as the way children are treated by their abusers. I disagree; but it is a reasonable point of view.
As a victim of child abuse I certainly don't feel remotely indignant or offended about that. As NS points out, they are promoting the seriousness of animal abuse, not demoting the seriousness of child abuse.
-
But the issue is they see meat eating as wrong as child abuse. In which case an argument from a child abuser saying, it's the anti child abusers trying to force their opinion on me, I am not forcing them to abuse children would be dismissed by you as nonsense.
You can disagree with their morals but you are expecting them to somehow give your morality different treatment.
-
So if someone thinks meat eating is as bad as child abuse, they should be quiet about it because their claiming that is counterproductive?
Which presumably means people who think child abuse should be quiet about it because it is counterproductive?
-
I once read an article in a very well-regarded magazine in which a 'natural parenting expert' likened bottle feeding to smacking and physical abuse.
Some people are very stupid, but they are entitled to their opinion. Not sure it should be in a magazine but on YouTube? Nut jobs abound so they can knock themselves out.
-
There was a time when female suffrage was looked on as being a great assault on freedom, perhaps they should just have kept quiet about it as campaigning for it would be counterproductive.
One used to be able to own someone and the very idea that one shouldn't was extreme. Imagine pandering to those who thought slavery was wrong, I mean after all, it's just an opinion.
-
So given that Nelson Mandela was convicted of terrorism that made apartheid ok? Those black people all that counterproductive campaigning
-
It is normal to eat meat, and nothing wrong with doing so, as long as it has been slaughtered in a reasonable way. It is totally abnormal and WRONG to abuse a child! >:(
-
Yes they are entitled to their opinion, buts that's all it should ever be...... Just an opinion.
So what are you objecting to? Them expressing their opinion? In what way has their opinion been forced on you? You mean the way they came into your house with guns and made you search "vegan opinion" on YouTube, and then made you watch a couple of the videos you found? Don't be so ridiculous. They force nothing on you. You seem to think everyone has the right to their opinion but you draw the line at disagreeing with you in public.
-
It is normal to eat meat, and nothing wrong with doing so, as long as it has been slaughtered in a reasonable way. It is totally abnormal and WRONG to abuse a child! >:(
.. unless you live in a society where child abuse is normal of-course.
-
Animal rights protesters are already free to eat what they wish, no one is forcing them to eat meat.
I would support their demand that food is clearly labelled so they can follow their own choices and that their freedom to have a meat and dairy free diet was respected.
But I would never support their campaign to force their choices on other people.
Slavery abolitionists were already free to own what they wished. No-one was forcing them to own slaves.
You would have supported their demand that produce be clearly labelled so consumers could follow their own choices and that their freedom to avoid slavery linked imports was respected.
But you would never have supported their campaign to force their choices on other people
-
It is normal to eat meat, and nothing wrong with doing so, as long as it has been slaughtered in a reasonable way. It is totally abnormal and WRONG to abuse a child! >:(
I agree with you - but it's ok if people disagree isn't it? Not disagree about child abuse, I mean - but it's ok for them to disagree and think that it is wrong to eat meat.
-
It is normal to eat meat, and nothing wrong with doing so, as long as it has been slaughtered in a reasonable way. It is totally abnormal and WRONG to abuse a child! >:(
It was once normal to own another human being? Was that ok? If not that normality isn't the point, is it?
-
It is normal to eat meat, and nothing wrong with doing so, as long as it has been slaughtered in a reasonable way. It is totally abnormal and WRONG to abuse a child! >:(
It was once normal to own another human being? Was that ok? If not that normality isn't the point, is it?
Hardly the same thing at all, humans have needed the protein meat provides, otherwise supplements are required!
-
It is normal to eat meat, and nothing wrong with doing so, as long as it has been slaughtered in a reasonable way. It is totally abnormal and WRONG to abuse a child! >:(
It was once normal to own another human being? Was that ok? If not that normality isn't the point, is it?
Hardly the same thing at all, humans have needed the protein meat provides, otherwise supplements are required!
You made a specific argument based on normality, an ad populum fallacy
-
Nope, you still have not got it. In your opinion humans are equal. There was a time and for some people still, when that was not thought true. In your opinion animals are not equal, but some people disagree with you. Simply asserting you are right is not argument. Care to try again?
-
We force people to watch what they think of as something as bad as child abuse, happen every day. Just as we force people who see abortion as murder to have society support it. No one on this thread has said anything that supports violence but why care about truth?
-
Nothing is as bad a child abuse when it relates to animals, imo!
-
Yes they are entitled to their opinion, buts that's all it should ever be...... Just an opinion.
So what are you objecting to? Them expressing their opinion? In what way has their opinion been forced on you? You mean the way they came into your house with guns and made you search "vegan opinion" on YouTube, and then made you watch a couple of the videos you found? Don't be so ridiculous. They force nothing on you. You seem to think everyone has the right to their opinion but you draw the line at disagreeing with you in public.
Yes, basically!
They are entitled to their opinion and to be able to live according to what they believe and so am I.
If they publicly attack me, express their unwanted opinion in a restaurant, or blow me up in a MacDonalds then they have crossed a line. One that I am not going to excuse or find justification for.
Just like I would have done if I pass aggressive comment on their food choice in a restaurant or do the equivalent.
It's a balance.
So in your mind, blowing up McDonalds and "expressing an unwanted opinion in a restaurant" are of the same ilk?
Sorry, Rose, if you want to be sure you'll never hear an unwanted opinion, you're in the wrong country!
-
Nothing is as bad a child abuse when it relates to animals, imo!
I'd agree, but there are people who say that any living thing is worth protecting, those that can't have an informed say in their own destiny only more so.
At the same time there are people that say some of the disabled are 'less' than some animals because they have less capacity for communication, abstraction etc.
It's a difficult place to legislate in, and it's worth remembering that the people making these claims are doing it from the best of intentions: they want to reduce suffering. If the suffering they see in animals is, to them, the equal of the suffering of abused children that doesn't mean they value children any less than anyone else, just that they don't see other animals than human as being any less.
I disagree with them, but at an intellectual level: I understand their motivation.
O.
-
They are " live and let live" the woman in the video seems to be anti that.
This woman believes that it is terribly wrong to kill animals; as wrong as it is to kill humans.
You and I disagree with her, but that is irrelevant.
Given that that is what she believes, why would she adopt a live and let live attitude? Why wouldn't she do everything she could to try and persuade people to stop killing animals?
If you really believe that a dreadful tragedy is occurring, it isn't enough to simply think "well it's ok, because I have the freedom not to join in", is it?
-
Nope, you still have not got it. In your opinion humans are equal. There was a time and for some people still, when that was not thought true. In your opinion animals are it equal, but some people disagree with you. Simply asserting you are right is not argument. Care to try again?
It's a loser NS.
Perhaps I best just claim plants are also equal, just to throw a spanner in the works. How far that could go, just look up fruitarians. ;)
We need to eat, everything we consume is composed of living matter.
Being Omnivours my argument is that diet is a matter of personal choice.
No argument is ever perfect.
A horse is just meat really, but some people get very upset about eating it.
The French have a different opinion about it.
My key points are.
Human beings are equal regardless of things like sexuality, colour etc.
Animals are not equal and are not able to make choices so are not responsible the way a human being is, so is not considered to have the same rights or responsibilities.
We are Omnivours, which means we can up to a point choose what to eat And modern life allows us the ability ( and luxury) to follow our choice. ( clothing made of furs was essential in some places). It's not just about food.
Eating meat is a natural part of our diet, as is shown by the diet of chimps our nearest cousin.
Therefore eating meat is justified, for those who want to.
Those that want to force a restricted diet on others, are the oppressors, especially when they employ aggressive tactics of one sort or another.
Hence I don't like it!
In the video the woman was talking about taking it a step further, as in not being prepared to accept the choices of others, in restaurants etc. basically harassing others. She didn't agree with the live and let live philosophy.
For me, it's a step to far.
I see people like her as a threat to my freedom, ultimately.
Hence I get het up.
Some of my best friends are veggie, and I will cook veggie for them. The difference is in the attitude.
They are " live and let live" the woman in the video seems to be anti that.
That we are omnivores is n appeal to nature fallacy. The question then would be can we survive without meat?
-
oh and btw a person is just meat really
-
oh and btw a person is just meat really
Yep so I don't see a problem in using human carcasses, which have died naturally, as fodder for zoo animals, for instance!
-
To do that you have to draw the line at all these "causes" even if they are considered "right" by the people wanting them.
OK. What's your view on bloodsports? Bullfighting, fox hunting and whatnot.
-
Nope, you still have not got it. In your opinion humans are equal. There was a time and for some people still, when that was not thought true. In your opinion animals are it equal, but some people disagree with you. Simply asserting you are right is not argument. Care to try again?
It's a loser NS.
Perhaps I best just claim plants are also equal, just to throw a spanner in the works. How far that could go, just look up fruitarians. ;)
We need to eat, everything we consume is composed of living matter.
Being Omnivours my argument is that diet is a matter of personal choice.
No argument is ever perfect.
A horse is just meat really, but some people get very upset about eating it.
The French have a different opinion about it.
My key points are.
Human beings are equal regardless of things like sexuality, colour etc.
Animals are not equal and are not able to make choices so are not responsible the way a human being is, so is not considered to have the same rights or responsibilities.
We are Omnivours, which means we can up to a point choose what to eat And modern life allows us the ability ( and luxury) to follow our choice. ( clothing made of furs was essential in some places). It's not just about food.
Eating meat is a natural part of our diet, as is shown by the diet of chimps our nearest cousin.
Therefore eating meat is justified, for those who want to.
Those that want to force a restricted diet on others, are the oppressors, especially when they employ aggressive tactics of one sort or another.
Hence I don't like it!
In the video the woman was talking about taking it a step further, as in not being prepared to accept the choices of others, in restaurants etc. basically harassing others. She didn't agree with the live and let live philosophy.
For me, it's a step to far.
I see people like her as a threat to my freedom, ultimately.
Hence I get het up.
Some of my best friends are veggie, and I will cook veggie for them. The difference is in the attitude.
They are " live and let live" the woman in the video seems to be anti that.
That we are omnivores is n appeal to nature fallacy. The question then would be can we survive without meat?
I think it is more can we live healthily without meat, just surviving isn't setting the bar high enough.
I think we live healthier with a combination of both meat and veg.
Vegans that also cut out dairy gave to be very careful they get all the nutrients they need and it's only modern living that enables us to have a wide range of veg and vitamin tablets.
I think there is a lot of blurring in this discussion between "are the vegans right" and "are the vegans allowed to share their views with the rest of us"
-
I think it is more can we live healthily without meat, just surviving isn't setting the bar high enough.
I think we live healthier with a combination of both meat and veg.
Vegans that also cut out dairy have to be very careful they get all the nutrients they need and it's only modern living that enables us to have a wide range of veg and vitamin tablets.
Plus transporting the variety of veg doesn't have a very good carbon footprint either.
So given that we are omnivores, ypu would be happy for someone to but a pound of your best human rumpsteak?
-
As the strongest species on the planet, it is our beholden duty to protect the weaker (including the weaker within our own species), and not to exploit, demean, or take advantage of them.
-
I think it is more can we live healthily without meat, just surviving isn't setting the bar high enough.
I think we live healthier with a combination of both meat and veg.
Vegans that also cut out dairy have to be very careful they get all the nutrients they need and it's only modern living that enables us to have a wide range of veg and vitamin tablets.
Plus transporting the variety of veg doesn't have a very good carbon footprint either.
So given that we are omnivores, ypu would be happy for someone to but a pound of your best human rumpsteak?
No because human beings are equal and therefore it would be unacceptable.
Which is simple assertion. It's not accepatble to you because you define humans as equal. Meat eating is not accepatable because they define animals (which we are) as equal
-
As the strongest species on the planet, it is our beholden duty to protect the weaker (including the weaker within our own species), and not to exploit, demean, or take advantage of them.
WTF does strongest mean? Why is our beholden duty? Why do you normally argue that helpingf addicts is wrong?
-
As the strongest species on the planet, it is our beholden duty to protect the weaker (including the weaker within our own species), and not to exploit, demean, or take advantage of them.
Good, so you would be the first person to help a obese person then, as they are often weaker. Nor would you demean them 😉
If someone needs medical attention, it is, rightly given; what on earth is that to do with being weak or demeaned? I am talking of the exploitation of the weaker, for whatever reason. I thought you might have twigged that rather obvious intention!
-
Nope, you still have not got it. In your opinion humans are equal. There was a time and for some people still, when that was not thought true. In your opinion animals are it equal, but some people disagree with you. Simply asserting you are right is not argument. Care to try again?
It's a loser NS.
Perhaps I best just claim plants are also equal, just to throw a spanner in the works. How far that could go, just look up fruitarians. ;)
We need to eat, everything we consume is composed of living matter.
Being Omnivours my argument is that diet is a matter of personal choice.
No argument is ever perfect.
A horse is just meat really, but some people get very upset about eating it.
The French have a different opinion about it.
My key points are.
Human beings are equal regardless of things like sexuality, colour etc.
Animals are not equal and are not able to make choices so are not responsible the way a human being is, so is not considered to have the same rights or responsibilities.
We are Omnivours, which means we can up to a point choose what to eat And modern life allows us the ability ( and luxury) to follow our choice. ( clothing made of furs was essential in some places). It's not just about food.
Eating meat is a natural part of our diet, as is shown by the diet of chimps our nearest cousin.
Therefore eating meat is justified, for those who want to.
Those that want to force a restricted diet on others, are the oppressors, especially when they employ aggressive tactics of one sort or another.
Hence I don't like it!
In the video the woman was talking about taking it a step further, as in not being prepared to accept the choices of others, in restaurants etc. basically harassing others. She didn't agree with the live and let live philosophy.
For me, it's a step to far.
I see people like her as a threat to my freedom, ultimately.
Hence I get het up.
Some of my best friends are veggie, and I will cook veggie for them. The difference is in the attitude.
They are " live and let live" the woman in the video seems to be anti that.
That we are omnivores is n appeal to nature fallacy. The question then would be can we survive without meat?
I think it is more can we live healthily without meat, just surviving isn't setting the bar high enough.
I think we live healthier with a combination of both meat and veg.
Vegans that also cut out dairy have to be very careful they get all the nutrients they need and it's only modern living that enables us to have a wide range of veg and vitamin tablets.
Plus transporting the variety of veg doesn't have a very good carbon footprint either.
Veganism is certainly not good for growing children as they are deprived of nutrients.
-
Veganism is certainly not good for growing children as they are deprived of nutrients.
It's harder to get the range, but not impossible. I'm not an advocate myself, but it's entirely possible to get the balance of nutrients - it's not cheap, either, from what I've been told.
O.
-
Here in Canada we are very aware of the harm Greenpeace and the EU bans (seal products) have done to the Inuit of our Arctic and Greenland. And as a result of these bans, what the overpopulation of seals has done to fish stocks. We are well aware of the damage done to sealers of Labrador and Newfoundland through the use of dishonest campaigns against them. The days of baby seals being clubbed to death was over decades ago but PETA, for example, continues to show pictures of that as if it is still happening. Now I will look up what PETA compares sealing to.
-
I think it is more can we live healthily without meat, just surviving isn't setting the bar high enough.
I think we live healthier with a combination of both meat and veg.
Vegans that also cut out dairy have to be very careful they get all the nutrients they need and it's only modern living that enables us to have a wide range of veg and vitamin tablets.
Plus transporting the variety of veg doesn't have a very good carbon footprint either.
So given that we are omnivores, ypu would be happy for someone to but a pound of your best human rumpsteak?
No because human beings are equal and therefore it would be unacceptable.
Which is simple assertion. It's not accepatble to you because you define humans as equal. Meat eating is not accepatable because they define animals (which we are) as equal
And fruitarians see plants as equal too, along with animal rights.
http://m.wikihow.com/Become-a-Fruitarian
They can think and do what they want, just as long as they don't bother me with it.
It's simple really.
I'll stick to a nice rare steak
So if I like to abuse children, it's simple really. It's what I like, you can think and do what you want as long as you don't bother me. I'll stick to a nice 7 year old
-
Why are you trying to be sarcastic and funny about child abuse Mr. Nearly? You just went at me for stating a fact on India's Child prostitution epidemic, and here you are being sarcastic and trying to be funny. Here you are going after Rose for no reason but that you are in desperate need of a cookie.
-
Why are you trying to be sarcastic and funny about child abuse Mr. Nearly? You just went at me for stating a fact on India's Child prostitution epidemic, and here you are being sarcastic and trying to be funny. Here you are going after Rose for no reason but that you are in desperate need of a cookie.
I think you're wrong here, jc. NS is making the point that not joining in with an atrocity isn't sufficient. If you feel that an atrocity is being committed, you campaign against it, you don't just say "well, live and let live, as long as I am free to choose not to do it it's ok"
-
He's doing so with sarcasm and a sick attempt at being funny Cyber. I don't think making the remark "I'll stick to a nice seven year old" is at all appropriate, no matter what point one is making. He spewed off on me for mentioning that India has an epidemic problem with child prostitution. He suggest I am doing the, you country is worse, with Sriram, when in truth I am standing against Sriram's pattern of, look how bad the west is and don't snoop on what's going on in India. I just think Mr. Nearly is too high on himself today.
-
He's doing so with sarcasm and a sick attempt at being funny Cyber.
I disagree, I think he is using a shocking example to make his point.
Might you be exaggerating your outrage to avoid addressing that point?
-
Nope, not at all. I find Mr. Nearly's point making is in reality just having a go at Rose. Why else would he have to resort to offensive statements like "I'll stick to a nice seven year old"? Why would somebody go so low to argue a point? And yes Cyber I find that statement offensive. But we can agree to disagree.
I have contributed here with pointing out the damage done by animal rights groups to our sealers. They ARE forcing their beliefs on those that depend on sealing. I think it was just last month that the EU finally smelled a rat and lifted their ban on Greenland's seal products. Yet they continue to damage the Canadian Inuit and east coast sealers with bans. So it is a fact, Animal rights groups are not happy with just disagreeing with the hunter, they wants the extinction of a culture. The inuit are hunters, the Metis and first nations of the north are hunters. The Labrador and Newfoundland fisherman are sealers for a few weeks a year to keep themselves off welfare and to put food on their tables.
I think that people should be able to hunt animals that are not at risk and to sell to those that wish to buy. I think that we need to listen to those on the land and not listen to the dishonest orgs. that use Hollywood celebrities to convince Europeans to kill off a culture and livelihood of peoples they know nothing about nor have ever talked to.
-
So it is a fact, Animal rights groups are not happy with just disagreeing with the hunter,
Exactly - they want the hunting to stop. And the vegans whom Rose can't abide want animal husbandry to stop. They are allowed to want that and they are allowed to say so.
-
Not with the use of force Cyber. And this is what they do by using the EU to kill off cultures and the livelihoods of the Inuit and the people of Labrador/Newfoundland. I don't believe an org should be allowed to use a 30year old picture of a clubbed seal pup as a weapon against peoples and their cultures. This is one of the weapons they brought to the EU to get it on side with their campaign to destroy the culture of specific people. Not acceptable. Say you don't like sealing and want it to stop, fine. And that's where it should end but it isn't. Like I said, the EU has made a reverse decision with regards to the Greenland sealers and their seal products. Greenpeace can rant against fishermen all they want but should they be allowed to ram boats, putting the lives of the fishermen at risk? No, and that should apply to the risking of peoples culture and livelihoods.
-
How is using a picture, no matter how old, "using force"?
Certainly ramming boats is "using force", and is not allowed.
-
So it is a fact, Animal rights groups are not happy with just disagreeing with the hunter,
Exactly - they want the hunting to stop. And the vegans whom Rose can't abide want animal husbandry to stop. They are allowed to want that and they are allowed to say so.
And Johnny and the people who's livelihood depends on what they have done for hundreds upon hundreds of years to support their families are entitled to theirs as well.
Some of those people lived far more in balance with nature than many animal rights townsfolk who just pop down the shops and buy environmentally unfriendly nylon etc. instead of skins and leathers thinking they are better.
Actually they are not, furs and skins are a renewable resource,
No-one has said that johnny can't express his opinion, though. Whereas you don't like vegans expressing theirs. I don't know why you're going on about whether the anti-fur lot in Canada are right or wrong - it's irrelevant. They are allowed to think it, and say it, however wrong you think they are.
-
So it is a fact, Animal rights groups are not happy with just disagreeing with the hunter,
Exactly - they want the hunting to stop. And the vegans whom Rose can't abide want animal husbandry to stop. They are allowed to want that and they are allowed to say so.
And Johnny and the people who's livelihood depends on what they have done for hundreds upon hundreds of years to support their families are entitled to theirs as well.
Some of those people lived far more in balance with nature than many animal rights townsfolk who just pop down the shops and buy environmentally unfriendly nylon etc. instead of skins and leathers thinking they are better.
Actually they are not, furs and skins are a renewable resource,
But there are artificial alternatives.
-
When you use a photo of a practice that ended decades ago and tell the EU that is what the sealers are doing, it is a lie. When the EU buys into the lie and bans Europeans from buying seal products from Canada, you are attempting to destroy a culture and livelihood. You are telling the Inuit that their way of life is inferior to yours. By forcing the people of Europe not to buy seal products, you are telling the sealers that what they are doing is wrong. No, how about you let the individual European decide that. The EU stands in judgement against the sealers culture and livelihood. Take away their income and force them to do your will. Thank God for the Japanese they are stepping in and buying seal product. The EU can decide now how they should compensate the Inuit of Greenland for years of damage they have done to their livelihood and because of the seal pop explosion, they better make right the damage they have done to Greenland's fish stocks.
-
The lady in YouTube thinks that animals are sentient beings and shouldn't be killed for food. She likens it to child abuse. She in entitled to this opinion.
Rose thinks the lady is talking nonsense and eating animals is fine. She is entitled to this opinion.
The vegan lady is entitled to put a video expressing herself on YouTube.
Rose is entitled to ignore the vegan lady on YouTube.
The solution is for Rose not to look on the Internet at vegan people that she finds annoying.
-
No alternatives for the Inuit BA. And they should have the right to sell their harvest (meat, fur, etc.) for cash, to anybody that wants to buy it. Animals rights orgs. should not have the right to destroy their culture and livelihood and force them to live without. That would result in their extinction.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/05/08/animal_rights_vs_inuit_rights/
http://www.iwmc.org/index.php/component/docman/doc_view/56-anti-sealing-propaganda-and-democracy.html
-
No alternatives for the Inuit BA. And they should have the right to sell their harvest (meat, fur, etc.) for cash, to anybody that wants to buy it. Animals rights orgs. should not have the right to destroy their culture and livelihood and force them to live without. That would result in their extinction.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/05/08/animal_rights_vs_inuit_rights/
http://www.iwmc.org/index.php/component/docman/doc_view/56-anti-sealing-propaganda-and-democracy.html
I appreciate that; but hard as it may sound, shouldn't they be adapting to the modern society they live in? Could not the Government help them to adapt? Surely the fur industry is not going to be enough, for a start, not with the quality artificial alternatives available, which are, without checking, probably cheaper.
-
The lady in YouTube thinks that animals are sentient beings and shouldn't be killed for food. She likens it to child abuse. She in entitled to this opinion.
Rose thinks the lady is talking nonsense and eating animals is fine. She is entitled to this opinion.
The vegan lady is entitled to put a video expressing herself on YouTube.
Rose is entitled to ignore the vegan lady on YouTube.
The solution is for Rose not to look on the Internet at vegan people that she finds annoying.
Unfortunately they don't just exist on YouTube.
The RSPCA, whos leadership seems to have an agenda which differs to those of people just interested in helping animals, saw a drop in donations of 7 million pounds last year alone.
This is because they are supporting political agendas removed from many of their supporters.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/rspca-donations-drop-by-7m-as-campaigns-fail-to-find-support-9571417.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2673694/Donations-fall-7m-RSPCA-gets-political-Charity-accused-betraying-core-support.html
The people in charge of it now are real nutters IMO, just like the woman in the video.
Which is why it is losing support.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3141855/RSPCA-faces-grilling-MPs-animal-rights-fanatics-compare-farming-holocaust-want-people-test-getting-pet-hijack-key-posts.html
Yes they are entitled to their opinion, but to spend vast sums of their supporters money on things which they haven't chosen to support?
They are using good hearted people's money to support their own agendas.
People will withhold their money then.
When it comes to money the RSPCA are just as likely to destroy the habitat of wild animals as any large corporation.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2136714/Nature-lover-leaves-wildlife-haven-RSPCA--sell-bulldozed-built-on.html
I wouldn't give them a penny, they are not to be trusted IMO.
If they cared they wouldn't have destroyed that's mans haven.
I think that's disgusting!
And I think people need to stand up and withdraw support.
This is disapproval of actions, not opinions.
-
When you use a photo of a practice that ended decades ago and tell the EU that is what the sealers are doing, it is a lie. When the EU buys into the lie and bans Europeans from buying seal products from Canada, you are attempting to destroy a culture and livelihood. You are telling the Inuit that their way of life is inferior to yours. By forcing the people of Europe not to buy seal products, you are telling the sealers that what they are doing is wrong. No, how about you let the individual European decide that. The EU stands in judgement against the sealers culture and livelihood. Take away their income and force them to do your will. Thank God for the Japanese they are stepping in and buying seal product. The EU can decide now how they should compensate the Inuit of Greenland for years of damage they have done to their livelihood and because of the seal pop explosion, they better make right the damage they have done to Greenland's fish stocks.
It is possible that propaganda based on such photographs could fool an uneducated public, but EU officials would be well aware of the actual facts.
In fact it is your rhetoric on the effects on the Inuit that is the lie. The Inuit are responsible for only a small proportion of the hunt, and this was explicitly excluded from the EU ban. Even Inuit whale hunting is excluded from the otherwise almost worldwide ban.
There are many reasons for the decline of the traditional Inuit lifestyle, which has been much studied, but mostly come down to the arrival and interference of the supposedly civilized white man. Currently climate change is a major factor along with further exploitation of arctic resources, as before, without consultation or agreement of the Inuit.
-
Good grief!
http://youtu.be/yAEqcsvuHYI
They are not prepared to respect your choices of food and your right to make your own choices.
What a nut case!
I feel sorry for victims of child abuse, that their suffering is being trivialised by such people.
:o
What say you?
Anyone can be a 'nutcase' if we don't live like them or even agree with them. Till recently, women wearing burkha or a naqab were seen as nutcases by westerners.
Its all a question of what we consider as moral. Killing animals can be seen as immoral just as much as child abuse. Literally millions of animals are slaughtered every day to feed people. A day may come when this could be seen as barbaric.
Just because you are used to it does not make it moral. In some tribal societies having sex with children could be normal...and they may not see it as immoral.
Is there any objective morality based on which we can judge these things?! I am not sure.
-
Rose,
Yes..we all don't like others forcing their opinions or lifestyles on us. I accept that. But often morality evolves only through such influences.
For example...if you try to stop some tribals from having sex with children..they may get upset. So...would you be wrong in trying to stop it? Or in some tribes, offering their daughters to guests for the night, was considered a duty. Your efforts to stop this practice would upset them. So, would you be wrong to stop this practice?
Morality is a cultural element and it evolves with time depending on various interactions and influences.
Vegetarians were considered nut cases in the west till recent decades. I remember when I visited Europe in the 70's most people did not know what vegetarianism meant. But people in UK were a little more aware and tolerant of it because of their experience in India. They could at least relate to it. Today vegetarianism has grown significantly world over!
Maybe your daughter/grand daughter would find such efforts to stop animal killing (for food) as more acceptable than you do.
-
Why are you trying to be sarcastic and funny about child abuse Mr. Nearly? You just went at me for stating a fact on India's Child prostitution epidemic, and here you are being sarcastic and trying to be funny. Here you are going after Rose for no reason but that you are in desperate need of a cookie.
I'm not trying to be funny - I'm just illustrating that the approach taken by Rose is merely assertion based on her own view and that it could be used by someone who supported child abuse - hence the comment about the 7 year old was mirroring her comment about sticking to a nice steak - which for someone who views meat eating as equivalent to child abuse (see rest of thread) would be the same as my comment about a 7 year old.
I would suggest you are the one in dire need of a biscuit since both here and in the child prositution thread, you have managed to read into my comments things that are just not there.
-
So it is a fact, Animal rights groups are not happy with just disagreeing with the hunter,
Exactly - they want the hunting to stop. And the vegans whom Rose can't abide want animal husbandry to stop. They are allowed to want that and they are allowed to say so.
And Johnny and the people who's livelihood depends on what they have done for hundreds upon hundreds of years to support their families are entitled to theirs as well.
Some of those people lived far more in balance with nature than many animal rights townsfolk who just pop down the shops and buy environmentally unfriendly nylon etc. instead of skins and leathers thinking they are better.
Actually they are not, furs and skins are a renewable resource,
But there are artificial alternatives.
Artificial alternatives that have a bigger environmental impact and have a larger carbon footprint than furs and skins.
And what about the impact on the animals? Not that it bothers you.
-
BA
It does bother me, but not in the same way it bothers you.
It bothers me that the carbon footprint is destroying the ecosystem so destroying habitat and ultimately the wild animals that live in it.
I don't think producing all these artificial materials from petroeleum are beneficial to the animals.
It would probably be better if we had natural materials that degrade naturally like leather instead of things like cheap plastic shoes.
When I'm concerned about the animals it is usually because of their disappearing environment rather than an individual cow which has been slaughtered for food and leather.
Why persuade someone who is living in their environment, like Johnnys Inuit , to wear plastic and artificial clothes which pollute the planet and are not environmentally friendly when they already have a environmentally version that keeps their ecosystem in balance ( ie fish stocks) and keeps them warm.?
Now the Inuit are adding to the pollution in the environment, whereas before when they wore furs they were actually more eco friendly and their fish stocks were more healthy.
That's a good response, Rose. When I feel a little better I'll try to put an answer together
-
No, that's a crap response.
Rose, why don't you try to find out facts before going into an tizz - anything to do with over-consumption of animal protein?
Growing vegetarianism would greatly help in reducing CO2 emissions.
Indeed, using natural, renewable materials is better ecologically than creating new oil based materials.
No one is stopping the Inuit from hunting in their traditional ways for food or materials. They are exempt from the EU ban on fur and other seal product imports - the trouble they have with this is that there is no longer a market for such furs in Europe since the general ban, based on the mass seal & cub slaughters, was put in place.
The fish stock argument is another red herring (sorry) - cod fish stocks collapsed in the 90s due to over fishing. Studies have shown that seal culling will have no effect on reviving stocks. Seals are being used as a scapegoat just as whales used to be.
-
No one is suggesting vegetarianism as a panacea for global warming. It could help but, as you point out, there are many other more important factors. If you want to raise your own chickens or other livestock instead of eating food shipped around the country or planet, I would only encourage it.
From your own link, it is clear that the Inuit are facing far larger problems than the EU ban on seal products - from which their products are exempt anyway. They manged fine for thousands of years without an EU or other market for seal skins. It is only now, 6 years after the ban, that the Canadian government is even bothering to put in place branding that allows Inuit furs to be distinguished from those with other sources (mainly the east coast "hunters"). The USA is also planning to put a similar ban in place. It is nothing to do with "animal rights extremists" but just that when people see the deaths required to obtain furs and meat from non-domesticated animals etc, they lose their desire to use them.
It is unlikely that the income from being able to sell these furs to a few rich European women would save the Inuit from what are mainly the actions of their fellow Canadians and government, climate change and oceanic pollution - which makes their traditional food sources toxic with mercury, other heavy metals and PCBs.
-
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jul/21/giving-up-beef-reduce-carbon-footprint-more-than-cars
-
Thanks Rhi,
Very interesting ... certainly agree with:
“I would strongly hope that governments stay out of people’s diet, but at the same time there are many government policies that favour of the current diet in which animals feature too prominently,” he said. “Remove the artificial support given to the livestock industry and rising prices will do the rest. In that way you are having less government intervention in people’s diet and not more.”