Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Keith Maitland on July 30, 2015, 06:07:36 PM
-
Can someone please explain to me the uproar over the killing of Cecil the lion by an American hunter in Zimbabwe a couple days ago.
I really don't get it...
-
Can someone please explain to me the uproar over the killing of Cecil the lion by an American hunter in Zimbabwe a couple days ago.
I really don't get it...
If you don't get it then there is really no point in trying to explain the idea that killing endangered species for fun is unacceptable!
-
KM ... How about you have a think and tell us why it might be?
-
Can someone please explain to me the uproar over the killing of Cecil the lion by an American hunter in Zimbabwe a couple days ago.
I really don't get it...
What a very SAD person you are! :o
-
Can someone please explain to me the uproar over the killing of Cecil the lion by an American hunter in Zimbabwe a couple days ago.
I really don't get it...
I think it is a perfectly reasonable question - there are plenty of things going on in the world that are causing tremendous suffering to human beings - while we are quite happy to kill animals for various reasons.
I suppose one reason might be that the perpetrator takes great pride in killing various 'trophy' animals for his own gratification. Another reason, because because this animal had been protected in a reserve until itwas lured out to be shot.
. . . and of course, because he was a dentist - and everyone hates dentists.
-
LA,
I think it is a perfectly reasonable question - there are plenty of things going on in the world that are causing tremendous suffering to human beings - while we are quite happy to kill animals for various reasons.
Bingo.
I would also remind a few here that the head of PETA, Ingrid Newkirk, argued that the dentist who killed the lion should be “hanged.”
::)
-
I detest hunting for sport.
However, I recognise that, whether I like it or not, there are vast tracts of land in some African countries where this is not only permitted, but encouraged and forms part of local economies.
Of course, this particular incident where a protected species appears to have been lured out of a nature reserve to be hunted is, of course, deplorable in every way.
But before we put a blanket ban on ALL hunting, we need to put alternate means of support in place for those locals whose livelihoods depend on the 'sport', detestable though it is.
-
One problem is that lions are diminshing in the wild as a species. There are fewer now than there were twenty years ago. This animal was being monitored in a conservation study by scientists from Oxford university - so the opportunity to further learn about the behaviour of lions has been reduced.
I heard someone commenting on the payment which had been made to enable this man to engage in his passion. It was argued that Zimbabwe would have profited far more from the lion's continued survival from organised tourism and study trips.
A further problem is that another lion will now take over Cecil's pride. The first thing this lion will do is kill all the cubs in the pride. So this incident will not lead to the death of one lion, but perhaps half a dozen or more.
All with a single shot of a crossbow.
Speaking for myself, I cannot understand the mindset of a - supposedly - intelligent man who gets gratification by destroying members of other species.
Does he get a hard-on watching animals in their death thoes? I wouldn't trust his dentistry.
-
LA,
I think it is a perfectly reasonable question - there are plenty of things going on in the world that are causing tremendous suffering to human beings - while we are quite happy to kill animals for various reasons.
Bingo.
I would also remind a few here that the head of PETA, Ingrid Newkirk, argued that the dentist who killed the lion should be “hanged.”
::)
Bit late, alas.
Now, if he'd have been hanged before he killed a lion for absolutely no reason whatever, that would have accomplished something.
-
killing endangered species for fun is unacceptable!
Spot on
-
killing endangered species for fun is unacceptable!
Spot on
A sentence which also works if you remove the words 'endangered' and 'for fun.'
-
killing endangered species for fun is unacceptable!
Spot on
A sentence which also works if you remove the words 'endangered' and 'for fun.'
True! Killing from necessity is bad enough, but killing for fun is totally immoral.
-
Can someone please explain to me the uproar over the killing of Cecil the lion by an American hunter in Zimbabwe a couple days ago.
I really don't get it...
Keith, for one thing, he killed the animal by luring it out of a safe area; secondly, he killed it after dark, which is illegal apparently; thirdly, he killed an animal that was part of a longitudinal scientific research project; fourthly, he killed an animal which was a favourite of locals and tourists; fifthly, he has killed endangered and other animals in the past; and sixthly, he seems to be using the profit he is making from dentistry to fund this.
-
Can someone please explain to me the uproar over the killing of Cecil the lion by an American hunter in Zimbabwe a couple days ago.
I really don't get it...
Keith, for one thing, he killed the animal by luring it out of a safe area; secondly, he killed it after dark, which is illegal apparently; thirdly, he killed an animal that was part of a longitudinal scientific research project; and fourthly, he killed an animal which was a favourite of locals and tourists.
You forgot the main and worst reason: he killed the creature purely and solely for his own gratification.
-
A sentence which also works if you remove the words 'endangered' and 'for fun.'
Why is killing an animal always unacceptable?
-
You forgot the main and worst reason: he killed the creature purely and solely for his own gratification.
Thanks for that wording Shaker; I'd already amended my post before I saw this - but you put it better than I did.
-
A sentence which also works if you remove the words 'endangered' and 'for fun.'
Why is killing an animal always unacceptable?
Because I can't think of any situation - apart from euthanasia/mercy killing (which also applies to human animals in my view) and the very rarest and most unlikely scenarios of immediate self-defence - where it's done for any valid reason. In almost every case it's done from a position of speciesism/anthropocentrism, for human convenience and entertainment, because some animals are deemed to be ours to eat, maltreat or simply because they're considered inconvenient and in the way.
-
the main and worst reason: he killed the creature purely and solely for his own gratification.
Absolutely.
People give many reasons for killing animals (some more plausible than others) - food, research, self defence, pest control, conservation (! ikr), putting them down, accidents..etc etc.
This fella has none of these at his disposal. He killed it for a laugh, maybe to take his mind off his tiny penis or something. The man is an abomination.
-
the main and worst reason: he killed the creature purely and solely for his own gratification.
Absolutely.
People give many reasons for killing animals (some more plausible than others) - food, research, self defence, pest control, conservation (! ikr), putting them down, accidents..etc etc.
Everybody draws their line(s) in different places - of these I would say only euthanasia and self defence are valid, legitimate and justifiable reasons. I can't see how accidents belong on the list given that this isn't something that people seek to justify or rationalise - an accident is an accident is an accident.
This fella has none of these at his disposal. He killed it for a laugh, maybe to take his mind off his tiny penis or something. The man is an abomination.
Quite.
-
... conservation ...
This isn't as daft a reason as it may sound. For one thing, if a particular species is under threat, it may be that that species is being predated upon by another, more numerous, species; so killing some of the latter can help protect the former.
Secondly, there are animals whose continued existence in certain parts of the world is down to legal hunting of them. Grouse are a slightly off-track example; if the moors on which they live weren't being managed in order to keep them available for shooting, those same moors could well have become heavily wooded over the past century or so, thus making then inaccessible to anyone or thing. Furthermore, employing gamekeepers/reserve wardens often helps the local community value that group of animals more than it might otherwise have done and encourage them to help with the conservation programme.
Thirdly, it is sometimes necessary to kill a rogue animal - elephant/tiger/lion - that has attacked humans, as otherwise the group it has attacked may attack and kill more than just a single animal as revenge.
-
the main and worst reason: he killed the creature purely and solely for his own gratification.
Absolutely.
People give many reasons for killing animals (some more plausible than others) - food, research, self defence, pest control, conservation (! ikr), putting them down, accidents..etc etc.
Everybody draws their line(s) in different places - of these I would say only euthanasia and self defence are valid, legitimate and justifiable reasons. I can't see how accidents belong on the list given that this isn't something that people seek to justify or rationalise - an accident is an accident is an accident.
This fella has none of these at his disposal. He killed it for a laugh, maybe to take his mind off his tiny penis or something. The man is an abomination.
Quite.
The abominable dentist, one assumes, sees killing for fun as an entirely valid reason. If it is just a matter of opinion or "drawing the line" in one place rather than another, would that really explain the reaction against him - given that there are obviously many other important issues for people to get on and deal with?
-
I can't see how accidents belong on the list given that this isn't something that people seek to justify or rationalise - an accident is an accident is an accident.
Yes, you're right - I wasn't analysing that much, just trying to think of situations in which a person might kill an animal and say they weren't being frivolous
-
The abominable dentist, one assumes, sees killing for fun as an entirely valid reason.
... a stance belied, I'd have thought, by the fact that he has practically bitten off his own tongue in his haste to apologise and has apparently gone into hiding. If killing a lion is entirely valid, why not hang around and defend his actions in public?
If it is just a matter of opinion or "drawing the line" in one place rather than another, would that really explain the reaction against him - given that there are obviously many other important issues for people to get on and deal with?
The number of issues for "people to get on and deal with," while not infinite, is vast. People deal with the issues that are important and significant to them.
-
All with a single shot of a crossbow.
This is not true. The lion survived the crossbow shot and had to be tracked down and shot again but with a gun. The procedure took over 40 hours.
I honestly cannot comprehend the mentality that thinks a lion's head looks better hung on a wall than attached to a living lion.
-
if the moors on which they live weren't being managed in order to keep them available for shooting, those same moors could well have become heavily wooded over the past century or so, thus making then inaccessible to anyone or thing.
Bad example. The grouse moors are totally artificial and are maintained so purely to give rich people the opportunity to shoot grouse. As a result, in terms of biodiversity, they are practically a desert.
-
The abominable dentist, one assumes, sees killing for fun as an entirely valid reason.
... a stance belied, I'd have thought, by the fact that he has practically bitten off his own tongue in his haste to apologise and has apparently gone into hiding. If killing a lion is entirely valid, why not hang around and defend his actions in public?
Quite simple! Becasue the public are against him, they are issuing death threats against him and he has got the local police trying to find out who is threatening him spo that legal action can be taken against them!
He doesn't like when HE is the one on the wrong end of the gun, does he?
-
All with a single shot of a crossbow.
This is not true. The lion survived the crossbow shot and had to be tracked down and shot again but with a gun. The procedure took over 40 hours.
I honestly cannot comprehend the mentality that thinks a lion's head looks better hung on a wall than attached to a living lion.
Agreed. It was an agonising death.
-
LA,
I think it is a perfectly reasonable question - there are plenty of things going on in the world that are causing tremendous suffering to human beings - while we are quite happy to kill animals for various reasons.
Bingo.
I would also remind a few here that the head of PETA, Ingrid Newkirk, argued that the dentist who killed the lion should be “hanged.”
::)
Leaving aside the PETA woman (he won't be hanged), the revulsion stems from the fact this despicable act exemplifies the worst of humanity's pathetic, self-gratifying attitude to the natural world. I for one find it troubling for our future as a whole that there are people - wealthy people from powerful societies - who think that this is what other creatures are for.
-
Leaving aside the PETA woman (he won't be hanged), the revulsion stems from the fact this despicable act exemplifies the worst of humanity's pathetic, self-gratifying attitude to the natural world. I for one find it troubling for our future as a whole that there are people - wealthy people from powerful societies - who think that this is what other creatures are for.
Remember though that this individual is only a particularly egregious specimen of the sort of attitude that most human animals take toward non-human animals anyway as a matter of course every single day, as things, objects, commodities who either don't possess consciousness, sentience and emotion at all - a few scientists still defend the Cartesian line, though they're a tiny and dwindling band - or if they do, they don't really matter.
This lamentable tooth extractor has the money to have bought himself a luxury trophy hunting holiday in Africa, but in terms of basic mindset I can't see how his attitude is in any way different to somebody who sits down to a meal containing meat, which is another example of an activity which is pointless in being unnecessary (people need to eat; they don't need to eat flesh) but carried out gratuitously, as it were, purely for self-gratification.
-
All with a single shot of a crossbow.
This is not true. The lion survived the crossbow shot and had to be tracked down and shot again but with a gun. The procedure took over 40 hours.
I honestly cannot comprehend the mentality that thinks a lion's head looks better hung on a wall than attached to a living lion.
Oh dear.
When writing on this forum you should never forget that there are readers who will assume that your words are to be taken only literally.
Jeremyp:
The probabable consequence of a single shot from a crossbow is the deaths of several lions.
How is that not true?
-
Leaving aside the PETA woman (he won't be hanged), the revulsion stems from the fact this despicable act exemplifies the worst of humanity's pathetic, self-gratifying attitude to the natural world. I for one find it troubling for our future as a whole that there are people - wealthy people from powerful societies - who think that this is what other creatures are for.
Remember though that this individual is only a particularly egregious specimen of the sort of attitude that most human animals take toward non-human animals anyway as a matter of course every single day, as things, objects, commodities who either don't possess consciousness, sentience and emotion at all - a few scientists still defend the Cartesian line, though they're a tiny and dwindling band - or if they do, they don't really matter.
This lamentable tooth extractor has the money to have bought himself a luxury trophy hunting holiday in Africa, but in terms of basic mindset I can't see how his attitude is in any way different to somebody who sits down to a meal containing meat, which is another example of an activity which is pointless in being unnecessary (people need to eat; they don't need to eat flesh) but carried out gratuitously, as it were, purely for self-gratification.
::)
So according to shaker all the meat eaters on here are as bad as the dentist.
Shaker always takes it a step to far, IMO.
Most of us are hypocritical enough to waive morality when it comes to killing other animals to eat.
Evolution-wise, of course, we have developed as an omnivorous species, but evolution knows nothing of morals, which are a human invention. If we are going to argue that killing other animals unnecessarily is immoral, then we have to face the fact that eating meat is immoral ... because we can be quite healthy as vegetarians.
However, it's a moral maze, because there is no justification in separating plants from animals in this respect. They are living organisms, and we curtail their lives to eat them.
In short, morality is a mess! :(
-
Hunting big game animals for fun is SICK. Hunting them with a crossbow is even sicker, as it is likely to be a more painful death. I hope that piece of scum loses his practice and is vilified for the rest of his life!
-
Leaving aside the PETA woman (he won't be hanged), the revulsion stems from the fact this despicable act exemplifies the worst of humanity's pathetic, self-gratifying attitude to the natural world. I for one find it troubling for our future as a whole that there are people - wealthy people from powerful societies - who think that this is what other creatures are for.
Remember though that this individual is only a particularly egregious specimen of the sort of attitude that most human animals take toward non-human animals anyway as a matter of course every single day, as things, objects, commodities who either don't possess consciousness, sentience and emotion at all - a few scientists still defend the Cartesian line, though they're a tiny and dwindling band - or if they do, they don't really matter.
This lamentable tooth extractor has the money to have bought himself a luxury trophy hunting holiday in Africa, but in terms of basic mindset I can't see how his attitude is in any way different to somebody who sits down to a meal containing meat, which is another example of an activity which is pointless in being unnecessary (people need to eat; they don't need to eat flesh) but carried out gratuitously, as it were, purely for self-gratification.
::)
So according to shaker all the meat eaters on here are as bad as the dentist.
Shaker always takes it a step to far, IMO.
Most of us are hypocritical enough to waive morality when it comes to killing other animals to eat.
Evolution-wise, of course, we have developed as an omnivorous species, but evolution knows nothing of morals, which are a human invention. If we are going to argue that killing other animals unnecessarily is immoral, then we have to face the fact that eating meat is immoral ... because we can be quite healthy as vegetarians.
However, it's a moral maze, because there is no justification in separating plants from animals in this respect. They are living organisms, and we curtail their lives to eat them.
In short, morality is a mess! :(
The difference between plants and animals us that the latter are sentient - they feel pain and fear. It's why many 'vegetarians' are happy to eat fish - the degree of sentience is believed to be lower.
My view is that I think more moral the person who hunts a bird or fish for his or her table than I do those who mindlessly eat industrially-farmed meat bought in little plastic pots from the supermarket because they are too squeamish to face the reality of where it comes from. But there can never be any morality in trophy hunting. Ever.
-
So according to shaker all the meat eaters on here are as bad as the dentist.
As I said (quite clearly, I thought, but evidently not clearly enough for some) the similarity is in the basic mindset of non-human animals as things, as objects, as commodities for human use and abuse, whose value - more often than not merely financial - is instrumental rather than intrinsic.
-
Can someone please explain to me the uproar over the killing of Cecil the lion by an American hunter in Zimbabwe a couple days ago.
I really don't get it...
Its the fact that he is a dentist- someone who is meant to promote life...
-
That's two American dentists I am not happy with. The other, a friend of a friend, tried to persuade me (during an en spec visit while on holiday) to let him file my teeth down on one side to make my bite more equal.
-
That's two American dentists I am not happy with. The other, a friend of a friend, tried to persuade me (during an en spec visit while on holiday) to let him file my teeth down on one side to make my bite more equal.
For how much? Dollars-wise!
-
The difference between plants and animals us that the latter are sentient - they feel pain and fear. It's why many 'vegetarians' are happy to eat fish - the degree of sentience is believed to be lower.
Really? What is the evidence that fish feel pain less than other sentient creatures?
My view is that I think more moral the person who hunts a bird or fish for his or her table than I do those who mindlessly eat industrially-farmed meat bought in little plastic pots from the supermarket because they are too squeamish to face the reality of where it comes from.
I disagree, unless the hunter has no other recourse. He can cause great suffering to his prey on occasions, so unless he has to hunt to live the action is just as immoral.
We who buy and eat such food do so in the belief that it has been farmed and killed humanely, although I am well aware of the shortcomings of the meat industry.
But there can never be any morality in trophy hunting. Ever.
Total agreement. Such people are morons.
-
Looks like the Zimbabwe authorities are looking at extradition - wonder how the US authorities will react.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-33733722
-
There are valid arguments that allowing such trophy hunting, if managed correctly, can help conservation of species otherwise at risk.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-33727540
The US Fish and Wildlife service will now investigate the hunt and over 100 thousand Americans have signed a petition calling for Palmer to be extradited out of the US. I assume that most of these are ordinarily supermarket meat eaters not normally much concerned with morality of meat eating.
It just seems to me that there is much more going on here than can be explained by:
Empathy /concern about cruelty
Animal rights
Conservation
Internet/social media use
...
-
Leaving aside the PETA woman (he won't be hanged), the revulsion stems from the fact this despicable act exemplifies the worst of humanity's pathetic, self-gratifying attitude to the natural world. I for one find it troubling for our future as a whole that there are people - wealthy people from powerful societies - who think that this is what other creatures are for.
Remember though that this individual is only a particularly egregious specimen of the sort of attitude that most human animals take toward non-human animals anyway as a matter of course every single day, as things, objects, commodities who either don't possess consciousness, sentience and emotion at all - a few scientists still defend the Cartesian line, though they're a tiny and dwindling band - or if they do, they don't really matter.
This lamentable tooth extractor has the money to have bought himself a luxury trophy hunting holiday in Africa, but in terms of basic mindset I can't see how his attitude is in any way different to somebody who sits down to a meal containing meat, which is another example of an activity which is pointless in being unnecessary (people need to eat; they don't need to eat flesh) but carried out gratuitously, as it were, purely for self-gratification.
Maybe we should stop animals from eating other animals as well. Think of all the animal lives that we could save. Surely we can find protein substitutes for predators. Anyway, there is nothing immoral about eating meat. What is immoral is killing more than we can eat and killing for the pleasure of killing, such as in the case of the dentist and the lion.
-
Maybe we should stop animals from eating other animals as well.
Good luck with that.
Anyway, there is nothing immoral about eating meat.
Yes there is. Reason coming up:
What is immoral is killing more than we can eat and killing for the pleasure of killing, such as in the case of the dentist and the lion.
Killing to eat meat is unnecessary (humans are not obligate carnivores), and therefore is killing for pleasure.
-
Yes there is.
That's because you're odd.
Killing to eat meat is unnecessary (humans are not obligate carnivores), and therefore is killing for pleasure.
False reasoning. Humans eat meat because it's by far the best and most accessible form of protein. The animals are killed for nourishment not pleasure.
-
That's because you're odd.
There goes the Irony-O-Meter.
False reasoning. Humans eat meat because it's by far the best and most accessible form of protein. The animals are killed for nourishment not pleasure.
So if it's for "nourishment not pleasure", why not eat meat as-is instead of cooking it (which is to say, partially burning it) in a variety of ways with the addition of a variety of supplements and sauces?
-
Why not? Or don't you like your food to taste nice? Anyway, I know where you are trying to lead this but yet again it's false reasoning. The primary function is indeed nourishment and any pleasure is only in the eating, not the killing (well, for most normal people anyway).
-
Why not?
Because if eating meat is purely for nourishment not pleasure (as per your statement not quite an hour ago) then these things should be superfluous.
-
See above edited post.
-
Anyway, I know where you are trying to lead this but yet again it's false reasoning.
Then explain, not assert, why this is so according to you.
The primary function is indeed nourishment and any pleasure is only in the eating, not the killing (well, for most normal people anyway).
The point is that this individual is decidedly abnormal in that for his own gratification he killed an individual member of an endangered species for no other reason than the pleasure of killing it, since he didn't even plan to eat it.
-
Yes, I think there's something not quite normal in his hobby. Not the same as killing an animal for food. To suggest that they're the same is just clutching at straws by fanatics.
-
Yes, I think there's something not quite normal in his hobby. Not the same as killing an animal for food.
Which is equally unnecessary.
To suggest that they're the same is just clutching at straws by fanatics.
They are the same - neither serve any useful or meaningful purpose and are carried out entirely for self-gratification.
-
Completely wrong. You're trying to compare apples and oranges or in this case, killing for trophy and killing for food. As I said earlier, meat is by the far the best and most accessible form of protein. That's why man started eating meat in the first place. Do you know how many beans you have to eat to get 200g of protein?
-
That's because you're odd.
There goes the Irony-O-Meter.
False reasoning. Humans eat meat because it's by far the best and most accessible form of protein. The animals are killed for nourishment not pleasure.
So if it's for "nourishment not pleasure", why not eat meat as-is instead of cooking it (which is to say, partially burning it) in a variety of ways with the addition of a variety of supplements and sauces?
You are not SAlex Skyraving are you, Shaker? Cos you are beginning to sound like him!
-
Completely wrong. You're trying to compare apples and oranges or in this case, killing for trophy and killing for food. As I said earlier, meat is by the far the best and most accessible form of protein. That's why man started eating meat in the first place. Do you know how many beans you have to eat to get 200g of protein?
No, I have no idea. I don't see why it matters, either, for a variety of reasons.
One is that beans aren't sentient; they're not moral patients in the way that animals killed for food are, which makes them - the animals, I mean, not the beans - morally relevant. Therefore the beans are preferable,
Another is that as well as protein the beans also provide essential things of which meat has little or none, such as dietary fibre.
Another is that for the vast, vast majority of people a lack of protein isn't an issue; the surfeit of it is. As with fat, salt and sugar, most people consume too much rather than too little - far more than they actually need.
And where does this arbitrary 200g of protein come from, exactly? A quick Google suggests that on current medical evidence the average man requires around 56g per day (whereas in actual fact he eats about 88g per day*) - so whence your 200g?
* The British Nutrition Foundation: http://goo.gl/mfdwms
-
For instance if you do vigorous exercise everyday. So for me that's about 3000kcal per day which includes about 200-240g of protein. If you had to do that with vegetables alone you have to eat stupid amounts.
-
For instance if you do vigorous exercise everyday. So for me that's about 3000kcal per day which includes about 200-240g of protein a day.
Excellent. So eat more beans, pulses, nuts and legumes. Sorted.
-
For instance if you do vigorous exercise everyday. So for me that's about 3000kcal per day which includes about 200-240g of protein a day.
Excellent. So eat more beans, pulses, nuts and legumes. Sorted.
The amounts you'd have to eat are so great you can't really do it, especially if you don't use dairy products. Do you use dairy producs?
-
The amounts you'd have to eat are so great you can't really do it, especially if you don't use dairy products.
What a feeble cop-out, given the fact that such a massive variety of different foods - or, I should say, food types - contain protein.
For example: http://goo.gl/jEr8ow
Do you use dairy producs?
No.
-
We have to be careful here.
On the thread about Sunday opening the point was made that if you do not want to shop on Sunday, then don't, but don't try to force your idea of what Sunday is for on everyone.
The same can be said of hunting.
I don't like it, and I do not do it. I do shoot clays, but not live birds though many people I know do.
-
We have to be careful here.
On the thread about Sunday opening the point was made that if you do not want to shop on Sunday, then don't, but don't try to force your idea of what Sunday is for on everyone.
The difference shouldn't need pointing out, but I'm sure it will be before long.
-
We have to be careful here.
On the thread about Sunday opening the point was made that if you do not want to shop on Sunday, then don't, but don't try to force your idea of what Sunday is for on everyone.
The difference shouldn't need pointing out, but I'm sure it will be before long.
Well, it does really. You are using the same tactics as the Sunday closing people. Eat this, eat that, do this do that.
Alternatively, they could of course do what they want to legally do.
-
Well, it does really. You are using the same tactics as the Sunday closing people. Eat this, eat that, do this do that.
I do not have that power, but would certainly exercise it if I did.
Alternatively, they could of course do what they want to legally do.
Halal/shechita slaughter methods are also legal, but shouldn't be. Legal and right (right in the moral sense) do not always coincide. That a thing is legal tells you one thing alone about it; that it is legal, not that it is right and proper to do.
-
Well, it does really. You are using the same tactics as the Sunday closing people. Eat this, eat that, do this do that.
I do not have that power, but would certainly exercise it if I did.
But we both agreed this tactic was wrong when employed by the Sunday close people.
-
Sunday trading doesn't involve the killing of sentient creatures for no valid reason. Not even in Poundland.
People shop on a Sunday if they want to and work on a Sunday if they want to - that's how it's supposed to work. In other words, choice.
A pig has no choice in whether it wishes to be confined to a farrowing crate or not before being turned into sausages. There's your difference.
-
Dear Shaker,
Ah right! Sunday opening times in Scotland are legal but does it make it right.
Dear Mods,
What!! It was Berational who derailed, not me!!
Gonnagle.
-
Sunday trading doesn't involve the killing of sentient creatures for no valid reason. Not even in Poundland.
People shop on a Sunday if they want to and work on a Sunday if they want to - that's how it's supposed to work. In other words, choice.
A pig has no choice in whether it wishes to be confined to a farrowing crate or not before being turned into sausages. There's your difference.
I understand all that, but it really is irrelevant.
The differences are irrelevant if they are legal. The fact you do not approve and others do is exactly the same as the Sunday opening issue.
-
Sunday trading doesn't involve the killing of sentient creatures for no valid reason. Not even in Poundland.
People shop on a Sunday if they want to and work on a Sunday if they want to - that's how it's supposed to work. In other words, choice.
A pig has no choice in whether it wishes to be confined to a farrowing crate or not before being turned into sausages. There's your difference.
I understand all that, but it really is irrelevant.
The differences are irrelevant if they are legal. The fact you do not approve and others do is exactly the same as the Sunday opening issue.
It's entirely relevant. Beyond what I've already stated in my previous post especially, I can't help you.
-
Yes, I think there's something not quite normal in his hobby. Not the same as killing an animal for food.
Which is equally unnecessary.
To suggest that they're the same is just clutching at straws by fanatics.
They are the same - neither serve any useful or meaningful purpose and are carried out entirely for self-gratification.
Personally, I don't have any problem with someone who goes out to bag a few rabbits for eating and in some places, there are larger animals that can safely be shot (or even needs culling) - but there is something rather disturbing about a person who goes out to kill a top predictor for sport.
-
Yes, I think there's something not quite normal in his hobby. Not the same as killing an animal for food.
Which is equally unnecessary.
To suggest that they're the same is just clutching at straws by fanatics.
They are the same - neither serve any useful or meaningful purpose and are carried out entirely for self-gratification.
Personally, I don't have any problem with someone who goes out to bag a few rabbits for eating and in some places, there are larger animals that can safely be shot (or even needs culling) - but there is something rather disturbing about a person who goes out to kill a top predictor for sport.
I understand and agree.
But if someone does something legal that we do not like, that's just tough.
For us to say they should think and behave as we do, is exactly the same argument we fought with the Sunday opening crowd.
Yes this involves killing animals, but centrally it involves peoples choice to act as they wish, legally of course.
-
Yes, I think there's something not quite normal in his hobby. Not the same as killing an animal for food.
Which is equally unnecessary.
To suggest that they're the same is just clutching at straws by fanatics.
They are the same - neither serve any useful or meaningful purpose and are carried out entirely for self-gratification.
Personally, I don't have any problem with someone who goes out to bag a few rabbits for eating and in some places, there are larger animals that can safely be shot (or even needs culling) - but there is something rather disturbing about a person who goes out to kill a top predictor for sport.
I understand and agree.
But if someone does something legal that we do not like, that's just tough.
For us to say they should think and behave as we do, is exactly the same argument we fought with the Sunday opening crowd.
Yes this involves killing animals, but centrally it involves peoples choice to act as they wish, legally of course.
Well, the legality of his action is rather questionably I gather, but that aside, I think that a person who kills for pleasure is likely to have some serious psychological problem - so should he be practising dentistry?
I certainly wouldn't want to be one of his patients :o
-
Yes, I think there's something not quite normal in his hobby. Not the same as killing an animal for food.
Which is equally unnecessary.
To suggest that they're the same is just clutching at straws by fanatics.
They are the same - neither serve any useful or meaningful purpose and are carried out entirely for self-gratification.
Personally, I don't have any problem with someone who goes out to bag a few rabbits for eating and in some places, there are larger animals that can safely be shot (or even needs culling) - but there is something rather disturbing about a person who goes out to kill a top predictor for sport.
I understand and agree.
But if someone does something legal that we do not like, that's just tough.
For us to say they should think and behave as we do, is exactly the same argument we fought with the Sunday opening crowd.
Yes this involves killing animals, but centrally it involves peoples choice to act as they wish, legally of course.
Well, the legality of his action is rather questionably I gather, but that aside, I think that a person who kills for pleasure is likely to have some serious psychological problem - so should he be practising dentistry?
I certainly wouldn't want to be one of his patients :o
Hunting is quite a popular sport in the US. Not something I would do, but why should what I would do have any impact on them.
That's the point I am trying to make.
-
Hunting is quite a popular sport in the US. Not something I would do, but why should what I would do have any impact on them.
That's the point I am trying to make.
I agree with you to an extent, but I think that there comes a point were a fascination with guns and killing equates to a particularly dangerous kind of madness.
-
BR:
You are not making your point very clearly. Many of his own countrymen want him to stop whether it is legal or not (mostly not).
-
Yes, I think there's something not quite normal in his hobby. Not the same as killing an animal for food.
Which is equally unnecessary.
To suggest that they're the same is just clutching at straws by fanatics.
They are the same - neither serve any useful or meaningful purpose and are carried out entirely for self-gratification.
Personally, I don't have any problem with someone who goes out to bag a few rabbits for eating and in some places, there are larger animals that can safely be shot (or even needs culling) - but there is something rather disturbing about a person who goes out to kill a top predictor for sport.
I understand and agree.
But if someone does something legal that we do not like, that's just tough.
For us to say they should think and behave as we do, is exactly the same argument we fought with the Sunday opening crowd.
Yes this involves killing animals, but centrally it involves peoples choice to act as they wish, legally of course.
The problem is that what he, or his group, did was NOT legal.
The lion was in a protected wildlife reserve, and was lured from that protected area with bait so that he could be killed - therefore what they did was not legal and, as his companions are finding out, is classified as poaching and gets you ten years in the can.
-
Yes, I think there's something not quite normal in his hobby. Not the same as killing an animal for food.
Which is equally unnecessary.
To suggest that they're the same is just clutching at straws by fanatics.
They are the same - neither serve any useful or meaningful purpose and are carried out entirely for self-gratification.
Personally, I don't have any problem with someone who goes out to bag a few rabbits for eating and in some places, there are larger animals that can safely be shot (or even needs culling) - but there is something rather disturbing about a person who goes out to kill a top predictor for sport.
I understand and agree.
But if someone does something legal that we do not like, that's just tough.
For us to say they should think and behave as we do, is exactly the same argument we fought with the Sunday opening crowd.
Yes this involves killing animals, but centrally it involves peoples choice to act as they wish, legally of course.
The problem is that what he, or his group, did was NOT legal.
The lion was in a protected wildlife reserve, and was lured from that protected area with bait so that he could be killed - therefore what they did was not legal and, as his companions are finding out, is classified as poaching and gets you ten years in the can.
I totally agree in this case.
I was just responding to the fact that this was being used against all hunting.
-
The amounts you'd have to eat are so great you can't really do it, especially if you don't use dairy products.
What a feeble cop-out, given the fact that such a massive variety of different foods - or, I should say, food types - contain protein.
For example: http://goo.gl/jEr8ow
Do you use dairy producs?
No.
It's not a cop-out at all. There's a very practical reason why man has chosen meat as his primary source of protein: it's not too hard to get, it's tasty and you don't have to eat kilos of the stuff. Pound for pound it's very effecient. I feel quite sad for you that you have to use false reasoning to try and inpute guilt upon people you disagree with.
As for dairy, good. At least you're consistent.
-
Simply stating, or in your case repeating, that something is supposedly false reasoning doesn't fly until you specify what it is that's supposedly false and demonstrate that it actually is false.
As for your would-be points:
1. Meat is hard to get unless your idea of acquiring it consists of a trip to Sainsburys, i.e. getting somebody else to do your dirty work out of sight and out of mind. When was the last time you killed and butchered a cow personally?
2. What's taste got to do with anything? A few hours ago you said that food animals are killed for nourishment, not pleasure.
-
Simply stating, or in your case repeating, that something is supposedly false reasoning doesn't fly until you specify what it is that's supposedly false and demonstrate that it actually is false.
The dentition of humans shows that they are ominivores - if you like it eat it, if you don't leave it.
Veggies and vegans touting their messages and life-styles and demanding everyoine follow them are as irritating and annoyoing as evangelical Christians.
-
Simply stating, or in your case repeating, that something is supposedly false reasoning doesn't fly until you specify what it is that's supposedly false and demonstrate that it actually is false.
The dentition of humans shows that they are ominivores - if you like it eat it, if you don't leave it.
Veggies and vegans touting their messages and life-styles and demanding everyoine follow them are as irritating and annoyoing as evangelical Christians.
I am a vegetarian but have never "demanded" anyone else follow my path; nor have I been subjected to anyone demanding I do it. How many people demand you follow a vegetarian/vegan life-style? Or is it just a sloppy, meaningless, assertion by you?
-
Simply stating, or in your case repeating, that something is supposedly false reasoning doesn't fly until you specify what it is that's supposedly false and demonstrate that it actually is false.
The dentition of humans shows that they are ominivores - if you like it eat it, if you don't leave it.
Veggies and vegans touting their messages and life-styles and demanding everyoine follow them are as irritating and annoyoing as evangelical Christians.
I am a vegetarian but have never "demanded" anyone else follow my path; nor have I been subjected to anyone demanding I do it. How many people demand you follow a vegetarian/vegan life-style? Or is it just a sloppy, meaningless, assertion by you?
Read the papers!
Of course - I had forgotten you never push anything do you!
-
Simply stating, or in your case repeating, that something is supposedly false reasoning doesn't fly until you specify what it is that's supposedly false and demonstrate that it actually is false.
The dentition of humans shows that they are ominivores - if you like it eat it, if you don't leave it.
Veggies and vegans touting their messages and life-styles and demanding everyoine follow them are as irritating and annoyoing as evangelical Christians.
I am a vegetarian but have never "demanded" anyone else follow my path; nor have I been subjected to anyone demanding I do it. How many people demand you follow a vegetarian/vegan life-style? Or is it just a sloppy, meaningless, assertion by you?
Read the papers!
Of course - I had forgotten you never push anything do you!
Give me some example or other of what you say. There' a heck of a lot to read in the papers to try ang find some obscure reference or other.
-
Simply stating, or in your case repeating, that something is supposedly false reasoning doesn't fly until you specify what it is that's supposedly false and demonstrate that it actually is false.
The dentition of humans shows that they are ominivores - if you like it eat it, if you don't leave it.
Veggies and vegans touting their messages and life-styles and demanding everyoine follow them are as irritating and annoyoing as evangelical Christians.
I am a vegetarian but have never "demanded" anyone else follow my path; nor have I been subjected to anyone demanding I do it. How many people demand you follow a vegetarian/vegan life-style? Or is it just a sloppy, meaningless, assertion by you?
Nobody (save parents) can demand that anyone else follow a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle; I suspect that what's in play here is that when the facts are laid before people (which is easy enough to do) there's some pricking of uneasy consciences which provokes a defensive reaction.
-
Simply stating, or in your case repeating, that something is supposedly false reasoning doesn't fly until you specify what it is that's supposedly false and demonstrate that it actually is false.
The dentition of humans shows that they are ominivores - if you like it eat it, if you don't leave it.
Veggies and vegans touting their messages and life-styles and demanding everyoine follow them are as irritating and annoyoing as evangelical Christians.
I am a vegetarian but have never "demanded" anyone else follow my path; nor have I been subjected to anyone demanding I do it. How many people demand you follow a vegetarian/vegan life-style? Or is it just a sloppy, meaningless, assertion by you?
Nobody (save parents) can demand that anyone else follow a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle; I suspect that what's in play here is that when the facts are laid before people (which is easy enough to do) there's some pricking of uneasy consciences which provokes a defensive reaction.
That's about the size of it! I'm sure there are plenty of people who would espouse a vegetarian regime, because in their hearts they know it is the right way: they are just too weak to follow it through.
-
Simply stating, or in your case repeating, that something is supposedly false reasoning doesn't fly until you specify what it is that's supposedly false and demonstrate that it actually is false.
The dentition of humans shows that they are ominivores - if you like it eat it, if you don't leave it.
Veggies and vegans touting their messages and life-styles and demanding everyoine follow them are as irritating and annoyoing as evangelical Christians.
I am a vegetarian but have never "demanded" anyone else follow my path; nor have I been subjected to anyone demanding I do it. How many people demand you follow a vegetarian/vegan life-style? Or is it just a sloppy, meaningless, assertion by you?
Read the papers!
Of course - I had forgotten you never push anything do you!
Give me some example or other of what you say. There' a heck of a lot to read in the papers to try ang find some obscure reference or other.
Read the "foodie" section of just about any paper.
-
Not sure it's weakness per se since it's easier to be vegetarian or vegan now than it's ever been. It may be unfamiliarity in many cases, since the vast majority of people are raised to wat meat; or it may be the wholly mistaken idea that a vegetarian diet is bland and boring, when the opposite is true.
-
Not sure it's weakness per se since it's easier to be vegetarian or vegan now than it's ever been. It may be unfamiliarity in many cases, since the vast majority of people are raised to wat meat; or it may be the wholly mistaken idea that a vegetarian diet is bland and boring, when the opposite is true.
I think so many like a sausage roll, or bacon sandwich, etc, and haven't the "strength" to give them up, even though they know in their hearts what pain is caused to produce them.
-
Not sure it's weakness per se since it's easier to be vegetarian or vegan now than it's ever been. It may be unfamiliarity in many cases, since the vast majority of people are raised to wat meat; or it may be the wholly mistaken idea that a vegetarian diet is bland and boring, when the opposite is true.
My old boss ('old' as in when I worked) was a vegetarian and was always telling anyone who would listen the health benefits of the vegetarian diet - this was rather spoiled by her necking a handful of vitamin tablets to cover ewhat was mising in her veggie diet.
-
Not sure it's weakness per se since it's easier to be vegetarian or vegan now than it's ever been. It may be unfamiliarity in many cases, since the vast majority of people are raised to wat meat; or it may be the wholly mistaken idea that a vegetarian diet is bland and boring, when the opposite is true.
My old boss ('old' as in when I worked) was a vegetarian and was always telling anyone who would listen the health benefits of the vegetarian diet - this was rather spoiled by her necking a handful of vitamin tablets to cover ewhat was mising in her veggie diet.
Vegetarian, or not, if you eat a well-balanced diet, available to vegetarians and non-vegetarians alike, you will not need supplements.
-
Exactly so. A varied well-balanced vegetarian or vegan diet precludes vitamin supplements as they're wholly unnecessary. That's what your food is for - to provide you with all the vitamins and minerals you need.
In other words, unless you're pregnant or ill in some way, if you're taking vitamin and mineral supplements you're not feeding yourself properly, basically.
-
This is. Not going to be a popular post but.......
I can kind of understand the game hunting concept.
Back when we lived in smaller tribes and predators were more of a problem, it was considered "manly" to kill something considered dangerous.
In fact some cultures believe you cannot be considered an adult man and marry until you have proved yourself.
Trophy hunting, I think bases some of its ideas on the idea of taking on and collecting animals that are considered big or dangerous.
I am aware that modern weapons make this more removed and that it doesn't mean as much as approaching a lion armed with just a spear.
I think that the people who do the trophy hunting are looking to satisfy an ancient urge.
One argument is that this " urge" can also come out in strange and violent ways when humans can't vent it.
This is one explanation for violent tendencies in society in general.
Thoughts?
"This is. Not going to be a popular post but......." Correct Rose, and mainly because your argument does not address the issue of a wicked man who kills only for "sport," however you might be an apologist for him.
-
This is. Not going to be a popular post but.......
I can kind of understand the game hunting concept.
Back when we lived in smaller tribes and predators were more of a problem, it was considered "manly" to kill something considered dangerous.
In fact some cultures believe you cannot be considered an adult man and marry until you have proved yourself.
Trophy hunting, I think bases some of its ideas on the idea of taking on and collecting animals that are considered big or dangerous.
I am aware that modern weapons make this more removed and that it doesn't mean as much as approaching a lion armed with just a spear.
I think that the people who do the trophy hunting are looking to satisfy an ancient urge.
One argument is that this " urge" can also come out in strange and violent ways when humans can't vent it.
This is one explanation for violent tendencies in society in general.
Thoughts?
"This is. Not going to be a popular post but......." Correct Rose, and mainly because your argument does not address the issue of a wicked man who kills only for "sport," however you might be an apologist for him.
I'm looking at the idea that the driving instincts in human beings might not conform to what we might wish them to be.
We are talking here about a so-called civilised man, living an affluent life in a modern society, with absolutely no need to recourse to any primitive urges. It is just wanton cruelty.
-
This is. Not going to be a popular post but.......
I can kind of understand the game hunting concept.
Back when we lived in smaller tribes and predators were more of a problem, it was considered "manly" to kill something considered dangerous.
In fact some cultures believe you cannot be considered an adult man and marry until you have proved yourself.
Trophy hunting, I think bases some of its ideas on the idea of taking on and collecting animals that are considered big or dangerous.
I am aware that modern weapons make this more removed and that it doesn't mean as much as approaching a lion armed with just a spear.
I think that the people who do the trophy hunting are looking to satisfy an ancient urge.
One argument is that this " urge" can also come out in strange and violent ways when humans can't vent it.
This is one explanation for violent tendencies in society in general.
Thoughts?
"This is. Not going to be a popular post but......." Correct Rose, and mainly because your argument does not address the issue of a wicked man who kills only for "sport," however you might be an apologist for him.
I'm looking at the idea that the driving instincts in human beings might not conform to what we might wish them to be.
We are talking here about a so-called civilised man, living an affluent life in a modern society, with absolutely no need to recourse to any primitive urges. It is just wanton cruelty.
But if the basic animal instinct is there, who is to say we con overcome it by rational thought
It's something we recognise in other animal species, example cats
But maybe we are as much a slave to our basic onstincts as a cat but unable to recognise it because we think it can be wished away by logic
Yes, those primitive instincts may still be in us, but most of us suppress such instincts, without too much trouble, even if we are even aware of them Others simply let themselves go to their urges, fully aware that they are base. There is no excuse for a man like Palmer, simply none.
-
...
I'm looking at the idea that the driving instincts in human beings might not conform to what we might wish them to be.
No doubt that the hunt was important in any tribal societies where people lived close to the land and with intimate knowledge of the wildlife they lived with and depended on. However even the traditional "lion killer" Maasai people desist from it unless there is a direct conflict.
The "outrage" at the death of Cecil the lion is much keener in the US than in Africa, though most of those commenting would not have even heard of him before the killing. Palmer may have an "instinct" to aggrandize himself by slaughtering "wild"animals, but others feel the loss of the wildness already gone and have an instinct to preserve what remains.
-
I can understand lots of things from an 'ancient urge' point of view. For example, I can understand a man wanting to have sex with his seventeen-year-old stepdaughter - a younger, fertile version of her mother. But we've moved on from our 'ancient urges' and understand that certain things aren't acceptable in a civilised society.
-
Dearie Me,
Not my fault yer honour, evolution made me do it.
Did the dentist arsehole cry and lament over his fallen prey to ease the spirit of the Lion into the happy hunting ground, I doubt it!!
Gonnagle.
-
BA,
Are calling the first nations, the Metis and the Inuit of Canada, primitives? No, we are not primitives and those that hunt do so because they are responsible and very intelligent. Those in the north CANNOT pay $12 for four oranges. Wild game, is healthy, traditional food and it keeps their children from starving to death. I promise you that neither of us could afford to be vegetarian if our traditional homeland was permafrost. I really hope you don't suggest the whites round up all the primitives and force them off their land and into the white cities and towns. Oh, and the northerners have the internet, yes, they have electricity and the wheel. I hope you won't suggest the whites force the first nations and Metis to stop hunting on their own land and force them to buy and live off of vegetables, in other words, eradicate our cultures and ways of life. And I know Jesus had no problem feeding people MEAT.
-
I think the point about geography is valid. I'm interested in historical life including diet and as Northern Europeans our diet was heavily meat-based, for those that could afford it, or dairy-based - we have very little in the way of traditional vegetable cooking as found in the countries of Southern Europe with their abundance of fruit and vegetables. It is unreasonable to expect, say, Alaskans to be self-sufficient in a vegetable-based diet. It is also interesting I think that the far northern countries haven't lost the culture of hunting for dietary requirements (I believe ad-o and JC both do so) unlike those of us that have largely become divorced from the process of feeding ourselves.
-
BA,
Are calling the first nations, the Metis and the Inuit of Canada, primitives? No, we are not primitives and those that hunt do so because they are responsible and very intelligent. Those in the north CANNOT pay $12 for four oranges. Wild game, is healthy, traditional food and it keeps their children from starving to death. I promise you that neither of us could afford to be vegetarian if our traditional homeland was permafrost. I really hope you don't suggest the whites round up all the primitives and force them off their land and into the white cities and towns. Oh, and the northerners have the internet, yes, they have electricity and the wheel. I hope you won't suggest the whites force the first nations and Metis to stop hunting on their own land and force them to buy and live off of vegetables, in other words, eradicate our cultures and ways of life. And I know Jesus had no problem feeding people MEAT.
You clearly did not read this post of mine: M94,
"We are talking here about a so-called civilised man, living an affluent life in a modern society, with absolutely no need to recourse to any primitive urges. It is just wanton cruelty."
Pretty clearly that does not apply to the Inuit and Metis, who are not part of the affluent society.
-
Not sure it's weakness per se since it's easier to be vegetarian or vegan now than it's ever been. It may be unfamiliarity in many cases, since the vast majority of people are raised to wat meat; or it may be the wholly mistaken idea that a vegetarian diet is bland and boring, when the opposite is true.
My old boss ('old' as in when I worked) was a vegetarian and was always telling anyone who would listen the health benefits of the vegetarian diet - this was rather spoiled by her necking a handful of vitamin tablets to cover ewhat was mising in her veggie diet.
Vegetarian, or not, if you eat a well-balanced diet, available to vegetarians and non-vegetarians alike, you will not need supplements.
Simply not so.
-
Not sure it's weakness per se since it's easier to be vegetarian or vegan now than it's ever been. It may be unfamiliarity in many cases, since the vast majority of people are raised to wat meat; or it may be the wholly mistaken idea that a vegetarian diet is bland and boring, when the opposite is true.
My old boss ('old' as in when I worked) was a vegetarian and was always telling anyone who would listen the health benefits of the vegetarian diet - this was rather spoiled by her necking a handful of vitamin tablets to cover ewhat was mising in her veggie diet.
Vegetarian, or not, if you eat a well-balanced diet, available to vegetarians and non-vegetarians alike, you will not need supplements.
Simply not so.
Don't be a bloody fool in defence of your addiction to meat, it'll make people think you've got early atherosclerosis coming on. Of course if you eat a varied and balanced diet there's no need for supplements - in vegetarian and even vegan terms rather a lot of Hindus and Buddhists and Jains have been thriving on this for several thousand years; and while admittedly it's hardly a stiff challenge, they know rather more about it than you do.
-
Not sure it's weakness per se since it's easier to be vegetarian or vegan now than it's ever been. It may be unfamiliarity in many cases, since the vast majority of people are raised to wat meat; or it may be the wholly mistaken idea that a vegetarian diet is bland and boring, when the opposite is true.
My old boss ('old' as in when I worked) was a vegetarian and was always telling anyone who would listen the health benefits of the vegetarian diet - this was rather spoiled by her necking a handful of vitamin tablets to cover ewhat was mising in her veggie diet.
Vegetarian, or not, if you eat a well-balanced diet, available to vegetarians and non-vegetarians alike, you will not need supplements.
Simply not so.
Don't be a bloody fool in defence of your addiction to meat, it'll make people think you've got early atherosclerosis coming on. Of course if you eat a varied and balanced diet there's no need for supplements - in vegetarian and even vegan terms rather a lot of Hindus and Buddhists and Jains have been thriving on this for several thousand years; and while admittedly it's hardly a stiff challenge, they know rather more about it than you do.
I think it would be true to say that there are certain nutrients, notably some essential amino acids, that are not easy to obtain on a vegetarian diet. While this might not be too much of a problem for adults, it can be for children.
-
I think it would be true to say that there are certain nutrients, notably some essential amino acids, that are not easy to obtain on a vegetarian diet. While this might not be too much of a problem for adults, it can be for children.
Which is to be expected when we try to exist on a vegetarian diet and ignore the fact that we evolved as an omnivorous species.
-
I think it would be true to say that there are certain nutrients, notably some essential amino acids, that are not easy to obtain on a vegetarian diet. While this might not be too much of a problem for adults, it can be for children.
No, even that isn't true.
I don't know if you're being led astray by these occasional reports you hear of people living on cheese and tomato pizzas, crisps and Coke and the like - unimpeachably vegetarian in the strict sense, true, but hardly a broad, varied and balanced diet. Being a vegetarian/vegan in and of itself doesn't prevent anybody from being a clueless doofus about their diet any more than does being the lazy, thoughtless, shovel-it-in omnivore keeping Burger King in business on these shores; but personal experience as well as umpteen studies shows that vegetarians and vegans tend to be rather better informed about their diets as well as more adventurous, eating a broader range of food groups, and more interested in general health and fitness (such as not smoking and not drinking excessively, for example).
-
Jeremyp:
The probabable consequence of a single shot from a crossbow is the deaths of several lions.
How is that not true?
I wasn't arguing about the consequences for Cecil's off spring, I was bringing people's attention to the fact that it was worse for Cecil than simply being killed cleanly. No criticism of your post ws intended.
-
I think it would be true to say that there are certain nutrients, notably some essential amino acids, that are not easy to obtain on a vegetarian diet. While this might not be too much of a problem for adults, it can be for children.
Which is to be expected when we try to exist on a vegetarian diet and ignore the fact that we evolved as an omnivorous species.
The trouble with that is twofold, Len.
The first is that omnivory is a fact and not an obligation - it tells us what is the case (humans can digest flesh as well as plants) and not what should be the case. In philosophical terms it's a fact and not a value, and you can't get the latter from the former.
Secondly, as I've very recently said, there have been happy and healthy thriving vegetarians and vegans by the millions for thousands of years, predominantly on the Indian subcontinent. Almost all of this vegetarian/veganism has been religiously inspired even amongst non-theists such as Buddhists, Jains and many Hindus, it's true, but the point is that if the nutritional illiteracy on display in this thread had been a feature of these people, say, two and half thousand years ago they'd have died out pretty sharpish. They didn't know, but we're now in a position to know, that well-planned and varied vegetarian diets protect against certain diseases and conditions - principally the big killers of overweight and obese people living sedentary, affluent lives: cardiovascular disease, diabetes and various types of cancer first and foremost - and may well even extend lifespan.
-
...
I think it would be true to say that there are certain nutrients, notably some essential amino acids, that are not easy to obtain on a vegetarian diet. While this might not be too much of a problem for adults, it can be for children.
Do you have any examples? Anyway I don't see why it would be a problem to supplement any nutrient that anyone might think they or their children might be missing - whatever their chosen diet.
-
Vegans need to supplement with B12, either through fortified food or tablets.
There's no other nutritional issues with regards to either vegetarianism or veganism.
-
The trouble with that is twofold, Len.
The first is that omnivory is a fact and not an obligation - it tells us what is the case (humans can digest flesh as well as plants) and not what should be the case.
If we have evolved the ability to eat flesh, it follows that doing so is the natural way for us to live. Ignoring that will certainly bring problems. On what basis do you think that we should ignore it?
In philosophical terms it's a fact and not a value, and you can't get the latter from the former.
You know that it is pointless to point philosophical stuff at me, as I am an ignoramus on the subject.
Secondly, as I've very recently said, there have been happy and healthy thriving vegetarians and vegans by the millions for thousands of years, predominantly on the Indian subcontinent. Almost all of this vegetarian/veganism has been religiously inspired even amongst non-theists such as Buddhists, Jains and many Hindus, it's true, but the point is that if the nutritional illiteracy on display in this thread had been a feature of these people, say, two and half thousand years ago they'd have died out pretty sharpish. They didn't know, but we're now in a position to know, that well-planned and varied vegetarian diets protect against certain diseases and conditions - principally the big killers of overweight and obese people living sedentary, affluent lives: cardiovascular disease, diabetes and various types of cancer first and foremost - and may well even extend lifespan.
I don't deny it, and if that is what people want to do, fine.
But it remains a fact a vegetarian diet has to be balanced to compensate for the lack of meat eating, because it's not natural for us to forego such a good source of protein and vitamins.
-
Not sure it's weakness per se since it's easier to be vegetarian or vegan now than it's ever been. It may be unfamiliarity in many cases, since the vast majority of people are raised to wat meat; or it may be the wholly mistaken idea that a vegetarian diet is bland and boring, when the opposite is true.
My old boss ('old' as in when I worked) was a vegetarian and was always telling anyone who would listen the health benefits of the vegetarian diet - this was rather spoiled by her necking a handful of vitamin tablets to cover ewhat was mising in her veggie diet.
Vegetarian, or not, if you eat a well-balanced diet, available to vegetarians and non-vegetarians alike, you will not need supplements.
Simply not so.
Don't be a bloody fool in defence of your addiction to meat, it'll make people think you've got early atherosclerosis coming on. Of course if you eat a varied and balanced diet there's no need for supplements - in vegetarian and even vegan terms rather a lot of Hindus and Buddhists and Jains have been thriving on this for several thousand years; and while admittedly it's hardly a stiff challenge, they know rather more about it than you do.
You're being silly. Vitamin D is a good example, which is recommended during the winter months for eveyone here.
-
If we have evolved the ability to eat flesh, it follows that doing so is the natural way for us to live. Ignoring that will certainly bring problems. On what basis do you think that we should ignore it?
On the basis that ignoring it doesn't bring problems - in fact it positively and actively helps avoid them in many cases. "The natural way to live" is a fallacy as it's an appeal to nature - it's automatically equating "natural" with "right/good," and goodness only knows there's an almost unlimited supply of counter-examples to that
But it remains a fact a vegetarian diet has to be balanced to compensate for the lack of meat eating, because it's not natural for us to forego such a good source of protein and vitamins.
Well, all diets have to be balanced if you're to achieve optimum health by ingesting all the stuff you need - this surely is only a problem for the terminally lazy?
-
You're being silly.
Hey, you started the silliness with the "Simply not so" twaddle.
Vitamin D is a good example, which is recommended during the winter months for eveyone here.
Vitamin D is a good example of what?
-
Jeremyp:
The probabable consequence of a single shot from a crossbow is the deaths of several lions.
How is that not true?
I wasn't arguing about the consequences for Cecil's off spring, I was bringing people's attention to the fact that it was worse for Cecil than simply being killed cleanly. No criticism of your post ws intended.
You are absolutely correct - he was not killed cleanly.
And that is one of the most dispicable things about this affair. The stupid American wasn't even bothered by this consequence of his cretinous behaviour. I hope he is forced to close his dental practice.
(No offence intended to cretins.)
-
But it remains a fact a vegetarian diet has to be balanced to compensate for the lack of meat eating, because it's not natural for us to forego such a good source of protein and vitamins.
Actually...that's not true. People in various parts of the world have for millennia been eating varied kinds of food and surviving very well. Its all a case of adaptation.
If you (your ancestors), after centuries of eating meat ...suddenly start a vegan diet... its possible that you could get deficiency. But people who have for generations been eating only a veggie/vegan diet, the body adapts and learns to extract nutrition from their daily foods.
To get protein..one need not eat protein. Elephants do not eat meat but have the largest and strongest bodies on earth. They extract and produce proteins from the bamboo and grass that they eat. Many animals can digest cellulose that we cannot...though we are related to them.
Many saintly people in India don't even eat veggies and rice regularly. They often survive on few locally available variety of fruits and still manage to walk all over the country and live to be 80+. One particular saint (Kanchi Paramacharya) ate only three handfuls of rice a day and a few bananas. He walked from city to city across India till he was 80 years old and lived to be more than 100. There are many like him.
So...diet is a very complicated thing and... 'eat protein to get protein' equations are simplistic.
-
Shaker
Why don't you just start a thread of your own instead of hijacking this one?
-
You're being silly.
Hey, you started the silliness with the "Simply not so" twaddle.
Vitamin D is a good example, which is recommended during the winter months for eveyone here.
Vitamin D is a good example of what?
That you can't get enough from whatever diet, which is why supplementation is recommended for all here, at least during the winter months.
The thing is meat is an effecient energy source. Think how much easier it is to eat some meat and vegetables compared to a shit load of vegetables (because it's a fact that you have to eat more to make up for the lack of meat).
-
Shaker
Why don't you just start a thread of your own instead of hijacking this one?
Why can't he just live and let live. Humans eat meat and for good reason. By itself it is morally neutral. No one is forcing you to eat it, so shut up. Now go and eat your beans.
-
Why can't he just live and let live. Humans eat meat and for good reason. By itself it is morally neutral.
It isn't.
No one is forcing you to eat it, so shut up. Now go and eat your beans.
When can we expect you to shut up about the witless, backward superstitious garbage that you call your religion (whichever one it may be this month)?
Never, so there's your answer.
-
Vegans need to supplement with B12, either through fortified food or tablets.
There's no other nutritional issues with regards to either vegetarianism or veganism.
Thanks Rhianon.
Though, it's true that we should be able to discuss animal rights topics without making them into veg diet threads.
Zimbabwe is now asking for Palmer to be extradited, alternatively the US could prosecute him under the US Lacey act.
-
Again, Shaker, you just assert. You have done nothing to actually demonstrate your point except compare unlke with unlike. Well, if all veggies are like you it's no suprise people generally ignore them. You're worse than Paul McCartney.
-
It's delusional to think a meat-based diet doesn't require the same level of care as a vegetarian one does (eggs are animal products and have similar nutrients). If you eat a variety of food you'll be ok; eat steak and chips or pizza and chips every day and you won't.
Veganism requires slightly more care but not a lot.
-
It's delusional to think a meat-based diet doesn't require the same level of care as a vegetarian one does (eggs are animal products and have similar nutrients). If you eat a variety of food you'll be ok; eat steak and chips or pizza and chips every day and you won't.
Veganism requires slightly more care but not a lot.
All perfectly true but be careful Rhi - chop'n'change Paul will say you're just asserting ::)
-
Vegans need to supplement with B12, either through fortified food or tablets.
There's no other nutritional issues with regards to either vegetarianism or veganism.
Thanks Rhianon.
Though, it's true that we should be able to discuss animal rights topics without making them into veg diet threads.
Zimbabwe is now asking for Palmer to be extradited, alternatively the US could prosecute him under the US Lacey act.
Has he turned up? Last I knew he was in hiding.
-
On the basis that ignoring it doesn't bring problems...
I'm sure you are aware that it can and does in many people.
- in fact it positively and actively helps avoid them in many cases.
It can, and in those cases people are well-advised to follow it.
"The natural way to live" is a fallacy as it's an appeal to nature - it's automatically equating "natural" with "right/good," and goodness only knows there's an almost unlimited supply of counter-examples to that
Nature made us, and gave us the optimum dietary needs. Nature also produces people who need to watch their diet because some can't cope without doing so, but the majority of us are happy and healthy eating both meat and vegetables. We have evolved to do so.
Well, all diets have to be balanced if you're to achieve optimum health by ingesting all the stuff you need - this surely is only a problem for the terminally lazy?
I think that diets and their promoters have only become a fashion fad in comparatively recent times ... before that people just ate what they could get, and remained healthy enough to survive and reproduce. Modern man has become obsessed with being "healthy" and living long past his sell-by date, otherwise I wouldn't be here posting.
-
...
Has he turned up? Last I knew he was in hiding.
He is in hiding from the public but in contact with the US authorities. One result of his cruel actions is a huge increase in the donations to the conservation project that was working with Cecil the lion.
-
It's delusional to think a meat-based diet doesn't require the same level of care as a vegetarian one does (eggs are animal products and have similar nutrients). If you eat a variety of food you'll be ok; eat steak and chips or pizza and chips every day and you won't.
Veganism requires slightly more care but not a lot.
All perfectly true but be careful Rhi - chop'n'change Paul will say you're just asserting ::)
Well, you haven't done anything but assert. Neither have I said that meat eaters don't need to watch their diet. Everyone does to a lesser or greater extent. My point was that meat always has been and remains the most effecient of protein and many vitamins and minerals for humans, which is a very good reason to eat it. So don't give us any of that fanny about comparing killing for food with killing for trophy. They are simply not the same. As I said, it's unlike with unlike.
-
Well, you haven't done anything but assert.
One thing you certainly don't lack in your diet is irony, that's for sure.
My point was that meat always has been and remains the most effecient of protein and many vitamins and minerals for humans, which is a very good reason to eat it.
It's unnecessary to eat it when (a) eating it involves grotesque cruelty and (b) whatever it provides can be provided by means which don't involve grotesque cruelty. Therefore (a) is the immoral option and (b) the moral one. It's not difficult.
So don't give us any of that fanny about comparing killing for food with killing for trophy. They are simply not the same. As I said, it's unlike with unlike.
I've already explained why the comparison is not only direct but even obvious ... but I can understand why this makes you brittle and defensive ;)
-
One result of his cruel actions is a huge increase in the donations to the conservation project that was working with Cecil the lion.
So Cecil didn't die in vain! That is good, but I would rather he hadn't died at all, and hope his killer is punished accordingly.
-
I think it would be true to say that there are certain nutrients, notably some essential amino acids, that are not easy to obtain on a vegetarian diet. While this might not be too much of a problem for adults, it can be for children.
No, even that isn't true.
I don't know if you're being led astray by these occasional reports you hear of people living on cheese and tomato pizzas, crisps and Coke and the like - unimpeachably vegetarian in the strict sense, true, but hardly a broad, varied and balanced diet. Being a vegetarian/vegan in and of itself doesn't prevent anybody from being a clueless doofus about their diet any more than does being the lazy, thoughtless, shovel-it-in omnivore keeping Burger King in business on these shores; but personal experience as well as umpteen studies shows that vegetarians and vegans tend to be rather better informed about their diets as well as more adventurous, eating a broader range of food groups, and more interested in general health and fitness (such as not smoking and not drinking excessively, for example).
No, I was 'being led astray' by what I was taught in O level biology - and a brief check on the internet seems to confirm that this is still mainstream opinion.
-
We;ll soon be at the 'glorious twelfth' =- the time where twits in tweed blast the heck out of every grouse that hs the audacity to fly in front of their guns.
Those grouse don't have names.
Are they any less important than 'Cecil'?
-
Well, you haven't done anything but assert.
One thing you certainly don't lack in your diet is irony, that's for sure.
My point was that meat always has been and remains the most effecient of protein and many vitamins and minerals for humans, which is a very good reason to eat it.
It's unnecessary to eat it when (a) eating it involves grotesque cruelty and (b) whatever it provides can be provided by means which don't involve grotesque cruelty. Therefore (a) is the immoral option and (b) the moral one. It's not difficult.
So don't give us any of that fanny about comparing killing for food with killing for trophy. They are simply not the same. As I said, it's unlike with unlike.
I've already explained why the comparison is not only direct but even obvious ... but I can understand why this makes you brittle and defensive ;)
Brittle and defensive? No. Sad? Yes. Sad for you, that is, that you have to make false comparisons. Go and eat your beans and I'll eat my meat. Anyway, how do you know plants don't feel pain?
-
We;ll soon be at the 'glorious twelfth' =- the time where twits in tweed blast the heck out of every grouse that hs the audacity to fly in front of their guns.
Those grouse don't have names.
Are they any less important than 'Cecil'?
But they're eaten. Hunting for food is fine, as long as you don't kill more than you can eat.
-
We;ll soon be at the 'glorious twelfth' =- the time where twits in tweed blast the heck out of every grouse that hs the audacity to fly in front of their guns.
Those grouse don't have names.
Are they any less important than 'Cecil'?
I have always maintained that it would be so much simpler if they just had a 'Clay Pigeon' shoot and handed out oven-ready birds as prizes for a hit :)
-
We;ll soon be at the 'glorious twelfth' =- the time where twits in tweed blast the heck out of every grouse that hs the audacity to fly in front of their guns.
Those grouse don't have names.
Are they any less important than 'Cecil'?
I have always maintained that it would be so much simpler if they just had a 'Clay Pigeon' shoot and handed out oven-ready birds as prizes for a hit :)
What's the difference? Isn't it better that a bird gets to live in the wild to be shot than raised in a cage to have its neck wrung?
-
Brittle and defensive? No.
Yes. Very obviously so, in fact.
Anyway, how do you know plants don't feel pain?
Plants have none of the, let's call it for want of a better word "equipment" by which we know pain is registered/perceived and interpreted.
-
What's the difference? Isn't it better that a bird gets to live in the wild to be shot than raised in a cage to have its neck wrung?
Since neither are necessary, no.
-
...
Those grouse don't have names.
Are they any less important than 'Cecil'?
It seems the grouse are less important. But you never know:
One, carrying a bug and destined to be consumed by Trump, causing him to be ill or die, allowing someone reasonably sane to become US president, in turn preventing a nuclear war and thus saving much of the life on this planet - might be more important than seems on the surface.
We have no arithmetic with which to value any life or death.
-
No, I was 'being led astray' by what I was taught in O level biology
Some time ago, I take it?
and a brief check on the internet seems to confirm that this is still mainstream opinion.
Your brief check seems to have been rather too brief - every medical, nutritional and dietetic professional body in the Western world has it on record that varied and well-planned vegetarian and vegan diets are not only healthy in the minimal, neutral sense but actively conducive to protection against the diseases of affluence.
-
Dear Shaker,
Plant life don't feel pain!! I think you should examine that statement against your own world view, harvest time!! The horror, mass killing of billions of plant life :'(
Gonnagle.
-
No, I was 'being led astray' by what I was taught in O level biology
Some time ago, I take it?
and a brief check on the internet seems to confirm that this is still mainstream opinion.
Your brief check seems to have been rather too brief - every medical, nutritional and dietetic professional body in the Western world has it on record that varied and well-planned vegetarian and vegan diets are not only healthy in the minimal, neutral sense but actively conducive to protection against the diseases of affluence.
Yes, I concede that it was a little while ago - but I think the key phrase in your reply is:
"varied and well-planned vegetarian and vegan diets"
My original comment was that certain nutrients are: not easy to obtain on a vegetarian diet - So are all vegetarians and vegans competent nutritionists? - I suspect not.
-
Are all omnivores competent nutritionists? See your local KFC for details. What we know thus far statistically is that vegetarians and vegans tend to be more health-conscious, more interested in what they eat, less likely to smoke and to drink too much.
-
Yes. Very obviously so, in fact.
Then keep deluding yourself, pal.
-
Works for you ;)
-
Are all omnivores competent nutritionists? . . .
Obviously not, but in terms of getting essential nutrients there is much more leeway in an omnivorous diet.
-
To get protein..one need not eat protein. Elephants do not eat meat but have the largest and strongest bodies on earth. They extract and produce proteins from the bamboo and grass that they eat. Many animals can digest cellulose that we cannot...though we are related to them.
Humans do not have a digestive system that is capable of extracting anything from bamboo or grass. It doesn't take generations to adapt to a grass diet, it takes millennia and the way it works is that the people who are marginally better than the rest at extracting anything out at all of grass get to not starve to death before they reproduce and pass on the genes that let them do this.
Many animals on this planet, including humans, have found a way of converting grass to protein that involves leeching off other animals i.e. by eating them. That's not right or wrong, it's just the way it is. If you don't like it, complain to your god.
-
Are all omnivores competent nutritionists?
Not all, no. Many are though. I take an interest in nutrition through sports, so whilst not an expert by far I at least have some knowledge.
-
Humans do not have a digestive system that is capable of extracting anything from bamboo or grass.
True ... which is why we eat other plant-based things instead.
Many animals on this planet, including humans, have found a way of converting grass to protein that involves leeching off other animals i.e. by eating them. That's not right or wrong, it's just the way it is. If you don't like it, complain to your god.
If you've managed to evolve a theory of mind (a form of which is a sense of empathy - of distress-which-isn't-my-distress-but-I-can-imagine-what-it-would-be-like-if-it-were) and a moral sense, however, it patently is wrong given that the cruelty involved is unnecessary, therefore if indulged in it's done so gratuitously.
The one thing I do agree with is that for the theist, they have no option but to hold responsible the god they believe in for creating and maintaining this system.
-
Are all omnivores competent nutritionists? . . .
Obviously not, but in terms of getting essential nutrients there is much more leeway in an omnivorous diet.
This simply isn't true as eggs are a complete protein. The problem isn't that vegetarian diets need extra care, but the complacency that has historically surrounded a traditional meat-based diet. Most people are more observant now as the breadth of advice for healthy omnivore eating has caught up that for vegetarians.
-
Are all omnivores competent nutritionists? . . .
Obviously not, but in terms of getting essential nutrients there is much more leeway in an omnivorous diet.
This simply isn't true as eggs are a complete protein. The problem isn't that vegetarian diets need extra care, but the complacency that has historically surrounded a traditional meat-based diet. Most people are more observant now as the breadth of advice for healthy omnivore eating has caught up that for vegetarians.
I think it is true that eggs contain essential amino acids (not an option for vegans) but there are other problems such as B12 and some other vitamins and minerals.
-
Again not true. Eggs contain all the B vitamins including B12, as do dairy products. Iron is the only mineral that vegetarians need to watch but it is easy to get enough - I've only been deficient in pregnancy, as are many women. The only other nutrient we can struggle with is Omega 3 and there are studies to show too much of that isn't good for us anyway.
If you think you will get the rest of your vitamins and minerals from meat then your diet is deficient. You will also have poor bowel health.
-
If you've managed to evolve a theory of mind (a form of which is a sense of empathy - of distress-which-isn't-my-distress-but-I-can-imagine-what-it-would-be-like-if-it-were) and a moral sense, however, it patently is wrong given that the cruelty involved is unnecessary, therefore if indulged in it's done so gratuitously.
This is a moral value that you have imposed on the World. I can think of several ways of looking at this which at least cast doubt on your assertion and should give you cause to at least be less forthright about it.
For example, a lot of animals can exhibit the signs of distress. I used fly spray on a fly the other day. It got pretty distressed before it kicked the bucket. On the other hand, I saw some beef cattle in a field and they didn't look distressed at all. What about a 20 week human foetus at the moment it gets aborted? Do you think it might be distressed. Where are you going to draw the line as to what distress counts?
Then we can look at what is necessary. It's only necessary to cultivate crops if you think it is necessary that humans shouldn't all die. From the point of view of the biosphere it might be necessary that humans do go extinct.
So, no I don't think eating meat is patently wrong. I mean, it might be wrong, but if it is, the reasons are not quite as obvious as you are painting them.
-
Dear Jeremyp,
Excellent post, this whole subject is not black and white, pity we are straying from just how we should string up that dentist arsehole.
Gonnagle.
-
If you've managed to evolve a theory of mind (a form of which is a sense of empathy - of distress-which-isn't-my-distress-but-I-can-imagine-what-it-would-be-like-if-it-were) and a moral sense, however, it patently is wrong given that the cruelty involved is unnecessary, therefore if indulged in it's done so gratuitously.
This is a moral value that you have imposed on the World. I can think of several ways of looking at this which at least cast doubt on your assertion and should give you cause to at least be less forthright about it.
For example, a lot of animals can exhibit the signs of distress. I used fly spray on a fly the other day. It got pretty distressed before it kicked the bucket. On the other hand, I saw some beef cattle in a field and they didn't look distressed at all. What about a 20 week human foetus at the moment it gets aborted? Do you think it might be distressed. Where are you going to draw the line as to what distress counts?
Then we can look at what is necessary. It's only necessary to cultivate crops if you think it is necessary that humans shouldn't all die. From the point of view of the biosphere it might be necessary that humans do go extinct.
So, no I don't think eating meat is patently wrong. I mean, it might be wrong, but if it is, the reasons are not quite as obvious as you are painting them.
I have seen pigs being lead to the slaughter, and their distress was stomach-churning.
-
This is a moral value that you have imposed on the World. I can think of several ways of looking at this which at least cast doubt on your assertion and should give you cause to at least be less forthright about it.
For example, a lot of animals can exhibit the signs of distress. I used fly spray on a fly the other day. It got pretty distressed before it kicked the bucket. On the other hand, I saw some beef cattle in a field and they didn't look distressed at all.
The fly was distressed as far as the distress capacities of a fly go because you used a noxious substance on it designed to kill it - that's why you used it in the first place I assume. Beef cattle standing in a field had no such reason for distress at that juncture - cropping grass in an open space is presumably what a wild cow would be doing in a state of nature with no human input or influence whatsoever; start herding them into trucks, driving them distances to a slaughterhouse and you would observe a different reaction.
What about a 20 week human foetus at the moment it gets aborted? Do you think it might be distressed.
No. All current medical evidence points toward a foetus not possessing any capacity for sentience before around 23 weeks, so no.
Then we can look at what is necessary. It's only necessary to cultivate crops if you think it is necessary that humans shouldn't all die. From the point of view of the biosphere it might be necessary that humans do go extinct.
Or we could strike the happy medium and limit the human (and by extension animal, in this context especially cattle) population at a reasonable point which doesn't cause the current level of environmental degradation.
-
Dear Shaker,
Current medical evidence means, we just don't know, so we take decisions on the fact that, we just don't know, nice!
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Shaker,
Current medical evidence means, we just don't know, so we take decisions on the fact that, we just don't know, nice!
Goodness only knows how you managed to extract that mess from what I wrote: current medical evidence means precisely and exactly that - evidence.
-
Again not true. Eggs contain all the B vitamins including B12, as do dairy products. Iron is the only mineral that vegetarians need to watch but it is easy to get enough - I've only been deficient in pregnancy, as are many women. The only other nutrient we can struggle with is Omega 3 and there are studies to show too much of that isn't good for us anyway.
If you think you will get the rest of your vitamins and minerals from meat then your diet is deficient. You will also have poor bowel health.
You might be right Rhiannon, but personally I wouldn't want to raise kids on a totally meat-free diet.
-
Can someone please explain to me the uproar over the killing of Cecil the lion by an American hunter in Zimbabwe a couple days ago.
I really don't get it...
What a very SAD person you are! :o
He is honest enough to admit he doesn't get it... but you are not when it comes to admitting you do not understand the bible....
Does that make you SAD too by your own evaluation of his situation?
An endangered species ... maybe Keith did not know Lions are an endangered species so that is the reality...
But he will never remain ignorant because he asked. Whilst you just constantly claim to have read the bible but show absolutely no evidence in your post of having done so.... ::)
-
Can someone please explain to me the uproar over the killing of Cecil the lion by an American hunter in Zimbabwe a couple days ago.
I really don't get it...
What a very SAD person you are! :o
He is honest enough to admit he doesn't get it... but you are not when it comes to admitting you do not understand the bible....
Does that make you SAD too by your own evaluation of his situation?
An endangered species ... maybe Keith did not know Lions are an endangered species so that is the reality...
But he will never remain ignorant because he asked. Whilst you just constantly claim to have read the bible but show absolutely no evidence in your post of having done so.... ::)
Anybody who claims to "understand" the Bible is deluded.
Thousands of people all over the world have believed the same thing, all claim to have been guided by the Holy Spirit, and all with different interpretations.
Your "understanding", Sass, is no more valid than there's is.
-
May I take this discussion onto a different 'plane'? (Mods, if you feel that I have hijacked the thread, feel free to shift this and any related posts to a new thread)
Whether or not we believe that Cecil's death was unjustified, would it also be true to say that the outcry - predominantly on social media - has been equally unjustified? I understand that in excess of 130K people have signed a petition demanding the dentist's extradition to Zimbabwe, fed - in large part - by social media. His practice has been destroyed, despite that fact that he was only one of a number of practitioners in the practice, resulting in several folk loosing employment. Is Twitter, especially, in danger of becoming a host for 'virtual lynch mobs' (after all, this isn't the first time Twitter has been used to attack individuals and groups, and not always justifiably).
-
May I take this discussion onto a different 'plane'? (Mods, if you feel that I have hijacked the thread, feel free to shift this and any related posts to a new thread)
Whether or not we believe that Cecil's death was unjustified, would it also be true to say that the outcry - predominantly on social media - has been equally unjustified? I understand that in excess of 130K people have signed a petition demanding the dentist's extradition to Zimbabwe, fed - in large part - by social media. His practice has been destroyed, despite that fact that he was only one of a number of practitioners in the practice, resulting in several folk loosing employment. Is Twitter, especially, in danger of becoming a host for 'virtual lynch mobs' (after all, this isn't the first time Twitter has been used to attack individuals and groups, and not always justifiably).
Very true, Hope! How the hell it can be controlled I can't imagine.
-
Anybody who claims to "understand" the Bible is deluded.
Thousands of people all over the world have believed the same thing, all claim to have been guided by the Holy Spirit, and all with different interpretations.
Your "understanding", Sass, is no more valid than there's is.
Does every scientist interpret science in an identical way, Len? Does every cosmologist interpret information gleaned from Apollo 11, the Hubble, New Horizons or Rosetta in exactly the same way?
One has to remember that Christianity is both a communal and individual issue. No two individuals are the same (just look at the issues being raised by yourself and others on the 'Child Prostitution' thread), and therefore the truths that Christianity deals with will impact on different people in subtly (and sometimes not so subtly) different ways.
Under your argument, science can be ignored because different scientists interpret the same information in different ways, something that even the staunchest theist is unlikely to argue.
-
Again not true. Eggs contain all the B vitamins including B12, as do dairy products. Iron is the only mineral that vegetarians need to watch but it is easy to get enough - I've only been deficient in pregnancy, as are many women. The only other nutrient we can struggle with is Omega 3 and there are studies to show too much of that isn't good for us anyway.
If you think you will get the rest of your vitamins and minerals from meat then your diet is deficient. You will also have poor bowel health.
You might be right Rhiannon, but personally I wouldn't want to raise kids on a totally meat-free diet.
It's not harmful though. I have three children; one chose to go completely veggie aged 11, one doesn't like meat because of its taste and texture and one is an omnivore. They are all fit and well.
-
A vegetarian has to make sure that he gets enough protein. An omnivore doesn't have to worry about that.
-
May I take this discussion onto a different 'plane'? (Mods, if you feel that I have hijacked the thread, feel free to shift this and any related posts to a new thread)
Whether or not we believe that Cecil's death was unjustified, would it also be true to say that the outcry - predominantly on social media - has been equally unjustified? I understand that in excess of 130K people have signed a petition demanding the dentist's extradition to Zimbabwe, fed - in large part - by social media. His practice has been destroyed, despite that fact that he was only one of a number of practitioners in the practice, resulting in several folk loosing employment. Is Twitter, especially, in danger of becoming a host for 'virtual lynch mobs' (after all, this isn't the first time Twitter has been used to attack individuals and groups, and not always justifiably).
I do not consider that you have hijacked this thread but you have brought it back to the subject that was at the heart of Keith Maitland's original post: the outcry.
I also think that you are drawing attention to the nature of "outcry" in the early 21st century: that social media are both its transport and its lubrication. They also provide a cloak of invisibility which enables individuals to behave in a manner which would be unthinkable in other circumstances.
The elements of social media are largely housed in the USA which location enables such individuals to think that they have protection afforded by Amendment 3 of that country's geriatric Constitution.
To get back to Keith's question, one answer, therefore, is because the technological and cultural framework now exists to let all such outrage to flourish.
This does not mean that I do not condemn the death of Cecil. I do, emphatically, and I condemn the attitude which considers the exchange of sufficient cash permits the payer to do anything he wants.
I wonder, when the miscreant dental surgeon emerges from whatever undergrowth he is now using for cover, whether he will be allowed to talk about his motives and the effects this incident has had on them?
-
Free speech, the internet and social media all exist to allow people to communicate what they want to communicate.
From a higher level it may look like a "mob" or "storm" etc but it seems unlikely that there is actually a conspiracy to attack or bully the targets of criticism. It is only individual people expressing their strongly felt opinions - indeed, opinions that may not be worth much or may be directed at unimportant targets, or may be due to poor comprehension or education.
In reply the "offenders" have recourse to the traditional authorities, courts and free press, as well as being able to respond in person online.
How else could we arrange things?
-
I have seen pigs being lead to the slaughter, and their distress was stomach-churning.
I expect, if I knew the ins and outs of how fly spray kills flies, it would be quite stomach churning. My point was not to claim distress doesn't happen in other animals but to raise the question of whether it matters and for which species if it does.
-
I have seen pigs being lead to the slaughter, and their distress was stomach-churning.
I expect, if I knew the ins and outs of how fly spray kills flies, it would be quite stomach churning. My point was not to claim distress doesn't happen in other animals but to raise the question of whether it matters and for which species if it does.
I'm not clear why you need to make the point," but to raise the question of whether it matters."
Of course it matters to see any creature in distress, and in fear of it's life. Only those lacking in any human sensitivity could feel otherwise.
-
I have seen pigs being lead to the slaughter, and their distress was stomach-churning.
At least they don't take 40 hours to die:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/28/walter-palmer-dentist-accused-killing-cecil-lion-upset-hunter-zimbabwe
If a hunter can't make a 'clean kill' it's time for him to take up a less destructive hobby.
-
I have seen pigs being lead to the slaughter, and their distress was stomach-churning.
At least they don't take 40 hours to die:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/28/walter-palmer-dentist-accused-killing-cecil-lion-upset-hunter-zimbabwe
If a hunter can't make a 'clean kill' it's time for him to take up a less destructive hobby.
Well, that makes a big difference to the morality of it all!!
-
Dear Shaker,
Current medical evidence means, we just don't know, so we take decisions on the fact that, we just don't know, nice!
Gonnagle.
It's not really that important. If I had known about the 23 week thing, I would have used an example of a 23 and a bit week foetus (which it is legal to abort in the UK).
I am not arguing "we abort foetuses in distress therefore it is OK to eat bacon sandwiches" at all here. In fact, I'm not necessarily arguing against Shaker, I am just trying to point out that things are not as black and white as he has been saying.
Cards on the table, I think Shaker is probably right. On the principle of least harm, I don't need to eat bacon sandwiches, but they're so nice. Fortunately, I'm an evil atheist, so morals aren't a problem.
-
Dear Shaker,
Current medical evidence means, we just don't know, so we take decisions on the fact that, we just don't know, nice!
Gonnagle.
It's not really that important. If I had known about the 23 week thing, I would have used an example of a 23 and a bit week foetus (which it is legal to abort in the UK).
I am not arguing "we abort foetuses in distress therefore it is OK to eat bacon sandwiches" at all here. In fact, I'm not necessarily arguing against Shaker, I am just trying to point out that things are not as black and white as he has been saying.
Cards on the table, I think Shaker is probably right. On the principle of least harm, I don't need to eat bacon sandwiches, but they're so nice. Fortunately, I'm an evil atheist, so morals aren't a problem.
At last, you admit it!! ;)
-
I have seen pigs being lead to the slaughter, and their distress was stomach-churning.
At least they don't take 40 hours to die:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/28/walter-palmer-dentist-accused-killing-cecil-lion-upset-hunter-zimbabwe
If a hunter can't make a 'clean kill' it's time for him to take up a less destructive hobby.
Well, that makes a big difference to the morality of it all!!
Of course it does - we are all mortal, we are all going to die. A quick death is perhaps the best think that any of us can hope for. Wild animals live a particularly precarious life with death always close at hand. We can't change that but we can at least refrain from causing additional suffering.
-
Dear Jeremyp,
No argument, Shaker and Bashers have a good point, I was merely agreeing, like you that it is not a black and white issue/debate.
Gonnagle.
-
Wild animals live a particularly precarious life with death always close at hand.
And that death can be agonising, brutal, painful and slow. A recent BBC nature programme fronted by David Attenborough showed a baby elephant being killed by a pride of lions. Its death throes lasted a long time.
Male lions themselves, ejected from their prides by younger males, slowly starve to death becoming weaker and weaker. They lives may end by being torn to death by packs of hyenas.
-
Nature and evolution know nothing of morality. Humans and a few other social species have invented a code to live by for their own good. That's all it is.
-
Nature and evolution know nothing of morality. Humans and a few other social species have invented a code to live by for their own good. That's all it is.
Indeed. I don't know how true this was, but the film "Creation", about Charles Darwin's personal journey to the publication of "On the Origin of Species", suggests that it was seeing the inherent cruelty of nature that caused Darwin to reject the idea of an all-knowing, loving God.
-
Nature and evolution know nothing of morality. Humans and a few other social species have invented a code to live by for their own good. That's all it is.
Indeed. I don't know how true this was, but the film "Creation", about Charles Darwin's personal journey to the publication of "On the Origin of Species", suggests that it was seeing the inherent cruelty of nature that caused Darwin to reject the idea of an all-knowing, loving God.
And I followed in his footsteps without knowing it. One of the main reasons I lost my faith was the cruelty of the prey predator system. It is a direct contradiction to a god of love.
-
Nature and evolution know nothing of morality. Humans and a few other social species have invented a code to live by for their own good. That's all it is.
Indeed. I don't know how true this was, but the film "Creation", about Charles Darwin's personal journey to the publication of "On the Origin of Species", suggests that it was seeing the inherent cruelty of nature that caused Darwin to reject the idea of an all-knowing, loving God.
That was no doubt a part of the process, a brick in the wall, but a much larger one - arguably the dominant one - was the death of his beloved daughter Annie, perhaps the favourite among his children. (Parents are not supposed to have them, but often do). That said, even this set the seal on a process already long underway.
Dreadful film by the way. If the real Emma Darwin was a much of a joyless, charmless, miserable, wittering baggage as Jennifer Connelly portrayed her, he should have taken a claw hammer to the back of her head, buried her under the patio and received a large medal, a carriage clock and a free pen for doing so.
-
Sounds like Shaker's yard should be dug up.
-
I wonder what has happened to the lion's body? Is the vile Palmer still intending to take the head as a trophy?
-
Can someone please explain to me the uproar over the killing of Cecil the lion by an American hunter in Zimbabwe a couple days ago.
I really don't get it...
What a very SAD person you are! :o
He is honest enough to admit he doesn't get it... but you are not when it comes to admitting you do not understand the bible....
Does that make you SAD too by your own evaluation of his situation?
An endangered species ... maybe Keith did not know Lions are an endangered species so that is the reality...
But he will never remain ignorant because he asked. Whilst you just constantly claim to have read the bible but show absolutely no evidence in your post of having done so.... ::)
Anybody who claims to "understand" the Bible is deluded.
An opinion based only on the fact you don't want it to be true.
God opened the eyes and minds of the Apostles and every person born of the Spirit now knows the truth and the purpose of the bible in bringing that truth. Maybe one day you will see that the truth is not an attack but it does cause those who fear it to speak out about it. Do you think it is a coincidence that as an ex believer you have never been away from discussing whilst using the internet.
Thousands of people all over the world have believed the same thing, all claim to have been guided by the Holy Spirit, and all with different interpretations.
But not everyone who calls Jesus Lord and does miracles actually knows Jesus do they/
No different interpretations... just people born of Spirit and Truth where Gods word is within them and those who live according to the truths of Gods words... I will let you figure that one out....
Your "understanding", Sass, is no more valid than there's is.
In truth, you are not in a position to know that.... :)
-
Can someone please explain to me the uproar over the killing of Cecil the lion by an American hunter in Zimbabwe a couple days ago.
I really don't get it...
What a very SAD person you are! :o
He is honest enough to admit he doesn't get it... but you are not when it comes to admitting you do not understand the bible....
Does that make you SAD too by your own evaluation of his situation?
An endangered species ... maybe Keith did not know Lions are an endangered species so that is the reality...
But he will never remain ignorant because he asked. Whilst you just constantly claim to have read the bible but show absolutely no evidence in your post of having done so.... ::)
Anybody who claims to "understand" the Bible is deluded.
An opinion based only on the fact you don't want it to be true.
God opened the eyes and minds of the Apostles and every person born of the Spirit now knows the truth and the purpose of the bible in bringing that truth. Maybe one day you will see that the truth is not an attack but it does cause those who fear it to speak out about it. Do you think it is a coincidence that as an ex believer you have never been away from discussing whilst using the internet.
Thousands of people all over the world have believed the same thing, all claim to have been guided by the Holy Spirit, and all with different interpretations.
But not everyone who calls Jesus Lord and does miracles actually knows Jesus do they/
No different interpretations... just people born of Spirit and Truth where Gods word is within them and those who live according to the truths of Gods words... I will let you figure that one out....
Your "understanding", Sass, is no more valid than there's is.
In truth, you are not in a position to know that.... :)
I am in a better position than you are! My brain is unfettered by silly ideas. :)
-
I wonder what has happened to the lion's body? Is the vile Palmer still intending to take the head as a trophy?
I'd like to see him try. The lion had to be euthanised later by (I believe) the people involved in studying him as Palmer's arrow didn't kill him outright. I assume they still have care of his body.
-
I wonder what has happened to the lion's body? Is the vile Palmer still intending to take the head as a trophy?
I'd like to see him try. The lion had to be euthanised later by (I believe) the people involved in studying him as Palmer's arrow didn't kill him outright. I assume they still have care of his body.
I thought that the lion's head had been cut off and its body skinned.
It would have been left for hyenas, vultures and other scavengers to finish off.
-
I wonder what has happened to the lion's body? Is the vile Palmer still intending to take the head as a trophy?
I'd like to see him try. The lion had to be euthanised later by (I believe) the people involved in studying him as Palmer's arrow didn't kill him outright. I assume they still have care of his body.
I thought that the lion's head had been cut off and its body skinned.
It would have been left for hyenas, vultures and other scavengers to finish off.
By whom?
-
I wonder what has happened to the lion's body? Is the vile Palmer still intending to take the head as a trophy?
I'd like to see him try. The lion had to be euthanised later by (I believe) the people involved in studying him as Palmer's arrow didn't kill him outright. I assume they still have care of his body.
I thought the hunters went back, tracked him down and shot him with a gun.
-
I wonder what has happened to the lion's body? Is the vile Palmer still intending to take the head as a trophy?
I'd like to see him try. The lion had to be euthanised later by (I believe) the people involved in studying him as Palmer's arrow didn't kill him outright. I assume they still have care of his body.
I thought that the lion's head had been cut off and its body skinned.
It would have been left for hyenas, vultures and other scavengers to finish off.
By whom?
By the hunters
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/33699484/what-we-know-about-cecil-the-lion-and-how-his-killing-could-affect-his-pride
The wounded lion was found 40 hours later and had been shot dead with a gun.
The lion, which was being studied by researchers at Oxford University, was then skinned and beheaded.
Attempts were made to destroy its collar, which was fitted with a tracking device.
-
It's not really that important. If I had known about the 23 week thing, I would have used an example of a 23 and a bit week foetus (which it is legal to abort in the UK).
I am not arguing "we abort foetuses in distress therefore it is OK to eat bacon sandwiches" at all here. In fact, I'm not necessarily arguing against Shaker, I am just trying to point out that things are not as black and white as he has been saying.
Conversely, I think that things are not nearly as complicated as some people want to make out :)
Cards on the table, I think Shaker is probably right. On the principle of least harm, I don't need to eat bacon sandwiches, but they're so nice. Fortunately, I'm an evil atheist, so morals aren't a problem.
Well JP; on the principle of least harm, do the least harm and give up not only the bacon butties but eating anything that had eyes/parents/a face/other vegetarian cliche. Even if you're not a utilitarian. Challenge yourself to give it a fair and honest go for, let us say, one calendar month, and see just how easy and enjoyable it is. Remember that the full panoply of the modern supermarket system and a World Wide Web full of recipes is all yours - you're no more into self-denial and mortification of the flesh than I am.
Better yet: enjoy probably the single greatest benefit, which is to know that you're involved in that rare thing in this world: something wholly, entirely and unambiguously good.
I dare you :D If you find yourself wobbling, think to yourself: primum non nocere. I'm not, never have been and am exceedingly unlikely ever to be a Hindu, Buddhist or Jain (some good ethics; some excellent practices - vegetarianism and meditation for example; a lot of wibbly bibbly baggage - I'd sooner take the good stuff without the wibble, which is entirely possible, so I do) but I have to say that without realising it many years ago I adopted, as the older I get the more conscious and explicit it becomes for me, the concept of ahimsa central to these three religions, which is to say, non-violence. It's not necessary to intellectualise it, although I personally do so as that just happens to be my way, my thing, my bag. The simple point is that when it comes to sentience - the capacity to suffer or not to suffer, the ability to enjoy and not enjoy, the capability of having interests and preferences in this state of affairs (pleasant, or at least neutral) and not that one (unpleasant) - we're all as one and we should recognise that fact. Me, you, cow, sheep, pig, fish; we're all on the same plane in shunning suffering (pain; fear; anxiety) and in pursuing life and happiness.
So: over to you :)
-
No jeremy, ignore Shakey. Eat meat, your parents are or were meat eaters, as was theirs and so on. Buy seal products, the Inuit are not fools, they know what's good for them and what has kept their people healthy for thousands of years.
Shaker is no authority on being healthy, mind nor body.
from the being watched. In strict confidence be damned.
-
I wonder what has happened to the lion's body? Is the vile Palmer still intending to take the head as a trophy?
I'd like to see him try. The lion had to be euthanised later by (I believe) the people involved in studying him as Palmer's arrow didn't kill him outright. I assume they still have care of his body.
I thought that the lion's head had been cut off and its body skinned.
It would have been left for hyenas, vultures and other scavengers to finish off.
By whom?
By the hunters
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/33699484/what-we-know-about-cecil-the-lion-and-how-his-killing-could-affect-his-pride
The wounded lion was found 40 hours later and had been shot dead with a gun.
The lion, which was being studied by researchers at Oxford University, was then skinned and beheaded.
Attempts were made to destroy its collar, which was fitted with a tracking device.
OIC.
Bunch of fuckwits. >:(
-
Dear Forum,
Am l wrong, the man wrestles daily with our Bashers, his hero is/was probably the most outspoken anti theist I have come across, Hitchen, but reading his last post, he is as religious as I am!!
Sure! No God is involved but his last post, that is a come and join us post, we are the chosen few.
Oan yerself Shaker, you have certainly got my grey cells firing, thank you.
Gonnagle.
-
Gonners, I became a vegetarian because of my Christian beliefs. It was and remains an integral part of my spirituality.
-
Yes, there's plenty of Christian and Jewish vegetarians, some reading Genesis as confirming that humans were intended to be vegetarians.
Early Hindus were not vegetarian and many aren't today, it was something that grew with the level of empathy in society, along with the ability to manage without unnecessary killing.
JC, as you say, hunting has kept the Inuit healthy for thousands of years. They are perfectly adapted to meat only diets. No one has told them not to hunt or eat meat. However they have been hooked by crap western food, TV and drugs, no longer knowing how to live off a land that is now melting away.
-
Dear Rhiannon,
Well I am certainly thinking about Shakers challenge but my freezer is full of meat at the moment and I am Scottish :(
And I do understand where you are coming from, I can see vegetarianism as a form of spiritual growth, as Udayana has hinted, the first people mentioned in the Bible were vegetarian, food for thought, no pun intended.
Gonnagle.
-
I know some go straight from eating meat to not, but from experience I found doing it gradually worked best - first red meat went, then poultry, then fish.
I don't know about it being a 'spiritual growth' thing. I saw - see - meat eating as poor stewardship.
-
Dear Forum,
Am l wrong, the man wrestles daily with our Bashers, his hero is/was probably the most outspoken anti theist I have come across, Hitchen, but reading his last post, he is as religious as I am!!
Sure! No God is involved but his last post, that is a come and join us post, we are the chosen few.
Oan yerself Shaker, you have certainly got my grey cells firing, thank you.
Gonnagle.
I do suspect, and have said as such in the past, that these extreme anti-theists are actually seeking desperately to be convinced by what religion has to offer, but find themselves in the throes of a doubt that they cannot quite resolve.
As to Hitchens: he was a sad and vicious, alcohol-fueled, man with serious psychological problems.
-
If I could talk to the animals.....
http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/an-interview-with-the-woman-who-claims-to-have-spoken-to-cecil-the-lion-from-beyond-the-grave-281
-
It takes one to know one, as they say! ::)
-
I do suspect, and have said as such in the past, that these extreme anti-theists are actually seeking desperately to be convinced by what religion has to offer, but find themselves in the throes of a doubt that they caaot quite resolve.
Your suspicion is, of course, quite false. The problem with this sort of bargain-bucket Freudianism is that to be consistent (and not just bitching against people who challenge and criticise your beliefs), you are committed to saying that people who fight animal cruelty secretly hate animals, that anti-racism campaigners are closet racists and that staunch Tories are actually die-hard admirers of socialist politics.
Psychology fail.
As to Hitchens: he was a sad and vicious, alcohol-fueled, man with serious psychological problems.
There was nothing sad about him - he was certainly vicious: that was one of the most entertaining things about him.
What were his psychological problems and since when have you been qualified to diagnose them?
-
I do suspect, and have said as such in the past, that these extreme anti-theists are actually seeking desperately to be convinced by what religion has to offer, but find themselves in the throes of a doubt that they caaot quite resolve.
Your suspicion is, of course, quite false. The problem with this sort of bargain-bucket Freudianism is that to be consistent (and not just bitching against people who challenge and criticise your beliefs), you are committed to saying that people who fight animal cruelty secretly hate animals, that anti-racism campaigners are closet racists and that staunch Tories are actually die-hard admirers of socialist politics.
Psychology fail.
As to Hitchens: he was a sad and vicious, alcohol-fueled, man with serious psychological problems.
There was nothing sad about him - he was certainly vicious: that was one of the most entertaining things about him.
What were his psychological problems and since when have you been qualified to diagnose them?
Like many on here, he was obsessive, and it doesn't take an expert to spot that. And since when are you qualified to dispute it?
As to his being vicious, then I am not surprised you find that endearing, since you are vicious yourself, no doubt based on his unpleasant example.
-
Oh the irony! ::)
-
Oh the irony! ::)
You forgot something: "imo." :)
-
Like many on here, he was obsessive, and it doesn't take an expert to spot that.
Somebody with delusions of being a smartarse once asked Hitch - wearisomely, tiresomely, as do you on a regular basis - why he bothered to fight religion when he could be at home or out somewhere else doing something else. This was his reply:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnRSS5IshjE
http://goo.gl/1m2ET7
That's the way to do it :)
And since when are you qualified to dispute it?
I'm qualified by virtue of not being a psychiatrist and thus not qualified to diagnose "serious psychological problems" (least of all in someone so polished, learned and urbane) and knowing that you're not one either.
As to his being vicious, then I am not surprised you find that endearing, since you are vicious yourself, no doubt based on his unpleasant example.
Yes, you're actually right - how incredible is that. What I took from the late, great Hitch probably more than anything else (and there was/is much) was the example of speaking the truth as you see it without fear or favour - of stating your opinion, as you as the citizen of a supposedly free, open (K. Popper) society are entitled to do, in the terms which present themselves to you, balls to the wall and bollocks to the lot of you, catch the barman's eye, in short :D There'll never be another Hitch - the man was a gift to the world but, alas, one whose like we'll never quite see again - and I could never hope to touch the hem and all that; but if I took anything from him in recent years, like a slightly earlier but no less acerbic hero - I refer to the magnificent H. L. Mencken, almost as sour, cynical, misanthropic and have-at-you as I am - it was a certain, shall we say, bullishness in argumentation which I never used to have when I first started out as a comparatively (only comparatively, mark you well) callow stripling all those years ago. In his debates and lectures there was a life-affirming, life-loving, joyous, take-no-prisoners, my-dick's-bigger-than-yours, fuck-you-royally-and-the-horse-you-rode-in-on élan of which I never and never could and never will tire. Hey, sue me: he was a marvel and I can't not respond to anybody as brilliantly, gloriously, thrillingly devil-may-care obnoxious as that. Being right was just the cherry on top of the Mr Kipling's cherry Bakewell. There's a good reason why "Hitchslap" has entered the demotic - search YouTube for details.
As anybody should know, debates are theatre rather than effective and reliable means of ascertaining truth, but in terms of theatre few, if any, ever did it better. He did vastly, vastly, vastly more than debate, of course - that goes without saying, or should, since the man did more (often in his own words pissed enough "to kill or stun the average mule") than twenty-five excellent minds all brilliant in their respective fields can do and do do stone cold sober. (His ability to toss off fifteen hundred or two thousand words of excruciating polish, elegance, clarity, cogence and brilliance, at breakneck speed, whilst hammered is and has been more than ably attested to. Details available on request). The man who may have given up on socialism but who remained a Marxist to his dying day never gave up on the dialectic, the thesis and antithesis, the point A and the point B, the point and counterpoint, the discussion, the debate, the discussion, and I hope I never will either until I am forbidden by circumstance. In his own inimitable words: "Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence." He, tragically, is silent now - at least in terms of the spoken word, rather than the written word which lives on - but I think he'd be quietly satisfied that others have taken up the cudgels and in the name of the same causes that animated his once lithe and latterly portly frame while it was wonderfully with us ;)
So in this case for once you are - mirabile dictu - absolutely correct.
-
Dear Bashers,
Top that! I dare you.
Dear Shaker,
If the forum is not applauding, then the forum doesn't deserve you, from the heart me thinks.
Gonnagle.
-
Cheers Gonners. Night night and sleep well :D
-
Top that! I dare you.
My burial arrangements, if followed, prevent it; but I'd rather like that on the headstone I won't have, if I were to have one :) I don't have many but another great hero of mine, Charles Bukowski, said that we should live in a way as to make death itself tremble to take us. I concur :)
from the heart me thinks.
If it's not that, in anything you do, what good is it?
-
Dear Bashers,
Top that! I dare you.
Dear Shaker,
If the forum is not applauding, then the forum doesn't deserve you, from the heart me thinks.
Gonnagle.
I know someone who can. Shaker should read what Michael Wolff says about the unctuous Hitchens, and he worked alongside the man.
I remind you with George Galloway's classic put-down:
"Galloway generously bestowed upon the pro-war writer Christopher Hitchens. "You're a drink-soaked former Trotskyist popinjay," Mr Galloway said. "Your hands are shaking. You badly need another drink," he added later, ignoring Mr Hitchens's questions and staring intently ahead. "And you're a drink-soaked ..." Eventually Mr Hitchens gave up. "You're a real thug, aren't you?" he hissed, stalking away."
Note the pro-war reference. Hitchens was a thoroughly unpleasant and hypocritical exhibitionist. Anybody who resonates with him is clearly short of a marble or two.
Here's just one quote from Michael Wolff, which aptly demonstrates what a hypocrite Hitchens was:
"This transformation from political irregular and zealous polemicist to towering moral figure was curious, if not amazing, to many people (perhaps all of us) whose careers had intersected with his. How did the character actor become a leading man? How did the fool become a sage? And what about the bad stuff? Not just his full-throttled embrace of the Bush war but, before that, his casual and convenient betrayal of his friend, Hillary Clinton aide Sidney Blumenthal, back in the Monica Lewinsky days. Or his take on Bill Clinton, as virulent as that of the most kooky right-wingers. Or his weirdly tolerant relationship with some of the era's most infamous Holocaust deniers. These are the kind of epochal contretemps that, in the chattering class, usually make for deep enmity rather than enduring love."
I wonder how the narcissist and anti-religion obsessive, Shaker, will apologise for that?
For the full account, google "Michael Wolff on Christopher Hitchens."
www.gq-magazine.co.uk/.../michael-wolff-on-christopher-hitchens/viewall
And also:
www.salon.com/.../christopher_hitchens_lies_do_atheism_no_favors/
-
Dear Bashers,
Top that! I dare you.
Dear Shaker,
If the forum is not applauding, then the forum doesn't deserve you, from the heart me thinks.
Gonnagle.
I know someone who can. Shaker should read what Michael Wolff says about the unctuous Hitchens, and he was a colleague ot the man.
I leave you with George Galloway's classic put-down:
"Galloway generously bestowed upon the pro-war writer Christopher Hitchens. "You're a drink-soaked former Trotskyist popinjay," Mr Galloway said. "Your hands are shaking. You badly need another drink," he added later, ignoring Mr Hitchens's questions and staring intently ahead. "And you're a drink-soaked ..." Eventually Mr Hitchens gave up. "You're a real thug, aren't you?" he hissed, stalking away."
Note the pro-war reference. Hitchens was a thoroughly unpleasant and hypocritical exhibitionist. Anybody who resonates with him is clearly short of a marble or two.
George Galloway?!
There's a good example of just how unpleasant it is possible for a supposed human being to be! A (allegedly) man, with absolutely no redeeming features whatsoever, a receptacle for just about everything that is loathsome in the human race, so much so that even politicians can't abide him!
-
Dear Bashers,
Top that! I dare you.
Dear Shaker,
If the forum is not applauding, then the forum doesn't deserve you, from the heart me thinks.
Gonnagle.
I know someone who can. Shaker should read what Michael Wolff says about the unctuous Hitchens, and he was a colleague ot the man.
I leave you with George Galloway's classic put-down:
"Galloway generously bestowed upon the pro-war writer Christopher Hitchens. "You're a drink-soaked former Trotskyist popinjay," Mr Galloway said. "Your hands are shaking. You badly need another drink," he added later, ignoring Mr Hitchens's questions and staring intently ahead. "And you're a drink-soaked ..." Eventually Mr Hitchens gave up. "You're a real thug, aren't you?" he hissed, stalking away."
Note the pro-war reference. Hitchens was a thoroughly unpleasant and hypocritical exhibitionist. Anybody who resonates with him is clearly short of a marble or two.
George Galloway?!
There's a good example of just how unpleasant it is possible for a supposed human being to be! A (allegedly) man, with absolutely no redeeming features whatsoever, a receptacle for just about everything that is loathsome in the human race, so much so that even politicians can't abide him!
I'm not a "fan" of Galloway, but what he said about Hitchens is still apposite.
-
Dear Bashers,
Top that! I dare you.
Dear Shaker,
If the forum is not applauding, then the forum doesn't deserve you, from the heart me thinks.
Gonnagle.
And, of course, Gonners, there is something else that "tops that," and infinitely so:
And seeing the multitudes, He went up on a mountain, and when He was seated His disciples came to Him. Then He opened His mouth and taught them, saying:
"Blessed are the poor in spirit,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn,
For they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the meek,
For they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
For they shall be filled.
Blessed are the merciful,
For they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart,
For they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers,
For they shall be called sons of God.
Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
"Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
-
Once upon a time...
-
Dear Bashers,
Top that! I dare you.
Dear Shaker,
If the forum is not applauding, then the forum doesn't deserve you, from the heart me thinks.
Gonnagle.
I know someone who can. Shaker should read what Michael Wolff says about the unctuous Hitchens, and he was a colleague ot the man.
I leave you with George Galloway's classic put-down:
"Galloway generously bestowed upon the pro-war writer Christopher Hitchens. "You're a drink-soaked former Trotskyist popinjay," Mr Galloway said. "Your hands are shaking. You badly need another drink," he added later, ignoring Mr Hitchens's questions and staring intently ahead. "And you're a drink-soaked ..." Eventually Mr Hitchens gave up. "You're a real thug, aren't you?" he hissed, stalking away."
Note the pro-war reference. Hitchens was a thoroughly unpleasant and hypocritical exhibitionist. Anybody who resonates with him is clearly short of a marble or two.
George Galloway?!
There's a good example of just how unpleasant it is possible for a supposed human being to be! A (allegedly) man, with absolutely no redeeming features whatsoever, a receptacle for just about everything that is loathsome in the human race, so much so that even politicians can't abide him!
I'm not a "fan" of Galloway, but what he said about Hitchens is still apposite.
For Galloway to say anything derogatory about ANYONE is a pot calling the kettle black!
-
Dear Bashers,
Top that! I dare you.
Dear Shaker,
If the forum is not applauding, then the forum doesn't deserve you, from the heart me thinks.
Gonnagle.
And, of course, Gonners, there is something else that "tops that," and infinitely so:
And seeing the multitudes, He went up on a mountain, and when He was seated His disciples came to Him. Then He opened His mouth and taught them, saying:
"Blessed are the poor in spirit,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn,
For they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the meek,
For they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
For they shall be filled.
Blessed are the merciful,
For they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart,
For they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers,
For they shall be called sons of God.
Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
"Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
BA
At least Shaker posted his own words - he did not need to nick some from a man who has been dead for 2,000 years!
Shaker wins 1 - 0.
-
Dear Bashers,
My applause was not for Hitchen but for Shakers well written post for his hero, I can admire a post without actually agreeing with it.
Hitchen just like Dawkins takes everything bad about religion and explodes it, and just like Dawkins makes no attempt to actually explore their subject in depth.
If Hitchen had debated with the likes of Karen Armstrong, a woman who has studied her subject in depth he would have been left floundering.
Gonnagle.
-
Top that! I dare you.
My burial arrangements, if followed, prevent it; but I'd rather like that on the headstone I won't have, if I were to have one :) I don't have many but another great hero of mine, Charles Bukowski, said that we should live in a way as to make death itself tremble to take us. I concur :)
from the heart me thinks.
If it's not that, in anything you do, what good is it?
I haven't got my reading glasses on and at first thought you were talking about having Swarovski crystal on your headstone.
Now that'd be classy.
-
Dear Bashers,
Top that! I dare you.
Dear Shaker,
If the forum is not applauding, then the forum doesn't deserve you, from the heart me thinks.
Gonnagle.
And, of course, Gonners, there is something else that "tops that," and infinitely so:
And seeing the multitudes, He went up on a mountain, and when He was seated His disciples came to Him. Then He opened His mouth and taught them, saying:
"Blessed are the poor in spirit,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn,
For they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the meek,
For they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
For they shall be filled.
Blessed are the merciful,
For they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart,
For they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers,
For they shall be called sons of God.
Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
"Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
BA
At least Shaker posted his own words - he did not need to nick some from a man who has been dead for 2,000 years!
Shaker wins 1 - 0.
To equate Jesus' words with anything Shaker says is an absolute travesty. You lose 10-nil.
-
Dear Bashers,
Top that! I dare you.
Dear Shaker,
If the forum is not applauding, then the forum doesn't deserve you, from the heart me thinks.
Gonnagle.
And, of course, Gonners, there is something else that "tops that," and infinitely so:
And seeing the multitudes, He went up on a mountain, and when He was seated His disciples came to Him. Then He opened His mouth and taught them, saying:
"Blessed are the poor in spirit,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn,
For they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the meek,
For they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
For they shall be filled.
Blessed are the merciful,
For they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart,
For they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers,
For they shall be called sons of God.
Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
"Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
BA
At least Shaker posted his own words - he did not need to nick some from a man who has been dead for 2,000 years!
Shaker wins 1 - 0.
To equate Jesus' words with anything Shaker says is an absolute travesty. You lose 10-nil.
Firstly, how do you know they are words said by Jesus?
-
And, of course, Gonners, there is something else that "tops that," and infinitely so:
etc . . .
BA
At least Shaker posted his own words - he did not need to nick some from a man who has been dead for 2,000 years!
Shaker wins 1 - 0.
To equate Jesus' words with anything Shaker says is an absolute travesty. You lose 10-nil.
YOU produced Jesus' (alleged) words after a challenge by Gonners to top Shaker's words - so you are the one 'equating'/beating (topping) Jesus' words to Shaker!
Shaker, as I said, posted his own words - you did not! For you to win in this manner Shaker would have to have posted a quote which he did not!
-
Blessed are the meek,
For they shall inherit the earth.
To paraphrase Mark Twain: yeah, and let's see how long they manage to hold on to it ;)
-
Blessed are the meek,
For they shall inherit the earth.
To paraphrase Mark Twain: yeah, and let's see how long they manage to hold on to it ;)
..and I can't stop myself thinking about the opening of Life of Brian. Have got the CD somewhere - might watch it later.
-
And, of course, Gonners, there is something else that "tops that," and infinitely so:
etc . . .
BA
At least Shaker posted his own words - he did not need to nick some from a man who has been dead for 2,000 years!
Shaker wins 1 - 0.
To equate Jesus' words with anything Shaker says is an absolute travesty. You lose 10-nil.
YOU produced Jesus' (allegedly) words after a challenge by Gonners to top Shaker's words - so you are the one 'equating'/beating (topping) Jesus' words to Shaker!
Shaker, as I said, posted his own words - you did not! For you to win in this manner Shaker would have to have posted a quote which he did not!
I don't know what you're talking about, but it is certainly no answer to my last post.
-
And, of course, Gonners, there is something else that "tops that," and infinitely so:
etc . . .
BA
At least Shaker posted his own words - he did not need to nick some from a man who has been dead for 2,000 years!
Shaker wins 1 - 0.
To equate Jesus' words with anything Shaker says is an absolute travesty. You lose 10-nil.
YOU produced Jesus' (allegedly) words after a challenge by Gonners to top Shaker's words - so you are the one 'equating'/beating (topping) Jesus' words to Shaker!
Shaker, as I said, posted his own words - you did not! For you to win in this manner Shaker would have to have posted a quote which he did not!
I don't know what you're talking about, but it is certainly no answer to my last post.
Amazing that, isn't it? No-one ever seems to be able to post an "answer to [your] last post", mainly because, more than half the time, there is no answer to the quote-mined rubbish that you post!.
-
What the hell happened to this thread?
-
And, of course, Gonners, there is something else that "tops that," and infinitely so:
etc . . .
BA
At least Shaker posted his own words - he did not need to nick some from a man who has been dead for 2,000 years!
Shaker wins 1 - 0.
To equate Jesus' words with anything Shaker says is an absolute travesty. You lose 10-nil.
YOU produced Jesus' (allegedly) words after a challenge by Gonners to top Shaker's words - so you are the one 'equating'/beating (topping) Jesus' words to Shaker!
Shaker, as I said, posted his own words - you did not! For you to win in this manner Shaker would have to have posted a quote which he did not!
I don't know what you're talking about, but it is certainly no answer to my last post.
Amazing that, isn't it? No-one ever seems to be able to post an "answer to [your] last post", mainly because, more than half the time, there is no answer to the quote-mined rubbish that you post!.
You go on spouting semi-literate nonsense day after day. Probably something to do with the phases of the moon.
-
What the hell happened to this thread?
It got Bashed ::)
-
What the hell happened to this thread?
It got Bashed ::)
With his semi-literate WUMMERY! ;D
-
What the hell happened to this thread?
It got Bashed ::)
With his semi-literate WUMMERY! ;D
Do you actually have any idea what you are talking about?
-
Interesting interview with someone from the Trust that monitors lions like Cecil, on BBC Breakfast earlier. They do not get public funding and rely wholly on philanthropy. The events surrounding Cecil's death has seen a huge amount of money being donated. Furthermore, he pointed out that limited trophy hunting can be beneficial both in terms of income generation but also animal control. I suspect this has something to do with the hunters killing to old and frail more than the younger, more fertile ones.
Furthermore, contrary to common concerns at the the time, none of ther cubs have been killed. It is thought that there was a second male in the pride, who may even have been the father of several of the latest cubs, who has now taken over from Cecil.