The Yearly Low Point For Humans

[Bronco_Beerslug]

One of them anyway. Just no reason for beating hundreds of thousands of baby animals to death.

-------------------------------------------
Blood on the ice as seal slaughter begins
Toronto
March 31, 2005

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2005/03/30/31SEALS_wideweb__430x272.jpg

Thousands of sealers armed with clubs, rifles and spears have begun the world's largest seal hunt in the ice floes off eastern Canada.

The hunt is expected to bring the poor coastal communities about $C19 million ($A20.8 million), but has been condemned by animal rights activists as barbaric.

The contentious harp seal hunt, the target of protests since the 1960s, begins about two weeks after the seal pups are born when their fur changes from white to grey.

Animal rights activists say the pups are clubbed to death and often skinned alive, but sealers and government officials who monitor the hunt insist the pups die instantly, under strict guidelines. Regulations require that hunters ensure their prey is dead before moving on.

"It's just horrific out there. There is blood all across the ice and seal carcasses as far as the eye can see," Rebecca Aldworth of the Humane Society of the United States said from the Gulf of St Lawrence.

"We've seen seals that were moving around and breathing, that have been left in these piles, some left conscious and crawling."

Many countries, including the US, ban the importation of seal products. But the Canadian Government says the hunt brings badly needed income into its coastal communities, which earned about $C20 million last year, primarily from pelt sales to Norway, Denmark and China.

Hunters were expected to kill more than 300,000 seals by May 15, when the federal three-year plan ends, having allowed sealers to harvest 975,000 seals since 2003. A report by the International Fund for Animal Welfare said the harvest would damage the marine mammal population.

But Canada's Department of Fisheries and Oceans said the country's seal population was "healthy and abundant".

Ed Frenette, of the PEI Fishermen's Association, told CBC TV that harp seal pelts were selling at an all-time high of $C70 and that opponents of the hunt should target buyers, not fishermen who desperately need the income.

Michel Therien, a spokesman for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, said many fishing families earned only $C12,000 a year from their catches of snow crabs, lobster or cod.

"The seal fisheries is part of their livelihood," he said.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2005/03/30/1111862460489.html?oneclick=true

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Jesus Christ, this has to be one of the most disturbing, sickening things I've ever seen.

These douchebags are obviously sub-human pieces of dog sh*t with no conscience whatsoever.

[Mile High Shack]

I'm all for hunting, but this is just wrong

[Mtbrncofn]

That is absolutely revolting.

How barbaric.

[Arkie]

A fur-trapper had the unmitigated audacity to jump up from behind my igloo and he started into whippin’ on my favorite baby seal with a lead-filled snowshoe. I said, with a lead-filled, with a lead filled snowshoe. He said, peekaboo. I said, with a lead-filled, with a lead filled snowshoe. He said, peekaboo. He went right upside the head of my favorite baby seal. He went whap with a lead-filled snowshoe, and he hit him on the nose and hit him on the fin, and that got me just about as evil as an eskimo boy can be. So I bent down and I reached down, and I scooped down and I gathered up a generous mitten-ful of the deadly yellow snow. The deadly yellow snow, from right there where the huskies go! Whereupon I proceeded to take that mittenful of the deadly yellow snow crystals and rub it all into his beady little eyes with a vigorous circular motion.

[RaiderH8r]

I can't support this. There, I've done it, I've agreed with LABF. Check the temp. in hell and this assures us that the Raiders will be winning the SB this year. The 4 horsemen of the apocalypse now ride....

Where's that endtimes web site robb was always pitching? I think it said something about this

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I can't support this. There, I've done it, I've agreed with LABF. Check the temp. in hell...

There now - that wasn't so hard, was it?

Next thing you know, you'll be agreeing with even more compassionate ideas, e.g., that Social Security isn't just "welfare for geezers," etc. ;)

[Garcia Bronco]

Whats the big deal?

[SoCalBronco]

this is awful.

[TheDave]

What a buch of assholes!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

What a buch of assholes!

Indeed.

Stories like these make any person of conscience want to weep.

[W*GS]

I suggest those who so stridently oppose this sort of thing spend a few years with the people who do it, undertaking the same livelihood as they do, and then come back and offer a more-informed opinion.

It's kind like those folks who decry slaughterhouses. Do they really think hamburger is grown on trees, plastic-wrapped tray and all?

[TheDave]

I suggest those who so stridently oppose this sort of thing spend a few years with the people who do it, undertaking the same livelihood as they do, and then come back and offer a more-informed opinion.

It's kind like those folks who decry slaughterhouses. Do they really think hamburger is grown on trees, plastic-wrapped tray and all?

Slaughter house = food

Seal Slaughter = Decrotive coat

Sorry but i see enough of a difference, that i don't need to live with them for a year to have an opinion.

[Taco John]

I'm amused that people who argued to kill a human in Terri Schaivo would have anything whatsoever to say about killing a stupid seal.

Yeah, I suppose it's barbaric... No more barbaric than starving someone to death.

???

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I'm amused that people who argued to kill a human in Terri Schaivo would have anything whatsoever to say about killing a stupid seal.


Who decided to "kill" Terri Schiavo?

Let's see...

over half of the 22 judges who heard the Schiavo case were Republicans. A couple were even Bush appointees.

As for those of us on this thread who objected to the treatment of the seals - I can probably speak for most of us in saying that we are capable of making a distinction between killing animals for profit and honoring a human being's right to die (a human being who was in a persistent vegetative state for 15 years, who was severely brain-damaged, and who stood no chance of recovery.)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Slaughter house = food

Seal Slaughter = Decrotive coat

The fact that W*GS needs help with this kind of distinction tells you all you need to know about his grasp of fundamental ethics.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Gotta give props where they're due:

It was a somewhat unexpected (and pleasant) surprise to see some of the conservatives on this forum take a stand against the unconscionable treatment of these animals.

For whatever it's worth, I'm impressed. :thumbsup:

[TheDave]

I'm amused that people who argued to kill a human in Terri Schaivo would have anything whatsoever to say about killing a stupid seal.

Yeah, I suppose it's barbaric... No more barbaric than starving someone to death.

???


Boy, that "error on the side of life" dog and pony show, sure did a number on you.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I'm amused that people who argued to kill a human in Terri Schaivo would have anything whatsoever to say about killing a stupid seal.

Yeah, I suppose it's barbaric... No more barbaric than starving someone to death.

???
Your comparison of clubing "stupid seals" to death and the Schiavo case is quite the reach. Of course, if that's all you have to try belittle 80% of the U.S. population (those who agreed that Schiavo should be able to pass on in peace like our judicial system also found) I guess all you can do is reach.

I notice how you keep harping on Schiavo being "starved to death". Since you must realize by now that this happens to thousands of people in the U.S. every year are you going to take up their causes too?

And if you really do find anthing about either case "amusing" that's a another problem that you'll have to live with.


http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/dimages/custom/sealhunt/videos/2001_seals/clip3-300.rm

http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/dimages/custom/sealhunt/videos/2001_seals/clip2-300.rm

http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/dimages/custom/sealhunt/videos/2001_seals/clip1-300.rm

[Spider]

TJ .... you never cease to amaze me ...... you got all tripped up over the Schaivo Rodeo .... as has been pointe out I have seen people with feeding tubes removed , it isnt Starvation , But hey I guess you need the Drama atthis point and time .....
As for Clubbing baby seals ...... If there is a market for it , People will supply the goods .... I dont blame the Hunters as much as I blame the people that buy the products , if People didnt buy the fur , then these guys wouldnt get Paid , that Means they are clubbing Seals on their own time ...... Watch how fast it stops , when the money stops ......

[Mtbrncofn]

I'm amused that people who argued to kill a human in Terri Schaivo would have anything whatsoever to say about killing a stupid seal.

Yeah, I suppose it's barbaric... No more barbaric than starving someone to death.

???


For the record, since you chose to use barbaric which was in my post....I thought the whole Schiavo thing was barbaric too.

Man, I can't believe anyone could condone clubbing thousands of baby animals to death. ugh!~

[W*GS]

The fact that W*GS needs help with this kind of distinction tells you all you need to know about his grasp of fundamental ethics.

Remember that LABF always ignores an argument just to make a cheap shot.

[W*GS]

Slaughter house = food

Seal Slaughter = Decrotive coat

Sorry but i see enough of a difference, that i don't need to live with them for a year to have an opinion.

We humans don't need to slaughter many millions of animals (including babies - think lamb and veal) just for food.

There's no more intrinsic reason to mercilessly slaughter animals for food than there is to slaughter them for clothing.

It's no less immoral for for pigs, cows, etc. to be slaughtered for your food than it is for baby seals to be clubbed to death for their fur. Where's your outrage?

[W*GS]

As for those of us on this thread who objected to the treatment of the seals - I can probably speak for most of us in saying that we are capable of making a distinction between killing animals for profit [...]

Which is more immoral? Killing animals or that it's done for profit? Suppose it wasn't done for profit. Does that make it better?

[TheDave]

We humans don't need to slaughter many millions of animals (including babies - think lamb and veal) just for food.

There's no more intrinsic reason to mercilessly slaughter animals for food than there is to slaughter them for clothing.

It's no less immoral for for pigs, cows, etc. to be slaughtered for your food than it is for baby seals to be clubbed to death for their fur. Where's your outrage?


Slaughter House = Food

Seal Slaughter = Decrotive Coat

Everyone here, but you, sees a difference in that...

[W*GS]

Slaughter House = Food

Seal Slaughter = Decrotive Coat

Everyone here, but you, sees a difference in that...

Animals don't need to be killed so you can eat.

Do you disagree?

[TheDave]

Animals don't need to be killed so you can eat.

Do you disagree?

yes... i can't eat live animals

[Spider]

yes... i can't eat live animals
LOL .........

[W*GS]

yes... i can't eat live animals

You're no less (and I quote) an "asshole" than the Canadians who club baby seals.

[TheDave]

You're no less (and I quote) an "asshole" than the Canadians who club baby seals.





Eating a hamburger = clubbing a baby seal... OK you win, i just can't compete with that. I guess I should of expected an overly simplistic "black and white" view of the world from the mentally challenged.

[Spider]

Eating a hamburger = clubbing a baby seal... OK you win, i just can't compete with that. I guess I should of expected an overly simplistic "black and white" view of the world from the mentally challenged.
;D ....... But it is fun though

[W*GS]

Eating a hamburger = clubbing a baby seal... OK you win, i just can't compete with that. I guess I should of expected an overly simplistic "black and white" view of the world from the mentally challenged.

You're the one who calls baby-seal-clubbers "assholes".

And yes, it's no more necessary for you to eat hamburgers than it is for people to wear coats made from baby seal fur.

You just rationalize it away, because you can't own up to being as much an asshole.

[Spider]

You're the one who calls baby-seal-clubbers "assholes".

And yes, it's no more necessary for you to eat hamburgers than it is for people to wear coats made from baby seal fur.

You just rationalize it away, because you can't own up to being as much an asshole.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

You're no less (and I quote) an "asshole" than the Canadians who club baby seals.

Why is he, because he told you he doesn't want to eat live animals?
You are really sinking to new depths these days!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You are really sinking to new depths these days!

Just when you thought that would be impossible. :giggle:

[W*GS]

Why is he, because he told you he doesn't want to eat live animals?

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=590729&postcount=10

It's TheDave's own term applied to him. He should take more care.

[TheDave]

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=590729&postcount=10

It's TheDave's own term applied to him. He should take more care.

Let me guess you've got family members that do this for a living...

[W*GS]

Let me guess you've got family members that do this for a living...

No - just pointing out your hypocrisy.

[TheDave]

No - just pointing out your hypocrisy.

No your taking this personal... i just called a group of people that skin baby seals alive a "Bunch of assholes"... for that you've called me a hypocrite and an asshole. Thats called taking it personal. Tell the truth, is that how dear old dad brought home the bacon? You have seal killers in the family and i've insulted them, haven't I. You can be honest here... ???

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

No your taking this personal... i just called a group of people that skin baby seals alive a "Bunch of assholes"... for that you've called me a hypocrite and an asshole. Thats called taking it personal. Tell the truth, is that how dear old dad brought home the bacon? You have seal killers in the family and i've insulted them, haven't I. You can be honest here... ???

:laugh:

It's not just you, Dave.

For W*GS, anyone who comes down on the right side of any moral issue is an "asshole."

That's just the way sociopaths think.

People like W*GS identify with bullies, sadists, and criminals because it gives them a false sense of security, safety, and power.

[Spider]

No your taking this personal... i just called a group of people that skin baby seals alive a "Bunch of assholes"... for that you've called me a hypocrite and an asshole. Thats called taking it personal. Tell the truth, is that how dear old dad brought home the bacon? You have seal killers in the family and i've insulted them, haven't I. You can be honest here... ???
LOL The Dave dont worry .... W*GS also thinks David Koresh is innocent , that right there should tell you W*GS elevator doesnt go to the top floor ...

[W*GS]

No your taking this personal... i just called a group of people that skin baby seals alive a "Bunch of assholes"... for that you've called me a hypocrite and an asshole. Thats called taking it personal. Tell the truth, is that how dear old dad brought home the bacon? You have seal killers in the family and i've insulted them, haven't I. You can be honest here... ???

I have nothing to do with those who kill baby seals for their coats.

I'm just pointing out that your belief that they're "assholes" for doing so is hypocritical because (unless you're a vegan, which I doubt) millions of animals are slaughtered just to provide food for humans, which is just as unnecessary. Add in the environmental destruction caused by livestock, and it's far worse than skinning baby seals.

If you're being morally consistent, then you'll become a vegan.

[W*GS]

For W*GS, anyone who comes down on the right side of any moral issue is an "asshole."

What's the right side of the moral issue of the slaughter of animals to provide humans with food?

That's just the way sociopaths think.

I'm a sociopath?

How sweet.

This from the guy who, when presented with proof of his homophobia, couldn't answer.

Matt Shephard had it coming, eh?

[W*GS]

The Dave dont worry .... W*GS also thinks David Koresh is innocent , that right there should tell you W*GS elevator doesnt go to the top floor ...

I never said Koresh was innocent - but you've stated time and again that the government didn't do a single thing wrong at Waco.

I've smacked that assertion into the dirt every time, too, yet you side with the government. Why?

[Spider]

I never said Koresh was innocent - but you've stated time and again that the government didn't do a single thing wrong at Waco.

I've smacked that assertion into the dirt every time, too, yet you side with the government. Why?
Only in your mind .... you come up with assertions pass them off as fact .....
See i respect the Law , you on the other hand dont , if a Officer of the law , comes up to my Door with a warrent for my arrest , I do not see that as an Excuse to open fire , appearnetly you do ....... Then you want to sit back and cry when the Officals return fire .......

[W*GS]

Only in your mind .... you come up with assertions pass them off as fact .....

Since you're nearly completely unaware of the facts in this instance, your protestations are empty.

See i respect the Law

And I expect LEOs to do the same.

Are LEOs above the law?

BTW, it's not clear that the Davidians fired first. The portion of the compound's front door that could prove who shot first has been lost. Explain that.

[Spider]

Since you're nearly completely unaware of the facts in this instance, your protestations are empty.



And I expect LEOs to do the same.

Are LEOs above the law?

BTW, it's not clear that the Davidians fired first. The portion of the compound's front door that could prove who shot first has been lost. Explain that.
Bullshiat , W*GS and you know it . or at least you should , Koresh also had George Rodin Shot , Face it W*GS you dont know your ass from a hole in the ground on this ....

[W*GS]

Bullshiat , W*GS and you know it . or at least you should , Koresh also had George Rodin Shot , Face it W*GS you dont know your ass from a hole in the ground on this ....

George Rodin is still alive.

Where is that missing front door piece? Why did government agents shoot from a helicopter into the roof - into the 2nd floor, where they knew the women and children were? Why was the initial raid carried out despite the loss of surprise? Why was the Davidian's mail searched without a warrant?

[Spider]

George Rodin is still alive.

Where is that missing front door piece? Why did government agents shoot from a helicopter into the roof - into the 2nd floor, where they knew the women and children were? Why was the initial raid carried out despite the loss of surprise? Why was the Davidian's mail searched without a warrant?
I thought Rodin died ......
Why they shot from Helicopters ? simple the line of sight was better .....
Just like these Terrorist that shoot from Mosc , thinking the U.S. wont fire back .Same Prinicpal ......
you have ot arrest the man suprise or not , you still have to get the Job done .... The Goverment had a warrent , just cause it didnt specify mail , doesnt mean they cant search it .......

[RaiderH8r]

Why do we have 2 threads on the same topic in 2 forums which have titles that ultimately have little or nothing to do with the topic being discussed? THIS is a conspiracy...

[W*GS]

Why they shot from Helicopters ? simple the line of sight was better .....

The agents firing from the helicopters were firing through the roof into the areas they knew had only women and children.

Why?

you have ot arrest the man suprise or not , you still have to get the Job done ....

So why not in Waco a few days earlier when he in town getting supplies? Because that's not as impressive as a military-style attack that the BATF thought was sure to induce the budget writers in DC to give the agency more funding.

The Goverment had a warrent , just cause it didnt specify mail , doesnt mean they cant search it .......

Bull****.

If the warrant doesn't specify that a person's mail can be searched, it cannot be searched.

Christ, Spider - how much latitude do you want to give the government? Nearly infinite, so they can really eff our liberties whenever they damned well please?

[Spider]

The agents firing from the helicopters were firing through the roof into the areas they knew had only women and children.

Why?
That is suspect , but like I already told you , Same principal as the terrorist shooting from Holly places ..... In hopes that the Goverment wont fire back , they guessed wrong .....



So why not in Waco a few days earlier when he in town getting supplies? Because that's not as impressive as a military-style attack that the BATF thought was sure to induce the budget writers in DC to give the agency more funding.
and if Koresh didnt go out to pick up supplies ? send one of his followers ?




Bull****.

If the warrant doesn't specify that a person's mail can be searched, it cannot be searched.
oh weel Maybe then Koresh should take them to court instead of Starting a shoot out ... there is an Idea huh .....

Christ, Spider - how much latitude do you want to give the government? Nearly infinite, so they can really eff our liberties whenever they damned well please?
Look My Goverment has Problems , But it is still the Best Damn goverment on the face of the earth , and No one wants to take your rights away , including Bush ....... deal with it , your Boy Koresh screwed the pooch on a gamble , he bet everyones lives in that compound and lost ...... if you cant afford the bet , you shouldnt play the game ......

[W*GS]

Look My Goverment has Problems , But it is still the Best Damn goverment on the face of the earth , and No one wants to take your rights away , including Bush ....... deal with it , your Boy Koresh screwed the pooch on a gamble , he bet everyones lives in that compound and lost ...... if you cant afford the bet , you shouldnt play the game ......

"Best Damn government on the face of the earth" is faint praise, what with places like Zimbabwe, North Korea, Iran, the Sudan, and so on...

The gamble here was the BATF's - and the losers were the Davidians. Most were killed for the government's nearly-endless series of mistakes, incompetence, and criminal acts.

And if hadn't been for the government's eff-up at Waco, I doubt OKC would have happened. No, the government isn't at fault for what McVeigh did, he and Nichols are (but there are open questions about OKC as well).

But congratulations - you just got yourself on LABF's **** list.

[Spider]

"Best Damn government on the face of the earth" is faint praise, what with places like Zimbabwe, North Korea, Iran, the Sudan, and so on...
Canada, Switzerland , Great Brittion , France , Germany , and so on ......

The gamble here was the BATF's - and the losers were the Davidians. Most were killed for the government's nearly-endless series of mistakes, incompetence, and criminal acts.
the whole come out with your hands in the air concept eldues on so many levels doesnt it ?

And if hadn't been for the government's eff-up at Waco, I doubt OKC would have happened. No, the government isn't at fault for what McVeigh did, he and Nichols are (but there are open questions about OKC as well).
and here i thought I lied when I said you justified McViegh . you just did it again ......

But congratulations - you just got yourself on LABF's **** list.
LOL . as if I care who Shiat list I am on ..... I leave LABF alone , cause he has enough People on his case , thats the only reason .......

[Spider]

you know W*GS , you can end this argument by comming out and Being honest in your stance against The United States Goverment , and Say your beliefs fall in line with the Malitia groups and let it go .............We Both know thats where you stand , you advocate bearing arms against my country , and my Goverment .......

[Rascal]

"Best Damn government on the face of the earth" is faint praise, what with places like Zimbabwe, North Korea, Iran, the Sudan, and so on...

But congratulations - you just got yourself on LABF's **** list.

What the hell does that mean? I've supported you before on some of your arguments but if you truly believe that then that changes everything. That pisses me off a great deal.

Who the **** cares if they are LABF's **** list? The guy is moronic schmuck with nothing to say other then bush hate.

[Spider]

What the hell does that mean? I've supported you before on some of your arguments but if you truly believe that then that changes everything. That pisses me off a great deal.

Who the **** cares if they are LABF's **** list? The guy is moronic schmuck with nothing to say other then bush hate.
Iam telling ya ,W*GS hasnt said it , but his beliefs are dead on with alot of Militias ...... he doesnt condone what McViegh did , but he justifys it ... that says a lot ......

[W*GS]

you know W*GS , you can end this argument by comming out and Being honest in your stance against The United States Goverment , and Say your beliefs fall in line with the Malitia groups and let it go .............We Both know thats where you stand , you advocate bearing arms against my country , and my Goverment .......

"Militia" has been so tainted by guilt-by-association (courtesy the Clinton administration and its friends in the mass media) that your use of it is very telling.

And no, I'm not Ward Churchill and I do not advocate bearing arms against the US government - but the whole point of having the RKBA is just for that, when the government becomes tyrannical and no longer rules with the consent of the governed. The writers of the Constitution recognized that.

You've heard of "the ballot box, the jury box and the cartridge box"? We still have a representative government (despite what LABF says) and so there's no reason to go blasting away at government agents. However, if you cannot recognize that what happened at Waco was a perfect example of government going terribly wrong and innocent people being slaughtered, then you'll probably never see it until it's too late.

[W*GS]

What the hell does that mean? I've supported you before on some of your arguments but if you truly believe that then that changes everything. That pisses me off a great deal.

I don't measure our government against the other governments in the world. I measure it against the ideals which were used to construct it. There's a difference there - and we are still far from the ideal.

Do you agree or disagree?

[Spider]

"Militia" has been so tainted by guilt-by-association (courtesy the Clinton administration and its friends in the mass media) that your use of it is very telling.
Ha! dont try and blame Clinton nor the Media , I live in Wyoming , We have alot of those Minute men here , Same ole Crap they preach ........

And no, I'm not Ward Churchill and I do not advocate bearing arms against the US government - but the whole point of having the RKBA is just for that, when the government becomes tyrannical and no longer rules with the consent of the governed. The writers of the Constitution recognized that.
you trying to blame WACo on the goverment says you are like Ward Churchill .....

You've heard of "the ballot box, the jury box and the cartridge box"? We still have a representative government (despite what LABF says) and so there's no reason to go blasting away at government agents. However, if you cannot recognize that what happened at Waco was a perfect example of government going terribly wrong and innocent people being slaughtered, then you'll probably never see it until it's too late.
No I wont buy into your theory .......

[Spider]

I don't measure our government against the other governments in the world. I measure it against the ideals which were used to construct it. There's a difference there - and we are still far from the ideal.

Do you agree or disagree?
Ha! . nice spin ......

[W*GS]

you trying to blame WACo on the goverment says you are like Ward Churchill .....

What apportion of what happened at Waco do you give the following three actors: 1) The Davidians; 2) the BATF; 3) the FBI.

[Spider]

What apportion of what happened at Waco do you give the following three actors: 1) The Davidians; 2) the BATF; 3) the FBI.
1. Davidians ........ 2. His Followers .....3. Media .......

[W*GS]

1. Davidians ........ 2. His Followers .....3. Media .......

Percentages?

No blame at all assigned to the government? Everything that happened was entirely the fault of the above three? The government did absolutely nothing wrong in any way, shape, or form?

Who's the "extremist" here?

[Spider]

Percentages?

No blame at all assigned to the government? Everything that happened was entirely the fault of the above three? The government did absolutely nothing wrong in any way, shape, or form?

Who's the "extremist" here?
you are still not getting the concept of Come out with your hands in the air ....
If the Goverment is wrong take em to court sue for a few Billion , write a Book ..... you dont start shooting , this is what escapes you , When the first shot was fired , and I saw the Video on TV , agents were shot while trying to get in postion , Once the shots were fired , the Davidians are 100% @ Fault ......

[Spider]

Those trigger happy Idiots in the Compound should have thought of the Kids , the women , the Innocent , you dont use these things as a shield to fire on Agents , we just cant have that .......

[W*GS]

you are still not getting the concept of Come out with your hands in the air ....

The BATF never gave this warning - and they knew that the Davidians knew that they were coming.

Like I said, if the Davidians wanted a shootout, how come the BATF agents weren't killed in the cattle trailers they were using for cover, as the Davidians could easily have done?

Koresh opened the front door and was shot instantly - then all hell broke loose and the 70-some-odd BATF agents used all but a few dozen of the 1500 rounds of ammo they brought. Also, one of the four BATF agents was killed by "friendly fire".

But, none of these facts will sway you from your position that the government was completely blameless for what happened.

If the Goverment is wrong take em to court sue for a few Billion , write a Book .....

The government took the surviving Davidians to court. And lost. Every time. The Davidians were totally exonerated - it was the government that should have been on trial.

Your contortions to justify the immoral and criminal murder of civilians by a government gone amok scare the **** out of me. It's obvious you'll believe any damned thing the government tells you - and if anything will truly enable a tyranny to gain power here, it's a public that refuses to be skeptical in any way - and you're one of those people.

[W*GS]

Those trigger happy Idiots in the Compound should have thought of the Kids , the women , the Innocent , you dont use these things as a shield to fire on Agents , we just cant have that .......

How do you justify the agents strafing the compound from a helicopter, shooting into the roof? What were their targets? You do know that a federal agent shooting at an unidentified (much less unidentifiable) target is against policy and the law, don't you?

Why didn't the government just nuke the whole effing place and be done with those idiot cultists, eh?

[Spider]

The BATF never gave this warning - and they knew that the Davidians knew that they were coming.
Oh Bulllshiat , the goverment set out there for weeks , give me that shiat ....

Like I said, if the Davidians wanted a shootout, how come the BATF agents weren't killed in the cattle trailers they were using for cover, as the Davidians could easily have done?
this is your counter point ? Probably didnt want to waste ammo shootin at a distance .. pretty weak W*GS

Koresh opened the front door and was shot instantly - then all hell broke loose and the 70-some-odd BATF agents used all but a few dozen of the 1500 rounds of ammo they brought. Also, one of the four BATF agents was killed by "friendly fire".
you are so full of shiat , your eyes are brown .......

But, none of these facts will sway you from your position that the government was completely blameless for what happened.
thats the spirit ......



The government took the surviving Davidians to court. And lost. Every time. The Davidians were totally exonerated - it was the government that should have been on trial.
they didnt get all of the Davidians to trial ....

Your contortions to justify the immoral and criminal murder of civilians by a government gone amok scare the **** out of me. It's obvious you'll believe any damned thing the government tells you - and if anything will truly enable a tyranny to gain power here, it's a public that refuses to be skeptical in any way - and you're one of those people.
as opposed to someone that Defends People that take up arms against the Goverment ........ when you dont respect the law , you dont respect anything ......

[W*GS]

when you dont respect the law , you dont respect anything ......

It was the government that broke plenty of laws.

Now what do you do?

[Spider]

How do you justify the agents strafing the compound from a helicopter, shooting into the roof? What were their targets? You do know that a federal agent shooting at an unidentified (much less unidentifiable) target is against policy and the law, don't you?

Why didn't the government just nuke the whole effing place and be done with those idiot cultists, eh?
Cant you read ? I answered this twice , they say 3 rd time a charm , lets test that saying ........... They shot into the roof to get the Bastards that fired at them , those Idiots in the compound gambled that the goverment wouldnt shoot back ....... and yes they are Idiots , Anyone that allows another man to bang their wife , while they dont is an Idiot .......

[Spider]

It was the government that broke plenty of laws.

Now what do you do?
No it was Koresh ......

[W*GS]

No it was Koresh ......

Wrong.

As I've shown.

But you're a lost cause - you are completely unwilling to even contemplate that the government is to some degree responsible for what happened.

As far as you're concerned, once the Davidians did anything even the littlest bit wrong (even if they weren't the first to shoot), it was open season on them and everything the government did from that point on is right, legal, and completely justifiable.

Yet the trials of the surviving Davidians didn't reach the same conclusion. Who's right? You or the courts?

[Spider]

Wrong.

As I've shown.
Nope you failed to make your case

But you're a lost cause - you are completely unwilling to even contemplate that the government is to some degree responsible for what happened.
you got it backwards you are the lost cause , Koresh could have surrendered . But hey your thinking doesnt go that deep ..... If a officer comes up to serve a warrent , Claim that the Officer is wrong and shoot him .... Welcome to the owrld of W*GS .... So where was all this concern when George Rodin was shot ?

As far as you're concerned, once the Davidians did anything even the littlest bit wrong (even if they weren't the first to shoot), it was open season on them and everything the government did from that point on is right, legal, and completely justifiable.
thats right , just like you left out that the Mailman was David Koresh Brother in law , on the supposed Mail searching ..... you have left alot out of your defense of Koresh , too bad for you I know somethings about this case , try to Bullshiat someone else W*GS ........

Yet the trials of the surviving Davidians didn't reach the same conclusion. Who's right? You or the courts?
Me and you want ot know why ? the Survivors wasnt David Koresh , we couldnt prove that the Survivors pulled a trigger , Deal with it

[Spider]

I love how W*GS says , Koresh didnt have time to surrender , when Koresh Brother in Law , the Mailman Kept Koresh informed on what was going on ........
Face it W*GS , you are just like Ward Churchhill , will go to great lentghs to support anyone that hates the American Goverment

[TheDave]

I have nothing to do with those who kill baby seals for their coats.

I'm just pointing out that your belief that they're "assholes" for doing so is hypocritical because (unless you're a vegan, which I doubt) millions of animals are slaughtered just to provide food for humans, which is just as unnecessary. Add in the environmental destruction caused by livestock, and it's far worse than skinning baby seals.

If you're being morally consistent, then you'll become a vegan.


So it's you that is killing the seals... What an Asshole....

[W*GS]

Face it W*GS , you are just like Ward Churchhill , will go to great lentghs to support anyone that hates the American Goverment

Nope. You've gone to great lengths to demonize anyone who dares question the government's actions.

Why?

[Spider]

Nope. You've gone to great lengths to demonize anyone who dares question the government's actions.

Why?
No , you can question the Goverment , all you want , I do myself , that should be obvious , but what I wont tolerate is someone defending a Person like Koresh , and Placing the Blame on Hard working American Law enforcment agents , that I wont abide W*GS ........

[W*GS]

what I wont tolerate is someone defending a Person like Koresh , and Placing the Blame on Hard working American Law enforcment agents , that I wont abide W*GS ........

And when the LEO is wrong?

Does it happen?

Did it happen at Waco?

If you say "No", then you're being blind.

[Spider]

And when the LEO is wrong?

Does it happen?

Did it happen at Waco?

If you say "No", then you're being blind.
The LEO wasnt wrong in this case .......
you are just reaching , you know it , you are just extending this just to be ignorant ........

[W*GS]

The LEO wasnt wrong in this case .......

Then you pose a far greater threat to society as whole than David Koresh ever did.

Ponder that before your knee jerks.

[Spider]

Then you pose a far greater threat to society as whole than David Koresh ever did.

Ponder that before your knee jerks.
Yeah I sure do , I understand that I have to follow Laws , I understand that Child molestation is wrong , I understand that Shooting at Federal Agents isnt a smart thing to do ....... Yeah I am a real threat alright ....... People like you that equate Child Molestation with interracial boot knocking , need some real help

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

What's the right side of the moral issue of the slaughter of animals to provide humans with food?

If you are unable to make a moral distinction between killing for food and killing for vanity, then you are more of a sociopath than I previously realized.

This from the guy who, when presented with proof of his homophobia, couldn't answer.

Matt Shephard had it coming, eh?

Link? Quote?

You can always tell when W*GS' back is against the wall - he starts pulling lies and fabrications like these out of his backside.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Why do we have 2 threads on the same topic in 2 forums which have titles that ultimately have little or nothing to do with the topic being discussed? THIS is a conspiracy...

You can always count on W*GS to hijack any thread on any given topic in order to steer the discussion to Waco.

W*GS' obsession with this subject is most fascinating.

Odds are he is surrounded by pictures of David Koresh and Waco-related newspaper clippings where he sleeps in mom's basement.

[W*GS]

If you are unable to make a moral distinction between killing for food and killing for vanity, then you are more of a sociopath than I previously realized.

Killing animals for food is no more necessary than killing them for fashion. That's a rather obvious fact - indeed, many of the same people who are outraged about the killings of baby seals make that argument, using the exact same moral basis.

And you have the gall to call me a sociopath?

You're just desperate.

Link? Quote?

Have you forgotten already?

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?p=567240#post567240

As for pulling lies out from one's ass, you're the king in these here parts. As I have amply illustrated on ample occasions.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Killing animals for food is no more necessary than killing them for fashion.

Killing for food is the way of nature.

Pay a visit to the savannas of Africa if you need proof.

Name one animal species other than man that kills for vanity/fashion.

BTW, the links you provided do not point to anything that would substantiate your bullsh*t charges against me.


As for pulling lies out from one's ass, you're the king in these here parts. As I have amply illustrated on ample occasions.

You can always count on W*GS to follow up bullsh*t with projection.

[Arkie]

Slaughter House = Food

Seal Slaughter = Decrotive Coat

Everyone here, but you, sees a difference in that...

Seal is the main part of the Inuit diet. They rely on seal for food more than we rely on any kind of meat for food. It's healthier, too. They eat fish about twice a week and seal about twice a day.

[Rascal]

He says he is the NRA and he doesn't believe in killing animals for food. Right....

I think I'll go hunt down bambi and have a nice steak.

[W*GS]

Killing for food is the way of nature.

We can make the choice of whether or not to kill animals for food. There is absolutely nothing inherent in human biology that forces us to consume animal flesh in order to live.

Pay a visit to the savannas of Africa if you need proof.

We're as restricted in our choices as animals that live by instinct?

Your choice to eat animal flesh is no more necessary to your life than the choice of someone else to wear a baby-seal fur coat. But, since you are so outraged by the slaughter of baby seals for their fur, yet you have absolutely no problem with the (wholly unnecessary and extremely costly) practice of the slaughter of tens of millions of animals for food, you are a crass hypocrite.

BTW, the links you provided do not point to anything that would substantiate your bullsh*t charges against me.

The original allegation was that you were homophobic, since you use descriptions of homosexual behavior as insults. You asked for proof of your use of homosexual behavior as an insult, and I provided two instances. I also asked why, if you support gay marriage, how you can rationalize Clinton's signing of the Defense of Marriage Act (which defined marriage at the federal level as between only a man and woman), since you also have claimed to be a Clinton Democrat. The two positions (support gay marriage, support Clinton) are irreconcilable.

Thus, LABF is a homophobe. And a hypocrite too.

[W*GS]

He says he is the NRA and he doesn't believe in killing animals for food. Right....

The NRA isn't just about hunting - in fact, I've never hunted and have no interest in doing so.

I also support a woman's right to an abortion, but I'm a male.

Did your brain just have a seizure?

[football idiot]

the people killing the seals are poor fishermen that need the loot to make it through the year.

the people buying the seal-skin products are the only reason there's money to be made in this ugly business. just like the people eating burgers and steaks and VEAL are the reasons millions of cattle are treated worse than you could possible imagine. clubbing to death after being skinned alive is almost kind compared to what some of our American meat goes through in 'processing'. chickens have it the worst. veal cattle are a close second I suppose.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

We can make the choice of whether or not to kill animals for food.

Adding the concept of choice to the equation does nothing to strengthen your position.

Choosing to kill for food isn't the same thing as choosing to kill for vanity.

There is absolutely nothing inherent in human biology that forces us to consume animal flesh in order to live.

Now you're trying to shift the focus of the discussion from ethics to biology.

Let's stay on topic: Give us your ethical justification for killing baby seals for fur coats.

So far, all you've proposed is something like "well, if people kill animals for food, then killing them for other reasons is no less moral."

Thus, LABF is a homophobe. And a hypocrite too.

It's always funny to watch W*GS "fling sh*t against the wall to see if anything sticks," as Spider put it, when he's on the ropes in a debate.

[W*GS]

Adding the concept of choice to the equation does nothing to strengthen your position.

Wrong. We are not animals driven by instinct and biology. Humans are omnivorous, true, but we don't have to eat animal flesh to live.

Choosing to kill for food isn't the same thing as choosing to kill for vanity.

Both are equally immoral.

Now you're trying to shift the focus of the discussion from ethics to biology.

No - the biology of humans allows us to make some ethical choices that are not open to other species.

Let's stay on topic: Give us your ethical justification for killing baby seals for fur coats.

I can't. Give us your ethical justification for killing animals for food.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Wrong. We are not animals driven by instinct and biology.

You're saying humans aren't driven by instinct and biology?

Humans are omnivorous, true, but we don't have to eat animal flesh to live.

How does this observation support your case that the choice to eat meat is morally equivalent to the choice to kill animals for vanity?

No - the biology of humans allows us to make some ethical choices that are not open to other species.

That is correct. However, human behavior is still determined, in large part, by the same "instincts and biology" that determine the behavior of other animal species.

I can't.

Well, at least you were honest on that account.

Give us your ethical justification for killing animals for food.

To define "good" as "that which ensures my survival" would be a good start.

BTW, does a mountain lion need an ethical justification to kill a deer for food?

[W*GS]

You're saying humans aren't driven by instinct and biology?

It may not apply to you, but the rest of us have a thing called a "mind" that we use, that can override our instincts. You may have heard of it, but it's clear that you don't use it.

How does this observation support your case that the choice to eat meat is morally equivalent to the choice to kill animals for vanity?

Ask a vegan. Most would argue that a vegan diet is not only morally superior, it's healthier for you as well.

To define "good" as "that which ensures my survival" would be a good start.

Animal flesh is wholly unnecessary to "ensure your survival".

BTW, does a mountain lion need an ethical justification to kill a deer for food?

Ethics doesn't apply to the interactions of animals with each other. It's rather a silly question.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

It may not apply to you, but the rest of us have a thing called a "mind" that we use, that can override our instincts. You may have heard of it, but it's clear that you don't use it.

If you had a mind equal to that of "the rest of us" then you'd understand that "can" doesn't = "always can" or "always does." But since you don't, your only remaining recourse is (surprise) projection of your ignorance.

BTW, your foregone conclusion is that our instinct to kill animals for food is somehow unethical.

Ask a vegan. Most would argue that a vegan diet is not only morally superior, it's healthier for you as well.

But that wasn't the question.

Let me repeat it for you:

How does your observation, i.e., that humans don't have to eat meat, support your case that the choice to eat meat is morally equivalent to the choice to kill animals for vanity?

[W*GS]

BTW, your foregone conclusion is that our instinct to kill animals for food is somehow unethical.

What "instinct to kill animals"? I certainly don't have it. Are you clear on what an instinct is?

How does your observation, i.e., that humans don't have to eat meat, support your case that the choice to eat meat is morally equivalent to the choice to kill animals for vanity?

Easy. There is no intrinsic reason that humans must consume animal flesh in order to live - thus it is a choice that we do so. Likewise, there is no intrinsic reason to club baby seals for their fur so that we may be clothed, fashionably or otherwise. Thus, if you make the moral claim that killing baby seals for fashion is immoral, then, if you're consistent, and have a clear moral code, killing animals for food is likewise immoral.

Also, once you add in all the other costs of the industrial-scale slaughter of animals for food that you've overlooked, it's pretty damned obvious that your claim to "instinct" for that Big Mac is wholly bogus.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

What "instinct to kill animals"? I certainly don't have it.

If you believe this, then you are far more naive (and ignorant of human biology) than I thought.

There is no intrinsic reason that humans must consume animal flesh in order to live - thus it is a choice that we do so. Likewise, there is no intrinsic reason to club baby seals for their fur so that we may be clothed, fashionably or otherwise. Thus, if you make the moral claim that killing baby seals for fashion is immoral, then, if you're consistent, and have a clear moral code, killing animals for food is likewise immoral.

Attempting to prove that both acts are unnecessary is not the same thing as proving that the two acts are morally equivalent.

Adding the notion of choice doesn't help either.

You still have to show how choosing to eat an animal is morally equivalent to choosing to kill that animal for vanity.

[W*GS]

If you believe this, then you are far more naive (and ignorant of human biology) than I thought.

Tell me more about this human "instinct to kill animals".

You see a kitten, and can't help but stomp on its head, crushing its skull?

Wow.

Attempting to prove that both acts are unnecessary is not the same thing as proving that the two acts are morally equivalent.

Ahhh, but it was you who made the moral claim about clubbing baby seals. On what did you base that moral claim? Was it the matter of the clubbing part, or the reason for the clubbing, or what? Now, translate those moral judgements to the wholesale slaughter of hundreds of millions of animals for our choice to eat animal flesh.

Adding the notion of choice doesn't help either.

There's a connection between choice and morality, which you haven't seen yet. Granted, there are choices we make that don't have any necessary moral component, but there are many others that do. Clubbing baby seals for their fur or raising calfs in cages for veal, for two examples.

BTW, an "instinct" isn't a choice. Do you know why?

You still have to show how choosing to eat an animal is morally equivalent to choosing to kill that animal for vanity.

Since neither is necessary (let's exclude the starving naked man in the blizzard scenario), I submit that they are morally equivalent.

Really, you need to go to one of the vegan websites if you think humans "must" (instinctually?) kill animals for food.

[Spider]

Tell me more about this human "instinct to kill animals".

You see a kitten, and can't help but stomp on its head, crushing its skull?

Wow.
thats no fun , throw em in a bag , then throw them in a lake ....... Much better ..... you can have contest with your friends ....... Who can throw the futherest ....

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Tell me more about this human "instinct to kill animals".

You see a kitten, and can't help but stomp on its head, crushing its skull?

Wow.

Nice try. I was talking about the instinct to kill animals for food (whereas you seem to be talking about acts of sadism.)

Here's what's wrong with your argument:

You keep confusing "necessary" with "moral."

Both shoplifting and assault with a deady weapon are unnecessary.

According to your reasoning, both acts are morally equivalent simply because both are unnecessary.

[W*GS]

Nice try. I was talking about the instinct to kill animals for food (whereas you seem to be talking about acts of sadism.)

Tell me more about this human "instinct to kill animals for food".

Do humans even have instincts?

You keep confusing "necessary" with "moral."

You keep overlooking choice.

Both shoplifting and assault with a deady weapon are unnecessary.
According to your reasoning, both acts are morally equivalent simply because both are unnecessary.

Both are wrong - the degree to which is the only difference. You won't even concede that the slaughter of millions of animals because people make a choice to eat them is wrong. Why?

[W*GS]

Up...

And LABF, you're behind on a few queries.

[kappys]

I have to agree with Wags on this one.

Tell me LABF if you were going to be slaughtered by aliens in a rather cruel and unusual fashion would it make much of a difference to you if you were being killed for food or to make a designer jacket?

[Rigs11]

I have to agree with Wags on this one.

Tell me LABF if you were going to be slaughtered by aliens in a rather cruel and unusual fashion would it make much of a difference to you if you were being killed for food or to make a designer jacket?

Missing the point. You act like the seals are going to get killed regardless. Not so. There might not be as much of a choice killing cows because we need them for food, to survive, we don't need fur coats to survive. Got it?

[W*GS]

Missing the point. You act like the seals are going to get killed regardless. Not so. There might not be as much of a choice killing cows because we need them for food, to survive, we don't need fur coats to survive. Got it?

The notion that killing cows is necessary for our survival would be news to vegetarians and vegans, since they do just fine without any bovine products (at least vegans do). Most vegetarians/vegans I know are damned healthy, too.

Add in all the costs associated with the wholly unnecessary consumption of animal flesh by humans, and it's downright horrific, both on what it does to the environment and our own bodies.

[alkemical]

you don't need cows to survive.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

The notion that killing cows is necessary for our survival would be news to vegetarians and vegans, since they do just fine without any bovine products (at least vegans do). Most vegetarians/vegans I know are damned healthy, too.

Add in all the costs associated with the wholly unnecessary consumption of animal flesh by humans, and it's downright horrific, both on what it does to the environment and our own bodies.

All this BS about vegetarians and eating meat is just that...BS!

Either you condone clubbing to death, gaffing and shooting baby seals for their fur or you don't. And their ARE humans that have eaten nothing but meat for endless generations and these humans DO need meat to live healthy lives. Almost all vegetarians need to supplement their diets to get enough creatine, protein and other minerals and vitamins to build healthy muscles.

[W*GS]

All this BS about vegetarians and eating meat is just that...BS!

Do tell. I'm not a vegan or a vegetarian, but I do understand and appreciate their arguments.

Either you condone clubbing to death, gaffing and shooting baby seals for their fur or you don't. And their ARE humans that have eaten nothing but meat for endless generations and these humans DO need meat to live healthy lives.

Eating "nothing but meat" would leave you vastly malnourished for a number of vitamins and other (i.e., carbohydrates) substances.

Almost all vegetarians need to supplement their diets to get enough creatine, protein and other minerals and vitamins to build healthy muscles.

Wrong. There is nothing in animal flesh that cannot be gotten by other means. Including protein. An all-meat diet (which no-one actually does) would be far worse for you than a no-meat diet.

In any case, being outraged at baby-seal-clubbing but enjoying a nice thick T-bone is hypocritical. Not hugely so, but inconsistent at least.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

In any case, being outraged at baby-seal-clubbing but enjoying a nice thick T-bone is hypocritical. Not hugely so, but inconsistent at least.

Not true (insofar as you still haven't made your original case, i.e., that killing for food and killing for vanity are morally equivalent.)

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Do tell. I'm not a vegan or a vegetarian, but I do understand and appreciate their arguments.

Eating "nothing but meat" would leave you vastly malnourished for a number of vitamins and other (i.e., carbohydrates) substances.

Besides being ignorant on several fronts you replied without even checking out my statement that some people exist exclusively on meat. After you do, come back here and tell us who some of those people are. And no, their lives are free of most of our diseases.


Wrong. There is nothing in animal flesh that cannot be gotten by other means. Including protein. An all-meat diet (which no-one actually does) would be far worse for you than a no-meat diet.

See above. Vegetarian diets don't work for everyone so your point of no one needs to eat meat is completely wrong.

That vegetarian diets are more "natural" is no longer defensible, and that they are "best" is debatable.

Rise of evolutionary research has shown hominid ancestors to be omnivores from the beginning. In recent years evolutionary science has been delving more closely into the prehistoric human past. Recent consolidation of findings in the field of research coming to be known as Paleolithic diet (or "Paleodiet," for short) has in the last 10-15 years been confirming that ancestors in the human line have been serious omnivores going all the way back to the inception of the human genus Homo over two million years ago. (Again, see Timeline of Dietary Shifts in the Human Line of Evolution for an overview of this information, as well as Corrected Anthropological Survey Data Shows Meat Averages Over 50% of Hunter-Gatherer Diets.) This means the rationale for vegetarianism as the most "natural" diet for human beings (for those who have presented it that way) has been getting the rug pulled out from under its feet, and must now rely more on other appeals.

If vegetarian diets are not necessarily the healthiest above all others, then the appeals become primarily ethical in nature. The wave of clinical studies in the 1970s and 1980s critical of excessive fat and particularly animal fat in the diet--which have themselves been coming under criticism in recent years as the fat issue is being explored in more depth--have in reality never been an argument against omnivorous diets anyway. Rather, they are an argument against the high-saturated-fat SAD diet--which should not be equated with all omnivorous diets. (See Which Omnivore Diet? The "Omnivorism = Western Diet" Fallacy for more on this point.) This may end up leaving primarily a spiritual/ethical/environmental rationale for eating veggie, particularly if it cannot be shown nutritionally superior not just to the SAD, but to other alternative--but omnivorous--diets as well (which it probably cannot be).


http://tinyurl.com/5s2yr

Contrary to vegan-based reviews or commentaries, people following a strict vegetarian diet are not
healthier than their omnivorous counterparts. In fact, on average, they suffer from as many, or more
medical complaints as compared to non-vegetarian individuals, who include meat or eggs in their diet.

There is absolutely no question that the average person does best health-wise by consuming a mixed
diet that is as fresh, and hopefully as unprocessed as possible.
http://www.acu-cell.com/veg.html


In any case, being outraged at baby-seal-clubbing but enjoying a nice thick T-bone is hypocritical. Not hugely so, but inconsistent at least.
Just like the male humans instinct is to have sex with as many different females as possible (though somewhat diluted over time now), man's instinct is to eat meat (also somewhat diluted by time now).
Clubbing, gaffing baby seals to death for their fur isn't acceptable for any reason.
So, once again, you either condone it or you don't.

[kappys]

Not true (insofar as you still haven't made your original case, i.e., that killing for food and killing for vanity are morally equivalent.)

I think the point Wags is trying to make is that while you may draw a distinction between the degree of immorality in both acts, it remains that both are immoral. Animals slaughtered for food are by and large treated worse than these baby seals were. You seem to be arguing that the end justifies the means regardless of how cruel the act is. In your opinion perhaps fashion does not justify this creulty but eating meat which is not needed in the human diet does. I agree with Wags that this is morally inconsistent.

BTW you can not live on an all meat diet. Your death from scurvy would be painful and rather horrible to watch. Even Eskimos and other peoples who predominently eat meat require some degree of plant matter to survive. Not true in reverse, although acquiring b12 via a pure vegan diet is similarly difficult. HOwever one can acquire the b12 via milk products, thus not killing animals to get it.

Humans have suppressed a number of unethical instincts over time. Presumably by the evolutionary arguments human males used to rape females on a regular basis as is seen in chimpanzees. Clearly we don't condone that in our society now.

[watermock]

This isn't a matter of condonation of "clubbing of seals" any more than Liberals want to scream at the horror of catch and release fishing.

Here are the facts for those who can't understand stark reality. Seal populations were endangered, and recovered, and they literally endanger other species at this point. Now you can argue that Hunting puppy seals is wrong. I suggest they are just so damn cute, and they are mammals, that makes the idiotic animal lover or vegan to take popular objection.

When these idiots come out about the wholesale slaughter of our foodstocks of fish I might come up from their banter and take notice. There are so many damn seals in California the docks are piling up with their crap.

Birds suffer because there isn't enough gore to pick from.

Look, you people don't have a damn clue about this, just like you seem to think Caribou will die out if there is another spur of the pipeline in Alaska, that just might save our damn lives.

What these idiots don't understand is that we have put ourselves in the position to control animal populations, and simply picking and choosing which animal looks the cutest isn't the proper scientific course.

The fact of the matter is untill the overwhelming overpopulation of Asian countries is controlled, it's not going to be a very happy century for critters in all places of the world. I'm not even a hunter, but that is beside the point. These people had been hunting in survival mode for thousands of years. It's when we bring in our high Sci-Fi crap where the animals can't hide, that's when we threaten their very existence. I am god damnned incensed that we seem to think some eskimos can even control the population.

You have to look down onto the food chain, and even down to plankton, to see exactly where this is going. Problems with Seal populations are more indictitive of food chain problems than clubbing them.

That said, I was looking on EBAY for a really cool coat to piss off LABF.

[alkemical]

All this BS about vegetarians and eating meat is just that...BS!

Either you condone clubbing to death, gaffing and shooting baby seals for their fur or you don't. And their ARE humans that have eaten nothing but meat for endless generations and these humans DO need meat to live healthy lives. Almost all vegetarians need to supplement their diets to get enough creatine, protein and other minerals and vitamins to build healthy muscles.


WHAT?

I supplement all my protien with soy. I get about 50g of protien a day, i eat nuts (cashews, peanuts, almonds), i get protien in cheese, i get protien in some fruits and vegtables.

If you eat right, you don't need meat.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

WHAT?

I supplement all my protien with soy. I get about 50g of protien a day, i eat nuts (cashews, peanuts, almonds), i get protien in cheese, i get protien in some fruits and vegtables.

If you eat right, you don't need meat.
Read my post above. Many people CANNOT live on vegetarian diet, just like many people can't live on an all meat diet (like some inuits and others do). Being a lacko veggie you get most the minerals and vitamins that pure vegetarians have a difficult time trying to find (the downside is the dairy part). Trying to get enough iron from a veggie diet is difficult at best. Iron from meat is 5 times more absorbable
than from plant matter. And there are other minerals and vitamins that veggies have the same problems with.

I tried it for almost a year and found I wasn't as quick and sharp as I was before. By adding fish and some poultry, cutting out almost all dairy and exercising, I found my optimum diet.

So for me the vegie thing doesn't work but for others it may.

[alkemical]

Read my post above. Many people CANNOT live on vegetarian diet, just like many people can't live on an all meat diet (like some intuits and others do). Being a lacko veggie you get most the minerals and vitamins that pure vegetarians have a difficult time trying to find (the downside is the dairy part). Trying to get enough iron from a veggie diet is difficult at best. Iron from meat is 5 times more absorbable
than from plant matter. And there are other minerals and vitamins that veggies have the same problems with.

I tried it for almost a year and found I wasn't as quick and sharp as I was before. By adding fish and some poultry, cutting out almost all dairy and exercising, I found my optimum diet.

So for me the vegie thing doesn't work but for others it may.


After stopping eating meat, i find myself much more clear headed. Less lethargic, etc. I do eat dairy, but i buy from local suppliers where they aren't injected with crap.

but i've adjusted to lots of soy products with no real problem

[football idiot]

too much Soy is bad for you. so is too much of anything. I tried going veggie. I tried cutting back on meat. I tried hitting the meat too hard.

Needless to say, no one on this thread is killing animals to survive, or using every part of the animal, or couldn't survive without meat. Maybe you wouldn't be happy cutting meat out of your diet, but it wouldn't cause any health concerns.

most importantly, the way our meat-factories in this country work are just as bad, if not worse, than the clubbing or skinning or whatever else they're doing to the seals in Canada. but nobodies selling pictures of the veal cattle or the surgically debilitated poultry. nobodies tracking how much hormone, antibiotic, and genetically engineered food is pumped into these meat-i-mals.

I'll have to quote Cheech Marin:

Save the Whales, but kill the seals, man, they be eatin up all the fish. Damn seals. Fish is good!

[W*GS]

Not true (insofar as you still haven't made your original case, i.e., that killing for food and killing for vanity are morally equivalent.)

They're both immoral since both are completely unnecessary for survival.

Got it?

[alkemical]

too much Soy is bad for you. so is too much of anything. I tried going veggie. I tried cutting back on meat. I tried hitting the meat too hard.

Needless to say, no one on this thread is killing animals to survive, or using every part of the animal, or couldn't survive without meat. Maybe you wouldn't be happy cutting meat out of your diet, but it wouldn't cause any health concerns.

most importantly, the way our meat-factories in this country work are just as bad, if not worse, than the clubbing or skinning or whatever else they're doing to the seals in Canada. but nobodies selling pictures of the veal cattle or the surgically debilitated poultry. nobodies tracking how much hormone, antibiotic, and genetically engineered food is pumped into these meat-i-mals.

I'll have to quote Cheech Marin:

Save the Whales, but kill the seals, man, they be eatin up all the fish. Damn seals. Fish is good!


I eat about 20g of soy protien in some way or another a day. (drinks to other items) - some days less - but with dairy products (cheese, yogurt, etc) you can get protien there, and from nuts, and from other stuff too.

Even rice has protien.

I personally think the 'meditarian' style is the best 4-6oz of any meat (chicken, fish) and the rest is fruits and veggies. I eat seafood now and then, but mostly in the summer.

[kappys]

Read my post above. Many people CANNOT live on vegetarian diet, just like many people can't live on an all meat diet (like some intuits and others do). Being a lacko veggie you get most the minerals and vitamins that pure vegetarians have a difficult time trying to find (the downside is the dairy part). Trying to get enough iron from a veggie diet is difficult at best. Iron from meat is 5 times more absorbable
than from plant matter. And there are other minerals and vitamins that veggies have the same problems with.

I tried it for almost a year and found I wasn't as quick and sharp as I was before. By adding fish and some poultry, cutting out almost all dairy and exercising, I found my optimum diet.

So for me the vegie thing doesn't work but for others it may.

The truth is that everyone can live on a vegetarian diet provided there are some animal products(milk) to provide B12. No one can live on an all meat diet. It is simply not possible. Even the inuits eat some plant matter.

You bring up a point with iron and B12 being more difficult to get without eating meat, so it would rquire some research and careful food monitoring to do but would not be at all impossible.

I eat meat myself, so I'm not arguing for vegetarianism. But the point is that it is possible, we just choose not to do it.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

The truth is that everyone can live on a vegetarian diet provided there are some animal products(milk) to provide B12. No one can live on an all meat diet. It is simply not possible. Even the inuits eat some plant matter.

You bring up a point with iron and B12 being more difficult to get without eating meat, so it would rquire some research and careful food monitoring to do but would not be at all impossible.

I eat meat myself, so I'm not arguing for vegetarianism. But the point is that it is possible, we just choose not to do it.

:) Better do some research before you make a blanket statement like that. In fact, humans have and do live on all meat diets.

[W*GS]

In fact, humans have and do live on all meat diets.

Humans have and do live on non-meat diets as well.

Suffice to say that for but a very tiny minority of all humans, the slaughter of hundreds of millions of animals just to supply food is completely unnecessary and is no less immoral than the clubbing of baby seals for coats.

[kappys]

:) Better do some research before you make a blanket statement like that. In fact, humans have and do live on all meat diets.

Nope. Even the eskimos used to eat the innards of caribou and fish which provided them with undigested plant matter.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

They're both immoral since both are completely unnecessary for survival.

Got it?

The "immoral = unnecessary" equation you keep trying to work is fallacious.

Got it?

Killing animals for food is the way of nature.

When was the last time you saw a lion kill a zebra so he could wear the skin to impress the rest of the pride?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Nope. Even the eskimos used to eat the innards of caribou and fish which provided them with undigested plant matter.
Still didn't research it, I see.

[Rigs11]

More hunting. I'd like to see anyone defend this shet.Mock you're a cat lover right?

Wisconsin takes step to OK wild cat hunts

Wednesday, April 13, 2005 Posted: 7:46 AM EDT (1146 GMT)

MADISON, Wisconsin (AP) -- Although Wisconsin residents have voiced their support for a plan to legalize wild cat hunting, some legislators and cat lovers say they will continue their fight.

The proposal would allow licensed hunters to kill free-roaming cats, including any domestic cat that isn't under the owner's direct control or any cat without a collar, just like skunks or gophers -- something the Humane Society of the United States has described as cruel and archaic.

Outdoor enthusiasts approved the proposal 6,830 to 5,201 at Monday's spring hearings of the Wisconsin Conservation Congress, a citizens' advisory group.

The results, released Tuesday by the state, get forwarded to the Natural Resources Board for its consideration. Ultimately, though, any measure would have to be passed by the Legislature and signed by Gov. Jim Doyle.

Two state senators -- Scott Fitzgerald and Neil Kedzie -- are promising they'll do everything they can to keep the plan from becoming law.

Kedzie, who chairs the Natural Resources and Transportation Committee, called the issue "a distraction from the main tasks we have at hand."

"I don't see a whole lot of momentum for it," Kedzie said. "It's not the responsibility of the DNR to regulate cats."

Fitzgerald, co-chairman of the Legislature's powerful Joint Finance Committee, said he will "work against any proposed legislation to legalize the shooting of feral cats."

At least two other upper Midwestern states, South Dakota and Minnesota, allow wild cats to be shot -- and have for decades.

Every year in Wisconsin alone, an estimated 2 million wild cats kill 47 million to 139 million songbirds, according to state officials. Despite the astounding numbers, the proposal has been met with fierce opposition from cat lovers such as Ted O'Donnell.

O'Donnell, who gathered more than 17,000 signatures in an online petition to oppose the plan, was joined at Monday's meetings by scores of other animal lovers who held pictures of cats, clutched stuffed animals and wore whiskers.

Even Karen Hale, the head of the Madison Audobon Society, one of the largest pro-bird groups in the country with 2,500 members, voted no. She said the proposal was just too controversial, even though wild cats have reduced the state's bird population.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/04/12/killing.wildcats.ap/index.html

[W*GS]

The "immoral = unnecessary" equation you keep trying to work is fallacious.

The "necessary = moral" equation you're working is truly fallacious.

Killing animals for food is the way of nature.

So is killing animals for clothing. Prove otherwise.

Or, prove "the way of nature" (whatever that means!) is moral.

Note also that you exclude plants (excepting the very few insect-consuming ones) and herbivorous animals from "nature" by your statement.

When was the last time you saw a lion kill a zebra so he could wear the skin to impress the rest of the pride?

When was the last time you saw a zebra kill another animal just to eat?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The "necessary = moral" equation you're working is truly fallacious.

If this is the case, then you realize it blows up your argument as well, don't you?

Probably not.

So is killing animals for clothing. Prove otherwise.

Big difference. In traditional societies, e.g., those of Native Americans, clothing was provided by the same animals which were used for food. No part of the animal was wasted. The Indians showed great reverence for the animal. Compare and contrast this behavior with the methods of the baby seal clubbers.

Or, prove "the way of nature" (whatever that means!) is moral.

Prove that nature is immoral. Prove that a mountain lion is evil when he kills a deer.

[W*GS]

If this is the case, then you realize it blows up your argument as well, don't you?

Actually, it doesn't. Necessity does have a relevance to morality.

BTW, you haven't elucidated this human "instinct to kill for food". Please do so.

Big difference. In traditional societies, e.g., those of Native Americans, clothing was provided by the same animals which were used for food. No part of the animal was wasted. The Indians showed great reverence for the animal. Compare and contrast this behavior with the methods of the baby seal clubbers.

Or the methods of modern slaughterhouses.

Prove that nature is immoral.

Prove that humans must eat animal flesh.

Nature is neither moral nor immoral, it just is. A tsunami that kills 250,000+ people isn't evil.

Prove that a mountain lion is evil when he kills a deer.

I don't apply human ethics to animals. Why are you trying to? Or, why are you trying to apply animal "ethics" to humans?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Actually, it doesn't. Necessity does have a relevance to morality.

But you just got done saying that it was 'fallacious' to equate morality with necessity.

Make up your mind.

BTW, you haven't elucidated this human "instinct to kill for food". Please do so.

You deny that humans, since the outset of recorded history, have killed animals for food? Do you further deny that, for our earliest known ancestors, instinct was the sole determining force where human behavior was concerened? Finally, do you deny that these same instincts are still hard-wired into our brains?

Nature is neither moral nor immoral, it just is.

Thanks for making my point for me. Now apply this same premise to human nature, and you're on the right track.

I don't apply human ethics to animals. Why are you trying to?

See above.

[W*GS]

But you just got done saying that it was 'fallacious' to equate morality with necessity.

Two things being relevant to each other doesn't mean that they are equal to each other.

You deny that humans, since the outset of recorded history, have killed animals for food?

Irrelevant.

Humans have killed other humans for just as long - does that mean killing is moral?

The long history of some human action is completely irrelevant as to the morality of the action.

Do you further deny that, for our earliest known ancestors, instinct was the sole determining force where human behavior was concerened? Finally, do you deny that these same instincts are still hard-wired into our brains?

Give me a list of human instincts - as opposed to reflexes. And that our minds are helpless in the face of these instincts - that we cannot override them.

Thanks for making my point for me. Now apply this same premise to human nature, and you're on the right track.

There is nothing, then, that humans do as part of their nature than can be called moral or immoral, because human nature just is?

So what's the point of laws, or ethics generally?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Two things being relevant to each other doesn't mean that they are equal to each other.

This doesn't resolve your flip-flop re: "necessary = moral."

Humans have killed other humans for just as long - does that mean killing is moral?

I guess it depends on who you ask. Throughout human history, some types/instances of homicide have been deemed moral (or even sanctioned by God) and some have been deemed immoral (and punishable by death.)

The long history of some human action is completely irrelevant as to the morality of the action.

My reference to human history was in response to your request that I elucidate the human instinct to kill for food.

Give me a list of human instincts - as opposed to reflexes. And that our minds are helpless in the face of these instincts - that we cannot override them.

Any human instinct that is repressed, denied, dissociated, or otherwise split off from consciousness eventually resurfaces via some indirect, misdirected, or otherwise unconscious expression. The reptilian and mammalian parts of the brain have been around much longer than the limbic system. You can't just wish instincts away.

There is nothing, then, that humans do as part of their nature than can be called moral or immoral, because human nature just is?


Didn't say that. We have the power to "call" any act we choose "moral" or "immoral." However, man's instincts are a given - just like other natural phenomena, they just "are."

Does clubbing baby seals to death in order to sell their fur have an instinctual component, or is it simply an act motivated by conscious choice, e.g., economics?

[football idiot]

funny that LABF, who writes off the entire (R) party as a bunch of murderers, is now on record on claiming that it is impossible to deny the human instinct to KILL! and that trying to deny, repress, or avoid such instinctual compunctions will lead to bizarre and perverse expressions of said 'instincts'.

you are a sick little man, aren't you. you'll say anything to 'save face' on an internet message board. maybe your the 'little eichmann'.

[W*GS]

This doesn't resolve your flip-flop re: "necessary = moral."

No flip-flop.

It's more difficult to claim a given human action as immoral when such an action is necessary. For example, one could claim that any form of life that is killed by a human makes that action immoral, however, the act of breathing (which is necessary) does lead to the deaths of innumerable germs, viruses, etc., but I wouldn't call those killings "immoral". Likewise, humans must eat to live, as we cannot photosynthesize or consume rocks, but the choice of what we eat does have a moral component, because we can choose to kill animals for food, or not. I'm not going say that animals (much less plants) have rights (as we say humans do) but given that humans can live just fine without killing animals, there's no necessary reason to kill animals for food.

I guess it depends on who you ask. Throughout human history, some types/instances of homicide have been deemed moral (or even sanctioned by God) and some have been deemed immoral (and punishable by death.)

So since some kinds of killing are OK, and others are not, we can't say much about any specific instance of killing? That's lame.

My reference to human history was in response to your request that I elucidate the human instinct to kill for food.

Human history is completely irrelevant. There isn't a single act that we would normally consider immoral that hasn't been committed by one or more persons at some time in the past, so pointing to past instances, even a large number of them, to attempt to deny that said act is immoral does not prove your point.

Any human instinct that is repressed, denied, dissociated, or otherwise split off from consciousness eventually resurfaces via some indirect, misdirected, or otherwise unconscious expression. The reptilian and mammalian parts of the brain have been around much longer than the limbic system. You can't just wish instincts away.

Name such an instinct.

By this "argument", you excuse (why?) almost any human behavior.

"I haven't gotten laid in such a long time, I couldn't help but rape that girl - I got instincts, man!"

It's bull**** and you know it, LABF. You're just pulling out stuff in an attempt to rescue yourself, and it ain't pretty.

Didn't say that. We have the power to "call" any act we choose "moral" or "immoral."

To a point.

However, man's instincts are a given - just like other natural phenomena, they just "are."

Name these instincts.

Does clubbing baby seals to death in order to sell their fur have an instinctual component, or is it simply an act motivated by conscious choice, e.g., economics?

I've never supported clubbing baby seals for their fur. You, however, have gotten yourself into all sorts of nonsensical gyrations trying to justify the killing of animals just for food. Does having hamburgers and Chicken McNuggets (OK, maybe there really isn't any animal flesh in those) really mean that much to you?

[Spider]

Big difference. In traditional societies, e.g., those of Native Americans, clothing was provided by the same animals which were used for food. No part of the animal was wasted. The Indians showed great reverence for the animal. Compare and contrast this behavior with the methods of the baby seal clubbers.




Thats the truth , Indians used every part of the Buffalo , they could on a kill ...
Slaughter houses do the same , Hide , Lips , even the asshole is used .....
Worst loads I used to have to haul was from Monforts sheep plant in Greeley Colorado . They ship Sheep hides( not just the wool) mainly to Places in Kansas ,Texas , California , for clothing , car seats , Gloves etc ........ The bad part was they stink and bad , take you a month to get the smell out of your trailor ......
I know alot of People here , that use every part of a deer , Elk, Antelope also ...... One thing I cant abide is a trophy hunter , like the asshole that shot the Big Bull Elk outside of Jackson Wyoming , took the Antlers and left the rest to rot ........

[W*GS]

Bump...

I still want to hear more from LABF about these human instincts.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Thats the truth , Indians used every part of the Buffalo , they could on a kill ...


That's right, Spider.

As Joseph Campbell noted in his "Power of Myth" series, when we sit down to the dinner table we thank God for the food.

These people thanked the animal.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

It's more difficult to claim a given human action as immoral when such an action is necessary.

This is exactly the point I was making when I noted that you had failed to show that killing animals for food was morally equivalent to killing animals for vanity.

Food is a necessity, and, as Beerslug explained, vegetarianism isn't right for everyone.

Is vanity a necessity?

...however, the act of breathing (which is necessary) does lead to the deaths of innumerable germs, viruses, etc., but I wouldn't call those killings "immoral".

Followers of the Sikh religion regard killings like these as immoral. They even go so far as to walk around wearing masks over their mouths so as to not accidentally inhale micro-organisms. I guess it all comes down to a question of to whose ethics you choose to subscribe.

but given that humans can live just fine without killing animals, there's no necessary reason to kill animals for food.

Beerslug already explained why a vegetarian diet doesn't work for everyone.

So since some kinds of killing are OK, and others are not, we can't say much about any specific instance of killing? That's lame.

Here you attempt to take my remarks out of context.

Your question didn't address specifics - it was quite general.

Here it is again:

Humans have killed other humans for just as long - does that mean killing is moral?

My answer was that we have seen nothing but relativism and subjectivism on the part of humans throughout history where the question of homicide is concerned. Do you deny this? Can you point to some human civilization that has held "thou shalt not kill" as an absolute credo?

Now, what bearing does any of this have on your attempt to prove that killing animals for food and killing animals for vanity are morally equivalent?

Human history is completely irrelevant. There isn't a single act that we would normally consider immoral that hasn't been committed by one or more persons at some time in the past, so pointing to past instances, even a large number of them, to attempt to deny that said act is immoral does not prove your point.

???

What point are you talking about?

Name such an instinct.

Sexuality and aggression are the most obvious.

By this "argument", you excuse (why?) almost any human behavior.

:bs:

Explaining/understanding does not = excusing.

"I haven't gotten laid in such a long time, I couldn't help but rape that girl - I got instincts, man!"

Now you're really going off the deep end in your misrepresentation of my remarks.

It's bull**** and you know it, LABF. You're just pulling out stuff in an attempt to rescue yourself, and it ain't pretty.

More like "you're just pulling out all the stops in an attempt to put words in my mouth, and it ain't pretty."

I've never supported clubbing baby seals for their fur.

Then why do you oppose those who object to such an act in a debate?


You, however, have gotten yourself into all sorts of nonsensical gyrations trying to justify the killing of animals just for food.

On the contrary, you've spun your wheels and have gone nowhere in your efforts to morally equate clubbing baby seals for their fur with eating meat.


Does having hamburgers and Chicken McNuggets (OK, maybe there really isn't any animal flesh in those) really mean that much to you?

I don't eat either of these things, so you're asking the wrong person.

[W*GS]

This is exactly the point I was making when I noted that you had failed to show that killing animals for food was morally equivalent to killing animals for vanity.

You need to show that killing animals for food is necessary. You have failed to do so.

Food is a necessity, and, as Beerslug explained, vegetarianism isn't right for everyone.

That may be (I find it rather difficult to believe that there are individuals for whom a meat-free diet is impossible) but that doesn't justify the wholesale slaughter of animals.

My answer was that we have seen nothing but relativism and subjectivism on the part of humans throughout history where the question of homicide is concerned.

Indeed. And you're carrying on this tradition.

Certainly we can do better.

Sexuality and aggression are the most obvious.

Be more specific - what about sexuality and aggression makes them "instincts"?

Then why do you oppose those who object to such an act in a debate?

I don't - just pointing out that those who decry baby-seal-clubbing whilst enjoying a juicy steak are being hypocritical.

On the contrary, you've spun your wheels and have gone nowhere in your efforts to morally equate clubbing baby seals for their fur with eating meat.

You've gone absolutely nowhere in your attempts to justify the killings of animals for food - you can't rely on biological necessity, so you've go on to some sort of vague "instinct" (which, if you're intellectually honest, is another dead end), which won't save your argument. If you have some degree of integrity, you'll need to concede that there is no more necessity to killing animals for food than there is for clubbing seals for clothing.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You need to show that killing animals for food is necessary. You have failed to do so.

Wrong. Once again, I point you to Beerslug's explanation as to why a vegetarian diet isn't right for everyone.

That may be (I find it rather difficult to believe that there are individuals for whom a meat-free diet is impossible) but that doesn't justify the wholesale slaughter of animals.

But no one attempted to justify the wholesale slaughter of animals.

It was you who brought up the subject in an effort to invalidate the outrage people on this thread expressed re: the plight of the seals.

In short, you pulled your usual stunt: Deflect attention from the crime at hand by bringing up some other crime.

Indeed. And you're carrying on this tradition.

Certainly we can do better.

Hilarious!

This from the same guy who just recommended smoking carjackers and who advocated homicide/vigilante justice on the NRA convention thread?

That's priceless! rofl

Be more specific - what about sexuality and aggression makes them "instincts"?

These instincts are "hard-wired" into the "old brain," a.k.a. the reptilian and mammalian parts of our brain. The impulses that come from these parts of the brain are never fully under our conscious control.

I don't - just pointing out that those who decry baby-seal-clubbing whilst enjoying a juicy steak are being hypocritical.

But you haven't 'pointed anything out' in this respect.

On the contrary, you have repeatedly failed to make your case.

You have not shown that killing baby seals for their fur and eating meat are morally equivalent. Hence, your charge of "hypocrisy" is unfounded.

You've gone absolutely nowhere in your attempts to justify the killings of animals for food...

But there was never any onus on me to do this in the first place.

You introduced the proposition that clubbing baby seals to death for their fur was morally equivalent to eating meat.

You've yet to provide a valid argument in support of this claim.

BTW, I'm assuming you eat meat. According to your own logic, you are no better than those men in the pictures BB posted.

[W*GS]

Wrong. Once again, I point you to Beerslug's explanation as to why a vegetarian diet isn't right for everyone.

There may be individuals whose genetic makeup makes a vegetarian diet deleterious to their health, just as there are people for whom peanuts are potentially fatal. That does not mean that a vegetarian diet would not work for the vast majority of people.

But no one attempted to justify the wholesale slaughter of animals.

Because they can't.

It was you who brought up the subject in an effort to invalidate the outrage people on this thread expressed re: the plight of the seals.

I wasn't attempting to "invalidate" anyone - just pointing out that selective outrage is just that.

In short, you pulled your usual stunt: Deflect attention from the crime at hand by bringing up some other crime.

That's your M.O., not mine. Something about whining about jaywalking whilst overlooking murder, or somesuch.

This from the same guy who just recommended smoking carjackers and who advocated homicide/vigilante justice on the NRA convention thread?

I've never said killing was always immoral. Would you do nothing while your wife (pity her) or daughter (ditto) was being raped?

These instincts are "hard-wired" into the "old brain," a.k.a. the reptilian and mammalian parts of our brain. The impulses that come from these parts of the brain are never fully under our conscious control.

Our "sex drive" is "never fully under our conscious control"? Please explain, and, how that doesn't rationalize away rape.

You have not shown that killing baby seals for their fur and eating meat are morally equivalent. Hence, your charge of "hypocrisy" is unfounded.

Do humans need baby seal fur coats? No. Do humans need to eat meat? No.

You've had a couple false starts on trying to justify meat-eating, but you've yet to succeed. Give it up.

BTW, I'm assuming you eat meat. According to your own logic, you are no better than those men in the pictures BB posted.

I fully acknowledge that by eating meat, I've made a choice that has moral implications and that at some level, I am no better than those people who kill baby seals for their fur, for the earnings that provides. For some reason, you're twisting yourself all over the place attempting to rationalize your (assumed) meat-eating. Why not just own up to the fact that your outrage over the killing of baby seals isn't exactly a shining example of moral consistency?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

There may be individuals whose genetic makeup makes a vegetarian diet deleterious to their health, just as there are people for whom peanuts are potentially fatal. That does not mean that a vegetarian diet would not work for the vast majority of people.

Now you're simply backpedalling.

"Vast majority" (which you have not quantified) does not = everyone.

In order for your original premise/categorical statement, i.e., eating meat isn't necessary, to be true, it would have to apply to everyone.

I wasn't attempting to "invalidate" anyone...

Sure you were. You were trying to minimize the objections to the treatment of the seals by diverting attention to some other issue. (Your favorite tactic.)


...Something about whining about jaywalking whilst overlooking murder, or somesuch.

Another bad analogy, i.e., one that doesn't apply to the present discussion.

Or are you trying to claim that the difference between baby seal clubbing/stockyards is analogous to that of murder/jaywalking?

I've never said killing was always immoral.

That's not the point.

You berated me for simply pointing out (not advocating) man's history of ethical subjectivism/relativism in his attitudes toward homicide right after you advocated homicide/vigilante justice on another thread.

Would you do nothing while your wife (pity her) or daughter (ditto) was being raped?

Another lame attempt to accomplish with ad hominem what you can't accomplish with logic.

Our "sex drive" is "never fully under our conscious control"? Please explain

Acculturation and socialization require a certain degree of sexual suppression, repression, or, at least, sublimation insofar as society doesn't permit us to go around schtupping everything we see. These split-off impulses don't just disappear into some psychic black hole - they find some unconscious/indirect outlet or expression or another.

[show]how that doesn't rationalize away rape.

Why do you assume it does?


Do humans need baby seal fur coats? No. Do humans need to eat meat? No.

Beerslug already proved you wrong on this account.

The best you can hope to establish here is that "some humans don't need to eat meat."

(A premise the truth of which isn't sufficient to make your original case.)

And I'm the one who needs to "give it up?"

rofl That's rich.

You've had a couple false starts on trying to justify meat-eating, but you've yet to succeed. Give it up.

rofl

Your habit of concluding with this sort of bass-ackward projection is just too funny.

Why not just own up to the fact that your outrage over the killing of baby seals isn't exactly a shining example of moral consistency?

Why not just "own up" to the fact that your attempts to establish said "inconsistency" have been repeatedly shot down in flames?

(But what am I thinking - this would require some modicum of honesty or integrity on your part, wouldn't it?)

[W*GS]

"Vast majority" (which you have not quantified) does not = everyone.

In order for your original premise/categorical statement, i.e., eating meat isn't necessary, to be true, it would have to apply to everyone.

I really doubt more than a teeny (as in some thousands out of several billion) portion of the entire human population would have to have meat be a part of their diet because of their inability to live on a vegetarian diet. The (possible) existence of such individuals does in no way justify the eating of meat by everyone else. You're really reaching into la-la-land (as seems apropos) in believing that it does.

Sure you were. You were trying to minimize the objections to the treatment of the seals by diverting attention to some other issue. (Your favorite tactic.)

The two issues are related, in a moral sense. You still have a problem regarding meat-eating as having any kind of moral import. Why?

Or are you trying to claim that the difference between baby seal clubbing/stockyards is analogous to that of murder/jaywalking?

Actually, in terms of overall costs, it's hyperbole and over-rhetorical (right up your alley) but the clubbing of a couple hundred thousand baby seals pales in comparison to the industrial-scale slaughter of tens (hundreds?) of millions of animals just for their flesh. Add in the costs of the feed they eat (and the costs of the agriculture devoted to that instead of feeding people), the waste they generate, the impact on our health, the problems of contaminated food, and so on... Clubbing baby seals is small potatoes in comparison.

You berated me for simply pointing out (not advocating) man's history of ethical subjectivism/relativism in his attitudes toward homicide right after you advocated homicide/vigilante justice on another thread.

I advocated no such thing, nor did I ever state that all forms of killing are immoral.

Acculturation and socialization require a certain degree of sexual suppression, repression, or, at least, sublimation insofar as society doesn't permit us to go around schtupping everything we see.

That seems to be a problem only for certain males.

These split-off impulses don't just disappear into some psychic black hole - they find some unconscious/indirect outlet or expression or another.

Uh-hunh. Such as?

Sounds like a smattering of Freud and bad class notes from Psych 101 to me.

Why do you assume it does?

Why should someone be held responsible for actions not under their conscious control, as you've claimed an instinct to be? We both know rape isn't about sex, or the male getting his rocks off, but by allowing the premise of some actions with a sexual dimension being instinctual, as you have, makes rape as a crime problematic.

Beerslug already proved you wrong on this account.

He did not. He provided evidence against the idea that a vegetarian diet is more "natural" for humans (which I've never claimed - we're omnivorous, obviously) and that a vegetarian diet is a priori more healthful. Considering that a completely healthful diet need not contain meat, the latter point is something of a red herring.

The best you can hope to establish here is that "some humans don't need to eat meat."

Very few humans need to eat meat. Do you?

Why not just "own up" to the fact that your attempts to establish said "inconsistency" have been repeatedly shot down in flames?

When? Not from anything you've written, certainly.

So far, you've tried to create some vague "instinct" to kill animals to justify the eating of meat (which has gotten you absolutely nowhere), and you've attempted to claim that because some people must eat meat (which you've actually not proven at all) then there's nothing wrong with the rest of us eating meat too. Even counting those two very poorly considered and proven arguments, you've done nothing of the "shot down in flames" sort at all.

Why are you desperately attempting to rationalize meat-eating? Because you realize that clubbing baby seals for their fur to make coats and chowing down on a steak just because you like it really aren't that different in a moral sense, and the thought of your being on the same moral plane as those folks who kill baby seals sickens you?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I really doubt more than a teeny (as in some thousands out of several billion) portion of the entire human population would have to have meat be a part of their diet because of their inability to live on a vegetarian diet.

First of all, "I really doubt" isn't a valid counterargument (any more than "teeny.")

Second, your original premise was a generalization, i.e., that eating meat was immoral (morally equivalent to clubbing baby seals to death for their fur) because it was "unnecessary."

Since a vegetarian diet isn't right for everyone, your premise doesn't hold true as an absolute (which was how you framed it.)

The two issues are related, in a moral sense. You still have a problem regarding meat-eating as having any kind of moral import. Why?

Backpedalling again. First you argued that the two issues were equivalent. Now you're saying "related."

I advocated no such thing...

An outright lie.

You advocated vigilante justice (to include killing carjackers) on the NRA convention thread.

Sounds like a smattering of Freud and bad class notes from Psych 101 to me.

A shortcut to an actual rebuttal on your part.

Why should someone be held responsible for actions not under their conscious control, as you've claimed an instinct to be? We both know rape isn't about sex, or the male getting his rocks off, but by allowing the premise of some actions with a sexual dimension being instinctual, as you have, makes rape as a crime problematic.

First of all, I said these impulses were never fully under conscious control. This is not the same thing as saying we have no control over these impulses. Second, just because an impulse is never fully under conscious control, it doesn't follow that the impulse must lead to violence against others.

He did not. He provided evidence against the idea that a vegetarian diet is more "natural" for humans (which I've never claimed - we're omnivorous, obviously) and that a vegetarian diet is a priori more healthful. Considering that a completely healthful diet need not contain meat, the latter point is something of a red herring.

But your premise "a completely healthful diet need not contain meat" is a generalization which was discredited by Beerslug's evidence (which showed that a vegetarian diet wasn't "completely healthful" for everyone.)

This is why your argument doesn't hold up.

When? Not from anything you've written, certainly.

See above. All that is necessary to refute your argument is a valid counterexample, i.e., to show that eating meat is necessary for some.

Mission accomplished.

So far, you've tried to create some vague "instinct" to kill animals to justify the eating of meat (which has gotten you absolutely nowhere), and you've attempted to claim that because some people must eat meat (which you've actually not proven at all) then there's nothing wrong with the rest of us eating meat too. Even counting those two very poorly considered and proven arguments, you've done nothing of the "shot down in flames" sort at all.

But the burdon to prove any or all of the above was never on me to begin with.

All that was required of me was to refute your claim that eating meat was immoral (indeed, morally equal to killing baby seals for their fur) insofar is it was (categorically) unnecessary.

Mission accomplished.

Why are you desperately attempting to rationalize meat-eating?

I'm doing nothing of the kind - probably because the idea that I need to rationalize meeting a basic survival need, i.e., eating, makes about as much sense as suggesting I need to rationalize breathing oxygen.

Now, for the real question: Why are you trying to rationalize/minimize/defend clubbing baby seals to death for their fur? Why are you trying to morally equate killing for vanity with killing for survival?

[watermock]

Two liberal Hens fighting like wannabe Roosters.

[watermock]

Baby Seal Fur is really warm.

[football idiot]

if God didn't want us clubbing baby seals he wouldn't have made their skin so warm, comfortable, and pretty.

and if He didn't want us eating animals, he wouldn't have made them out of meat.

[W*GS]

You advocated vigilante justice (to include killing carjackers) on the NRA convention thread.

What's wrong with killing carjackers? And how is doing so "vigilante justice"? The law doesn't say that it is.

First of all, I said these impulses were never fully under conscious control. This is not the same thing as saying we have no control over these impulses. Second, just because an impulse is never fully under conscious control, it doesn't follow that the impulse must lead to violence against others.

What's the difference between an "impulse" and an "instinct"? Are the two terms interchangable? For example, "impulse buying" is the same as "instinctual buying"? Your argument is falling apart.

But your premise "a completely healthful diet need not contain meat" is a generalization which was discredited by Beerslug's evidence (which showed that a vegetarian diet wasn't "completely healthful" for everyone.)

He showed no such thing. What he showed was that the claims that a vegetarian diet is "natural" were questionable, and that a vegetarian diet isn't a priori more healthful than a non-vegetarian diet. He didn't show that vegetarian diets aren't healthy, nor did he demonstrate the existence of individuals who must eat meat.

See above. All that is necessary to refute your argument is a valid counterexample, i.e., to show that eating meat is necessary for some.

Which has not been provided, by you or Beerslug.

All that was required of me was to refute your claim that eating meat was immoral (indeed, morally equal to killing baby seals for their fur) insofar is it was (categorically) unnecessary.

You've yet to do that. Your "Mission accomplished" is as bogus as Bush's use of the phrase.

I'm doing nothing of the kind - probably because the idea that I need to rationalize meeting a basic survival need, i.e., eating, makes about as much sense as suggesting I need to rationalize breathing oxygen.

"Eating" != "eating meat".

Now, for the real question: Why are you trying to rationalize/minimize/defend clubbing baby seals to death for their fur? Why are you trying to morally equate killing for vanity with killing for survival?

Survival need not mean killing animals. Prove that killing animals is necessary for your survival.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

What's wrong with killing carjackers?

I didn't comment on the morality of such an act. I simply pointed out your contradictory statements re: homicide.



What's the difference between an "impulse" and an "instinct"? Are the two terms interchangable? For example, "impulse buying" is the same as "instinctual buying"?

Not all impulses are instinctual. Some (like impulse buying) are learned/conditioned.

Your argument is falling apart.

Because I used the word "impulse?"

Now you're really throwing a Hail Mary.

He showed no such thing. What he showed was that the claims that a vegetarian diet is "natural" were questionable, and that a vegetarian diet isn't a priori more healthful than a non-vegetarian diet. He didn't show that vegetarian diets aren't healthy, nor did he demonstrate the existence of individuals who must eat meat.

He showed that a vegetarian diet wasn't right for everyone (which was all he needed to show to blow up your argument.)

Which has not been provided, by you or Beerslug.

It was provided. You are simply not honest enough to admit it.

Survival need not mean killing animals. Prove that killing animals is necessary for your survival.

All I have to do to show that your argument is unsound is to show that killing animals is necessary for some people some of the time.

Mission accomplished.

And you have failed in your attempts to prove that killing animals for vanity is morally equivalent to killing animals for survival.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The "necessary = moral" equation you're working is truly fallacious.

But you've based your entire argument on this premise/equation hitherto.

That is, you've tried to argue that killing animals for food is immoral because it is unnecessary.

Hence, according to your own reasoning, your argument is fallacious.

[W*GS]

I didn't comment on the morality of such an act. I simply pointed out your contradictory statements re: homicide.

What's contradictory?

He showed that a vegetarian diet wasn't right for everyone (which was all he needed to show to blow up your argument.)

He did not. Show me where he did.

And you have failed in your attempts to prove that killing animals for vanity is morally equivalent to killing animals for survival.

We can survive just fine without meat. Millions of vegetarians prove that.

Your continued attempts to justify killing animals for food ring as hollow as those who kill animals for clothing (including baby seals).

[W*GS]

But you've based your entire argument on this premise/equation hitherto.

No. You're the one arguing that "killing animals for food" meets the definition of "necessary". I'm arguing that "killing animals for food" meets the definition of "unnecessary".

That is, you've tried to argue that killing animals for food is immoral because it is unnecessary.

Partly.

Hence, according to your own reasoning, your argument is fallacious.

Ahh, no. If p then q, ~q does not mean ~p. I never said that all unnecessary actions were immoral.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

What's contradictory?

The fact that you berated me for simply pointing out man's history of ethical relativism with regard to homicide while you advocated vigilante killings on another thread.

He did not. Show me where he did.

He provided evidence that a vegetarian diet wasn't right for everyone. Go back and read his post if you need clarification.

We can survive just fine without meat. Millions of vegetarians prove that.

"We" = some people - not all.

Your continued attempts to justify killing animals for food ring as hollow as those who kill animals for clothing (including baby seals).

Your continued effort to morally equate eating meat with clubbing baby seals to death for their fur has failed repeatedly - yet you persist.

No. You're the one arguing that "killing animals for food" meets the definition of "necessary". I'm arguing that "killing animals for food" meets the definition of "unnecessary".

Killing animals for food is necessary for some people some of the time. BB's evidence established this.

Can the same be said about killing baby seals for fur coats?

BTW, your basic premise is that an act is wrong just in case it is unnecessary. That is, you equate "immoral" with "unnecessary."

I never said that all unnecessary actions were immoral.

It doesn't matter that you didn't say "all."

All that matters is that you have argued, in this case, that "immoral" = "unnecessary" from the outset.

The burdon to prove this equation is on you.

[W*GS]

Killing animals for food is necessary for some people some of the time. BB's evidence established this.

It did not.

Can the same be said about killing baby seals for fur coats?

Given the criterion of "some people some of the time", then, yes.

Prove otherwise.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

It did not.

Either you didn't read it or you didn't comprehend what you read.

In any event, you still haven't proven your "unnecessary = immoral" equation.


Given the criterion of "some people some of the time", then, yes.

Prove otherwise.

If you are asserting that clubbing baby seals to death for their fur is necessary for some of the people some of the time, then the burdon of proof is on you.

[W*GS]

Either you didn't read it or you didn't comprehend what you read.

Find the relevant portion that supports your contention, then.

In any event, you still haven't proven your "unnecessary = immoral" equation.

You've not proven "meat is necessary", despite several tangential attempts that did nothing but lead you into more inanity.

If you are asserting that clubbing baby seals to death for their fur is necessary for some of the people some of the time, then the burdon of proof is on you.

Let's put you naked in a colony of baby seals (club provided). QED.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Find the relevant portion that supports your contention, then.

Go back and read it.



You've not proven "meat is necessary", despite several tangential attempts that did nothing but lead you into more inanity.

But you are the one who has hitherto proposed the equation "unnecessary = immoral" as the crux of your argument. Thus, the burdon to prove this equation is on you.

Let's put you naked in a colony of baby seals (club provided). QED.

Actually, for the sake of consistency, let's put you in that colony (since you are the one arguing that clubbing baby seals to death for their fur and eating meat are morally equivalent.)

You admitted that you eat meat. Presumably, you are able to do this with little or no bad conscience.

Would you be able to club those baby seals to death for their fur with no more bad conscience than you experience when you eat meat?

You must answer "yes" or your argument is invalid.

[W*GS]

Go back and read it.

I have. I see nothing about "some people must eat meat". Show me where you have.

Actually, for the sake of consistency, let's put you in that colony (since you are the one arguing that clubbing baby seals to death for their fur and eating meat are morally equivalent.)

You admitted that you eat meat. Presumably, you are able to do this with little or no bad conscience.

Would you be able to club those baby seals to death for their fur with no more bad conscience than you experience when you eat meat?

Yes. Given a choice between freezing to death surrounded by fur that could keep me warm, and clubbing a few seals to get said fur, I'd choose living.

What would you choose?

If anyone else is following this thread, it's gone into silly-land at this point.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I have. I see nothing about "some people must eat meat". Show me where you have.

The article establishes that a vegetarian diet isn't right for everyone (which is sufficient to refute your claim that eating meat is absolutely unnecessary.)

Yes. Given a choice between freezing to death surrounded by fur that could keep me warm, and clubbing a few seals to get said fur, I'd choose living.

Inaccurate comparison.

The men in the photos/article weren't clubbing the seals to stay warm - they were clubbing them for profit and for someone else's vanity.

Would you be able to do as they do for the same reasons they do with no more bad conscience than when you eat meat?

You must answer "yes" or your argument is invalid.

If anyone else is following this thread, it's gone into silly-land at this point.

Transaltion: "My ass is as good as kicked."

Silly-land is W*GS' permanent address.

[errand]

Whats the big deal?

There they go again....the liberals who claim to be champions of the poor and downtrodden blasting the very means they have to support themselves. This hunt will bring the poor coastal communities almost 20 million dollars in revenue....and it's a bad thing.

In Africa, nations that allow elephants to be raised and harvested have seen their herd swell in population...meanwhile in other poor nations that outlaw the harvesting of elephants have seen their herds dwindle......wonder why that is?

So tell us my liberal friends, who is more important, the poor and wretched humans...or the baby seals? this is why your radical beliefs will not win elections anymore in America...because no matter what issue you clowns choose, your gonna piss off the other half of your base.

[W*GS]

The article establishes that a vegetarian diet isn't right for everyone (which is sufficient to refute your claim that eating meat is absolutely unnecessary.)

It says nothing of the sort. It says that a vegetarian diet isn't "natural" (which is obvious, given that we humans are omnivorous) and that a vegetarian diet isn't a priori healthier (which is also obvious - a diet of nothing but celery is technically vegetarian but would be unhealthy). It says nothing about some people needing to eat meat.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

It says nothing of the sort. It says that a vegetarian diet isn't "natural" (which is obvious, given that we humans are omnivorous) and that a vegetarian diet isn't a priori healthier (which is also obvious - a diet of nothing but celery is technically vegetarian but would be unhealthy). It says nothing about some people needing to eat meat.

How does your statement that humans are omnivorous jibe with your claim that eating meat is unnecessary (and hence, according to your reasoning, immoral?)

BTW, don't think I didn't notice how you ducked this:

The men in the photos/article weren't clubbing the seals to stay warm - they were clubbing the seals for profit and for someone else's vanity.

Would you be able to do as they do for the same reasons they do with no more bad conscience than when you eat meat?

You must answer "yes" or your argument is invalid.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

There they go again....the liberals who claim to be champions of the poor and downtrodden blasting the very means they have to support themselves. This hunt will bring the poor coastal communities almost 20 million dollars in revenue....and it's a bad thing.

There they go again...the wingnuts for whom the end ($$$) always justifies the means.

According to errant's values and logic, selling crack to school children is OK if it enables someone to support himself, brings in revenue, etc.

[W*GS]

How does your statement that humans are omnivorous jibe with your claim that eating meat is unnecessary (and hence, according to your reasoning, immoral?)

Omnivorous != carnivorous.

Think, next time, before you slobber onto your keyboard.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Omnivorous != carnivorous.

Think, next time, before you slobber onto your keyboard.

The only slobbering here is being done by you.

I asked you how your claim that humans are omnivorous jibes with your claim that eating meat is unnecessary (and, thus, according to your reasoning, immoral.)

Are you going to step up to the plate and answer, or are you just going to go for another ad hominem and declare victory again?

[W*GS]

The only slobbering here is being done by you.

This time I'll go slow so you can understand.

I asked you how your claim that humans are omnivorous jibes with your claim that eating meat is unnecessary (and, thus, according to your reasoning, immoral.)

If humans were carnivores, your argument might have merit. We are not, ergo, eating meat is optional given our biology - a competely healthy and more-than-adequate diet need not ever include meat.

Do I need to add spaces between each letter so you can comprehend what I've just written?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

If humans were carnivores, your argument might have merit. We are not, ergo, eating meat is optional given our biology - a competely healthy and more-than-adequate diet need not ever include meat.

It is you who apparently needs "Hooked on Phonics."

1) You pointed out that humans were omnivorous.

2) "Omnivorous" = diet that includes meat.

3) Hence, the premise that humans are omnivorous is incompatible your premise that eating meat is unnecessary (and, thus, according to your reasoning, immoral.)

Do I need to add spaces between each letter so you can comprehend what I've just written?

The O' W*GS Factor: Delivering irony and projection by the truckload.

In any event, your introduced a new premise, i.e., "omnivorous," as a deflection when you found yourself backed into this corner:

The men in the photos/article weren't clubbing the seals to stay warm - they were clubbing the seals for profit and for someone else's vanity.

Would you be able to do as they do for the same reasons they do with no more bad conscience than when you eat meat?

You must answer "yes" or your argument is invalid.

[W*GS]

1) You pointed out that humans were omnivorous.

2) "Omnivorous" = diet that includes meat.

Can include meat. Our biology does not require that we eat meat, as the biology of carnivores does.

Find a dictionary and read the definitions, as it's clear you're not clear on what they mean.

3) Hence, the premise that humans are omnivorous is incompatible your premise that eating meat is unnecessary (and, thus, according to your reasoning, immoral.)

If humans were carnivores, then it would be silly to say that eating animal flesh is immoral. If humans were herbivores, the issue would be moot. Since humans are omnivores, we can choose to eat animal flesh, or not, since nothing in our biology requires that we eat animals. Indeed, a diet of nothing but animals would be poor choice.

In any event, your introduced a new premise, i.e., "omnivorous," as a deflection when you found yourself backed into this corner:

No deflection at all. You're the one who can't comprehend the term.

Now, to dispose of your supposed slam dunk:

The men in the photos/article weren't clubbing the seals to stay warm - they were clubbing the seals for profit and for someone else's vanity.

If seals were clubbed for no purpose at all (no profit and not for someone else's desire to wear seal fur) would it be any less wrong? So, the mention of "profit" and "vanity" are irrelevant.

Would you be able to do as they do for the same reasons they do with no more bad conscience than when you eat meat?

I readily "confess" that if I had to slaughter animals in order to eat them, and it wasn't a case of literal survival, I doubt I would do so. I have no interest in hunting at all, for one thing.

In some ways, LABF, you're like the folks who choose to wear seal fur - you yourself don't kill animals, but you enable those who do by creating the demand for meat.

You must answer "yes" or your argument is invalid.

You've made it clear that you find the clubbing of baby seals for their fur to be reprehensible and wholly wrong; yet you've twisted yourself into knots trying to justify the practices that enable you to eat animals. In the final analysis, there's no more basic unavoidable reason for you to eat animals than there is for people to wear seal fur. You just cannot see how weak your rationalizations are.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Can include meat. Our biology does not require that we eat meat, as the biology of carnivores does.

Now you're back to ignoring BB's earlier evidence that a strict vegetarian diet isn't appropriate for everyone (evidence which in and of itself was sufficient to discredit your entire argument.)

Since humans are omnivores, we can choose to eat animal flesh, or not, since nothing in our biology requires that we eat animals.

Here you simply paraphrase your previous argument with its erroneous definition of "omnivorous."

(Not to mention your already-discredited "unnecessary = immoral" equation.)

To say that humans are omnivorous is to say that our biology disposes us to eat both meat and vegetables - not either meat or vegetables. (See Webster's Random House Dictionary, 4th Edition.)

Are you trying to claim that nature didn't intend for humans to eat meat?

I know I'd like to hear your explanation of how nature and evolution f*cked up. :D

If seals were clubbed for no purpose at all (no profit and not for someone else's desire to wear seal fur) would it be any less wrong? So, the mention of "profit" and "vanity" are irrelevant.

But this is not the case you have been attempting to prove hitherto.

You have been attempting to prove that clubbing baby seals to death in order to profit from selling their fur is morally equivalent to eating meat.

And you have repeatedly failed to make your case.

In some ways, LABF, you're like the folks who choose to wear seal fur - you yourself don't kill animals, but you enable those who do by creating the demand for meat.

Another attempt to restate your already-discredited claim that eating meat and clubbing baby seals to death to make a fashion statement are morally equivalent.

Apparently you believe repeating this argument often enough will somehow confer validity on it.

You've made it clear that you find the clubbing of baby seals for their fur to be reprehensible and wholly wrong; yet you've twisted yourself into knots trying to justify the practices that enable you to eat animals.

Another false statement.

I made no reference to the aforementioned "practices," but since you mention them, are you suggesting that there is only one such possible practice, or that all such possible practices are morally equivalent?

In the final analysis, there's no more basic unavoidable reason for you to eat animals than there is for people to wear seal fur.

More repitition of the same faulty argument. Now that's a surprise.

Reason for eating meat: Human biology (even if you allow that meat isn't the only food choice.)

Reason for clubbing baby seals for fashion statement: Vanity and profit.

If this isn't slow enough for you to see the difference, then you're probably beyond hope.


You just cannot see how weak your rationalizations are.

:laugh:

It's official: You need to make "irony follows inanity" your signature.