Lada wrote:hreru wrote:Lada wrote:Humans eat for living, animals live for eating. And try to prove that it's not like that.
Try to prove it is like that.
what's the sence of your life? I hope nobody in this forum will answer "to eat".
Animals are driven by instincts, you can say that humans too (it's true for some of them in certain situations but it's not a universal way of our behavior), but we have something more, we have soul or if you don't like the word, call it intelligence/mind, we are not that primitive like infusoria or chimpanzee, though the last one is more developped, but still not like human - I mean mentally healthy humans without any psychic defections.
JackFrost wrote:Go ahead. I'll keep an eye on the news for a case of mass killing in the Netherlands.
It's not allowed to sell category 3 eggs in the supermarkets here.Vogelvrij wrote:I looked at my eggs and they had a two on them. I'm glad it wasn't three
I looked at my eggs and they had a two on them. I'm glad it wasn't three
Sarabi wrote:I looked at my eggs and they had a two on them. I'm glad it wasn't three
That doesn't impress me. Many cage-free chickens are still mistreated, having their beaks seared off because they still live in cramped quarters. To be happy about that would be like saying I'm glad someone was tortured by Americans rather than in Auschwitz. There is a difference, but it's hardly rosy.
Sarabi wrote:I looked at my eggs and they had a two on them. I'm glad it wasn't three
That doesn't impress me. (...) To be happy about that would be like saying I'm glad someone was tortured by Americans rather than in Auschwitz. There is a difference, but it's hardly rosy.
Boes wrote:Sarabi wrote:I looked at my eggs and they had a two on them. I'm glad it wasn't three
That doesn't impress me. (...) To be happy about that would be like saying I'm glad someone was tortured by Americans rather than in Auschwitz. There is a difference, but it's hardly rosy.
I find the above statement to be in rather poor taste.
BezierCurve wrote:Are we sure that it's not entirely reaction and we're just imposing our own emotions onto the animal?
I'd say it is also a reaction in our own case, sometimes with very strong physical symptoms. Since emotions such like fear or pain are very basic, I assumed that they are experienced in similar way by say, pigs. You don't need to have a very sophisticated ego to be scared.
Babelfish wrote:
* I remember having read that emotions are controlled by a part of the brain called the limbic system, which only exists in mammals; well, just now I've check Wikipedia for the correct spelling of 'limbic' and found that exists in reptiles too This doesn't concern just "high-level" emotions such as love maybe, but also fear and pleasure which are very basic. I don't know what this means for animals without the limbic system, but then again, nobody does yet...
DelBoy wrote:So we can say that an animal is having similar physical reactions to certain stimuli as we do, and of course it's only natural for us to anthropomorphise and say that they are feeling sad, or happy, or angry, or scared...... but we can never truly say that an animal experiences emotions, as we do. (would you say that an amoeba fleeing from a predator is frightened??)
Sarabi wrote:By the way, just want to point out that lately I have discovered that cookies, brownies, pancakes, French toast, and so on..... all have eggs. And butter. And unless you made them yourself, you probably have no idea where they came from. Better to avoid them altogether, if you ask me. Unless you like to cook, of course.
Vogelvrij wrote:Well, luckily I wasn't happy about it then, right? I hoped it was clear that I just mentioned that I payed attention on my eggs this time. I didn't know the 3-kinds weren't sold in the Netherlands, but that seems like a good thing.
What is hard and almost unavoidable is the fact that there are so many animal products in a lot of things, and it's hard or impossible to find out the actual origin.
This is really hair-splitting but... discovered? Like, you never really thought about it, or you seriously didn't know...?
(isn't French toast a toast cooked in egg, or am I mistaken...)
Either use thought-through arguments and win your battle, or for all that I care, keep on saying stupid comments and end up being perceived as a national of cuckoo-land...
After you shoot a nail in the head and killing it in snap, you can deblood the cow right there. No need to slit its throat while still alive.
Sarabi wrote:On sentience, I think plants are not sentient, but animals are. Here's why: animals have advanced central nervous systems, while plants do not. Where do emotions occur? In the brain. Where does self-awareness occur? In the brain. Plants do not have brains. Pigs do. Chickens do. Cows do. Turkeys do. Furthermore, pigs, chickens, cows, and turkeys all speak a language I can understand, an emotional language. Humans cry out when they're in pain, not as some emotionless response to having a limb chopped off or something. So if a pig squeals, why should I expect this to be any different?
Obviously, you have to draw the line somewhere unless you want to get metaphysical. It's got to be somewhere between single-celled organisms and humans. But why we would draw the line at humans I don't know.
So I want to see your "nail in the head" on video where it's "killing in a snap" because that's clearly not the case here. Those vegans weren't exaggerating when they told me meat companies just want you to think they're humane.
Speaking of which, I was looking at a bottle of milk last night and noticed that the name of the company had "Maid" in it, referring to the cows as maids.
Watch that video, by the way - it's about human dependence on animals! Phoenix defines "speciesists" alongside racists, sexists, and so on. If you think my analogies of chicken cages as concentration camps are extreme, Phoenix compares speciesists to Nazis. And yes, Phoenix has played insane people in movies. I'm not surprised that he's brave enough to narrate a film on the greatest horrors of mankind.
Sarabi wrote:Your thoughts are so thought through. You haven't explained what is wrong with my analogies except to say "can NOT be compared." An egg doesn't seem extreme to you, but it does to me. They only "can NOT be compared" because you refuse to compare them, not because of anything inherently incomparable about them. Since you care so much about arguments, why don't you actually try to understand the argument in my analogy instead of pre-judging everything I say just because it's unpleasant to you?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests