what message are PETA actually trying to get across?
PETA's message is that it is wrong to kill and torture non-human animals just as it is to kill and torture humans.
I present to you, the flawed circular logic of the intelligent vegitarian/vegan.
What you're presenting is actually your own flawed circular logic, not that of a vegan.
Reason 1: I saw a baby lamb on a farm and I just couldn't bear myself to kill and eat that!
Go away. This isn't a reason. It's your squeamish stomach. If you're trying to convince people not to eat meat based on this reason alone then I despise you.
If you hate people who are sensitized to violence, you are a misanthrope. Being emotionally repulsed by violence is a trait much of the human species possesses. This trait is why we nurture babies instead of eating them.
Reason 2: In this day and age it's unethical to eat meat when you can easily sustain yourself on plant sources.
This isn't a reason. The core argument here is "its unethical to eat meat". I'd like to know why.
If you don't consider it a reason, why did you list it as a reason? If this reasoning is wierd, it is yours alone. Regardless, the reason it's unethical to eat meat is the same reason that it's unethical to eat people. Animals feel pain and suffering, just like humans do. You should read Animal Liberation by Peter Singer if you truly want to know why.
Reason 3: It's unethical to cause suffering. Thus it is unethical to eat meat.
Now we're getting somewhere! So if in the future we hooked up newly born cows to a Virtual Reality system ala. the matrix, where there was no suffering, disconnected cows would remain virtually in the world (no percieved death or loss) and execution was done painlessly and with the cow blissfuly unaware, it'd be okay to eat meat? Somehow I don't think a real vegan's going to say yes. So what's the real reason?
Suffering is inherent in a situation like that. Would you agree that it's OK to treat humans like that as well? If you say no, you can apply your reasons for saying no to non-human animals as well.
Reason 4: It's unethical to kill.
What, now plants aren't life?
Raising animals for food kills ten times as many plants as eating plants directly. You are not saving plant life by eating meat. On the contrary.
Reason 5: Plants aren't on the same level as human beings.
Then why are cows? Rabbits? Sheep? Birds? Insects? Where is this magical, arbitrary line that says it's okay to eat a pumpkin but not to eat a fish?
Where is the magical, arbitrary line that says it's okay to eat a cow but not a human? A cow is much more similar to a human being than a plant is to a cow.
Reason 6: Meat is bad for you.
Citation needed. Last I heard you need a meticulous diet of a huge array of vegetables (something that no human could have done pre-civilisation) to maintain a healthy vegan life. We've been eating meat since the dawn of man, literally, and yet here we are living just as long as the average vegetarian. However, this is the only reason on the list I could accept as being non-retarded. If you honestly think you feel better on a vegetarian diet then hey, don't let me put you down.
This isn't PETA's or an ethical vegetarian's reason for not eating meat. There's lots of studies that can be googled if you are truly curious. A typical vegan's diet I would guess is no less healthy than a typical American diet. Also, just because something has been done since the dawn of man does not mean that is the way it should continue to be done and just because something wasn't possible pre-civilization does not mean it should be avoided.
Why do some vegetarians eat fish and/or chicken but not duck
Answer me this: Why do vegans, who are against the killing of animals, protect animals which then turn around and promptly kill and eat other animals? They don't only protect herbivores AFAIK. From this point of view, saving a carnivorous animal is like saving a human so they can continue to eat meat. Being vegan means accepting the two notions that the suffering of others is undesirable and that one has free will. Having control over one's actions allows you to makes dietary choices which avoid contributing to the suffering of others. Veganism is about controlling yourself and taking responsibility for the direct effects of your actions.
And let's not get into the way they want mankind's millennia of evolution to turn on a dime, If you, vegan or not, want to make a positive change in this world, why procrastinate?
and they want alternatives to animal testing, which I can only guess means human testing, if they don't classify humans as animals...or perhaps no testing at all? I don't know what gives you the idea that vegans don't classify humans as animals.
Vivisection is an animal rights issue, not necessarily a vegan issue. Animal rights is about public policy. Veganism is first and foremost personal. The central philosophical question in the application of animal rights to vivisection, is whether it is moral to use violence to sacrifice a meeker being for the betterment of others. The complication in accepting the sacrifice of an unwilling individual, is that you may at some point find yourself to be in a situation where you are the meeker individual.
The party was scheduled for 6pm-10pm & I arrived to Cakeshop late at 10pm. The staff at Cakeshop said they were on the third party of the night & that the geeks had left hours ago but outside, amongst the hipsters smoking, I was able to spot the party animals of the slashdot crowd maligning perl & discussing the New York Times database. We took a picture & I went back in to Cakeshop to enjoy the hipsterheavymetalparty. I closed out the bar & went home.
I have a good freind that has nothing left but his car and a USB flash drive Hopefully he is a linux user & will not have to buy a replacement copy of Windows.
If he isn't, this would be a great opportunity for you to sell him on Ubuntu.
It might be fair if the one cent coin wasn't an integral part of your environment that every single person, government, corporation, or any other entity in Canada must deal with. The mint's value in the image is in facillitating trade. It's not intellectual property, it's currency which has its own special protections. If it wasn't currency, no one, including the City of Toronto, would care to communicate about it. If it's intellectual property, then there should be another source for legal tender currency & they can be absolved of that responsibility to society so they can tend to their intellectual property. Impeding communication & education about the basic constructs used to function in a society chips away at that society's foundation. If you can't see that, you're losing sight of the forest for the fake trees.
I like your solution. It's too bad the people that took thesepictures didn't think like you. I mean, losing half of the last century's photographic history is nothing compared to all the souls that wouldn't have been stolen by the camera.
I would take it one step further & propose that since I have no choice but to appear in public occasionally, that no one look at me or at least not retain any memory of it until they ask permission. I for one, look forward to our camera-shy overlords.
Slashdot Mirror
what message are PETA actually trying to get across?
PETA's message is that it is wrong to kill and torture non-human animals just as it is to kill and torture humans.
I present to you, the flawed circular logic of the intelligent vegitarian/vegan.
What you're presenting is actually your own flawed circular logic, not that of a vegan.
Reason 1: I saw a baby lamb on a farm and I just couldn't bear myself to kill and eat that! Go away. This isn't a reason. It's your squeamish stomach. If you're trying to convince people not to eat meat based on this reason alone then I despise you.
If you hate people who are sensitized to violence, you are a misanthrope. Being emotionally repulsed by violence is a trait much of the human species possesses. This trait is why we nurture babies instead of eating them.
Reason 2: In this day and age it's unethical to eat meat when you can easily sustain yourself on plant sources. This isn't a reason. The core argument here is "its unethical to eat meat". I'd like to know why.
If you don't consider it a reason, why did you list it as a reason? If this reasoning is wierd, it is yours alone. Regardless, the reason it's unethical to eat meat is the same reason that it's unethical to eat people. Animals feel pain and suffering, just like humans do. You should read Animal Liberation by Peter Singer if you truly want to know why.
Reason 3: It's unethical to cause suffering. Thus it is unethical to eat meat. Now we're getting somewhere! So if in the future we hooked up newly born cows to a Virtual Reality system ala. the matrix, where there was no suffering, disconnected cows would remain virtually in the world (no percieved death or loss) and execution was done painlessly and with the cow blissfuly unaware, it'd be okay to eat meat? Somehow I don't think a real vegan's going to say yes. So what's the real reason?
Suffering is inherent in a situation like that. Would you agree that it's OK to treat humans like that as well? If you say no, you can apply your reasons for saying no to non-human animals as well.
Reason 4: It's unethical to kill. What, now plants aren't life?
Raising animals for food kills ten times as many plants as eating plants directly. You are not saving plant life by eating meat. On the contrary.
Reason 5: Plants aren't on the same level as human beings. Then why are cows? Rabbits? Sheep? Birds? Insects? Where is this magical, arbitrary line that says it's okay to eat a pumpkin but not to eat a fish?
Where is the magical, arbitrary line that says it's okay to eat a cow but not a human? A cow is much more similar to a human being than a plant is to a cow.
Reason 6: Meat is bad for you. Citation needed. Last I heard you need a meticulous diet of a huge array of vegetables (something that no human could have done pre-civilisation) to maintain a healthy vegan life. We've been eating meat since the dawn of man, literally, and yet here we are living just as long as the average vegetarian. However, this is the only reason on the list I could accept as being non-retarded. If you honestly think you feel better on a vegetarian diet then hey, don't let me put you down.
This isn't PETA's or an ethical vegetarian's reason for not eating meat. There's lots of studies that can be googled if you are truly curious. A typical vegan's diet I would guess is no less healthy than a typical American diet. Also, just because something has been done since the dawn of man does not mean that is the way it should continue to be done and just because something wasn't possible pre-civilization does not mean it should be avoided.
Why do some vegetarians eat fish and/or chicken but not duck
where the characters download free books from a network of technologically advanced computers but I forget what it's called.
Why don't you establish prior art and shut up yourself?
No, they do. Otherwise they'll be dependent on their competitor, Microsoft. Don't be an idiot.
Wooosh!
It would.
And why is there so many of him?
Good one. Are the robots getting smarter or are more people becoming duller?
that is not even legally publishable due to copyright law. Frankly, I'm tired of you benefiting at my expense.
it seems reasonable to me that a slashdotter's diet isn't something worth killing for.
this guy's an idiot
The party was scheduled for 6pm-10pm & I arrived to Cakeshop late at 10pm. The staff at Cakeshop said they were on the third party of the night & that the geeks had left hours ago but outside, amongst the hipsters smoking, I was able to spot the party animals of the slashdot crowd maligning perl & discussing the New York Times database. We took a picture & I went back in to Cakeshop to enjoy the hipster heavy metal party. I closed out the bar & went home.
You may have deeper, uglier problems than just a rootkit if you are choosing Sony over Charmin.
I just lost the game.
Why so insistent on not pleasing people? Especially while sacrificing your own comfort for it.
zing
Is it "viri" or "virii"?
it's the Louis Anderson of trolls.
It might be fair if the one cent coin wasn't an integral part of your environment that every single person, government, corporation, or any other entity in Canada must deal with. The mint's value in the image is in facillitating trade. It's not intellectual property, it's currency which has its own special protections. If it wasn't currency, no one, including the City of Toronto, would care to communicate about it. If it's intellectual property, then there should be another source for legal tender currency & they can be absolved of that responsibility to society so they can tend to their intellectual property. Impeding communication & education about the basic constructs used to function in a society chips away at that society's foundation. If you can't see that, you're losing sight of the forest for the fake trees.
I like your solution. It's too bad the people that took these pictures didn't think like you. I mean, losing half of the last century's photographic history is nothing compared to all the souls that wouldn't have been stolen by the camera.
I would take it one step further & propose that since I have no choice but to appear in public occasionally, that no one look at me or at least not retain any memory of it until they ask permission. I for one, look forward to our camera-shy overlords.
Not having read the rational for it, I miss the old tags quite a bit.
Maybe he was reading slashdot and was using the spacebar to page down.