Veganism denotes a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude - as far as is possible and practical - all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing, or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals, and the environment.
We have animal-free alternatives, so it's a moot point really.
Beyond that, it could be argued we're still exploiting that animal (assuming the cow was raised in captivity.)
I believe a false dichotomy is being argued here, and it's reasonable to state that there are other forms of technology BESIDES coal for energy generation, and they could very well be utilized in place of coal. (Imagine that.)
I don't have a URL handy, but Japan themselves are heralding this, and pursuing green energies.
Further, you're really underplaying the realities behind nuclear and the harm it causes. 'Human deaths' isn't the only metric.
What's worse, they cannot be insured. Who foots the bill when accidents happens? The tax payer. Ask Japan how much money they 'saved' with Fukushima.
When you add it up, nuclear is WAY more expensive.
Further, spending on alternatives is an INVESTMENT. Spending on nuclear is a future burden, which will be decommissioned in the best case, and a toxic wasteland in the worst.
Would love to see some intellectual honesty in this discussion.
Curious if there are any other OE (Outlook Express) fans still out there - it's a nearly perfect mail no-frills client, imo... The only thing i'd like to see updated is an insta-spell feature like in practically every other program...
I know they've got an MS Live email client, how does it compare to OE?
Sorry this is off-topic from Thunderbird (i've tried a few releases, but never been happy with it), but obviously fans of mail clients (vs browser mail) will be reading this. =)
Agree completely. I had to fight the urge to mention this in my post, to simply keep it 'on target', but this is a much deeper underlying issue, that also ties into the feeling of entitlement and dominion - that people can just 'own' other animals as they desire. There's little questioning of this. Most pet owners have pets for THEMSELVES, not for the sake of the pets (which is a big difference from the perspective of a rescuer.)
A really good book that discusses this (among other related issues) is 'On Their Own Term: Bringing Animal-Rights Philosophy Down to Earth` by Lee Hall, a co-worker of mine at Friends of Animals. It can be ordered from our website, or Amazon. A very worthwhile read.
They can continue to sell pet supplies, but i suspect there won't be any grandfathering. The practice of selling animals is being banned. It'd be like if, say, asbestos were banned, and shops selling it previously were 'grandfathered' - no, it's illegal to sell.
This is such an awful, one-sided article. Was it written by a pet store owner??
It completely ignores the fact that tens millions of cats, dogs and other pets are killed annually in the US due to 'overpopulation'.
Banning the sale of these animals means people have to instead turn to shelters, where all the unwanted animals (often from bored or inconvenienced owners) end up.
This decreases demand from breeders (and starts shutting them down), and solves the issue of 'overpopulation' - which is probably the actual reason this is coming about -- although completely neglected by the author of TFA.
Have you taken any steps to simply make it more difficult for you cat to kill birds? Like a bell on the collar, etc..?
If it's becoming a problem (ie, threatening local bird numbers) perhaps your cat should be kept indoors more? (Depending on where you live, sometimes it's safer to keep cats indoors then let them outside where there are significant dangers, and creepy people. =(
I don't know if breeding meal worms is really a 'solution', or more of a band-aid. What about birds that don't eat meal worms?
How did this post get modded up so much? It's garbage.
Let's see actual evidence of multiple accounts of this type of fraud.
Some guy on the internet saying that most of the videos are staged is highly suspect and unlikely. As the saying goes: remarkable claims require remarkable evidence.
Perhaps there have been some unscrupulous filming incidents, but it's unlikely very many are guilty of this, given all it takes is the worker to say 'well, they got me to stage this'. On the flip side, there are many accounts of workers describing the processes and they're not far from what's routinely filmed. And given that many of these films are made to use in court, this would be particularly counter-productive.
Even if plants are sentient (which there is zero evidence to support, and you can't be comparing say a pig and a tomato plant....), eating plant foods is still the more compassionate choice, given that any animal we commonly exploit eats VASTLY MORE plants.
Given that as a vegan i am against the consumption of hens, why would i advocate for the consumption of roosters...? Certainly, i would prefer Japanese fisherman do something else, but i can't cover every situation in one post....we're speaking about a very privileged human who could make very different choices.
And i think most everyone CAN embrace this message, if they wanted to. Why should i give up because most people don't agree (yet)? 100 yrs ago nearly everyone found the idea of abolishing human slavery just as laughable as you consider veganism. Luckily, people eventually progress. The attitudes and mentalities that enable the exploitation and domination of other animals is deeply troubling.
Err..what do we as humans do that is 'natural'? We're far from natural, and this is as weird a place as any to start waving the 'natural' card!
It's 'natural' to beat, eat and rape others of our own species..
I find it odd that we generally DON'T want to model our behaviour after other species, but diet is one common exception.... A critical element here is that we very much have a choice.....and that is why we refrain from other harmful behaviour.
...i would suggest that rather than get into the perverse world of actually killing animals (but still bypassing the rest of the process, ie, raising, feeding, etc), why not just stop eating animal products altogether? (I hope he's 'getting his hands dirty' with egg and dairy products as well...so much killing in those industries too - calves from dairies end up as veal, and many, many unwanted male chicks from layer hens are ground up shortly after birth.)
We, as humans, have no physiological need for any foods that come from an animal, and in this day and age it's easy enough to find vegan alternatives to just about anything you can think of....and vegan foods are much better for the environment and resolve most ethical issues, especially if buying organic. (Look up 'veganic' as well - vegan-organic farming using no animal fertilizer, etc..!)
When it comes down to it, we're raising and killing animals for nothing more than a specific taste sensation. This is really unfortunate, given the lives these animals have to go through, the ethical compromises the humans involved have to make, the massive drain on resources and damage to the environment. That is an awfully high price for something as unnecessary as a 'specific taste'.
While i agree with most of the sentiment against Sony, i think they nailed it with the Reader e-book, and did that one right. I have a *little* hope for their tablet, but am suspicious.
Maybe this could be a neat twist..several advantages can come from this, not to mention free advertising.
Writers could get creative, and write a few extra scenes, some make it in the show, some don't, etc.. So what people Tweet or share may never even appear, etc..
I dunno, it's 2011, stop making it all doom and gloom about technology. I thought Red Dwarf was a sci fi comedy...?
Exactly - not to mention that fees are being paid on both ends... Netflix is paying to send it out, and we're paying to receive. Interesting model, that.
Imagine if the post office worked like that - you pay to have your letter mailed, and the recipient also pays when they get it...
Rogers is especially bad, but Shaw is really starting to lose touch as well. My fees have gone up ~$10 with Shaw in the last couple of years, from ~$42/mo to ~$52/mo, and i think i read that they're supposed to go up again soon...wtf?
How does a bogus remark like this get marked up to 'informative'??
Cows are *not* efficient, by any sense of the word. Yeah, you can send a cow out to some rocky slope, but you're only going to have a few, if it's a rocky slope and not a grassy slope (there has to be food for them.)
Not to mention the amount of water they need as well.
Humans are efficient, turning those rocky slopes into step farming plots, etc.. (Which sadly then gets wasted and fed to animals all-too-often.)
Not to mention that this does nothing good for the environment, cows are still producing methane, and if they're eating all the "grass and weeds", they're taking away food from other animals who may reside in the area... Already, livestock takes up an unimaginable amount of land. If concentrated farming practices (ie, factory farms) were eliminated, much more land would be required, clearing even more forests and native habitat. It would be a nightmare.
I feel odd, as a vegan, making a case against less awful conditions for an animal, but i also need to think about the animals living in that habitat...and for the cow, at the end of the day - factory farm or family farm, it's still just a death camp for them.
Exactly - the relative issue here is protection, and this is granted to 'persons' regardless of 'capacity' - dolphins in this case. (It isn't based on the ability to say 'i want personhood'.)
Which all flows back to my original point, that this all becomes arbitrary when using intelligence as the benchmark for personhood.
I think you're onto something there - when you start to look at it, 'intelligence' becomes rather arbitrary. You could also argue there are humans less intelligent than many animals (especially human youth), and if intelligence becomes the benchmark, then many humans may also be ejected from the class of 'personhood'.
No infant can ask for personhood, nor may others with differing mental or physical capabilities. Should they be denied personhood and the rights and privileges that comes with it?
And what if we can get them to type or sign 'i want personhood'?
Slashdot Mirror
Curious what this means for people who can't see...?
I'd say probably not. The definition of vegan is:
Veganism denotes a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude - as far as is possible and practical - all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing, or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals, and the environment.
We have animal-free alternatives, so it's a moot point really.
Beyond that, it could be argued we're still exploiting that animal (assuming the cow was raised in captivity.)
I would say 'yes', if the people contributing the genes are consenting.
Luckily there's already a few types of vegan 'gelatin', such as agar agar, so we've had jello, marshmallows, etc, for many years already.
And i would certainly prefer those over the human variants. Ew!
- Token Vegan ;)
Why is it 'either/or' with nuclear and coal?
I believe a false dichotomy is being argued here, and it's reasonable to state that there are other forms of technology BESIDES coal for energy generation, and they could very well be utilized in place of coal. (Imagine that.)
I don't have a URL handy, but Japan themselves are heralding this, and pursuing green energies.
Further, you're really underplaying the realities behind nuclear and the harm it causes. 'Human deaths' isn't the only metric.
I have to laugh whenever people react with 'solar/etc is not economic at this time'.
Is nuclear free?
It's freaking expensive. Plants cost billions. Mining costs tons.
What's worse, they cannot be insured. Who foots the bill when accidents happens? The tax payer. Ask Japan how much money they 'saved' with Fukushima.
When you add it up, nuclear is WAY more expensive.
Further, spending on alternatives is an INVESTMENT. Spending on nuclear is a future burden, which will be decommissioned in the best case, and a toxic wasteland in the worst.
Would love to see some intellectual honesty in this discussion.
Interesting....so if i like OE, is it worth checking out Live Mail?
TIA!
Curious if there are any other OE (Outlook Express) fans still out there - it's a nearly perfect mail no-frills client, imo... The only thing i'd like to see updated is an insta-spell feature like in practically every other program...
I know they've got an MS Live email client, how does it compare to OE?
Sorry this is off-topic from Thunderbird (i've tried a few releases, but never been happy with it), but obviously fans of mail clients (vs browser mail) will be reading this. =)
- Dave
Agree completely. I had to fight the urge to mention this in my post, to simply keep it 'on target', but this is a much deeper underlying issue, that also ties into the feeling of entitlement and dominion - that people can just 'own' other animals as they desire. There's little questioning of this. Most pet owners have pets for THEMSELVES, not for the sake of the pets (which is a big difference from the perspective of a rescuer.)
A really good book that discusses this (among other related issues) is 'On Their Own Term: Bringing Animal-Rights Philosophy Down to Earth` by Lee Hall, a co-worker of mine at Friends of Animals. It can be ordered from our website, or Amazon. A very worthwhile read.
Thanks for your thoughts. =)
They can continue to sell pet supplies, but i suspect there won't be any grandfathering. The practice of selling animals is being banned. It'd be like if, say, asbestos were banned, and shops selling it previously were 'grandfathered' - no, it's illegal to sell.
This is such an awful, one-sided article. Was it written by a pet store owner??
It completely ignores the fact that tens millions of cats, dogs and other pets are killed annually in the US due to 'overpopulation'.
Banning the sale of these animals means people have to instead turn to shelters, where all the unwanted animals (often from bored or inconvenienced owners) end up.
This decreases demand from breeders (and starts shutting them down), and solves the issue of 'overpopulation' - which is probably the actual reason this is coming about -- although completely neglected by the author of TFA.
Have you taken any steps to simply make it more difficult for you cat to kill birds? Like a bell on the collar, etc..?
If it's becoming a problem (ie, threatening local bird numbers) perhaps your cat should be kept indoors more? (Depending on where you live, sometimes it's safer to keep cats indoors then let them outside where there are significant dangers, and creepy people. =(
I don't know if breeding meal worms is really a 'solution', or more of a band-aid. What about birds that don't eat meal worms?
My two cents. =)
How did this post get modded up so much? It's garbage.
Let's see actual evidence of multiple accounts of this type of fraud.
Some guy on the internet saying that most of the videos are staged is highly suspect and unlikely. As the saying goes: remarkable claims require remarkable evidence.
Perhaps there have been some unscrupulous filming incidents, but it's unlikely very many are guilty of this, given all it takes is the worker to say 'well, they got me to stage this'. On the flip side, there are many accounts of workers describing the processes and they're not far from what's routinely filmed. And given that many of these films are made to use in court, this would be particularly counter-productive.
Even if plants are sentient (which there is zero evidence to support, and you can't be comparing say a pig and a tomato plant....), eating plant foods is still the more compassionate choice, given that any animal we commonly exploit eats VASTLY MORE plants.
Given that as a vegan i am against the consumption of hens, why would i advocate for the consumption of roosters...? Certainly, i would prefer Japanese fisherman do something else, but i can't cover every situation in one post....we're speaking about a very privileged human who could make very different choices.
And i think most everyone CAN embrace this message, if they wanted to. Why should i give up because most people don't agree (yet)? 100 yrs ago nearly everyone found the idea of abolishing human slavery just as laughable as you consider veganism. Luckily, people eventually progress. The attitudes and mentalities that enable the exploitation and domination of other animals is deeply troubling.
Err..what do we as humans do that is 'natural'? We're far from natural, and this is as weird a place as any to start waving the 'natural' card!
It's 'natural' to beat, eat and rape others of our own species..
I find it odd that we generally DON'T want to model our behaviour after other species, but diet is one common exception.... A critical element here is that we very much have a choice.....and that is why we refrain from other harmful behaviour.
...i would suggest that rather than get into the perverse world of actually killing animals (but still bypassing the rest of the process, ie, raising, feeding, etc), why not just stop eating animal products altogether? (I hope he's 'getting his hands dirty' with egg and dairy products as well...so much killing in those industries too - calves from dairies end up as veal, and many, many unwanted male chicks from layer hens are ground up shortly after birth.)
We, as humans, have no physiological need for any foods that come from an animal, and in this day and age it's easy enough to find vegan alternatives to just about anything you can think of....and vegan foods are much better for the environment and resolve most ethical issues, especially if buying organic. (Look up 'veganic' as well - vegan-organic farming using no animal fertilizer, etc..!)
When it comes down to it, we're raising and killing animals for nothing more than a specific taste sensation. This is really unfortunate, given the lives these animals have to go through, the ethical compromises the humans involved have to make, the massive drain on resources and damage to the environment. That is an awfully high price for something as unnecessary as a 'specific taste'.
- Dave
While i agree with most of the sentiment against Sony, i think they nailed it with the Reader e-book, and did that one right. I have a *little* hope for their tablet, but am suspicious.
I think Spaceballs got it right.
It's 2011 - how many unheated homes are left in Iceland?!?!
Maybe this could be a neat twist..several advantages can come from this, not to mention free advertising.
Writers could get creative, and write a few extra scenes, some make it in the show, some don't, etc.. So what people Tweet or share may never even appear, etc..
I dunno, it's 2011, stop making it all doom and gloom about technology. I thought Red Dwarf was a sci fi comedy...?
Exactly - not to mention that fees are being paid on both ends... Netflix is paying to send it out, and we're paying to receive. Interesting model, that.
Imagine if the post office worked like that - you pay to have your letter mailed, and the recipient also pays when they get it...
Rogers is especially bad, but Shaw is really starting to lose touch as well. My fees have gone up ~$10 with Shaw in the last couple of years, from ~$42/mo to ~$52/mo, and i think i read that they're supposed to go up again soon...wtf?
How does a bogus remark like this get marked up to 'informative'??
Cows are *not* efficient, by any sense of the word. Yeah, you can send a cow out to some rocky slope, but you're only going to have a few, if it's a rocky slope and not a grassy slope (there has to be food for them.)
Not to mention the amount of water they need as well.
Humans are efficient, turning those rocky slopes into step farming plots, etc.. (Which sadly then gets wasted and fed to animals all-too-often.)
Not to mention that this does nothing good for the environment, cows are still producing methane, and if they're eating all the "grass and weeds", they're taking away food from other animals who may reside in the area... Already, livestock takes up an unimaginable amount of land. If concentrated farming practices (ie, factory farms) were eliminated, much more land would be required, clearing even more forests and native habitat. It would be a nightmare.
I feel odd, as a vegan, making a case against less awful conditions for an animal, but i also need to think about the animals living in that habitat...and for the cow, at the end of the day - factory farm or family farm, it's still just a death camp for them.
Exactly - the relative issue here is protection, and this is granted to 'persons' regardless of 'capacity' - dolphins in this case. (It isn't based on the ability to say 'i want personhood'.)
Which all flows back to my original point, that this all becomes arbitrary when using intelligence as the benchmark for personhood.
I think you're onto something there - when you start to look at it, 'intelligence' becomes rather arbitrary. You could also argue there are humans less intelligent than many animals (especially human youth), and if intelligence becomes the benchmark, then many humans may also be ejected from the class of 'personhood'.
No infant can ask for personhood, nor may others with differing mental or physical capabilities. Should they be denied personhood and the rights and privileges that comes with it?
And what if we can get them to type or sign 'i want personhood'?
It's possible i suppose, but 100 million legitimate accounts sounds a bit dubious... Probably 1 in 10 of people who 'follow' me are bots/spammers.
Ahhhh! No more Toxic Toast Crunch for me...