211–220 of 314 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We also benefit - by learning to treat animals better, we'll learn to treat each other better.
If you treat me like your dog I'll probably end up punching you in the face. Just saying.
"...dipping it into salt water and then thrusting a knife into its brain." So for a few seconds it will think it's being released back into its natural habitat and then seconds later its brains are dripping down some chef's knife. The article talks about "animal dignity", but how is that giving them any form of dignity? They are still being killed unnaturally. NOTE: I'm not some animal rights person and I do eat meat…
There is nothing more natural than being killed and eaten by one's predator, not necessarily in this order.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's as easy to catch a spider and throw it out as to kill it. So fo the right thing and have a respect for a little wild animal.
You're making an assumption that it is indeed the right thing to do.
That means cats must have a daily visual contact with other felines, and hamsters or guinea pigs must be kept in pairs. And anyone who flushes a pet goldfish down the toilet is breaking the law. Say what? So in Switzerland I can go to jail for not making a play date for my cat, or buying a little friend for my hamster? What's next, you can't kill a spider that's creeping around your house? People need to understand t…
It's as easy to catch a spider and throw it out as to kill it. So fo the right thing and have a respect for a little wild animal.
As a bonus, we don’t need to decorate for Halloween.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Dave Arnold, another favorite writer of mine, has a solution to this problem: clove oil anesthetizes lobsters (and fish). Clove oil, knife through the head, then boil. Or, you know, don’t kill them. Not sure why this idea is still considered extreme. Why harm fellow creatures when it is simply unnecessary? As Tolstoy wrote[1], "A man can live and be healthy without killing animals for food; therefore, if he eats me…
We clearly eat far more meat than we need and produce/harvest meat in ways that create unnecessary damage and suffering. However, not everyone is like you. Some people develop deficiencies when they exclude meat from their diet. I have witnessed an ex-vegan health/nutritional professional advise a vegetarian to start eating some meat due to chronic health issues and lab-tested nutritional deficiencies. It was an hard…
I'm one of those people.
Personally, I think refraining from consuming animals is the morally superior option—nothing to do with health. In the longer history of humankind I hope that's the direction we take. I'd happily take an artificial steak made of a complex of vegetable proteins, fast, etc that tastes like prime beef over slaughtering an animal if it contains all the similar nutrients that are absorbed the same way...
My sister-in-law and brother—both former/current athletes—are vegan and vegetarian, respectively, and make great work of the diet. She runs a vegan recipe blog, and he keeps in great physical shape as a provincial police officer while restricting his animal consumption to eggs and dairy.
I unfortunately inherited deficiencies in B12, Iron, and other deficiencies from my mother's side. She, in her old age, has to resort to transfusions once every few years to live. Wouldn't wish it upon anybody. I like to think I can fare much better.
It got to the point in my own restricted diet where my doctor explicitly instructed me to eat a lot more red meat. After some time I've reduced my intake there, and increased my sublingual B12, but still need to keep up enough other nutrients (forgive my omitting details) to keep up.
The difference that appropriate nutrition has isn't limited to the physical, either.
Nutrition is a very complex problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I'm curious if he hesitates to kill spiders since writing this article. DFW committed suicide many years ago.
This is pretty clear bait, but his choice to commit suicide gives absolutely no information on his position on harming other creatures.
The weird part of all this is lobster was considered garbage only about a 100 years ago. I live in a rural area and the farmers would use whole lobsters as fertilizer on their fields. This only after anyone bothered to collect them from the beaches, no fishermen were catching them. Even when people did eat them anyone who did was poor. My mother in her mid 70s said to me kids at school who had lobster were mocked bec…
That explains Doctor Zoidberg
This morning I looked out of my kitchen window and saw a falcon picking apart a small animal (bird I think). It took an incredibly long time for the animal to stop moving. That's death in nature. We can and should strive to do better.
Agreed. We should destroy an many animals in nature as possible to prevent them from reproducing and causing more suffering. All animals should only be allowed to be raised in captivity and killed as humanely as possible. And from there it follows that we must capture and enslave all humans, to prevent them from causing pain and hurting each other as they would given their own devices.
There is a fantasy series with this motif. It's called The Second Apocalypse, by R. Scott Bakker, and the first book is called the Prince of Nothing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We already have laws about which animals can be kept as pets. This is hardly an egregious extension of that power. The law is very plainly there to prevent guinea pigs from being abused. It is not there to extend the government's power. What an extremely odd thing to argue.
The concept is about 'what constitutes legitimate authority?' After all, consider your argument: >'we already have laws about which people can get married. This is hardly an egregious extension of that power. The law is very plainly there to protect children.' What you're advocating by disavowing the above, yet allowing the topic is to say you: "agree with authority when it happens to agree with my moral compass." Sa…