comparing eating meat to paedophiles and child abusers!

[cyberman]

To do that you have to draw the line at all these "causes" even if they are considered "right" by the people wanting them.

OK. What's your view on bloodsports? Bullfighting, fox hunting and whatnot.

[cyberman]

Nope, you still have not got it. In your opinion humans are equal. There was a time and for some people  still, when that was not thought true. In your opinion animals are it equal, but some people disagree with you. Simply asserting you are right is not argument. Care to try again?

It's a loser NS.

Perhaps I best just claim plants are also equal, just to throw a spanner in the works. How far that could go, just look up fruitarians.

We need to eat, everything we consume is composed of living matter.

Being Omnivours my argument is that diet is a matter of personal choice.

No argument is ever perfect.

A horse is just meat really, but some people get very upset about eating it.

The French have a different opinion about it.



My key points are.

Human beings are equal regardless of things like sexuality, colour etc.

Animals are not equal and are not able to make choices so are not responsible the way a human being is, so is not considered to have the same rights or responsibilities.

We are Omnivours, which means we can up to a point choose what to eat And modern life allows us the ability ( and luxury) to follow our choice. ( clothing made of furs was essential in some places). It's not just about food.

Eating meat is a natural part of our diet, as is shown by the diet of chimps our nearest cousin.

Therefore eating meat is justified, for those who want to.

Those that want to force a restricted diet on others, are the oppressors, especially when they employ aggressive tactics of one sort or another.

Hence I don't like it!

In the video the woman was talking about taking it a step further, as in not being prepared to accept the choices of others, in restaurants etc. basically harassing others. She didn't agree with the live and let live philosophy.

For me, it's a step to far.
I see people like her as a threat to my freedom, ultimately.

Hence I get het up.

Some of my best friends are veggie, and I will cook veggie for them. The difference is in the attitude.

They are " live and let live" the woman in the video seems to be anti that.

That we are omnivores is n appeal to nature fallacy. The question then would be can we survive without meat?

I think it is more can we live healthily without meat, just surviving isn't setting the bar high enough.

I think we live healthier with a combination of both meat and veg.

Vegans that also cut out dairy gave to be very careful they get all the nutrients they need and it's only modern living that enables us to have a wide range of veg and vitamin tablets.

I think there is a lot of blurring in this discussion between "are the vegans right" and "are the vegans allowed to share their views with the rest of us"

[Nearly Sane]

I think it is more can we live healthily without meat, just surviving isn't setting the bar high enough.

I think we live healthier with a combination of both meat and veg.

Vegans that also cut out dairy have to be very careful they get all the nutrients they need and it's only modern living that enables us to have a wide range of veg and vitamin tablets.

Plus transporting the variety of veg doesn't have a very good carbon footprint either.

So given that we are omnivores, ypu would be happy for someone to but a pound of your best human rumpsteak?

[BashfulAnthony]

As the strongest species on the planet, it is our beholden duty to protect the weaker  (including the weaker within our own species), and not to exploit, demean, or take advantage of them.

[Nearly Sane]

I think it is more can we live healthily without meat, just surviving isn't setting the bar high enough.

I think we live healthier with a combination of both meat and veg.

Vegans that also cut out dairy have to be very careful they get all the nutrients they need and it's only modern living that enables us to have a wide range of veg and vitamin tablets.

Plus transporting the variety of veg doesn't have a very good carbon footprint either.

So given that we are omnivores, ypu would be happy for someone to but a pound of your best human rumpsteak?

No because human beings are equal and therefore it would be unacceptable.

Which is simple assertion. It's not accepatble to you because you define humans as equal. Meat eating is not accepatable because they define animals (which we are) as equal

[Nearly Sane]

As the strongest species on the planet, it is our beholden duty to protect the weaker  (including the weaker within our own species), and not to exploit, demean, or take advantage of them.

WTF does strongest mean? Why is our beholden duty? Why do you normally argue that helpingf addicts is wrong?

[BashfulAnthony]

As the strongest species on the planet, it is our beholden duty to protect the weaker  (including the weaker within our own species), and not to exploit, demean, or take advantage of them.

Good, so you would be the first person to help a obese person then, as they are often weaker. Nor would you demean them 😉

If someone needs medical attention, it is, rightly given;  what on earth is that to do with being weak or demeaned?  I am talking of the exploitation of the weaker, for whatever reason.  I thought you might have twigged that rather obvious intention!

[floo]

Nope, you still have not got it. In your opinion humans are equal. There was a time and for some people  still, when that was not thought true. In your opinion animals are it equal, but some people disagree with you. Simply asserting you are right is not argument. Care to try again?

It's a loser NS.

Perhaps I best just claim plants are also equal, just to throw a spanner in the works. How far that could go, just look up fruitarians.

We need to eat, everything we consume is composed of living matter.

Being Omnivours my argument is that diet is a matter of personal choice.

No argument is ever perfect.

A horse is just meat really, but some people get very upset about eating it.

The French have a different opinion about it.



My key points are.

Human beings are equal regardless of things like sexuality, colour etc.

Animals are not equal and are not able to make choices so are not responsible the way a human being is, so is not considered to have the same rights or responsibilities.

We are Omnivours, which means we can up to a point choose what to eat And modern life allows us the ability ( and luxury) to follow our choice. ( clothing made of furs was essential in some places). It's not just about food.

Eating meat is a natural part of our diet, as is shown by the diet of chimps our nearest cousin.

Therefore eating meat is justified, for those who want to.

Those that want to force a restricted diet on others, are the oppressors, especially when they employ aggressive tactics of one sort or another.

Hence I don't like it!

In the video the woman was talking about taking it a step further, as in not being prepared to accept the choices of others, in restaurants etc. basically harassing others. She didn't agree with the live and let live philosophy.

For me, it's a step to far.
I see people like her as a threat to my freedom, ultimately.

Hence I get het up.

Some of my best friends are veggie, and I will cook veggie for them. The difference is in the attitude.

They are " live and let live" the woman in the video seems to be anti that.

That we are omnivores is n appeal to nature fallacy. The question then would be can we survive without meat?

I think it is more can we live healthily without meat, just surviving isn't setting the bar high enough.

I think we live healthier with a combination of both meat and veg.

Vegans that also cut out dairy have to be very careful they get all the nutrients they need and it's only modern living that enables us to have a wide range of veg and vitamin tablets.

Plus transporting the variety of veg doesn't have a very good carbon footprint either.

Veganism is certainly not good for growing children as they are deprived of nutrients.

[Outrider]

Veganism is certainly not good for growing children as they are deprived of nutrients.

It's harder to get the range, but not impossible. I'm not an advocate myself, but it's entirely possible to get the balance of nutrients - it's not cheap, either, from what I've been told.

O.

[OH MY WORLD!]

Here in Canada we are very aware of the harm Greenpeace and the EU bans (seal products) have done to the Inuit of our Arctic and Greenland. And as a result of these bans,  what the overpopulation of seals has done to fish stocks. We are well aware of the damage done to sealers of Labrador and Newfoundland through the use of dishonest campaigns against them. The days of baby seals being clubbed to death was over decades ago but PETA, for example, continues to show pictures of that as if it is still happening. Now I will look up what PETA compares sealing to.

[Nearly Sane]

I think it is more can we live healthily without meat, just surviving isn't setting the bar high enough.

I think we live healthier with a combination of both meat and veg.

Vegans that also cut out dairy have to be very careful they get all the nutrients they need and it's only modern living that enables us to have a wide range of veg and vitamin tablets.

Plus transporting the variety of veg doesn't have a very good carbon footprint either.

So given that we are omnivores, ypu would be happy for someone to but a pound of your best human rumpsteak?

No because human beings are equal and therefore it would be unacceptable.

Which is simple assertion. It's not accepatble to you because you define humans as equal. Meat eating is not accepatable because they define animals (which we are) as equal

And fruitarians see plants as equal too, along with animal rights.

http://m.wikihow.com/Become-a-Fruitarian

They can think and do what they want, just as long as they don't bother me with it.

It's simple really.

I'll stick to a nice rare steak

So if I like to abuse children, it's simple really. It's what I like, you can think and do what you want as long as you don't bother me. I'll stick to a nice 7 year old

[OH MY WORLD!]

Why are you trying to be sarcastic and funny about child abuse Mr. Nearly? You just went at me for stating a fact on India's Child prostitution epidemic, and here you are being sarcastic and trying to be funny.  Here you are going after Rose for no reason but that you are in desperate need of a cookie.

[cyberman]

Why are you trying to be sarcastic and funny about child abuse Mr. Nearly? You just went at me for stating a fact on India's Child prostitution epidemic, and here you are being sarcastic and trying to be funny.  Here you are going after Rose for no reason but that you are in desperate need of a cookie.

I think you're wrong here, jc. NS is making the point that not joining in with an atrocity isn't sufficient. If you feel that an atrocity is being committed, you campaign against it, you don't just say "well, live and let live, as long as I am free to choose not to do it it's ok"

[OH MY WORLD!]

He's doing so with sarcasm and a sick attempt at being funny Cyber. I don't think making the remark "I'll stick to a nice seven year old" is at all appropriate, no matter what point one is making. He spewed off on me for mentioning that India has an epidemic problem with child prostitution. He suggest I am doing the, you country is worse, with Sriram, when in truth I am standing against Sriram's pattern of, look how bad the west is and don't snoop on what's going on in India. I just think Mr. Nearly is too high on himself today.

[cyberman]

He's doing so with sarcasm and a sick attempt at being funny Cyber.

I disagree, I think he is using a shocking example to make his point.
Might you be exaggerating your outrage to avoid addressing that point?

[OH MY WORLD!]

Nope, not at all. I find Mr. Nearly's point making is in reality just having a go at Rose. Why else would he have to resort to offensive statements like "I'll stick to a nice seven year old"? Why would somebody go so low to argue a point? And yes Cyber I find that statement offensive. But we can agree to disagree.

I have contributed here with pointing out the damage done by animal rights groups to our sealers. They ARE forcing their beliefs on those that depend on sealing. I think it was just last month that the EU finally smelled a rat and lifted their ban on Greenland's seal products. Yet they continue to damage the Canadian Inuit and east coast sealers with bans. So it is a fact, Animal rights groups are not happy with just disagreeing with the hunter, they wants the extinction of a culture. The inuit are hunters, the Metis and first nations of the north are hunters. The Labrador and Newfoundland fisherman are sealers for a few weeks a year to keep themselves off welfare and to put food on their tables.
I think that people should be able to hunt animals that are not at risk and to sell to those that wish to buy. I think that we need to listen to those on the land and not listen to the dishonest orgs. that use Hollywood celebrities to convince Europeans to kill off a culture and livelihood of peoples they know nothing about nor have ever talked to.

[cyberman]

So it is a fact, Animal rights groups are not happy with just disagreeing with the hunter,

Exactly - they want the hunting to stop. And the vegans whom Rose can't abide want animal husbandry to stop. They are allowed to want that and they are allowed to say so.

[OH MY WORLD!]

Not with the use of force Cyber. And this is what they do by using the EU to kill off cultures and the livelihoods of the Inuit and the people of Labrador/Newfoundland. I don't believe an org should be allowed to use a 30year old picture of a clubbed seal pup as a weapon against peoples and their cultures. This is one of the weapons they brought to the EU to get it on side with their campaign to destroy the culture of specific people. Not acceptable. Say you don't like sealing and want it to stop, fine. And that's where it should end but it isn't. Like I said, the EU has made a reverse decision with regards to the Greenland sealers and their seal products. Greenpeace can rant against fishermen all they want but should they be allowed to ram boats, putting the lives of the fishermen at risk? No, and that should apply to the risking of peoples culture and livelihoods.

[Udayana]

How is using a picture, no matter how old, "using force"?

Certainly ramming boats is "using force", and is not allowed.

[cyberman]

So it is a fact, Animal rights groups are not happy with just disagreeing with the hunter,

Exactly - they want the hunting to stop. And the vegans whom Rose can't abide want animal husbandry to stop. They are allowed to want that and they are allowed to say so.

And Johnny and the people who's livelihood depends on what they have done for hundreds upon hundreds of years to support their families are entitled to theirs as well.

Some of those people lived far more in balance with nature than many animal rights townsfolk who just pop down the shops and buy environmentally unfriendly nylon etc. instead of skins and leathers thinking they are better.

Actually they are not, furs and skins are a renewable resource,

No-one has said that johnny can't express his opinion, though. Whereas you don't like vegans expressing theirs. I don't know why you're going on about whether the anti-fur lot in Canada are right or wrong - it's irrelevant. They are allowed to think it, and say it, however wrong you think they are.

[BashfulAnthony]

So it is a fact, Animal rights groups are not happy with just disagreeing with the hunter,

Exactly - they want the hunting to stop. And the vegans whom Rose can't abide want animal husbandry to stop. They are allowed to want that and they are allowed to say so.

And Johnny and the people who's livelihood depends on what they have done for hundreds upon hundreds of years to support their families are entitled to theirs as well.

Some of those people lived far more in balance with nature than many animal rights townsfolk who just pop down the shops and buy environmentally unfriendly nylon etc. instead of skins and leathers thinking they are better.

Actually they are not, furs and skins are a renewable resource,

But there are artificial alternatives.

[OH MY WORLD!]

When you use a photo of a practice that ended decades ago and tell the EU that is what the sealers are doing, it is a lie. When the EU buys into the lie and bans Europeans from buying seal products from Canada, you are attempting to destroy a culture and livelihood. You are telling the Inuit that their way of life is inferior to yours. By forcing the people of Europe not to buy seal products, you are telling the sealers that what they are doing is wrong. No, how about you let the individual European decide that. The EU stands in judgement against the sealers culture and livelihood. Take away their income and force them to do your will. Thank God for the Japanese they are stepping in and buying seal product. The EU can decide now how they should compensate the Inuit of Greenland for years of damage they have done to their livelihood and because of the seal pop explosion, they better make right the damage they have done to Greenland's fish stocks.

[Rhiannon]

The lady in YouTube thinks that animals are sentient beings and shouldn't be killed for food. She likens it to child abuse. She in entitled to this opinion.

Rose thinks the lady is talking nonsense and eating animals is fine. She is entitled to this opinion.

The vegan lady is entitled to put a video expressing herself on YouTube.

Rose is entitled to ignore the vegan lady on YouTube.

The solution is for Rose not to look on the Internet at vegan people that she finds annoying.

[OH MY WORLD!]

No alternatives for the Inuit BA. And they should have the right to sell their harvest (meat, fur, etc.) for cash, to anybody that wants to buy it. Animals rights orgs. should not have the right to destroy their culture and livelihood and force them to live without. That would result in their extinction.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/05/08/animal_rights_vs_inuit_rights/

http://www.iwmc.org/index.php/component/docman/doc_view/56-anti-sealing-propaganda-and-democracy.html

[BashfulAnthony]

No alternatives for the Inuit BA. And they should have the right to sell their harvest (meat, fur, etc.) for cash, to anybody that wants to buy it. Animals rights orgs. should not have the right to destroy their culture and livelihood and force them to live without. That would result in their extinction.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/05/08/animal_rights_vs_inuit_rights/

http://www.iwmc.org/index.php/component/docman/doc_view/56-anti-sealing-propaganda-and-democracy.html

I appreciate that; but hard as it may sound, shouldn't they be adapting to the modern society they live in?  Could not the Government help them to adapt?  Surely the fur industry is not going to be enough, for a start, not with the quality artificial alternatives available, which are, without checking, probably cheaper.