Animal rights?

(Double Post)

 

Yeah, whatever. When you can't support your rediculous comparisions, make a personal attack. I'm sure there are plenty of Jews and other Holocaust survivors that would be plenty upset that you are comparing the Holocaust to meat consumption.

 

Well you were remarkably absent when people used the nazi name calling on the vegetarian thread. You didn't answer my question, where were you? Or can you and your friends attack us with impunity with as many epithets as possible, while we can't even bring up a valid parallel on eugenics?

I ask for another argument that is not as offensive, the opposition is conspicuously silent. "Yeah whatever" is the by far the lamest, ridiculous response I've heard so far.

The interesting thing here is that your reaction perfectly illustrates our point. By engaging in wanton destruction of animals, and thinking they don't have rights solely based on intellect, you have basically admitted that it's quite innocuous for you people to call us "nazis" while we can't bring up a parallel to your guys' argument that bears a disturbing resemblence to eugenics.

You think you have the right to call names, and use the nazi word on us, while we can't go anywhere near that. It doesn't stop with animals. Your flagrant disregard for living beings has seeped into human interaction, as well. We simply have no rights because we disagree with you and social rules simply don't apply to you. Maybe you think you are stronger because you kill. Believe what you want.

Just drop out of this debate. Every post you and your friends make just paint you more and more into a corner and illustrate you as the unreasonable party.

 

Blah, blah, blah. No, I haven't been following this thread or the 50 million on the same topic before it.

Sorry, but the killing of 6 million Jews and ~6 million others is not comparable to eating meat.

 

Well if you have been keeping up, nobody was comparing the consumption of meat to naziism. The comparison was made to the argument that we can have our way with animals solely due to our intellectual superiority, and I remarked that this was disturbingly similar to Mengele's eugenics treatise. If you interpret that as a direct correlation between nazi'ism and meat-eating, that's your problem, not mine.

Your misinformed attempt to put on a sanctimonous facade and tell me that I'm wrong to compare the intellectual superiority argument to eugenics while it's quite alright for people on the other side to keep blasting us with nazi epithets is quite disturbing.

Again, I make 2 humble requests:

1) Please provide a logical argument devoid of name calling that is not simply intellectual superiority.

2) Why can the meat-eaters of this forum call the vegetarians and pro animal-rights people nazis? Are we subhuman to you because we refuse to eat meat and/or disregard animal rights?

"Yeah whatever" and "blah blah blah" and "Yadda yadda yadda" are not answers. This is pure idiocy even by Paleolithic cro-magnon standards that some people apparently hold in the highest esteem.

 

"Read the statements of yourself and your compatriots. You used intellect as the primary attribute in justifying the assertation that animals don't have rights. Thus there are unfit elements in our society that simply have no reason to live in your contrived world view. I say again, if you take offense, find some reason to justify your argument besides intellect."

Human beings are considered superior to all animals. It matters not their mental condition. It is a very simple concept: One's own species should be held in higher regard to other species for the sole purpose of survival. I, as a human being, am out for our communal survival. Thus, I regard any human of any mental capacity to be held in higher regard than an animal. You are not listening at all. Animals and Humans are not on the same level, and so what?! Why should human beings punish themselves for being on the top of the food chain; for being better at survival? There is absolutely no reason too.

"It becomes increasingly more apparent in your evasive demeanor that you take more offense toward yourself than any poster here that just happens to disagree with you. It's ironic that the other side throws the word "emotional" around like so much overused garbage. You've invested nothing but emotion in this thread."

For one thing, there is no reason to assume that I and "my compatriots" are one and the same. I never made and claim that I am aligned with everyone else here that agrees with me. You assumed I am like everyone else of the opposite camp, when that is simply an assumption on your part, and wrong. All you are doing is making a jerk out of yourself by assuming wrongly of my character and stereotyping myself. I never did the same for you. Secondly, you are the one making imflammatory rhetoric, not I.

"It's irresponsible because we now have numerous alternatives at our disposal, which are not being used exclusively due because massive diets of meat are being pushed on people. It's also irresponsible, selfish, and inconsiderate to the next generation of human beings since a great amount of land and resources are being wasted on animals that are only going to be killed by human beings."

Just because people do not adhere to your alternatives, does not make eating meat irresponsible, it is just an alternate choice. Further, I do not see anywhere that eating meat is "being pushed on people", nor do I see vegetarian alternatives being pushed on people for that matter. Though if you do feel that way, there is absolutley no reason to stereotype me in the "pushing meat on people" camp. That is irresponsible on your part. There is a lot of land being "destroyed" for homes, for businesses, are those irresponsible too? There are farms that destroyed wildlife habitats so that vegetables can be grown, aren't those people irresonsible too? Since the latter is true as well, aren't vegetarians being hypocritical? Yes they are.

The fact is, eating meat is a choice, just as being a vegetarian. I'm won't stop you if you won't stop me. Fair is fair.

"The comparison is so uncanny and so resembles eugenics, resistance to use it is almost futile. Where were you on the Vegetarianism thread when everyone used the word "nazi" against vegetarians and vegans like a bad cliche? You were looking the other way."

Those remarks were being made on both sides, so your hands aren't necessairly "clean". However, that does not mean that that poster was looking the other way in the other thread either. Though Goodwin's Law isn't necessairly right all the time in terms of Nazi references, the way in which you used it was, and still is, wrong on your part. Humans and animals are not on the same level, as one species is valued above the other. Further, we are talking about food, not genetic cleansing. You are the on arguing on emotion, not I.


Mistryl's Paramour

 

Human beings are considered superior to all animals. It matters not their mental condition. It is a very simple concept: One's own species should be held in higher regard to other species for the sole purpose of survival. I, as a human being, am out for our communal survival. Thus, I regard any human of any mental capacity to be held in higher regard than an animal. You are not listening at all. Animals and Humans are not on the same level, and so what?! Why should human beings punish themselves for being on the top of the food chain; for being better at survival? There is absolutely no reason too.

I'm not listening? You're the one without the clue, O' King Lear. Survival is possible without hunting. We are no longer drooling cro-magnons. Cutting out one possible food source is not"punishing ourselves".

No matter how you attempt to reconsolidate your words, you cited intellect as your focal point. Do I need to start re-quoting posts? But to your credit, there's not much you can use besides that. You can go biblical, and quote bible verses on how we have "dominion" over animals (like a King and his dominion, but I don't think even King Henry VIII killed that many), and you certainly can't rely on physical attributes.

For one thing, there is no reason to assume that I and "my compatriots" are one and the same. I never made and claim that I am aligned with everyone else here that agrees with me. You assumed I am like everyone else of the opposite camp, when that is simply an assumption on your part, and wrong. All you are doing is making a jerk out of yourself by assuming wrongly of my character and stereotyping myself. I never did the same for you. Secondly, you are the one making imflammatory rhetoric, not I.

The use of the word "compatriots" was more out of convenience than anything. You haven't specified how exactly your views differ from Special Fred, etc, in fact, nobody on the anti-animal rights side of the fence has disagreed with one another. Silence gives consent, so the use of the word compatriots is completely fair. Nobody is stereotyping you, you may calm down.

We're debating a point, namely, animal rights. You can't come up with something aside from intellect, so you're now resorting to schematic arguments.

Just because people do not adhere to your alternatives, does not make eating meat irresponsible, it is just an alternate choice. Further, I do not see anywhere that eating meat is "being pushed on people", nor do I see vegetarian alternatives being pushed on people for that matter. Though if you do feel that way, there is absolutley no reason to stereotype me in the "pushing meat on people" camp. That is irresponsible on your part. There is a lot of land being "destroyed" for homes, for businesses, are those irresponsible too? There are farms that destroyed wildlife habitats so that vegetables can be grown, aren't those people irresonsible too? Since the latter is true as well, aren't vegetarians being hypocritical? Yes they are.

You don't see it as being pushed on people since you have no such dietary restrictions. Ingredients from dead animals are in quite a few products. Words like "gelatin" are easy to identify, but "enzymes"? Plant or animal? Try calling the company, you wont get anywhere.

GMO foods have animal DNA, many from mammals. So if I can't pull a Green Acres and get myself a farm, or if I can't find a reputable farmer close by, then what to do? We're forced to adhere to big business until then. To call us hypocrites because of that is like Nelson from the Simpsons saying "stop endangering yourself".

You may cry foul when we try to defend ourselves on threads created to assault our beliefs, but I wont be able to do the same because of these aforementioned conditions, lest I be called a nazi by multiple people here.

Those remarks were being made on both sides, so your hands aren't necessairly "clean". However, that does not mean that that poster was looking the other way in the other thread either. Though Goodwin's Law isn't necessair

 

"I'm not listening? You're the one without the clue, O' King Lear. Survival is possible without hunting. We are no longer drooling cro-magnons. Cutting out one possible food source is not"punishing ourselves"."

Yes. You are not listening to me at all. You are only reading what you want to read. I never insulted you, or called you a nazi, or labelled you as anything derogatory at all. Just because a person eats meat, does not make that person cro-magnon or devolved in some way. Watch what you say.

"No matter how you attempt to reconsolidate your words, you cited intellect as your focal point. Do I need to start re-quoting posts? But to your credit, there's not much you can use besides that. You can go biblical, and quote bible verses on how we have "dominion" over animals (like a King and his dominion, but I don't think even King Henry VIII killed that many), and you certainly can't rely on physical attributes.""

And no matter what you say, I never spoke of genetic cleansing. Humans are superior to animals no matter what; we have proven to be so. A human life is valued more than another organisms life hence the value we place even on mentally retarded human beings. However, that does not mean I am advocating abuse of animals. Even in the animal kingdom, deer, rabbits, lions and tigers, etc. value their own lives over other organisms...so what. However, eating an animal for food is not the same as killing a mentally retarded human being. That is not on the same level, nor is it the same purpose as eating animals i.e. sustenance. You make too far a leap and are arguing simply on emotion.

"The use of the word "compatriots" was more out of convenience than anything. You haven't specified how exactly your views differ from Special Fred, etc, in fact, nobody on the anti-animal rights side of the fence has disagreed with one another. Silence gives consent, so the use of the word compatriots is completely fair. Nobody is stereotyping you, you may calm down."?

No, the point is that you lumped me in with everyone you are angry with. I am not them, and they are not me. You are stereotyping me based on other posters actions, which is unethical, irresponsible, and wrong on your part. You are the one that needs to calm down. You assume too much. Again.

"We're debating a point, namely, animal rights. You can't come up with something aside from intellect, so you're now resorting to schematic arguments."

Your comparison is incorrect, yet you consistently bring it, trying to prove its worth when it is worthless. You are the one that cannot come up with anything new as I have had to repeat myself, unfortunately.

"You don't see it as being pushed on people since you have no such dietary restrictions. Ingredients from dead animals are in quite a few products. Words like "gelatin" are easy to identify, but "enzymes"? Plant or animal? Try calling the company, you wont get anywhere."

Yet, if you do not want a diet pushed on you, why then are you claiming my thinking is similar to Nazism and cro-magnon thinking to insult my dietary choice?

"GMO foods have animal DNA, many from mammals. So if I can't pull a Green Acres and get myself a farm, or if I can't find a reputable farmer close by, then what to do? We're forced to adhere to big business until then. To call us hypocrites because of that is like Nelson from the Simpsons saying "stop endangering yourself"."

Now you are making excuses and playing the victim. Vegetarians cannot deny what happens to wildlife habitats so that they can eat their rice and other vegetables. But it is everyone elses fault but your own, right?

"You may cry foul when we try to defend ourselves on threads created to assault our beliefs, but I wont be able to do the same because of these aforementioned conditions, lest I be called a nazi by multiple people here."

You are lumping me in with other people again. You are accusing me of accosting you verbally in ways I have not so you can try and save face. You still are not listening to anything I've said.

"We

 

Some people bring up the Paleolithic cro-magnon diet, which is the most laughable thing I've seen on these forums.

How so? We've been omnivorous creatures since the Stone Age.

Well you were remarkably absent when people used the nazi name calling on the vegetarian thread.

I wasn't. Calling animal rights fanatics nazis is pretty accurate, really. Animal rights activists like you are trying to force us to adhere to a certain diet and way of life, just as Nazi Germany tried to force everyone to live a certain, "government-approved" way of life.

Or can you and your friends attack us with impunity with as many epithets as possible, while we can't even bring up a valid parallel on eugenics?

You didn't bring up a valid parallel on eugenics. You tried to make the claim that if we eat the flesh of animals, we should also agree with genetically "cleansing" our society by destroying handicapped humans. Crap. Homo sapiens are more important than any other species.

Your flagrant disregard for living beings has seeped into human interaction, as well.

Wrong. How does my omnivorous diet have anything to do with disregard for human life?

We simply have no rights because we disagree with you and social rules simply don't apply to you.

Wrong again. You have rights just like every other human being. But you don't have the right to tell me what I can and cannot put into my body. If I want to sustain my body's need for energy by eating the flesh of animals, as my ancestors have done for over a million years, you have no right to stand in my way.

Maybe you think you are stronger because you kill.

I'm not even going to touch this one.

Just drop out of this debate.

Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!

 

If I see one more reference to "Nazis" in this thread, I will invoke Godwin's Law and end this discussion.

Let's keep this civil.

Kimball Kinnison