I have made a blunder, the post I claimed Bronwyn did came from Dickie.
For that Bronwyn I am truly sorry.
For in your view not researching the thread? come I am wrongly judged I have no intention of changing PETA are silly.
Now Dickie, we have clashed before, we will again, your anger was not always released so easy, I have read your post history.
However you let fly with brutal anger often, I well remember things no male poster would ever be forgiven for in a thread Foxy used to say good by just in case, as she went for cancer treatment.
Yes I remember you too fight that battle.
I am still shocked about your comments in a number of other threads, brutal is at times not enough to describe them.
I think men could never unleash such anger without reprisals, your slur at my spell check was weak and nasty Dickie.
But you use nastiness often, you will not silence me.
I will continue to eat meat, say needless cruelty is wrong, but question animal rights groups before siding with them.
The intention of PETA is to stop recreational fishing, to stop harvesting fish, to fail to understand in this over populated world we need all the food we can get is blindness.
Dickie do you know I truly often think of your battle with your health?
And that I often put your uncontrolled anger down to that?
I hope you one day return to your earlier posting style, that some how you find having differing views than you is no reason for such nasty nasty slurs.

Ah Dickie, so nice to respond to one of your posts, it has been a long time

“Unfortunately Foxy the animal you feast on does not have that choice.”

But I do not ascribe the same rights to critters as to humans and to be honest, find the folk who claim Animal Rights a bit limp, when it comes to reasoning.

“My firm resolution is to adopt a lifestyle, like millions of others, free from the desire to feast on the rotting flesh of these tortured animals.”

My firm resolution is to support the system of democratic tolerance which allows you to follow such an ethos

But only with the absolute understanding and expectation that you respect my right to chew on tender filets of prime beef, pork, chook and sea critters of whatever sort I choose.

“There is no doubt that man is not built to be a carnivorous animal.”

Well 17th century thinking has moved on, we are omnivores and eat a broad range of items. I do like berries.

Cranberries go particularly well with turkey

“Compassionate people will no longer tolerate the insanity committed by these misfits. Already their leper bells resound around the planet - the pestilence of the 21st century - soon to be eradicated!”

Soon to be eradicated - only if you find a way to “eradicate” all the meat eaters… when the meek do truly inherit the earth.

Mind you by then, life will not be worth living anyway.

Until it happens, I will still chew on chook and anything else which takes my fancy.

Btw I remember now, you claimed I told lies… and I called you on it

and you scurried away back under your stone…

I guess you are still unable to substantiate your hairy-fairy claims…

I suppose I can expect "substaintiation" when I am about to be "eradicated"

BOAZ_David,

The natural order is “cruel in tooth and claw”. That is an observation and says nothing about the ethics. Other creatures, especially higher order animals are sentient in that they feel pain, fear, suffering etc in a similar fashion to the human animal. You would have it that a god is responsible for this being the creator of it. This is the argument that theologians cannot successfully explain away and neither can you.

Evolution has developed a speciesist attitude in most creatures to allow for doing to other species that which they do not do to their own. Humans have also been subjected to this evolutionary history. We can shut off our empathy and compassion in the name of self interest, even if that self interest is only taste preference.

Better than this godly unethical situation, is the higher ethical considerations that advanced civilisation have. In fact, such societies legislate against cruelty to other animals. Have you heard of the RSPCA and the police force that can bring legal action against those flouting such laws?

Because the legislation does not cover all sentient animals is irrelevant to the argument. There is no cut off point of suffering between those covered by legislation and those not. It is arbitrary and generally a financial demarcation.

Nature is not capable of working out that certain actions cause pain, as survival is the main imperative. However, humans can consider the pain factor and still survive quite happily. Many people think the lessening of pain a good idea and contribute by not eating meat or animal products.

You may follow a world view made by someone else but others like to think for themselves on this topic.

As an offshoot, the environmental argument to lesson the eating of meat will become stronger as the situation deteriorates. It will most likely be a better feeling voluntarily to give up meat as a matter of principle, rather than being forced to by circumstance.

Jonathon

Jonothan Byrd “This is not a shot at omnivores, as people have to make their own minds up about what they eat”

That is a good premise to start on because, being ominivors we might bite back

“Most people in developed nations do not need to eat fish.”

But like you said previously, “people have to make their own minds up about what they eat”

“Vegetarians are so because of ethical concerns;”

Well they too are people and they too are entitled to ““make their own minds up about what they eat”

“The only potential problem with veganism is vitamin B12 deficiency, which is nearly unheard of in developed nations”

Maybe because veganism, as a chosen lifestyle, is out there with the worshippers of woodland pixies

“Taste is the only variable.”

And my taste is for ribeye

But like you said originally

“This is not a shot at omnivores, as people have to make their own minds up about what they eat”

And trust me, I will continue to make my own mind up and I will practice my belief in my sovereign right to eat meat, regardless of the beliefs of the woodland-pixie worshippers.

*Hunt and voracity are unnatural to him... On the contrary his hands are made to pick fruits, berries and vegetables and teeth appropriate to chew them.” *

Hehe Dickie, you will be scratching to prove that one! I guess
those thousands of year old cave paintings were actually of men
spearing berries :)

Your posts are now sounding more and more like Nicky's but that
is what happens when you both read from your Peta bible. Now of
course your next big quandry. Do you give up milk, eggs, cheese
and leather too? Do you go out and buy all plastic shoes?

*Many people think the lessening of pain a good idea and contribute by not eating meat or animal products.*

Jonathon, this is where I think your argument is philosphically
flawed. Ok, lets agree that we should minimise suffering. But
at what point is leading no life at all, the better option.
That question can apply to all species, including humans. Think
about it.

Fact is that we can show, that much free range livestock largely
enjoy their lives and live contented lives, with far less pain
or suffering then in nature. They are fed through droughts,
treated for worms, are not torn to bits by predators etc.

Do you really think that they care about who eats them, once they
die?

I actually thought about the people on this thread a couple of
days ago, when the temperature hit 41deg. A ewe and her twins
were walking past the house, next thing she took advantage of the
verandah shade and started peering through the windows. I cracked
up laughing and it occured to me that according to Dickie etc,
perhaps I should have let her in to benefit from the airconditioning:)

Col Rouge,

Is this tone necessary? It appears to be very defensive.

“Maybe because veganism, as a chosen lifestyle, is out there with the worshippers of woodland pixies”

Or, in the same post, “…egardless of the beliefs of the woodland-pixie worshippers.”

I fail to see where anything I have said could elicit such banality. I have supplied reasonably factual knowledge. Unless of course you think that, some knowledge is best not discussed, giving you unqualified right to ridicule it to make it go away. Showing disrespect in such a manner to ideas born of compassion is a little on the base side.

This kind of method using ridicule of those with a different opinion is not very helpful in discussion. Do you feel the suppression of ideas by this method is acceptable just because they are not your ideas?

Yabby,

Are you implying that being a vegetarian or vegan is “leading no life at all”? If so, that is a value judgement that fits you, not everyone.

Most people do not necessarily eat free range meat products. The argument of a better life than in nature is meaningless compared to not eating either free range or traditionally gained meat.

How much or what kind of meat or fish people eat is up to them. That does not mean the facts surrounding such choices should not be discussed in a civilised manner.

Jonathon