Moo!

[17th Angel]

lmfao... Not eating animals, I would hardly call that destroying ourselves.. Sounds a bit like a hypercondriac response ;\

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

I'm sorry my friends. I simply have no respect for animals other than humans. I think it was the way I was brought up. I blame me parents for teaching me badly.

Flies, spiders and moths get the worst treatment. When I see one, I like to get rid of it as soon as possible, but squashing it. I don't want it getting my books dirty.

For me personally, human dignity is more important than that of animals, because, you know, animals don't have dignity......they're subhuman as in......er......you know......they're not human.

Pets are different. Pets have sentimental value.

Farm animals have sentimental value too.......as the food we eat.....

God created the other animals to serve us human animals. The difference between us and the other animals is that we have a soul. The others don't. Cats and dogs don't go to heaven even if they're our pets.

We're the gods of the earth, a degree higher than the other animals. We rule. We pet them for our own pleasure. We feed them. We look after them. Then we eat them. That's the pecking order.

Back here to your first post Salty. It was precisely this attitude the made ethnic variety 'lesser' to the white man in times past. The blacks of Africa for slavery, the Aboriginals of Australia for 'hunting'. Yes you at one time could go on a package tour of Australia to hunt savages.
You demean and belittle what you cant comprehend. There are more animals that show a high degree of self awareness than do not. Chimps and certain parrot species and certain crow species have been shown to have greater cognitive ability than us!! Ignorance of the full range of what constitutes intelligence does not mean that it does not exist.

TE

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Back here to your first post Salty. It was precisely this attitude the made ethnic variety 'lesser' to the white man in times past. The blacks of Africa for slavery, the Aboriginals of Australia for 'hunting'. Yes you at one time could go on a package tour of Australia to hunt savages.

Wasn't talking about humans there, and nor am I a white man or of European descent either. Moreover, I don't think the sins of European forefathers should be revisited and attached to their descendants. Whatever behaviour was due to the naivete of the European races. Descendents should not be blamed.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

You demean and belittle what you cant comprehend. There are more animals that show a high degree of self awareness than do not. Chimps and certain parrot species and certain crow species have been shown to have greater cognitive ability than us!! Ignorance of the full range of what constitutes intelligence does not mean that it does not exist.

We don't eat chimps, parrots or crows. Chimps I assume live in the zoo. Zoo animals are not eaten. Parrots and crows are kept as pets. Horses run in races. In terms of giving a specific example, I talked about a cow.......the thing about cows voting, getting an education and food being the only job a cow could ever properly fulfil.

Anyhow, it was not exactly intelligence, but emotional sophistication that I was specifically talking about, which human beings demonstrate in their language. We've been given thousands of years to demonstrate this "sophistication." Chimps, parrots and crows may indeed have intelligence and cognitive abilities, but there is something that we have that they don't, and my view was that it was not anything to do with their brains. Whatever concepts I was hovering around derived from the idea that intelligence comes from the brain, but we have something else on top of our "intelligence" if you follow. Something higher than the intelligence that biological species can possess. They may well have feelings, but perhaps not on the same level as us.

An animal sees something that moves. It sees patterns. It adapts itself to those patterns and uses them to its advantage. Intelligence yes. But we tend to see a lot of things differently. Take society and politics for example. Or even religion. We don't just see patterns, we often see things as "having a soul." Religions, ideologies, political systems and societies have a kind of "soul." A soul isn't just a mere pattern. It has a life of its own. Like a life in itself. A religion, ideology, political system or society is not really "just a pattern" as some think. It has a soul. It lives and breathes. Like a living person. Ideology operates much like some invisible framework built on language that can develop and grow over time, just through common human understandings.

Intelligence alone allows one to see patterns, to reason by logic. There is something that allows us to see "souls" in things which probably takes things up to the next level. I believe it takes more than just intelligence and feelings to be human. We have the ability to see some greater picture or purpose, to think in the abstract.

As far as chasing up what I said before, I'm heading in a different direction now. I didn't exactly come into this thread with an unchangeable position. I'm curious about where it might head. I may indeed have a position quite different from most. But a lot of us eat meat anyway. I hear that a lot of us here aren't vegetarians anyway.

Neemai was saying it was the large-scale systematic slaughter of animals that he/she didn't like. That I can understand and relate to. It falls short of saying all meat-eating is wrong. My response is to the idea that those of us eating meat are eating species that should be given the same level of dignity as us -- that it's a contemptible practice. What I was discussing was perhaps a justification for whatever "mistakes" humanity has made.

I'm no activist here. If you'd like this to change, no problem. But it sounds like we're condemning millions and billions of meat-eating humans around the globe. Would you like the world to change or do you want to condemn people? You will probably say the former.

But ethics and morality could go further than that. This could, sort of relate to other issues like abortion and stem-cell research. How far do we have to go? The notion of sanctity of life could go a long way. Then we might ban car-racing, boxing and some violent sports. Down with alcohol and drugs. When you start making rules for one thing you have to justify that logic with rules for other things.

Should abortion be legal?

Stem-cell research?

Cloned humans?

[dauer]

I don't eat any meat or animal biproducts such as dairy, egg or honey. I also recently cut out gluten, soy and cane sugar (food sensitivities related to autistic specrum.) But I feel better now than I did when eating meat. The truth is that both meat and dairy are not good for one's health, not vice versa. They increase the risk of heart problems and put the individual at risk for other ailments too. Many think that milk is the best source of calcium but it's not true. Milk also contains things that effect the absorption of calcium (meat too.) It's been suggested for this reason that vegans might require a lower calcium intake than other people. One of the best sources of calcium is quinoa which is generally regarded as a superfood. It's tasty, too.

There are many excellent plant sources of iron. The essential nutrient that's most lacking in most vegan food is b12 which can be had via supplements or nutritional yeast. Whether we were original omnivorous or carnivorous or herbivorous doesn't really matter so much. I think most would agree anyway that we were omnivorous. But we've evolved to the point that we're different from other animals in that we can consciously choose for ourselves to act against our impulses and biological inclinations. We can thusly prevent suffering to other people and to animals by making better choices.

Truth be told, I don't think we really have an instinct to eat meat anyway. If you give an apple and a small animal to a young child it'll eat the apple and play with the animal. If you give an apple and a small animal to a young cat it'll kill the small animal and play with the apple.

In English we're fortunate *cough* to be able to call the cow we eat beef, baby cow is veal, pig is pork or ham and so on. This helps us to divorce the food on our plates from its source as a living creature. In other languages this is not always the case like German where pork is pig-flesh and beef is cow-flesh. It might be an interesting experiment to refer to your food in that manner and, before you eat, draw to your mind an image of the living animal that died so you might eat it.

I don't have anything against the choice some make to eat animals, but to then go and say that animals live to be food for humans, that it's their purpose, that to me is just ridiculous. Does that also include animals we keep as pets? And what of those animals we can't eat because they're too poisonous? What is their purpose? Is it only the purpose of those animals that we've domesticated over time that we might more easily slaughter them to be food? How do you feel about the force-feeding of geese to make fois grais? I'm not going to include a link to pictures but a tube is forced down their gullet and they're fattened by forced-feedings until their slaughter. But I do encourage you to go look for images yourself. It's quite horrific.

Dauer

[Impqueen]

I have in my freezer the meat of pigs I oohed and aahed over when they were cute little piglets. I watched them grow and fatten knowing I might be able to get some of the meat. I talked to them and scratched their heads, sprayed them with water on hot days. And then when they had been taken to slaughter (poor piggies) I asked if I could have some of the meat.

I think the pigs had souls of some sort (pig souls are probably a bit different to human souls...?) and they were deserving of good treatment, respect and a death as 'comfortable' as it is possible for a death to be. They tasted damn good too.

The life my piggies led was incomparable with the life most meat-animals live however. Animals are part of our natural food, yes. But there's no reason we have to torture the poor things in the process. No, cows don't go to university but how is this relevant? I know plenty of people who won't go to university either but I'm not about to eat them for it.

Where are you getting the idea that meat eaters are vilified? Maybe one or two evangelical veggies got a bit irritating in high school but I haven't been vilified for being an omnivore.

A side note - not all of us 'westerners' have a constitution...

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by Impqueen

No, cows don't go to university but how is this relevant? I know plenty of people who won't go to university either but I'm not about to eat them for it.

Yeah.....that's a good one.

Originally Posted by Impqueen

Where are you getting the idea that meat eaters are vilified? Maybe one or two evangelical veggies got a bit irritating in high school but I haven't been vilified for being an omnivore.

It started off as a joke, but as I've never really thought about the dignity of animals I had trouble reasoning myself into the other side of the issue. So I guess I was left on the dark side.

Then I was afraid I might get slugged for my initial comments and decided I might find some rationalisation behind what I said. The "carnivore attitude" thing was my attempt to wiggle out of the situation.

[Tao_Equus]

Ty for your reply Salty,

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

Wasn't talking about humans there, and nor am I a white man or of European descent either. Moreover, I don't think the sins of European forefathers should be revisited and attached to their descendants. Whatever behaviour was due to the naivete of the European races. Descendents should not be blamed.

You misunderstand me. Twice I believe. I was talking about how by making something lesser than us can and does become an excuse for abuse. I certainly was not trying to infer culpability on you or your ancestors for crimes long since committed.
I am not a vegi .. far from it, and i have raised and slaughtered many animals by my own hand too. I disagree with you on what you believe regarding man having something 'more' in the way of soul. But I am a Gaia theorist in that department, I believe what you would term soul as being our connection to the super-organism that is life on Earth. And thus all creatures are a part and in some sense equal in a much bigger picture.

In regards to your questions:

Yes abortion should be legal and the choice is one every woman has the right to make for herself.

Stem cell research. Of course. It offers huge potential for easing the suffering of countless people.

Cloning humans. Well if its good enough for US republican presidents.....

Regards

TE

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

You misunderstand me. Twice I believe. I was talking about how by making something lesser than us can and does become an excuse for abuse. I certainly was not trying to infer culpability on you or your ancestors for crimes long since committed.

Hello and greetings, Tao.

I was dropping a comment there, with no intention of opposing or directly counter-acting what you were saying. I was a bit unsure as to how to respond at first. What I did say was that I wasn't talking about comparisons between beings of the same species.

What I perceived was a comparison of "human racism" to "animal racism."

With "human racism" we demean members of the same species because of their appearance or the way their cultures have evolved. It seemed to me that that was being compared to "animal racism." But humans and the other animals are not equal and not the same species. There are, however, physiological differences between us and the other animals.

Human racism was based more on ideology than physiological differences. They look different. Their cultures, attitudes, ways of thinking and social arrangements are odd and don't seem sensible. Therefore they are inferior.

That's the Ideology of Race.

The Europeans who mistreated indigenous peoples didn't see a distinction between culture and behaviour. They thought they were smarter just because of the concepts taught in their culture. We now see a distinction between Biological (genetic/physiological) Evolution and political/social/ideological evolution. Racial/ethnic differences back then were thought of as part of one's biology. I don't apply that analogy to "animal racism" because realistically, there are indeed big differences in how we perceive "meaning," how we learn and adapt to things.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I was talking about how by making something lesser than us can and does become an excuse for abuse.

With regards to abuse. Let's consider what we do with the other animals.

Some animals are pets, some are food/live on a farm and we hunt them for clothing and sport. We eat them. We put them in chains and in cages. We whip horses in races. We use them in scientific experiments (poor rats). I'm not saying we abuse them, but there is one common element in all this: they're our slaves. We use them for whatever purpose we choose. They are "lesser" in that sense.

Abuse, I suppose is where we hurt them after they've served us well or where we inflict some undeserved pain. But I suppose because they're "lesser" they don't deserve it anyway. What I mean is, if we use them for food, it's because they're our slaves. Human slavery has been abolished, but not animal slavery. It's because they're "lesser beings" that we use them as "slaves" in scientific experiments.

But conversely, since whatever pain we inflict is less deserved/undeserved, the importance of the pain inflicted would obviously diminish with the importance of the animal's dignity. Let's say I spray a bunch of insects with insecticide.

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I am not a vegi .. far from it, and i have raised and slaughtered many animals by my own hand too.

Because you've had intimate interactions with animals, I'd like you to know I'm not talking about specific practices here, just the general idea of using them as food. I'll let the specialists deal with issues arising from methods and practices, and assume they do their job properly.

I did say that animals may have sentimental value, and that we decide what value each animal receives. That said, I wouldn't go into my neighbour's backyard and mutilate his dog for fun. I wouldn't do that even to an unowned dog. Dogs are pets. They have sentimental value. But even if I found myself with a cow...and since I'm not in the slaughtering business, I wouldn't do it because I don't have the training to kill a cow in a dignified way.

I don't want you to get the wrong idea, because as I said, we just use them for food. But if there's a reason why we use them for food, it's because we just don't consider the life of a cow as important as that of a human. Whatever I said was alluding to that.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I disagree with you on what you believe regarding man having something 'more' in the way of soul. But I am a Gaia theorist in that department, I believe what you would term soul as being our connection to the super-organism that is life on Earth. And thus all creatures are a part and in some sense equal in a much bigger picture.

I used "soul" in a number of different contexts in my posts to convey my views, but I usually think of "soul" as something divine, but not necessarily to do with consciousness. It's much like a separate body and mind. A body that can be damaged and suffer disease and a mind that can perceive. Physical diseases cause damage to the physical body, and spiritual diseases to the spiritual body. I think of spiritual diseases as having a moral/sentimental nature but independent of ideology. What happens in the body can affect the mind, so physical/spiritual diseases can affect the physical/spiritual minds.

I make a distinction between the brain, the physical/biological mind and that of "a soul." By "soul" I did not mean "consciousness" as many mean by "soul." I meant a kind of "illumination" that doesn't come from physical matter. It's the kind of thing that I assume Hindus and Buddhists believe in as well as, obviously, Christians. Wiccans probably believe in it too. You can't get reincarnated without a soul can you? Can you cast spells and pray without a soul?

Again, with regards to abuse, I can understand your concerns about an attitude that can encourage abuse of animals. But as I said I was just saying it's why we eat them. I recognise that animals can have sentimental value and respect them with whatever a culture demands. I regard people with the same notion -- the notion of sentimental value and it was for that reason that I developed a concern that someone might be vilified. It seemed like "animal rights" might serve to condemn certain people as "contemptible people." But I see now that most of you do eat meat, but didn't approve of certain practices. I'm beginning to think maybe we're not so different in thinking after all. Because I'd never explored this issue before I suppose I accidentally ended up on the wrong side.

That was the idea behind my earlier use of the word "soul." In a much more recent post I was talking about a "soul" driving ideology, but it didn't mean the same thing in that case. The "soul" of a spiritual mind is not the same as the soul of an ideology pursuing some agenda (ie. a social plan). The former is that of a real person, the latter being something we create to align people to the same purpose.

With regards to the super-organism idea, I don't see people from a biological perspective, but I understand what you mean. My "soul driving ideology" idea might have similarities with your super-organism idea, in the sense that it's to do with how we organise/engineer ourselves, though I'd say we're talking about a different kind of "soul" there -- your's being the biological soul and mine being the "social plan."

[sam1008]

Regardless of whether our society is capable of affording love and respect for beings with animal bodies we should at least be able to respect the religious beliefs of our fellow humans and not go around insisting on slaughtering thier sacred cows.

Here's some definitions for 'sacred cow' as it is used in the English language from the web:

a person unreasonably held to be immune to criticism
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
A sacred cow is a person, institution, idea (often a theory - then: "pet theory") or ideology that is immune (usually unreasonably so) from criticism or opposition.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_cow

This use of the phrase is unacceptable as it is disrespectful to Hindus and should, and I believe soon shall be, outlawed as politically uncorrect.

[wil]

Originally Posted by sam1008

This use of the phrase is unacceptable as it is disrespectful to Hindus and should, and I believe soon shall be, outlawed as politically uncorrect.

How is it unacceptable and disrespectful??

We all have our sacred cows...for some it might be Jesus, for others the Trinity, for others Krishna or Bhudda....

Of course for me, labeling something as politically incorrect makes it all so much not so sacred bulls**t.

My favorite was eating lunch with Vishnu (pastrami on rye), Devanand (roast beef and au jus), Madhaver (meatball sub), me the veggie ordering eggplant parmesan, the only white guy, the only christian, the only american, amongst a bunch of Hindus...I ask what is up....I thought you guys were vegetarian...read the following with your politically incorrect Indian accent (no disrespect, you will just sound more like my lunch table)

Vishnu - This is not the sacred cow, this is american cow.

Devanand - We are vegetarian in India, but this is America

Madhaver - When in Rome, we eat the Roman Cow.

Wil - But when I'm at your house there is no meat.

Vishnu - When at home we eat what is prepared for us.

Madhaver - Here we have a menu

It is my Indian Hindu friends whose taught me how and why the Sacred Cow became sacred...and also taught me according to their religion they are not to cross water...as they laughed as they have crossed the water so many times... All Brahman....they were sure they were coming back as untouchoubles...or fleas...or bacteria...

[sam1008]

The use of the term 'Sacred Cow' to refer to something which one believes is not worthy of being held sacred is not acceptable, because it assumes that the audience shares the speakers presumption that the veneration of cows as sacred is silly. Therefore it is disrespectful to those genuine Hindus who actually do venerate the cow.

[dauer]

sam,

I agree with you. It's like calling someone an indian giver or shylock.

dauer

[Neemai]

Originally Posted by wil

This is not the sacred cow, this is american cow.

Unfortunately this is becoming more popular, but I'd have to strongly question anyone who called themselves a follower of Hinduism, and at the same time eats cow flesh? A bit of a contradiction in terms if you ask me - just like a Christian hit-man? (i.e "thou shalt not kill").

... Neemai

[wil]

Originally Posted by sam1008

The use of the term 'Sacred Cow' to refer to something which one believes is not worthy of being held sacred is not acceptable, because it assumes that the audience shares the speakers presumption that the veneration of cows as sacred is silly. Therefore it is disrespectful to those genuine Hindus who actually do venerate the cow.

Wow, and education for me...I've never used the term Sacred Cow as something NOT worthy.

Rather when I say we all have our Sacred Cows...we all have something in our belief system that is beyond reproach...that if you attack its nature, demean my belief, it's gonna make my blood boil, and it is often something a little nonsensical to folks that aren't of my belief system.

I guess I am a little sheltered in this regard as I've always heard Sacred Cow with reverence when used like this....quite the opposite of what you posit and I now understand your disdain.

And yes Neemai I entirely agree on the beef eating hindu's..however it is all a matter of degrees...yes their are mafia hit men that attend mass...we all break the rules sometimes...and depending where we are we've deemed what we believe to be acceptable (what we do and less) and what is contemptible (those folks that do things we believe worse than us), ie there are Hindu's that own fly swatters yes?