Animal Rights

Discussion in 'Animal Welfare' started by Savitri Devi, Sep 3, 2012.

  1. Ziggy Stardust

    Ziggy Stardust Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2008
    Messages:
    2,801
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Animals eat other animals. I'm an animal, and I eat other animals. Simple as that really.
     
  2. Redalgo

    Redalgo New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2012
    Messages:
    511
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It seems that humanity currently lacks the means to treat all forms of life in a fully egalitarian fashion, so I reckon it is pragmatic to conceptualize species as being in a hierarchy of life where critters with more qualities of personhood are entitled to greater privileges than those which possess fewer qualities of personhood - personhood itself having a subjective and (almost certainly) controversial definition that is open for debate. From my prospective, all forms of life should be treated with respect and nature itself regarded with a sense of awe and reverence, yet at the same time it seems morally permissible to let some human interests take precedent over some interests pursued by other species.

    Human beings (and many tens of thousands of other species) quite simply cannot survive without to some extent subjugating the interests and exploiting the resources of other life forms. I do look forward to the day when a broad array of high-quality animal products (e.g., meat and dairy) can be affordably synthesized and manufactured en-masse in labs or factories of some sort, but in the meanwhile it would substantially diminish my quality of life to have a diet consisting completely of plant, fungal, and microbial foodstuffs - most of which are offensive to my admittedly finicky tastes - and even if I were to become a vegan there could still be moral objections concerning the harms suffered by prey species I consume.

    Despite personal shortcomings and perhaps an incomplete interest in having inter-species justice, I consider myself less anthropocentric than most folk. I like the “rule of seven generations,” do not think fossil fuels should be burned to generate power (albeit I oppose natural gas less aggressively than coal and oil), think the human population should gradually diminish until high quality living conditions are sustainable, do not consider expansion of GDP an inherently good thing, oppose all forms of animal testing that cause any significant degree of suffering or lead to untimely death for subjects, would prefer (but not mandate by law) we cease all non-artificial meat production once it becomes a practical goal, insist on every aspect of raising and slaughtering livestock emphasizing the comfort and dignity of the animals, and I seem to vaguely fall under the banner of what a lot of people call “bright green” environmentalism.

    Having some degree of speciesism bothers me tremendously, creating conflict between my moral and political views, but in practice at least I am far more interested in animal rights than a decade ago. Incidentally, perhaps I shouldn’t beat myself up about it, seeing as to some extent or another each of us is a product of their respective genes, environs, and experiences.

    Do you happen to be an ecologist in ideology, by any chance, Savirtri? I find the perspective you bring to this subject rather fascinating - it is one I too rarely see presented in political discussions.

    Also, just for the record, I very much like the contributions Wolverine has made to this thread.
     
  3. kshRox

    kshRox New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2012
    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I always get a kick out of those who with full gravity and dead pan seriousness talk about an ideal world they have the luxury of imagining due to those who live, work and in some instances kill or die in the real world for them to have this privilege.
     
  4. JavisBeason

    JavisBeason New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2011
    Messages:
    14,996
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    0
    on my bucket list (I'm American just for reference in this post)


    1... eat a dog/cat.

    I don't want to eat my dog, or your pet.... but, if I'm ever in a country that eats dog.... I will. I may not like it, but I will eat it.


    2. watch a **** fight...

    again, I won't go to one here in the states... but if I'm ever ina country that does this.... I will watch.
     
  5. waltky

    waltky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2009
    Messages:
    30,071
    Likes Received:
    1,204
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    PETA prevents possum drop...

    Brasstown having possum drop, without live possum
    Dec 27,`12 -- A New Year's Eve possum drop that attracts thousands of people to a tiny western North Carolina town will go on this year, with one big change: It won't involve a live possum.
     
  6. JavisBeason

    JavisBeason New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2011
    Messages:
    14,996
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    0
    it'll just be released into the wild, only to have a truck tire crush it's skull..... either way, one less opossum
     
  7. funinsnow

    funinsnow Banned by Member Request

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2012
    Messages:
    678
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    With #1-there is no requirement that you must eat dog. Even in China & Vietnam where dog's eaten, it's becoming taboo. A common argument against eating the dog is that it's man's best friend. There are so many things in China to see & you aren't required to eat dog. With cockfight, Thailand had that in 2002, but don't know if that's still allowed. Incidentally dog eating was done by Aztecs & Mayans-both raised vegetarian dogs for food.

    No, animals aren't comparable to people but they should be treated humanely. If people want to hunt for food, then that's 1 thing but make it a swift kill such as quickly kill a deer, duck or rabbit. But things such as dog fighting which Michael Vick did is animal cruelty. Radio host Rush Limbaugh has in the past been criticial of animal rights groups but Rush Limbaugh has done announcements for Humane Society where Mr. Rush H. Limbaugh talks of how he loves his cat Pumkin & how Rush H. Limbaugh is against dog fighting because those are animal cruelties.
     
  8. funinsnow

    funinsnow Banned by Member Request

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2012
    Messages:
    678
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    JavisBeason, looking for your thoughts on this. I as written have no problem with hunting for food or if there are diseased, starved & wounded animals. I have been a vegetarian since 2003 (could never be vegan). But with dog bites JavisBeason (though you didn't raise this) if a dog is attacking others w/o provocation, then that dog is dangerous & must be humanely killed. HOWEVER, if a person is going to harass or attack a dog after which the dog bites the person, then it's the person's fault. 1. Since you say you have a dog JavisBeason, do you see something wrong with people who harass or provoke a dog & then complain after the dog bites them :!:

    My second topic JavisBeason deals with dangerous animals such as grizzly bears, etc. Brian J. Fischer of AFA had called for open season on grizzlies if they attack people. Now I agree with Mr. BJ Fischer on his views against homosexuality & transexuality, on the grizzly topic, it's more complex. Yes, if a grizzly bear is killing & eating people then that grizzly bear must be hunted. But it's more complex. Mr. Brian J. Fischer didn't think much of the fact that grizzly bears, pumas & other wild animals are naturally scared of people. If a person is going to harass a grizzly bear such as try to take a grizzly bear's cubs, then it's the person's fault if the grizzly bear mauls them or kills them. 2. My other question to you JavisBeason is do you see something wrong with people who try to take a grizzly bears cubs or a wolf's puppies & then complain after the grizzly bear mauls them :!: There's a difference between a wild animal which is attacking people with no provocation & cases where people harass wild animals & then complain when they get attacked. Brian J. Fischer of AFA focused on cases where grizzly bears attacked people but he didn't focus on whether the grizzly bear did an unprovoked attack on people or whether there was provocation by the people before the grizzlies attacked. I ask you this because since you say you're dog owner, if some1 were to harass or abuse your dog before the dog bit them, then my guess is that you wouldn't want to be liable for their medical bills as it was the person's fault. Finally, Rush H. Limbaugh differs with the Humane Society on topics such as hunting but Rush H. Limbaugh got criticism from hunters after RushH. Limbaugh did announcements for Humane Society where RushH. Limbaugh spoke against dog fighting & where RushH. Limbaugh spoke of his pet cat. RushH. Limbaugh spoke on 2 topics where he agreed with US Humane Society, yet he got condemned for it.
     
  9. JavisBeason

    JavisBeason New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2011
    Messages:
    14,996
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    0
    proof???
     
  10. JavisBeason

    JavisBeason New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2011
    Messages:
    14,996
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    0

    I never said there was a REQUIREMENT that I eat a dog... it's what I want to do.... MY bucket list
    Same with a **** fight (and a bullfight to a lesser extent)



    "I know my pitbull mauled your 5 year old.... but what did your kid do to provoke my dog???"

    it's the age old excuse people who raise these wild animals use OVER AND OVER when, shockingly, the animals go wild and attack a kid. Its never the animals fault, it's always the victim's fault.

    My dog.... well, I'll entertain that. She's a friendly breed, more likely to lick you to death and I've only heard her bard a handful of times in the year I've had her.... However, if the dog bites a kid, she's getting put down.... end of story. Kids are kids, and dogs are less valuable than kids.... if the two can't cohabitate with one another, the dog is the one that is gotten rid of.

    If it's a case of teenagers/adults coming onto my property to harrass my dog as I have a fenced in yard she does not escape from.... then we have a whole 'nother issue at hand.

    But I have taken her for public walks and whatnot.... But I can't stand how we have this event called Friday Fest everymonth on the first friday of the month, and people bring their BIG and historically vicious breed of dog. I extra love when a 115# woman is holding this animal on a leash thinking she can control this dog if/when the animal goes wild. Lots of kids in strollers and many a dog have gotten a kick to the jaw because Killer starts sniffing a baby stroller because baby is at eye level of the dog walking on a leash. A kid got scared and swatted at the dog who growled one time I saw, and the parents got into an argument with the dog owners. The dog scared the kid who reacted, yet the dog owners think the kid provoked the animal by swatting at it.




    Your definition of "harass a grizzly bear" is subjective.... hiking in the woods, to me, is not harassing a grizzly, yet some believe it is since the human is encroaching on the bear's habitat"

    Human>animal..... in all aspects.... period. If I want to hike a legal trail, where bears coexist, and one is threatened by me through no fault of my own beyond me being there..... I will shoot to kill to protect me or my party. Simple as that.
     
  11. funinsnow

    funinsnow Banned by Member Request

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2012
    Messages:
    678
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    JavisBeason, with dog bites & kids, each case is different. Yes, kids will be kids but parents must control the kids. If a kid is going to step on a dog's tail delibertately to see the dog's reaction & the dog bites the kid, then no, the dog should not be euthanized because of provocation-the kid had no right to do what they did & got bit. Animal control judges each case individually. Kids have to learn how to respect animals @ an early age. Now if a dog bites a kid because the kid tried to pet the dog, then that's another matter. With eating dog, that should be made criminal & Korea (South) outlawed this in 1988. China has not but don't be surprised if in the future they do this.

    With bullfighting, I lived in Spain from 1981 to 1984 when I was 11 to 14 years old-almost 2.5 years. In 1982 when I was in 8th grade, we debated this topic so bullfighting has been controversial for a long time there. Spain has animal welfare laws in 17 communities whether it's on pets, wildlife, farm animals, but bullfighting has been exempt for the most part from this. Canary Islands made bullfighting illegal in 1991 & Cataluna outlawed this in 2011. When I visited Spain in October 2012 for the 1st time in over 28.5 years, the tour guide explained that the bulls they use are wild bulls. 2 common arguments that people use to justify bullfighting are that it's culture & traditions while the 2nd argument is that the bulls are eaten for food. Much of the beef in Spain comes from the bulls killed in bullfights. Spaniards agree with animal welfare laws when it comes to dogs, cats, horses (Spaniards have been the most advanced when it comes to horse trainers & equestrians) & other animals, yet when it comes to bulfights it's hard laws against this as reflected in Spain's animal welfare laws. Guessing that 1 thing Spaniards will say is that because they eat beef, it would be contradictory for them to ask bullfighting be made illegal as they eat the beef from bulls killed in bullfights & that it's culture/tradition, though they don't watch bullfights. Since many who watch bullfights are tourists, bullfigthing is a business & butchers, restaurants & markets get some of the beef from bulls killed in bullfights. If they decide to make bullfighting illegal, then that is fine with me but I do understand that with bullfighting, they do eat the kills & it's culture/tradition which is hard to end.

    With grizzly bears, pumas & other wild animal attacks. Yes, if you're on a marked hiking trail & if a grizzly is threatening you, then you should have a right to use deadly force if needed. But the problem is that some people don't stay on the marked hiking trails. There are people such as those who are sometimes drunk who go into forbidden areas, pick up a bears cubs or wolf cubs & then get mauled by the mother bear or wolf. If that happens, then it's the person's fault they got mauled as they were provoking the wild animal. Wild animals when they see people usually try to avoid them. Animal control must judge wild animal attacks individually on case by case basis. If an animal attack happens because the person did nothing wrong, then yes, the wild animal needs to be hunted. But if the wild animal attack happens because the person did something illegal, then it's the person's fault & the wild animal must be left alone. It's 1 thing again if you did nothing wrong such as in eg. you gave stayed on marked hiking path before wild animal attacked you, but if you did something illegal such as stray from the marked path & tried to take a bear, puma or wolf's young, then it's your fault if you get mauled.
     
  12. JavisBeason

    JavisBeason New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2011
    Messages:
    14,996
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    0
    no, the dog is the one that has to be controlled. Equal force kinda stuff..... even a deliberate step on a dog's tail doesn't warrant a mauling like this...



    pit_bull_attack+picture_child+attacked+by+pit+bull+dog.jpg


    now I do think we are thinking two different situations..... I'm not advocating if a kid jumps over a fence and attacks the dog, it's ok. Dogs are good for being guard dogs.... that's their job. I'm talking about public settings, or when the dog is wandering the streets because it got loose. Some states even make the dog owner prove harrassment if the kid is under 7
    http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/dog-book/chapter11-5.html




    that's fine, but one mistake shouldn't be a lifetime punishment and I'm ALWAYS going to err on the side of the kid attacked (with the caveat that it's my above situation)

    Too many times, a loose dog attacks, and the owner STILL tries to deflect the blame from the dog by saying "it's not the dog's fault, he was protecting his territory (and boundaries aren't dictated by fence lines to dogs)

    Sorry, dog loses.


    ANd I'm also focusing on dangerous breeds here. A chihuahua is probably the most agressive dog out there it seems, I have been "mauled" by a yorkshire terrier NUMEROUS times for no reason. But that's ok since those are anklebiters and can cause no real damages. A pitbull has a much greater damage ability, so even if they are less aggressive than yorkshires, I don't care.

    I don't care too much about these topics.... I just plan on seeing a bull fight one day.

    marked trails or not.... no difference, if I'm camping, I'm not camping on the trail itself. I've been to plenty of mountains, legally, where there were no "official trails" We always had a gun.

    again, my right to be there outweighs an animal's right to be there.
     
  13. funinsnow

    funinsnow Banned by Member Request

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2012
    Messages:
    678
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    With dog bites JavisBeason, each case must be judged individually is my best answer. Animal control must decide if the dog is dangerous or whether there was provocation & with pit bull eg., was it excessive or dangerous reaction on part of the dog. In dog bite cases & kids, the defense can & will raise provocation or any illegal harassment the person be it adult or kid was doing in deciding whether damages should or shouldn't be rewarded. Yes, there are adults who don't properly watch their dogs but there are also dumb people who harass a person & their dogs & then complain after they get bit. Erring always on the side of the kid in dog bite cases is wrong. If a kid is going to as you mentioned jump a fence, go into a stranger's backyard before the dog attacks them, then it's the kids fault. It's no different than if an adult decides to go into a stranger's backyard. If a burglar goes into a person's house, then it's their fault if they get attacked by the dog. If a person is committing a crime before the dog mauls them, then it doesn't matter if the person's an adult or a kid-illegal is illegal & the defense in dog bite cases should raise any criminal or illegal acts the person did.

    With wild animal attacks, what is meant by me are people who do illegal things such as provoke wild animals before the wild animal attacks. It's a crime for a person to take a wolf's puppies or a bear's cubs. Again, most bears & wolves want to avoid people. If a wild animal killed a person after the person did something illegal such as again try to kidnap a wolf's puppies, then it's their fault if they get mauled by the wolf. I'm not a hiker so not knowledgeable about this as you are but if a person is going to hike into places where it's illegal & there are signs which forbid this but they still choose to do this, then it's their fault if they get mauled or killed. My best answer to you with wild animal attacks is the same as that of dog bites-must judge each case individually & animal control usually is right when they determine whether an animal attack was unprovoked or as a result of provocation. Problem with both of these topics is that there are enough people who provoke dogs & other wild animals & then complain after they get mauled. Thanks JavisBeason for giving your view & while I don't want dog bites and wild animal attacks, I also don't want people committing crimes or other illegal acts & then complaining when the dog bites them or a wild animal mauls them. I don't have a dog now, but if I ever get a dog again in the future, then if a burglar (be they adult or kid) comes into my house before they get bitten by the dog, I don't think that I as a homeowner should not have to pay a lawsuit. My main point deals with dog bites & wild animal attacks which happen such as while a person commits a crime.
     
  14. JavisBeason

    JavisBeason New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2011
    Messages:
    14,996
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    0
    individual to the breed, yes.... a chihuahua is much less an issue than a pitbull


    individual to the person/dog? not individually..... was the person tresspassing or doing something else illegal like theft or attacking the master.... that's all I need to know.

    if your dog's natural reaction to a tail getting stepped on by a kid, either on purpose or accidental, is to maul said kid.... then your dog needs to stay at home.... or better yet, just genocide the dangerous breeds or keep them in zoos with all the other wild animals are.
     
  15. funinsnow

    funinsnow Banned by Member Request

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2012
    Messages:
    678
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thanks JavisBeason for your thoughts. Don't think pitbulls are as dangerous as often made out to be. Dogs have their own personalities & they've found that even with Michael Vick's dogfighting abused dogs, there were pitbulls who would still lick a person's face before the pitbull died. Dogs have personalities of their own, so there are pitbulls who can be friendly even after suffering abuse. With criminal trespassing, if a person's going to burglarize a house or illegally go into a person's backyard to do a crime, then if they get bitten by the dog, it's the person's fault & the homeowner should not pay a lawsuit. Don't think that dog breeds are dangerous per se because each dog again has their own personality, though some dogs have more useful purpose than others such as a German shepherd or a Malamute make the best police dogs & seeing eye dogs while beagles make better hunting dogs.
     
  16. JavisBeason

    JavisBeason New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2011
    Messages:
    14,996
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    0
    and I'm sure grizzly bears have "personalities" all their own. And so do hyennas, or a better analogy, a timberwolf....

    and I'm a dog lover.... but there are domestic types of canines, and wild canines. I believe that Pittbulls fall into the later, just like wolves. I'm sure wolf pups are cute and I'm sure you can train them to sit, roll over, ect.... but no matter how well trained it is, it's still a wild animal that will act based off of its insticts.

    pittbulls have been specifically bread for a purpose... and in that specific breeding, the domesticated part was bread out.



    however, without digressing TOO much

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anthropomorphic
    anthropomorphic - : 2. ascribing human characteristics to nonhuman things <anthropomorphic supernaturalism>

    ie- dogs can't have "personalities"
     
  17. JUDGEDREAD

    JUDGEDREAD New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You can eat anything you want to. If you can live of tofu and fortified cat turds, be my guest.

    I believe the animal activist movement is silly and based off Mickey Mouse logic...Some may say they've seen one too many Disney movies portraying animals as people.

    It's now become "cool" to be an environmentalist now days...making people feel like they are better than the general public because they are "enlightened" or "educated".

    I daresay that enlightened or educated is far from animal activist logic. How does one begin to believe that animals have souls? Where is the evidence of this? Disney is not exactly scientific, nor is the talking cat on YouTube.

    What erks me most, is how one man can prioritize animal welfare before human welfare. Drop your concern about livestock and start caring for the starving children in this world.

    The animal rights movement is a waste of money and a rediculous waste of time and energy.
     
  18. JavisBeason

    JavisBeason New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2011
    Messages:
    14,996
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    0
    an·thro·po·mor·phic adjective \&#716;an(t)-thr&#601;-p&#601;-&#712;mo&#775;r-fik\

    Definition of ANTHROPOMORPHIC

    1
    : described or thought of as having a human form or human attributes <anthropomorphic deities>
    2
    : ascribing human characteristics to nonhuman things <anthropomorphic supernaturalism>
    &#8212; an·thro·po·mor·phi·cal·ly adverb


    "animals have no free will" has become the easiest troll on the internet..... Religion/politics is 50/50.... but the most progressive democrat out there, and the most ultra conservative out there will both get upset at the thought of you dismissing FIDO as a soul-less creature.

    Even the atheists get riled up if you say "dogs have no free will"

    I love having my dog around.... but she's disposable and replaceable. She is not a "child substitute" She is a dog
     
  19. Sab

    Sab Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    3,414
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I'm vegan. I thinbk that inflicting suffering on Animals is disgusting. I realise most omnivores are selfish (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s who couldn;t give a (*)(*)(*)(*).

    I don't think animals have sould because I find the whol concept to be absurd childish supernatural beleif,
     
  20. JavisBeason

    JavisBeason New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2011
    Messages:
    14,996
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I kill for sport.... nice to meet you vegan
     
  21. funinsnow

    funinsnow Banned by Member Request

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2012
    Messages:
    678
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Rush H. Limbaugh has done announcements for the U.S. Humane Society where he talks of how he loves his cat, that fighting animal cruelty such as dog fighting is something people can agree on. Rush H. Limbaugh is against animal rights groups but Rush H. Limbaugh says that taking care of your dog, cat and having humane hunting is something people can agree on :smile: regardless of politics. Though Rush H. Limbaugh supports humane hunting for food, he was critiqued by hunters for announcements he did for the US Humane Society because RushH. Limbaugh found some topics he could agree with US Humane Society on.
     
  22. JUDGEDREAD

    JUDGEDREAD New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What does he have to do with the price of beans in China? Rush probably likes dogs and cats as pets. He also likes cow on his plate, clearly. So because Rush Limbo says something makes it representative of everyone's thoughts who are not Democrat?
     
  23. funinsnow

    funinsnow Banned by Member Request

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2012
    Messages:
    678
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Both Rush H. Limbaugh & Patrick J. Buchanan aren't vegetarians (unless both became vegetarians recently). Both Rush H. Limbaugh & Patrick J. Buchanan say that being against animal cruelty such as dog fighting are things people can agree on. Patrick J. Buchanan :flagus: has said he likes cats as pets & again, RushH. Limbaugh likes his dogs & cats. Patrick J. Buchanan & RushH. Limbaugh both believe that hunting for food is fine-that hunting must be a swift kill. Both believe that we must help people first but humane animal treatment is something people can agree on regardless of politics. It's not Democrat or Republican.
     
  24. Zeffy

    Zeffy Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2013
    Messages:
    1,654
    Likes Received:
    405
    Trophy Points:
    83
    If this were true, you would not have said this:

    Don't make a snarky remark then whine when someone makes one back at you.

    I eat meat because 1. we are by nature omnivores and 2. it tastes good. Meat is an important source of iron, I have had problems with low iron and eating meat is the best way to get iron into the system - other foods containing it don't absorb it as efficiently.

    Being an animal lover, I do believe we should be treating our foodstock humanely, from birth to slaughter.
     
  25. Sab

    Sab Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    3,414
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Zeffy. Being civil

    I apreciate that you believe in teh human treatement of livestock. It puts you above many people who couldn;t care less about animal sufefring but 'meat tastes good' is not a good argument to do something that is oppressive any more than 'sex feels good' gives you the right to rape someone.

    We are by nature violent thugs however being civilised we have tried to control such things.

    Getting iron into the system is not exactly difficult however you do it.
     

Share This Page