I am very scared of the vegan movement, they will try to take our right away to have companion animals.

[caikgoch]

There are people who do more than trying to convince people not to hurt non-family animals though, Animal Liberation Front and Sea Shepherd Conservation Society for example. They are prosecuted and labeled terrorists for their actions, although even they do what they can in order not to hurt people.

Bovine Fecal Material. They turn non-native animals with diseases loose from labs into the surrounding countryside. They burn buildings and vehicles, endangering civilians and first responders. They harrass and threaten workers like truck drivers that simply had a delivery somewhere they didn't like. That does *NOT* sound like "they do what they can in order not to hurt people", that sounds like terrorism.

 

[Tailo]

If vegans don't take action, they are accused of being keyboard warriors who don't stand behind their claims. If they do more, they are terrorists ...

Bovine Fecal Material. They turn non-native animals with diseases loose from labs into the surrounding countryside.

Releasing animals with diseases sucks just like releasing animals into the wild which are sure to die there because they are not adapted to that environment or have not learned how to survive on their own or—probably worse—who will destroy the local eco-system which is not adapted to them.

 

[caikgoch]

If vegans don't take action, they are accused of being keyboard warriors who don't stand behind their claims. If they do more, they are terrorists

There's a *VERY* large spread between Ghandi and Bin Laden. Guess which one was more effective?

 

[Tailo]

There's a *VERY* large spread between Ghandi and Bin Laden. Guess which one was more effective?

So far I'd say Gandhi, but I would also say that it is too early to make a final judgement. Both had a profound influence on history, that's for sure, and I really don't like the influence Bin Laden had. I mean, not just the murder of people he schemed and financed and his followers carried out. But also the reaction in the "Western world" he provoked. Unfortunately he was rather successful.

 

[caikgoch]

I really don't like the influence Bin Laden had.

Bin Laden had a lot in common with Yasser Arafat, a rare talent for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory by doing something dramatic. Militarily, his greatest success was the equivalent of hair pulling, makes you opponent mad enough to hurt you more than anything else. Recent history certainly bears that out. And that is exactly what ALF/ELF are doing.

 

[Aluzky]

@BlueBeard @Andriodog

Several times he has said that he enjoys murdering animals. He makes it clear to others that he enjoys that. If that is how he things about eating them and murdering them, how is he during sex? Think about it. He has made it clear that his pleasure comes first, even at the cost of murdering animals, if he does not care about murdering them, you think he will care about not raping them? The guy is obviously a zoosadist without a drop of compassion. Else, why would he go around gloating about his enjoyment at murdering animals?

 

[caikgoch]

For you, Aluzky

 

[FeralLovin']

For you, Aluzky

And @Gemini75 never said a thing about hunting or killing animals once on this site, so for all we know he could be buying the meat he eats. @Aluzky is doing the typical vegan leaps and bounds with their accusations for sure though.

 

[Andriodog]

@Aluzky. Ya know, if went around making flimsy evidence, I would be no different than Wolfia right now.

@Gemini75. Yes he a meat eater and a speceist okay, I get that. But through his posts, i never gotten the clue that he was into zoosadism or raping animals. Granted humans come first and animals second. There are more zoos whom have that line of thinking than we would like to believe.

 

[Tailo]

Bin Laden had a lot in common with Yasser Arafat, a rare talent for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory by doing something dramatic. Militarily, his greatest success was the equivalent of hair pulling, makes you opponent mad enough to hurt you more than anything else. Recent history certainly bears that out.

I think, militarily, his greatest success was in his participation in the efforts to drive the soviets out of Afghanistan. The jihadists were supported by the US back then, by the way. Anyway, measuring Bin Laden's influence by his direct military actions would be short-sighted. Terrorism is not about winning a battle. He was an inspirational, ideological leader and his ideology lives on. There is a deeper divide between the Sunni world and the West today that he wanted and achieved. We don't know yet how this will develop further. Lost battles won't stop it. They may even make it stronger. You can't bomb hate away. That's what many people in the West still don't seem to get.

Maybe the disappointment of locals will stop it when they realize that the ideology just doesn't work nicely where it succeeds—like in Egypt, where people got rid of Mubarak's government (which cooperated with the West and Israel and which Bin Laden hated) only to find that the religious successors didn't improve the country at all.

 

[FeralLovin']

@Aluzky

 

[caikgoch]

The jihadists were supported by the US back then, by the way.

They were supported by a friend of mine, Congressman Charlie Wilson. Look up and watch the movie Charlie Wilson's War. It's fairly accurate as far as it goes. When Charlie burned out and retired, no one picked up the torch. The Taliban felt they had been used and abandoned and set out for revenge.

If you want someone to blame, it's no doubt the Brits started the ball rolling. After WW1 they walked away from all the promises made by T E Lawrence and left a huge clusterfuck in most of the Middle East.

 

[FeralLovin']

Every time I read this thread I get in the mood for a nice steak. If I go to a halal market I might be able to hear it still screaming. Now thats fresh! X3

Nah, need some fine wine.

 

[CetaceanLover23]

I am more afraid of getting bitten by a keeshond than by a coyote. They are only problematic to farmers that own chickens. And airliner pilots.

Airliner pilots? Not to sound rude, but who the fuck is afraid of airliner pilots? And why?

 

[knotinterested]

Why is it that "Vegans" first attack is Morality?
The moral values each person has is as different as there are shades of gray. To put it plainly there is no guilt felt by most people that eat meat and morality is not even a consideration. Morality is a human concern toward other humans, not a concern toward animals. Vegans try to expand morality to animals in order to use it as a point of argument and inflict guilt upon those that oppose their view on the matter.

Why do "Vegans" use examples to illustrate their points that are as different as oranges and apples?

Do you understand why people tell others that rape, murder or stealing is morally wrong? People tell others to not do those because it is harmful to others to do that. Just like being non-vegan is very harmful to others compared to being vegan. So, can you understand why we care about your non-vegan diet? If you think we are wrong, do you also think is wrong to tell people to not murder, or rape, or steal?

"Rape, murder or stealing is morally wrong," YES it is morally wrong, but again morality is a human concern and these are things committed by one human against another human. Not only that but there are laws existing in every state in the US and all over the World making rape, murder and stealing against the law so it is a legal issue as well. There are no laws anywhere that make it illegal to eat meat and it isn't a moral issue either because the meat you're eating isn't from a human. Apples and oranges!

Why do "Vegans" argue that the production of meat is harmful to the environment?
Well, yes it is harmful to a small degree. But if you're going to go into the environment for your argument then why not tackle a real problem that is 159 times more harmful and something that is becoming a real concern in the world. What you ask, it's Styrofoam.
Styrofoam is made from polystyrene, which is a petroleum-based plastic. Styrofoam is actually the trade name for polystyrene. It’s popular because of its light weight, good insulation properties, and advantage as a packing material for shipping without adding weight. Unfortunately, for all of Styrofoam’s good points, data has shown that Styrofoam also has harmful effects.
Styrofoam is non-biodegradable and appears to last forever. It’s resistant to photolysis, or the breaking down of materials by photons originating from light. This, combined with the fact that Styrofoam floats, and this means that large amounts of polystyrene have accumulated along coastlines and waterways around the world. It is considered a main component of marine debris.
Styrofoam has health risks associated with the manufacture of polystyrene, air pollution is another concern. The National Bureau of Standards Center for Fire Research has found 57 chemical byproducts released during the creation of Styrofoam. This not only pollutes the air, but also results in liquid and solid toxic waste that requires proper disposal. Another cause for concern are the brominated flame retardants that are used on Styrofoam products. Research suggests that these chemicals may have negative environmental and health effects.
So are "Vegans" that use the environment as part of their argument involved in any anti-styrofoam campaign? Probably not, and that is because the environment is not their concern. If the environment were their concern then they would be doing something toward that end.

Why do "Vegans" say they are standing up for animal rights?
This is something I tried to address in a few different threads. In my mind I would think that anyone so concerned with an animals right to life would be involved in groups that promote animal rights. I would think that they would support animal charities. I would think that they would be politically active along these lines. However, when you ask a "Vegan" what animal rights group they belong to, or what animal charities they support, or are they politically active in these matters, then you will hear excuses one after the other about how the vegan lifestyle isn't about that but about living free of animal products as much as possible.
In my mind this is only polishing a small part of the surface and leaving the larger and more difficult parts for someone else. My Father always said if you are going to start something then you have to see it through and do the job to your very best ability.

One of the things that I dislike about "Vegans is the disrespect they have for others. This seems to be the norm. They don't seem to understand that people see things differently than they do and they try to make people qualify their meat eating tendencies as if they have to have a reason.

The simple fact will always be that there is no right, and there is no wrong in the things you do unless you are breaking the law. So if you want to eat meat, then enjoy, and if you don't want to eat meat, then enjoy. AND if you want to have sex with animals, enjoy and don't get caught.

 

[CetaceanLover23]

I'm vegan, and you don't see me going around telling meat eaters "stop eating meat or I'll fuck your grandmother". In fact It never even occured to me that I should attack others just because they are not vegan. Seems like a waste of time to me. Also who's got the fuckin' time? Who's got the time to go around attacking non-vegans? I don't! I've got shit to do. Don't you have shit to do? I rest my case.

(Now re-read in George Carlin's voice )

 

[SigmaTheZeta]

Airliner pilots? Not to sound rude, but who the fuck is afraid of airliner pilots? And why?

In Raleigh, we recently had an incident of some coyotes wandering out onto the runway, and the planes that were trying to land had to circle around while terminal staff tried to figure out how to get them to move.

We are always going to have urban wildlife, and that wildlife will always interact with us. Within another couple of generations, the coyotes are going to be so accustomed to us that, one day, a coyote is going to be found sleeping in someone's back yard, and the owner will not even know the coyote is there until the police come knock on their door to scold them for "keeping an exotic pet." Dogs and cats used to fill a certain niche in our lives, but now, with "humanitarian" moves to "make sure every dog has a home," we are driving them out of the niche. Something else will eventually find its way into that niche.

Coyotes are increasingly a part of urban wildlife, and as an animal that lives around people, they are going to become increasingly intermingled with the lives of humans. We used to have dogs running through the streets. Coyotes will ultimately do the same.

 

[CetaceanLover23]

In Raleigh, we recently had an incident of some coyotes wandering out onto the runway, and the planes that were trying to land had to circle around while terminal staff tried to figure out how to get them to move.

We are always going to have urban wildlife, and that wildlife will always interact with us. Within another couple of generations, the coyotes are going to be so accustomed to us that, one day, a coyote is going to be found sleeping in someone's back yard, and the owner will not even know the coyote is there until the police come knock on their door to scold them for "keeping an exotic pet." Dogs and cats used to fill a certain niche in our lives, but now, with "humanitarian" moves to "make sure every dog has a home," we are driving them out of the niche. Something else will eventually find its way into that niche.

Coyotes are increasingly a part of urban wildlife, and as an animal that lives around people, they are going to become increasingly intermingled with the lives of humans. We used to have dogs running through the streets. Coyotes will ultimately do the same.

First of all, that has NOTHING to do with airline pilots. In fact I don't see where airline pilots even fit in the equation. Second of all, want to know why wildlife is becoming more prominent in urban developments? Because we have taken away THEIR land. So it's no wonder animals are entering in the "civilized world" (humans are not civilized just so you know) looking for food and shelter. Because we, humans, have taken it from them without permission.

 

[SigmaTheZeta]

@CetaceanLover23

Airline pilots have to use RDU Airport's runway, and the coyotes were sleeping on it. That was the point.

Also, the fact that we have abundant game in the area and relatively few same size rival predators makes this area very tempting for them. Some people take the name "City of Oaks" a little bit to heart, and because of that, we have squirrels everywhere. In Raleigh, you will often see the road practically pave with squirrels. We used to also have cats everywhere eating most of the squirrels, but we rounded all of the cats up.

Once established here, a family of coyotes is not about to go hungry, and they love places like runways.

 

[BlueBeard]

You, too, are an animal. Most vegans I met were not just against killing non-human animals, but also against killing humans. They simply don't want to kill, neither a cow nor you. They are very pacifist indeed. But maybe, just like you, they would still defend their own companion animals with their life. I see protecting family as a just slightly extended form of self-defense. Trust, responsibility, love ... these personal bonds can make you become one entity—family—and it is this one entity that is defending itself then.

There are people who do more than trying to convince people not to hurt non-family animals though, Animal Liberation Front and Sea Shepherd Conservation Society for example. They are prosecuted and labeled terrorists for their actions, although even they do what they can in order not to hurt people.

Yes. And bottom line for my concern is, careful. Hate speech has lethal results. I was trying to be careful not to implicate "most vegans" as a concern. It's those who go all rally-activist, escalate things to the point where I need to keep one hand on my sidearm, watch my back. That's a lethal situation, all's I'm saying.

On the other point, even pacifists have historically laid down their lives for others. I don't think we see as much of that, people who willingly die to save animals in general, like at a slaughterhouse, do we? Shoot. Now I'm going to get distracted, go off looking for accounts of those. Not that, you know, a slaughter house is actually going to let a human take a cow's place or a pig's place. But are there many accounts of PETA folk or activist vegans taking a bullet for an animal?

 

[BlueBeard]

@BlueBeard @Andriodog

Several times he has said that he enjoys murdering animals. He makes it clear to others that he enjoys that. If that is how he things about eating them and murdering them, how is he during sex? Think about it. He has made it clear that his pleasure comes first, even at the cost of murdering animals, if he does not care about murdering them, you think he will care about not raping them? The guy is obviously a zoosadist without a drop of compassion. Else, why would he go around gloating about his enjoyment at murdering animals?

What is it with connecting death and sex? I never got that in literature, either. That constant association. And in the movies, even -- sheesh! A bomb is about to go off, destroy a city, and the hero and femme fatale suddenly look at each, then pounce on each other and get naked.

Like, I'm a pilot, right? I cannot for the life of me imagine I've lost both engines, a wing has snapped off, the world is rushing up to me and my last thought is, "Better get these pants off, jack off one last time quick" or "Hey, lady in the back, you feeling it, too? Get up here, then! We only have a minute."

Yet, I come into Zooville and cannot get away from the sex(rape)/death connection for two seconds.

Aluzky et al, ... First. Can you please stop calling it murder? Not really carrying any weight because, of course, it *isn't* murder. By definition it isn't murder. Murder is unjustifiable homicide as defined by law. There is no such law regarding death of animals, so "murder" does not apply (not yet). You only *want* it to apply. You in particular, Aluzky, value "rational discussion." You want evidence, well reasoned, to support a conclusion. So you kinda wanna avoid misuse of terms and slanted language. Calling it "murder" is an attempt to slander an action with a misapplied word's pejoratively affective power, its emotional evocation. And that's not a persuasive argument.

But you can call it unjustified killing, sure. I'll go with you for a walk down that path peacefully and thoughtfully. That's fair.

And second, this weird leap from killing to raping. I do not rape my food ever, folks. I doubt many people here do. "You will kill it; therefore, you will rape it."

Naw. Hellz bellz. I can turn it on/off. Right now, mid February? Deer are cute things. The does are pregnant. The bucks have lost their antlers. And I am content to take photographs of them, love to watch their sleek forms. They're beautiful. They're absolutely beautiful creatures. When hunting season comes, and one is walking toward my stand where I lie in ambush -- perhaps with a bow, perhaps with my blackpowder rifle -- I am a hunter, and that is my prey. I see bratwurst, deer jerky, steak, ground venison, sliced heart sizzling in butter as I bone it out on the patio out back.

The beast in me comes to the surface. Its heartbeat pounds in my veins. All my senses are primal, bestial, predatory. FUCKING INVIGORATING. Love it? You damn betcha I love it. Raw!!! I am an animal, as Tailo said earlier. I am taking an ancient role, I am feeling my natural self in ways I never do the rest of the year. The rest of the year, this part of me lies dormant. But in hunting season? -- Good god, I love the beast in me. And that same deer is different. Now it's prey.

I do not know why you don't understand this. You love animals, but you don't get this? Your dog understands this, but you don't get it?

Talk about animal abuse -- To own a hunting dog and not take it hunting, now that's ABUSE! My Labs have been AKC-registered animals from long lines of pheasant-hunting champions. Come with me and just watch how they transform in demeanor, even in body language, when they see me take a shotgun from the vault and case it. They go nuts! And in the house, awesome dogs. Gentlemanly dogs. Family dogs. But in the field. Damn! Look at their wide eyes, their ears, how they're set. How in tune, how fine-tuned these little hunting machines are.

If not for my dogs, I probably would not hunt pheasants or rabbits anymore. If not for my boys, I would not hunt deer. (I'd still eat burgers, though).

You believe you understand animals, yet you don't understand that you are a predator? You completely baffle me. You are not a sheep nor deer nor cow nor horse. You are a human being, an apex predator.

But oh well. I don't pressure you or judge you. As I have said many times to different vegans here, I admire your motives and nod to them in genuine respect. You value life. But so do I. Death is part of life.

You be you. I'll be me. I take great pleasure -- during that time of year, when I am a willing volunteer in a highly successful conservation program -- taking up my role as predator and excelling at it. I respect that you do not feel the same way. And that's fine.

But when someone says irresponsibly and cheaply that *because* I am a hunter, because I am an omnivore, because I eat meat -- I am a rapist? What the hell is wrong with you? How do you keep attempting such an inductive leap without hurting yourself? I mean, that's a pretty wide chasm, and you keep trying to jump it like it was a crack in the sidewalk.

I DO NOT FUCK MY FOOD, so how could I "rape" it?

Maybe there are people who can do that. But to keep assuming *all* of us who eat hamburgers or hunt rabbits would rape them???

We have simply GOT TO get away from that dumb assertion. It's just... dumb.

Rein it back in to just talking about how vegans prefer not to eat animals because they don't like how the animal suffers, both at the moment of its death and, in the case of livestock, the conditions it lives in while it is raised till time for slaughter.

Or let's go back to the OP's concern that vegans are going to cost us, eventually, our right to own companion animals. We hunters and Burger King fans were not his concern. Vegans were. I would say the majority of vegans are not the OPs concerns. But a small minority, yes. There is an activist component that concerns him. And it concerns me. Taken to its inevitable conclusion, aren't animal activists leading us to a conclusion that we should not be interfering in the lives of animals at all?

 

[Chefdan]

found this interesting

 

[BlueBeard]

Why is it that "Vegans" first attack is Morality?
The moral values each person has is as different as there are shades of gray. To put it plainly there is no guilt felt by most people that eat meat and morality is not even a consideration. Morality is a human concern toward other humans, not a concern toward animals. Vegans try to expand morality to animals in order to use it as a point of argument and inflict guilt upon those that oppose their view on the matter.

Why do "Vegans" use examples to illustrate their points that are as different as oranges and apples?

"Rape, murder or stealing is morally wrong," YES it is morally wrong, but again morality is a human concern and these are things committed by one human against another human. Not only that but there are laws existing in every state in the US and all over the World making rape, murder and stealing against the law so it is a legal issue as well. There are no laws anywhere that make it illegal to eat meat and it isn't a moral issue either because the meat you're eating isn't from a human. Apples and oranges!

Why do "Vegans" argue that the production of meat is harmful to the environment?
Well, yes it is harmful to a small degree. But if you're going to go into the environment for your argument then why not tackle a real problem that is 159 times more harmful and something that is becoming a real concern in the world. What you ask, it's Styrofoam.
Styrofoam is made from polystyrene, which is a petroleum-based plastic. Styrofoam is actually the trade name for polystyrene. It’s popular because of its light weight, good insulation properties, and advantage as a packing material for shipping without adding weight. Unfortunately, for all of Styrofoam’s good points, data has shown that Styrofoam also has harmful effects.
Styrofoam is non-biodegradable and appears to last forever. It’s resistant to photolysis, or the breaking down of materials by photons originating from light. This, combined with the fact that Styrofoam floats, and this means that large amounts of polystyrene have accumulated along coastlines and waterways around the world. It is considered a main component of marine debris.
Styrofoam has health risks associated with the manufacture of polystyrene, air pollution is another concern. The National Bureau of Standards Center for Fire Research has found 57 chemical byproducts released during the creation of Styrofoam. This not only pollutes the air, but also results in liquid and solid toxic waste that requires proper disposal. Another cause for concern are the brominated flame retardants that are used on Styrofoam products. Research suggests that these chemicals may have negative environmental and health effects.
So are "Vegans" that use the environment as part of their argument involved in any anti-styrofoam campaign? Probably not, and that is because the environment is not their concern. If the environment were their concern then they would be doing something toward that end.

Why do "Vegans" say they are standing up for animal rights?
This is something I tried to address in a few different threads. In my mind I would think that anyone so concerned with an animals right to life would be involved in groups that promote animal rights. I would think that they would support animal charities. I would think that they would be politically active along these lines. However, when you ask a "Vegan" what animal rights group they belong to, or what animal charities they support, or are they politically active in these matters, then you will hear excuses one after the other about how the vegan lifestyle isn't about that but about living free of animal products as much as possible.
In my mind this is only polishing a small part of the surface and leaving the larger and more difficult parts for someone else. My Father always said if you are going to start something then you have to see it through and do the job to your very best ability.

One of the things that I dislike about "Vegans is the disrespect they have for others. This seems to be the norm. They don't seem to understand that people see things differently than they do and they try to make people qualify their meat eating tendencies as if they have to have a reason.

The simple fact will always be that there is no right, and there is no wrong in the things you do unless you are breaking the law. So if you want to eat meat, then enjoy, and if you don't want to eat meat, then enjoy. AND if you want to have sex with animals, enjoy and don't get caught.

Since 1988, I have actually been an "activist" against styrofoam! For real. I will not use it, I do not accept it from fast food places. I protested at fast food places and led protests against them. Been yelled at by staff and had food thrown at me. Gotten banned from some of them. LOL (though, dude -- I didn't *do* anything but talk too long, and maybe a little too fast, hold up lines, make a little bit of a scene as I did my preachy thing).

It keeps coffee warm for five minutes but lasts eternity in the environment, never ever to be restored. Although making paper products initially makes a greater impact on the environment, the damage done by styrofoam is forever.

My great demand on them? -- Give customers the option to have their burgers served in cardboard or just the paper sack. Corporate offices said styrofoam was cheaper, and until customers demanded otherwise and were willing to pay a few cents more, they would stand pat. Guess what? Some institutions went back to their cardboard containers (the ones they used pre styrofoam). Some permitted customers to request it not be served in styrofoam. Yay! Little victories. But most customers? They could care less.

Right on, KnotInterested! Was thrilled to see you mention this!

And you vegans, I "get" your persistence. It was/is the same as mine regarding styrofoam. But guess what? I *never* called people who used styrofoam "planet murders" or people who evidently would "rape" the planet. I just wanted them to be aware, allow them the opportunity to come to the same conclusion *I* did.

That's my recommendation to *you*. Let us be aware. Lead us by your example. But put down the holier-than-thou stuff. Other people, with great big, fully working, Homo sapiens' brains just like yours, might come to a different opinion than you. You need to respect that. Or else don't be surprised when you get some pretty firm pushback.

 

[BlueBeard]

@CetaceanLover23

Airline pilots have to use RDU Airport's runway, and the coyotes were sleeping on it. That was the point.

Also, the fact that we have abundant game in the area and relatively few same size rival predators makes this area very tempting for them. Some people take the name "City of Oaks" a little bit to heart, and because of that, we have squirrels everywhere. In Raleigh, you will often see the road practically pave with squirrels. We used to also have cats everywhere eating most of the squirrels, but we rounded all of the cats up.

Once established here, a family of coyotes is not about to go hungry, and they love places like runways.

So do deer and geese. I'm *much* more afraid of geese. They fly low down the runway as if maybe thinking it's a course of water??? But the Giant Canada geese here are not real mobile in flight. They can turn their large carcasses about as well as a novice bowler can bowl. Just keeping it out of the gutter is a chore for them. Since planes are about as tough as flying beer cans (empty ones, with no beer left in them), they'll come right through a wing. Or windshield.

And deer? We call 'em goats. At my home base, here, sometimes I'll come in to land and have to go around, radio the FBO to come chase them off. They see a truck coming along the runway? They tear out of there! Trucks can mean hunters. But planes? They ain't afraid of no planes. Planes here have never shot at them.

 

[BlueBeard]

If vegans don't take action, they are accused of being keyboard warriors who don't stand behind their claims. If they do more, they are terrorists ...

Releasing animals with diseases sucks just like releasing animals into the wild which are sure to die there because they are not adapted to that environment or have not learned how to survive on their own or—probably worse—who will destroy the local eco-system which is not adapted to them.

Naw. In my case, in my posts, I have never implicated "vegans" as a class of people in general to be worried about. Only the ones who keep calling me a murderer because I eat/hunt animals. That raises the bar. THOSE vegans are the ones who have my full attention and concern. Just what are they saying?

1. There are vegans who believe no animal -- even those BELOW them -- should suffer just because a human wants to eat and finds them tasty. They can take no pleasure from food deriving from the mistreatment of an animal. I can actually like these guys. I think they're pretty cool.

2. But there are also vegans who keep asserting that taking the life of an animal is as heinous as taking the life of a human. They don't seem to believe that there are animals "below" humans.

Well, now, whoa. Hold on there. That takes the discussion to a whole new level. That last group, the one who thinks I'm "murdering" animals, is either talking bullshit or I need to arm myself and maybe be looking left and right awhile before coming out of my door. There's the problem with, you're either an "keyboard warrior" or a "terrorist." Not all vegans. Those vegans.

 

[BlueBeard]

In Raleigh, we recently had an incident of some coyotes wandering out onto the runway, and the planes that were trying to land had to circle around while terminal staff tried to figure out how to get them to move.

We are always going to have urban wildlife, and that wildlife will always interact with us. Within another couple of generations, the coyotes are going to be so accustomed to us that, one day, a coyote is going to be found sleeping in someone's back yard, and the owner will not even know the coyote is there until the police come knock on their door to scold them for "keeping an exotic pet." Dogs and cats used to fill a certain niche in our lives, but now, with "humanitarian" moves to "make sure every dog has a home," we are driving them out of the niche. Something else will eventually find its way into that niche.

Coyotes are increasingly a part of urban wildlife, and as an animal that lives around people, they are going to become increasingly intermingled with the lives of humans. We used to have dogs running through the streets. Coyotes will ultimately do the same.

By the way, Coyotes are also opportunistic animals that are way, WAY out of their historic habitat. They were *never* up around here. Wolves generally kept them in check. And the environment did not appeal to them. But we don't have wolves this far south here anymore. Nothing to keep them in check. And the urban environment? That kind of works for them. They have been able to go wherever humans modified the habitat for themselves. They found they fit in, too. Lots of new kinds of places to den up. Lots of garbage to go through, and cat and dog food out ... and cats and dogs to *be* food. Just... works out for them. Suits them fine. So they've been spreading out.

And they're even in Nova Scotia now? They're a complete pest there. How did *that* come to be? All across the southern tier of Canada they're having coyote problems where they never had them before. (Doubt the Roadrunner will ever be as successful as the Coyote, weird side note. So... there's *that* to be said in Wile E's favor. Killed 20 times over in every episode, now making a comeback, poor guy).

 

[Aluzky]

By definition it isn't murder.

Murder is when you take a life without a valid reason to take it. If a person didn't had a valid reason to kill an animal, then that is murder. I'm calling murder murder. I'm not calling the killing of an animal in self defense, murder, nor calling killing an animal for survival to eat them murder.

Gays get murdered for being gay in countries where it is illegal to be gay, they put them to death, it is still murder even if the country have it as legal. Murder is murder, legal murder of gays is still murder. Legal murder of animals is still murder. Understood?

And second, this weird leap from killing to raping. I do not rape my food ever, folks. I doubt many people here do. "You will kill it; therefore, you will rape it."

It is no a weird leap, that person has made it clear in comments that he enjoy animal suffering and being mmurdered just so that he can eat them, he even gloat about it. If he enjoys animals being murdered to eat them, what makes you think that he won't enjoy raping them to get sexual pleasure?

I do not know why you don't understand this. You love animals, but you don't get this? Your dog understands this, but you don't get it?

I don't understand what? My dog understand whats?

Talk about animal abuse -- To own a hunting dog and not take it him/her hunting, now that's ABUSE!

Fact: Animal abuse is defined as to cause unnecessary distress, harm or death to an animal. Or to put the animal in an significant and unnecessary risk of harm or death. (This is know as animal neglect)

How does "not taking a hunting dog to hunt" = Animal abuse?

To me, it seem that you are calling a non-abuse behabior as abuse. AKA you are misusing the term. It is not abuse to not take them hunting.

If not for my dogs, I probably would not hunt pheasants or rabbits anymore. If not for my boys, I would not hunt deer. (I'd still eat burgers, though).

So, you are blaming your dogs for sport hunting? (aka animal abuse for fun/sport) Why do you make this invalid excuse? You abuse animals because you want to, not because your dogs make you do it. At least be a man and accept responsibility of your actions.

You believe you understand animals, yet you don't understand that you are a predator? You completely baffle me. You are not a sheep nor deer nor cow nor horse. You are a human being, an apex predator.

Humans are scientifically classified in the food chain right next to anchovies, nowhere near the apex predators. It is a fact that humans are not nowhere near apex predator. You thinking that humans are an apex predators is a wishful thinking fallacy. You are delusional.

I understand animals and I understand facts, something you clearly can't do, as shown by your many delusional beliefs.

You value life. But so do I. Death is part of life.

Again, more delusional thoughts... you murder animals for sport/fun and delude yourself that you are doing it because you value their lives... what other delusions do you have? Do you perhaps think that rape is equal to pleasuring animals?

But when someone says irresponsibly and cheaply that *because* I am a hunter, because I am an omnivore, because I eat meat -- I am a rapist?

Possible rapist. People who don't care about murdering others, have little restrain in doing other crimes like rape. If you can delude yourself that animal murder for sport/fun is Ok, what stops you from deluding yourself that animal rape is OK?

How do you keep attempting such an inductive leap without hurting yourself?

Again, if a person is OK with animal abuse/murder, to the point of ENJOYING IT. It is not farfetched to think that they may also enjoy animal rape. As if they don't give a fuck about murdering animals, why would they give a fuck about animal rape?

Do you have a problem with animals being raped? Yes or NO? It would be highly hypocritical if you have a problem with rape but at the same time being totally in favor of animal murder. As murder is far much worse of a crime than rape.

Or let's go back to the OP's concern that vegans are going to cost us, eventually, our right to own companion animals.

Thing is, assuming "worst case scenario" only carnivore animals would be forbidden as being pets. You could still own dogs and rabbits if you like, as any omnivore or vegetarian pet can still eat vegan. The problem with having a carnivore pet, is that you must murder animals to feed that pet and that would go against vegan ideals.

As a vegan, I don't want some one having the right to own a python as a pet, is not fair to the cats, dogs, chickens, etc that are murdered to feed to the python. Why do they have to be murdered just because some loser wants to have a pet python?

Also, to make it worse, some people live feed their pythons.

'These are the actions of a sadistic human being': Hunt for twisted thug who fed kitten to python in sick video

The vile video, entitled Python Christmas, shows a man in his 20s placing the kitten called Jasmine on a bed where a Burmese python lurks under a pillow. It was posted from an account in Islington, north London.

www.dailymail.co.uk

We vegans call it murder and animal abuse, people like you and them call it "mother nature" or "giving value to their lives" but lets face it, it is in the end animal abuse, murder. You and them calling it by any other name won't change the reality.

 

[BlueBeard]

found this interesting

It *is* very interesting, though she went through a lot of trouble doing the pronunciation only to get it wrong, I think. Websters Collegiate and Websters Unadulterated both give the American pronunciation as more commonly best- ialtity, not bees-tiality:

\ˌbes-chē-ˈa-lə-tē, ˌbesh-, ˌbēs-, ˌbēsh- British usually & US sometimes ˌbe-stē-\

 

[BlueBeard]

Murder is when you take a life without a valid reason to take it. If a person didn't had a valid reason to kill an animal, then that is murder. I'm calling murder murder. I'm not calling the killing of an animal in self defense, murder, nor calling killing an animal for survival to eat them murder.

Gays get murdered for being gay in countries where it is illegal to be gay, they put them to death, it is still murder even if the country have it as legal. Murder is murder, legal murder of gays is still murder. Legal murder of animals is still murder. Understood?

It is no a weird leap, that person has made it clear in comments that he enjoy animal suffering and being mmurdered just so that he can eat them, he even gloat about it. If he enjoys animals being murdered to eat them, what makes you think that he won't enjoy raping them to get sexual pleasure?



I don't understand what? My dog understand whats?




Fact: Animal abuse is defined as to cause unnecessary distress, harm or death to an animal. Or to put the animal in an significant and unnecessary risk of harm or death. (This is know as animal neglect)

How does "not taking a hunting dog to hunt" = Animal abuse?

To me, it seem that you are calling a non-abuse behabior as abuse. AKA you are misusing the term. It is not abuse to not take them hunting.




So, you are blaming your dogs for sport hunting? (aka animal abuse for fun/sport) Why do you make this invalid excuse? You abuse animals because you want to, not because your dogs make you do it. At least be a man and accept responsibility of your actions.




Humans are scientifically classified in the food chain right next to anchovies, nowhere near the apex predators. It is a fact that humans are not nowhere near apex predator. You thinking that humans are an apex predators is a wishful thinking fallacy. You are delusional.

I understand animals and I understand facts, something you clearly can't do, as shown by your many delusional beliefs.



Again, more delusional thoughts... you murder animals for sport/fun and delude yourself that you are doing it because you value their lives... what other delusions do you have? Do you perhaps think that rape is equal to pleasuring animals?




Possible rapist. People who don't care about murdering others, have little restrain in doing other crimes like rape. If you can delude yourself that animal murder for sport/fun is Ok, what stops you from deluding yourself that animal rape is OK?



Again, if a person is OK with animal abuse/murder, to the point of ENJOYING IT. It is not farfetched to think that they may also enjoy animal rape. As if they don't give a fuck about murdering animals, why would they give a fuck about animal rape?

Do you have a problem with animals being raped? Yes or NO? It would be highly hypocritical if you have a problem with rape but at the same time being totally in favor of animal murder. As murder is far much worse of a crime than rape.



Thing is, assuming "worst case scenario" only carnivore animals would be forbidden as being pets. You could still own dogs and rabbits if you like, as any omnivore or vegetarian pet can still eat vegan. The problem with having a carnivore pet, is that you must murder animals to feed that pet and that would go against vegan ideals.

As a vegan, I don't want some one having the right to own a python as a pet, is not fair to the cats, dogs, chickens, etc that are murdered to feed to the python. Why do they have to be murdered just because some loser wants to have a pet python?

Also, some people live feed their pythons.

Things aren't true just because you say so, Aluzky. It's not fair for you to make up your own definitions and usages of English words. I didn't look for a British definition of murder, but the quintessential American English dictionary, Merriam-Websters, has no definition that agrees with yours for the word. This is the Unabridged Merriam-Webster definition of murder you *must* use if you want to discuss that term further, and it happens to be as I summed it up in the response you're replying to:

Murder ​

2: the crime of killing a person under circumstances precisely defined by statute: such as a : first-degree murder that deserves either capital or severe punishment because of being willful and premeditated, being committed with atrocity or cruelty (as by poisoning, starvation, mayhem, or torture), being committed in the course of the commission of a serious felony (as arson, burglary, or kidnapping), or being committed after lying in wait for the purpose of killing the victim b : second-degree murder that in most states is all other murder not classified as first-degree murder​

*Bold is me, emphasizing that the definition is the "unlawful taking of a human life."

You demand others play by the rules of logic and argument, so it's only fair that you do, too. You very often accuse other people of red herrings and of arguing against straw men, but you seem completely helpless in avoiding these things yourself, as well as a long list of other fallacies intended solely to misrepresent someone else's argument and motives.

Your high IQ offers us no benefit in this discussion if you do not put it to use. Take a deep breath, concentrate, try again.

And quit with the false disjunctions, too, please. I've seen how frequently you resort to telling people they have only two alternatives (as posed by you, in your terms), and then you demand they answer "yes or no." You do the same thing here, in this ... I almost said rebuttal. But this is not a rebuttal.

Try again. Write me a fair rebuttal, and I promise you, I'll give it a fair consideration.

Edited after further searching --
I beg your pardon! I see the Online Free Dictionary begins similar to -- but definitely not in agreement with -- your twisted definition of the word: "The killing of another person without justification or excuse, especially the crime of killing a person with malice aforethought or with recklessness manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life."

This definition is still hung solidly upon "person" and "law." Neither of those apply to the death of an animal, no matter the circumstance. Murder does not apply to hunting wild animals nor to slaughtering commercially raised animals for food.

I also checked the Collegiate and online versions of Websters, the American Heritage dictionary and tried to access the OED, but... I couldn't even get a trial subscription there. None was offered. I'm going to guess that our friends in Britain have a similar definition. I would go so far as to wager all languages base their definitions of equivalent words similarly -- "Murder" is the unlawful taking of a human life. For you to stipulate otherwise? That's not even excusable by the obstacles of ELL, the language barrier. That's just you, son. That's you going out of your way to protect your own personal reality, talking to yourself. None of us need reply to anything further that you say after that.

 

[Aluzky]

Things aren't true just because you say so, Aluzky.

I agree. They are true if they can be proven true.

So answer me, is the "killing" of gays just because they are gay (in countries where is legal to kill them) is that murder? Or it is not murder just because the law says it is not murder?

What about zoosex, the law says it is animal abuse, so it must be animal abuse because the law say so, right? The law is never wrong, is that your argument?

Animal murder is not murder just because the law say so? Right? Have you though that the law may be wrong and that animal murder is actually animal murder? Or that legal killing gays is actually gay murder despite what the law says?