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

[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?

 

[BlueBeard]

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

I appreciate this. Thank you.

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?

Nah nah nah. We were going to deal with the topic at hand. We were going to avoid non sequiturs, red herrings. Gay people are gay people by definition. To kill a person unlawfully is murder.

If you're still trying to get "murder" to apply to animals, that's a dead end -- unless..... Say, try it the other way. Can you make an argument that an animal is a person? Then killing it unlawfully would be murder. Big ask, but... that's what it would take, right?

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?

No, I never said the law was never wrong. I said your definition was contrived. You made it up. (See how you are? ) You could now argue that I believe the *dictionary* is never wrong. But ... that's a weak direction to take this. Then I would just say, well, we have to argue this based on *your* definition of the word, then. And that takes us back to square one, stuck at arguing just that. What the definition *should* be. And that won't go anywhere but round and round. That's been demonstrated plenty of times over already.

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?

Killing gay people unlawfully is always murder.

Killing animals is never "murder," no matter what the means or motivation.

I don't know how to say that any more clearly. There's no changing those facts because... well... they're facts.

 

[BlueBeard]

Oh, but ... facts can/do change. Once upon a time here, abortion could be considered murder. In 1973, a Supreme Court Ruling struck statues down that made it "murder." So is abortion murder today?

No.

Is the unborn fetus a person? No, no longer (if ever) a person as defined by law. Not until it's born.

And even THAT isn't simple. Say my pregnant stepdaughter is assaulted, loses her baby -- the assailant can be charged with homicide. Isn't that weird? He *unlawfully* took a human life. But if she does it, it's lawful. Is it "murder," though? Hmmm.... I bet it's not.

Crap. Now I gotta go check THAT out. (But, I'm the one that brought it up).

Short story is -- *can* the law be changed so that animals have "personhood" and killing one is "murder" under statute?

Yeah. Sure. Long shot, but... then, sir, you gotta case. (I just don't see it happening).

edit:
I found out more.

Prior to Roe vs Wade ('73), fetal rights were "incidentally protected" by laws prohibiting abortion. After abortion became legal, it was murky water. Did a fetus have *any* human rights at all? So....

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 is a United States law which recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."

Still has nothing to do with animals other than Homo sapiens, but... definitely a demonstration of how laws can change.

 

[BlueBeard]

For all, and Aluzky especially:

I just found this at the Cornell law site. THIS IS WHY YOUR USE OF THAT TERM MAKES ME SO CONCERNED (end caps, sorry for yelling, but... was important):

Within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States,​

Whoever is guilty of murder in the first degree shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for life;​

​

Whoever is guilty of murder in the second degree, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.​

​

When you call me a murderer, um... see the implication? I ain't gonna let you call me that lightly knowing what the consequences of the term are. Are you SURE you want to use that term? If you keep calling me that because I eat meat or hunt, I have to wonder if you understand what you're calling down upon me, what your follow-through will be. You're basically asking for my execution or lifelong imprisonment. That's what "we" hear, those of us who eat meat, when vegans call us murderers.

And truthfully, you got to admit that some of them do. Some vegans are out there hissing, wishing I were dead. Your words help provoke them. Maybe they're a little off their rocker, maybe not. But your hate speech is putting my ass in a wringer just because you and I don't see things the same way. That sort of makes you an accomplice to any hate crime they commit.

Can I ask you that flat out, Aluzky?: What explains your insistence for the definition of murder to include animals as "Unlawful killing of Homo sapiens or any other species"? Do you want to see me executed or imprisoned? Do you harbor a wish that some impassioned animal rights activist "takes me out"?

All just because I shot two deer in the fall with my son, and cross my fingers we get to shoot deer again next fall? A lot of their meat is still in my freezer. Or just because I bought pork steaks yesterday at $1.49 a pound and couldn't pass that up? Or that I plan to have chicken fajitas tonight? I've got the fixings ready to go right now. I will be tossing them in the wok once my wife gets home in a half hour. If I persist, do you think I should die or be imprisoned as punishment.

If so, then we have nothing left to talk about. We're mortal enemies.

If not, can we at least please back down on the use of that word, murderer, from now on?

 

[Aluzky]

Nah nah nah. We were going to deal with the topic at hand. We were going to avoid non sequiturs, red herrings. Gay people are gay people by definition. To kill a person unlawfully is murder.

Again, killing gays is 100% legal in over 70 countries. So, killing gays for being gay in those countries is not murder? YES or NO?

No, I never said the law was never wrong

Well, you assume animal murder is not murder just because the law say so. Which translate as the law is right because the law say so. Which is a form of circular logic.

Again, answer me, it is factual that zoosex is animal abuse, just because the law say so, or is the law wrong?
Do you have proof that the law saying that animal murder is not murder, is that law based on facts? Or it is based on circular logic?

Killing animals is never "murder," no matter what the means or motivation.

So, if a country makes it illegal to murder animals. Then even in that country murdering animals would not be murder? Yes or No?

There's no changing those facts because... well... they're facts.

So far, you are using circular logic. The law says is not murder so it is not murder. This is circular logic. Again, using the same logic, zoosex is animal abuse because the law say so.


Edit: Let me put it this way, if you lived in a country where gays can be legally killed. If you where to hunt them and kill them, yes I would call you a murderer.

 

[BlueBeard]

Again, killing gays is 100% legal in over 70 countries. So, killing gays for being gay in those countries is not murder? YES or NO?



Well, you assume animal murder is not murder just because the law say so. Which translate as the law is right because the law say so. Which is a form of circular logic.

Again, answer me, it is factual that zoosex is animal abuse, just because the law say so, or is the law wrong?
Do you have proof that the law saying that animal murder is not murder, is that law based on facts? Or it is based on circular logic?



So, if a country makes it illegal to murder animals. Then even in that country murdering animals would not be murder? Yes or No?




So far, you are using circular logic. The law says is not murder so it is not murder. This is circular logic. Again, using the same logic, zoosex is animal abuse because the law say so.


Edit: Let me put it this way, if you lived in a country where gays can be legally killed. If you where to hunt them and kill them, yes I would call you a murderer.

You have no right to expect answers for your own false dichotomies. You've gone right back to your old ruts. Strings of fallaciously constructed snares of such tenuous thread, they can catch nothing. Most people have long since left the discussion knowing that there is nothing rational going on here.

I'm waiting for you to answer the most serious question, the fundamental question:

Are we mortal enemies, Aluzky? Do you hope that I will be executed or imprisoned for life as punishment for eating meat, for being responsible directly, as I have been, for taking animal life?

You are so intent on calling me a murderer. You're doing handstands in logic to make it apply. If I'm not stopped, I'm going to do it again.

What should be done with me, an unrepentant, serial murderer, in your opinion?

 

[BlueBeard]

PS:

Checkmate.

 

[Aluzky]

You have no right to expect answers for your own false dichotomies. You've gone right back to your old ruts. Strings of fallaciously constructed snares of such tenuous thread, they can catch nothing. Most people have long since left the discussion knowing that there is nothing rational going on here.

I'm waiting for you to answer the most serious question, the fundamental question:

Are we mortal enemies, Aluzky? Do you hope that I will be executed or imprisoned for life as punishment for eating meat, for being responsible directly, as I have been, for taking animal life?

You are so intent on calling me a murderer. You're doing handstands in logic to make it apply. If I'm not stopped, I'm going to do it again.

What should be done with me, an unrepentant, serial murderer, in your opinion?

And your whole reply is a red herring fallacy to avoid answering my questions. You just lost the debate. Yet some how I'm the one who is in checkmate? lol

 

[Tailo]

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.

Morality is about right and wrong of human action. There is no such restriction as it only applying when the action is directed at other humans. For instance, many people think that it is immoral to torture animals.

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.

Your criticism of Styrofoam is interesting on its own. Could be a great topic. I don't see what this has to do with veganism though. How do you know that vegans aren't concerned about Styrofoam? It's an entirely different topic. I don't understand why you would write this right after the section about not comparing apples with oranges.

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.

Veganism is about respecting animals each and every day. Advocating for veganism is promoting animal rights.

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.

You can hear those who criticize you. You can't hear those who stay silent. Don't think that criticizing is the norm just because this is the only thing you hear.

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.

Why would you suggest breaking the law, if law is the only authority on right and wrong that you accept?

 

[BlueBeard]

LOL

So Yes or No? You MUST ANSWER!

Or are you avoiding answering my questions? I think you have just thrown in your white towel. You have run into a wall. Unfit to compete further.

(Do you feel goaded at all? Because your jabs? They didn't even tickle.)

I'm just playing with you. Returning your own techniques on yourself. But it was a serious question. Everyone here understands the implications of your "murder" definition. And we're waiting to see if you can answer. Why is it important for you to define meat-eaters as murderers? Or just, do you understand the ramifications of doing that? Do you intend for the law to judge them as murderers? Seriously?

Why can't you answer that? It's at the very root of this entire discussion.

 

[Tailo]

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.

Ha ha, yeah. La petite mort – French euphemism for orgasm. I've known this one for at least a decade and I still haven't got used to it.

 

[Aluzky]

LOL

So Yes or No? You MUST ANSWER!

Or are you avoiding answering my questions? I think you have just thrown in your white towel. You have run into a wall. Unfit to compete further.

(Do you feel goaded at all? Because you're jabs? They didn't even tickle.)

I'm just playing with you. Returning your own techniques on yourself. But it was a serious question. Everyone here understands the implications of your "murder" definition. And we're waiting to see if you can answer. Why is it important for you to define meat-eaters as murderers? Or just, do you understand the ramifications of doing that? Do you intend for the law to judge them as murderers? Seriously?

Why can't you answer that? It's at the very root of this entire discussion.

Another red herring fallacy. You keep avoiding to address my arguments. Face it, you lost the debate.

 

[caikgoch]

Veganism is about respecting animals each and every day. Advocating for veganism is promoting animal rights.

OK, lets take that one little bitty idea. Now tell me why you can't respect a cat's or dog's natural need to eat meat? Why do vegans insist that they eat a vegan diet that is harmful for them?

 

[Aluzky]

OK, lets take that one little bitty idea. Now tell me why you can't respect a cat's or dog's natural need to eat meat? Why do vegans insist that they eat a vegan diet that is harmful for them?

Dogs are omnivores and they can thrive on a vegan diet. Also, dogs are HUMAN made, so, a dogs natural diet is any diet that humans wish to give them. Feeding a dog a vegan diet is as natural as feeding a dog only meat. Thing is, one diet leads to more animal abuse, more environmental destruction than the other. Thus, making the vegan diet the most ethical option.

FACT: A Balanced vegan diet is not harmful to dogs. You are talking bullshit.

IMO, cats should not be allowed as pets, as they contribute to animal abuse, they are also responsable for the extinction of hundreds of species, cats are a very harmful existence.

 

[caikgoch]

IMO, cats should not be allowed as pets, as they contribute to animal abuse, they are also responsable for the extinction of hundreds of species, cats are a very harmful existence.

And I thought a vegan diet was disrespectful! You want to murder all cats!

 

[Aluzky]

And I thought a vegan diet was disrespectful! You want to murder all cats!

You are doing a straw man fallacy.

Wild cats exist without human help. Who said anything about murdering them?

Can some one please debate me without using fallacies?

 

[caikgoch]

pets

Don't look wild to me.

 

[SigmaTheZeta]

@Aluzky there will be cats as long as there is human agriculture. If you grow something that mice and other agricultural pests can eat, they will come, and in their wake, there will be mesopredators like cats or, in Algeria, often fennecs.

This is why you ought to support the company Solar Foods!

Home - Solar Foods

solarfoods.fi

*Final Fantasy VII Victory Fanfare*

 

[Tailo]

OK, lets take that one little bitty idea. Now tell me why you can't respect a cat's or dog's natural need to eat meat? Why do vegans insist that they eat a vegan diet that is harmful for them?

I'm not sure whether there is a misunderstanding (due to the ambiguity of the word "you") so I'll clear it up just in case: I am not vegan myself, just vegetarian. In addition to vegan and vegetarian food I also feed my dog fish and/or invertebrates daily. There are still some traces of undefined animal proteins in his regular nutrition, in his evening dental snack for example, which I am looking to replace. But I plan to keep fish and molluscs and I am experimenting with insect based food. He is living an omnivore life and I plan to continue to feed him and future dogs an omnivore diet. I don't think I'll ever have a cat.

I don't think dogs need meat. I am no expert there, but there are enough sources that seem trustworthy to me.

I know there are vegans who have a cat and give their cats animal-based food. So I am sure that vegans don't insist in general that cats shall have a meat-free diet. There are probably some that do and I can't speak for them, but I assume that most of these think their suggested diet would be healthy. People err and it's unfortunate when that happens. It surely happens to people who feed their animals meat, too.

 

[Aluzky]

Don't look wild to me.

Your ignorant opinion is irrelevant when it comes to facing actual facts. Cats are not a fully domesticated species. Cats can do fine as wild animals without any human help.

 

[Aluzky]

@KNOTTYBOYZ

Skittles changed their recipe years ago to make it vegan. Many jelly beans are vegan too.

I'm not supper dogmatic about veganism, I have no problems with bugs that can't even feel pain when they are used as food.

Owning carnivore pets goes against veganism as you have to murder animals to feed carnivorous pets.

Would in theory could be obtained in ethical ways, which would not go against veganism.

Dog food already have B12 supplement, and you can always feed a dog B12 pill along with his/her vegan diet.

The dog body can create their own collagen and keratin from non-animal sources of food, so you are talking BS.

A dog on a vegan diet is easy to pull off, all you have to do is research and then feed the corresponding amounts.

So to deny your dog a normal diet and force them to a diet plan they're not designed for, even if you force them to consume the supplements via injections or pills, is inhumane in the end.

Dogs normal diet is what ever diet humans wish to give them. As dogs are an animal created by humans. Human chose what dogs eat or become through selective breeding. Feeding a dog a vegan diet is s normal as feeding dog a meat diet. In the end, there is nothing inhumane about deeding a dog a balanced vegan diet, you are talking bullshit.

Humans, along with other omnivores, are designed to consume meat for a reason and is a natural part of life.

Rape and murder is also natural. Being natural is no excuse to do them. You are using a naturalistic fallacy.

We, along with all the other meat eating animals, have been killing and eating meat for the purpose of nutrition, there's nothing inhuman about it.

So, if I where to murder you and eat you for nutrition, that would be Ok as long as it is for nutrition? Murder (of animals or humans) is inhuman, you deciding to ignore this fact does not change reality.