This makes me angry

robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
This makes me angry

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ml_iraq_stray_dogs

Yea I'm angry at lack of care.

Baghdad kills 58,000 stray dogs in 3-month span

 

FILE - In this Nov. 23, 2008 file photo, Iraqi police officer Qassim Ahmed takes aim before shooting a stray dog in the Mansour neighborhood of Baghda AP – FILE - In this Nov. 23, 2008 file photo, Iraqi police officer Qassim Ahmed takes aim before shooting …

 

  By BUSHRA JUHI, Associated Press Writer Bushra Juhi, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 12 mins ago

BAGHDAD – Teams of veterinarians and police shooters have killed some 58,000 stray dogs in and around the Iraqi capital over the past three months as part of a campaign to curb an increasing number of strays blamed for attacks on residents.

The Baghdad provincial government said in a statement released Sunday that 20 teams have been moving around Baghdad and the outer-lying districts daily looking for and putting down the dogs. The operation, which was first announced in late 2008, only truly took off this April after funds were allocated for the project.

The surge in strays — estimated by provincial officials to number around 1.25 million — is ironically linked to what officials say is an improvement in some elements of daily life in Baghdad, a city that for seven years has been struggling to return to normalcy after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion to topple Saddam Hussein.

Officials with the provincial veterinary directorate said that with open-air markets and bustling city life returning, the dogs are able to find more food and are having bigger litters.

Figures for the number of attacks by packs of stray dogs were not available Saturday, the last day of the weekend in Iraq.

But officials said resident complaints have increased steadily in tandem with the rise in the stray population. In the capital, dogs have attacked children, in some cases killing them.

Efforts since the campaign was first announced in 2008 met with limited success because of a lack of funding and follow-through. There are not believed to be any dog shelters in Baghdad.

The teams begin their work daily at 6 a.m., and coordinate with relevant security forces in the area — ostensibly to ensure that their presence does not draw retaliatory fire by security forces who may mistake them for insurgents.

Provincial officials said before the teams move into an area, residents are also notified, and warned to not pick up meat they find on the ground because it could be the poisoned food used to lure and kill the dogs.

Under Saddam Hussein's regime, stray dogs were routinely shot. But their numbers grew steadily following the 2003 U.S.-led invasion when a host of more serious security issues sidelined efforts to deal with the dogs.

 

 

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Blake thinks if I eat meat

Blake thinks if I eat meat I should kick puppies, baby monkeys, cats etc. Can you also load weed in the same category as meth? I like to shoot at the range, should I also purchase a full auto weapon and gun down my neighbors? Should the guy in jail for a traffic ticket get the death sentence along with the murderers?

You consider one infraction the be all end all. There is a lot of grey area in this world if you don't like it thats too bad.

You pretend that if I suddenly became a vegetarian I could talk about it all I want. Your just a bag of insults for anyone who does not think like yourself.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:Blake thinks

robj101 wrote:

Blake thinks if I eat meat I should kick puppies, baby monkeys, cats etc.

 

A perfect demonstration of how you are resistant to understanding my point.

 

I am not saying that if you eat meat that you should kick puppies, etc.

I am saying that if you eat meat (indulge in harm to animals for entertainment), you should simply refrain from negatively judging others who also indulge in harm to animals for entertainment in another way- be that wearing fur, dog fighting, bull fighting, trophy hunting, or strapping explosives to small animals and watching them blow up for kicks.

I do not suggest that you should also do those things- I prefer that you do not.

The only thing I advised you to do is to stop being critical of others for doing essentially the same thing you are (that is, harming animals for entertainment).  I didn't suggest that you compound whatever cruel practices you elect to engage in.

 

 

 

I would say the same thing to a vegetarian who liked to fight dogs if he or she criticized you for eating meat- they're both ways of harming animals for entertainment.

I don't suggest that you even need to care about animals- merely that you be consistent, and accept that other people also have just as much a right as you do to hurt animals for whatever reason they want.  Nothing you are doing is necessary- it's all a matter of your personal preference for culinary entertainment.

 

 

Quote:
There is a lot of grey area in this world if you don't like it thats too bad.

 

That's not at all what this is about.  This is about your hypocrisy and bad rationalizations (which you still haven't admitted).

This is about taking responsibility for one's own actions, and the degree of harm one is choosing to cause, and seeing things in perspective.

 

 

Quote:
You pretend that if I suddenly became a vegetarian I could talk about it all I want.

 

Ostensibly, you would also have to abstain from things like dog or cock fighting, and numerous other forms of animal cruelty perpetrated for entertainment.  I noted that it's entirely possible that, given the slight nature of the offense you're criticizing here, it may not be possible to comment without blatant hypocrisy for anybody short of a vegan.

I would kill aggressive animals to defend the lives of my family members, so I probably can't criticize these people for what they're doing.  For me, defense of loved ones trump entertainment as justification.

 

 

Rob, the problem here is that you just aren't a very rational person.


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Eating a cow for

Eating a cow for sustenance has nothing to do with kicking a fukin dog no matter how hard you try to make it seem so. Your trying really hard but your pushing up a slippery slope and you seem to be the only one with this strange concept.

The notion that I eat meat so I can't care for and respect animals is ridiculous. Do you like animals? If you do why would you wish to cut off a voice even if the voice in your mind is a hypocrite it would help your cause, if you like animals that is. I believe the saying is cutting your nose off despite your face.

If I want to advocate FOR animals what is your fukin problem? If by my own actions I changed a few minds for the better despite a failing what is the problem? Yea your nose is over there, put it on some ice maybe they can sew it back on.

Btw, stop reading books your cutting down the rainforest smartie.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
Your = possessive, belonging

Your = possessive, belonging to you.

You're = contraction of you and are.

 

 

robj101 wrote:

Eating a cow for sustenance has nothing to do with kicking a fukin dog no matter how hard you try to make it seem so.

 

You aren't eating cows for sustenance; you're eating them for flavour.  There are plenty of other things in first world countries to eat for sustenance.  You make a choice because you prefer the way cows taste to the way alternative high-protein foods taste.

If it weren't for the aspect of culinary entertainment (whatever combination of taste and texture), economy would have won out and people would be eating far cheaper bean-based protein products.

 

 

Quote:
The notion that I eat meat so I can't care for and respect animals is ridiculous.

 

That's not my notion- my notion is that you're a hypocrite because you suppose to do both without acknowledging your responsibility for your own actions.  You're perfectly capable of doing both- people the world over hold conflicting values and actions.  That doesn't make it rational.

 

Quote:
Do you like animals? If you do why would you wish to cut off a voice even if the voice in your mind is a hypocrite it would help your cause, if you like animals that is. I believe the saying is cutting your nose off despite your face.

If I want to advocate FOR animals what is your fukin problem? If by my own actions I changed a few minds for the better despite a failing what is the problem? Yea your nose is over there, put it on some ice maybe they can sew it back on.

 

That is the first valid argument you've made against me in the history of our arguments here.

 

As long as you recognize your past hypocrisy and take responsibility for your choice to harm animals (which you almost seem to have done in the last paragraph)- a choice not at all unlike that any other person makes when they do so for their own reasons- and you don't go about considering yourself a better person than these people who chose to kill dogs, then there's nothing really to argue about.

Strictly speaking, by the definition of hypocrite, even an immoral person (by his or her own evaluation, through lack of will power, for example) can fully well argue against the actions of others who are doing precisely the same thing so long as he or she does not consider himself or herself morally superior in doing the same.  One would think, though, that in this recognition of equality that the anger in the argument would be at least tempered, lest he or she be equally angry at himself or herself (or even more so).

 

That is to say, feel free to feel hate/anger towards these animal abusers, as long as you feel that hate/anger towards yourself too, you aren't a hypocrite.  Just don't try to rationalize your own actions to give yourself a pass while you criticize others for the same thing.  After all, a homosexual Christian can hate homosexuals without being hypocritical as long as he or she doesn't give himself or herself a pass, and is equally self-loathing.

 

So, I should amend my statement: only a vegetarian (possibly only a vegan) or a self-loathing omnivore can criticize others for these kinds of actions without being hypocritical.

In practice, though, it would seem that any honest self-loathing omnivore might direct his or her actions where they can make the most difference- in his or her own life- before directing them at others (which is why that odd loop-hole in hypocrisy is so rarely ever seen).


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Thanks english professor. I

Thanks english professor. I live in Texas I am a fukin hick and you're is either your or yall.

Tofu sucks, I have some in the fridge. If you want to eat grass thats your choice, I'll remember to ponder a way to make you a bad guy for depleting the oxygen producing vegetation which we and all other animals need to survive. (yea I know that's out there but I don't care it's still a point)

The vast majority of people are hypocrites on this one point in your estimation. You have a select group of special *blameless* people I guess.

If they WERE eating the animals they killed I would not be nearly as upset, I'm upset because they callously kill these animals with no remorse. They let the dog population get out of hand and didn't even consider the animals untill they became a "problem".

 I'm upset at the assholes who skin animals alive for their fur and let them die in agony and I would be headed for prison were they performing such deeds in my presence. I have hunted deer, and I ate the sob's, I don't poke them with sticks and torment them or even kill them for sport, it's great bbq'd though. If I see someone just killing an animal for fun, to derive some sick pleasure in anothers suffering I get angry.

Likewise if I see an ass torturing the cows I am just as upset. I do not eat *Tyson* chicken nor do I frequent KFC, known animal cruelty specialists.

You seem to have missed the whole point in the op but I went with your argument anyway because you are not quite right on this end of it either in *my not so humble opinion*.

I haven't claimed to be upset at anyone for enjoying meat 

 

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:I'll remember

robj101 wrote:
I'll remember to ponder a way to make you a bad guy for depleting the oxygen producing vegetation which we and all other animals need to survive. (yea I know that's out there but I don't care it's still a point)

 

No, it's not a point.  Are you completely scientifically illiterate?

The animals you eat, eat more plants per serving of meat than I eat in a serving of plants.  This is very basic thermodynamics.  It's a difference of nearly an order of magnitude (give or take a little, depending on the type of meat and the exact conditions).

 

This is only another point in contention of your stance- that your diet is more environmentally destructive (if one is concerned for environmental effects).

 

 

Quote:
Tofu sucks, I have some in the fridge. If you want to eat grass thats your choice

 

Tofu isn't grass, but that's not the point (nor is that you're probably eating the wet soft stuff, which isn't particularly good compared to pressed and dried tofu or TVP, and that you probably don't have a clue how to cook it).

But yes, it is my choice- and it's your choice too.  You *could* eat tofu, but you choose not to because you prefer the taste and texture of meat.  It is a matter of culinary entertainment that leads you to harm animals.

 

Quote:
The vast majority of people are hypocrites on this one point in your estimation.

 

Probably, but there are a good number of people, such as Kapkao, who don't give a shit, and thereby completely avoid hypocrisy.

 

 

Quote:
You have a select group of special *blameless* people I guess.

 

At least virtually nobody is completely blameless; it's about accountability and responsibility for our actions- and not adding insult to injury by using bad rationalizations to pretend that we're not doing anything wrong, or that it's actually "necessary".

 

It's not necessary, it's a choice.  I also make a choice to use computers and electronics, which use rare Earth materials, which largely come from a select few deposits of mud in the third world where working conditions are not particularly good at all.

I use electronics with elements mined from third world mud, somebody else wears Nike made in a sweat shop somewhere- I recognize my part in responsibility, as a consumer, for those working conditions, and I don't criticize somebody else taking part in a supply chain that's driving the same sorts of conditions.

Once an alternative is presented- even if it means my processor can't be clocked as high so my computer is a bit slower, and it's a little more expensive- I'll have to make a choice there.  The same way consumers have to make a choice regarding which shoes they buy.

If I continue to make the choice to purchase the "superior" product at the expense of those human conditions, I have no place to criticize the shoe buyer.  If I switch, and no change is present for the shoe buyer- again, no place to criticize.  If I switch, though, and another option is available that the shoe buyer doesn't take, then I would have a place to criticize that decision.

What I'm not going to do, however, no matter which choice I make, is sit around and make excuses to absolve any guilt I may feel.  Buy or not buy whichever type of electronics- that's on me.  And I'm not going to go about criticizing others out of place.

 

 

 

Quote:
If they WERE eating the animals they killed I would not be nearly as upset,

 

And yet you would still be a little upset?

 

Quote:
I'm upset because they callously kill these animals with no remorse.

 

And you seem to enjoy eating cows without remorse.  Why?  Because you've deluded yourself into believing that it's necessary or morally right.

These people believe that killing these dogs is necessary and morally right.

 

The only thing you *don't* have in common with these people is that after all of the bad rationalizations are peeled away, they actually have a better excuse than you do- they're defending their families, you're enjoying a flavour.

 

Quote:
They let the dog population get out of hand and didn't even consider the animals untill they became a "problem".

 

Right, and I'm sure you would have been right on top of that in a middle of a war and with even less biology education than you have now.  People can only do what is within their means.

 

Quote:
If I see someone just killing an animal for fun, to derive some sick pleasure in anothers suffering I get angry.

 

Yeah... I'm sure that's true, but I don't see a big difference between hurting and killing an animal for sadistic entertainment and hurting and killing an animal for culinary entertainment.

Pain and death for pleasure- that's the trade we're talking about here.  It doesn't matter which part of your brain is incidentally giving you that pleasure.

 

Most importantly, as far as the animal is concerned, it's all the same.  A cow doesn't know the difference between suffering and dying for somebody's sadism or somebody's taste preference.

 

Quote:
I haven't claimed to be upset at anyone for enjoying meat 

 

Never said you were; the fact that you're upset at anybody's indifference to killing animals, or even upset at sadistic enjoyment at killing animals, is all the same.

 

The fact it comes down to is that your preferred taste sensation is chemically no different than any other form of pleasure people may get from killing animals- it doesn't matter which part of your brain lights up- and that the suffering and death on the other end aren't magically relieved based on some vague notion of intent either.

 

Pain and death = pleasure.

 

This basic equation remains unchanged.

 

Now, if you added your own guilt to it instead of rationalizing *that* would be something different.


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Your raising Kapkao on a

Your raising Kapkao on a pedestal and implying at the same time that he does not give a shit. Should we all not give a shit? Most people don't give a shit untill things begin to invade their lives. You know what would happen if suddenly everyone who ate meat stopped giving a shit because they decided to follow your reasoning?

You have still completely missed the point in the op, did you ever get it at all or are you just focusing your little laser of doom on my mirror of opinion deflection.

I don't have any guilt over eating a cow, I'm not swappin steaks for tofu and green beans to placate your weird reasoning. I just got back from the store, I have 2 packs of beef weiners and a big can of wolf brand chili, together with potatoe bread I'm going to enjoy a couple of tasty chili dogs. My dogs and rats will inevitably get to enjoy some as well, YUM. While I'm chewing I'll think about how people lack care and allow problems with animals to occur and then I'll probably play some APB.

 

edit: (forgot to address one)  as Rich mentioned, our western upbringing has taught us that eating or random killing of cats and dogs (companion animals) is wrong. So yes I would still be a bit upset but not mad enough to post about it. The vietnamese have been eating dogs for years, the "chow" dog was bred to eat by said folks. Doesn't make it right to me, though much like religion had I been born there I might love to eat them. But I don't talk shit about the vietnamese, now if they had allowed a dog population problem to develop and then had to kill 58,000 of them I would be ranting about the vietnamese.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3944
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Blake wrote: IMO, only

Blake wrote:

 IMO, only vegetarians really have a place to complain about non-human animals being killed. 

But by eating any food or using any living space, you are taking away habitat and resources that could be used for animals. So you are effectively killing or not allowing wild animals to live, just by your mere existence.

I would suggest offering up your body to a wild animal for meat if you want to take a moral high ground. This is the only way to claim you don't harm animals.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3944
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote: but with the

Eloise wrote:

 but with the human population that failed their responsibility to their pets in the first place now effectively punishing the victims of their own irresponsible behaviour. 

But your political philosophy is to reward irresponsible behavior with unconditional welfare and punish responsible behavior with high taxes. And that humans can never be forced to stop breeding like animals. So what other outcome is possible except that animals suffer because we don't have a rational system of rewards and punishments for human behaviors?

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Blake wrote: IMO,

EXC wrote:

Blake wrote:

 IMO, only vegetarians really have a place to complain about non-human animals being killed. 

But by eating any food or using any living space, you are taking away habitat and resources that could be used for animals. So you are effectively killing or not allowing wild animals to live, just by your mere existence.

I would suggest offering up your body to a wild animal for meat if you want to take a moral high ground. This is the only way to claim you don't harm animals.

And while a bobcat is chawing down on your legs, think about that grey area again and realize it's not so bad and in some cases it may be downright rational.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:Your raising

robj101 wrote:

Your raising Kapkao on a pedestal and implying at the same time that he does not give a shit.

Yeah! And just what gives you the right to see though me like I'm a pair of bifocals, Blake?

 

 

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:robj101

Kapkao wrote:

robj101 wrote:

Your raising Kapkao on a pedestal and implying at the same time that he does not give a shit.

Yeah! And just what gives you the right to see though me like I'm a pair of bifocals, Blake?


 

 

He's wrong though, you obviously give a shit about something or you would have experimented with a bullet to the brain long ago, or maybe d-con who knows you are weird.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:He's wrong

robj101 wrote:

He's wrong though, you obviously give a shit about something or you would have experimented with a bullet to the brain long ago, or maybe d-con who knows you are weird.

Sorry, not in the mood for your circular logic today, Rob. Go play with someone else...

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:robj101

Kapkao wrote:

robj101 wrote:

He's wrong though, you obviously give a shit about something or you would have experimented with a bullet to the brain long ago, or maybe d-con who knows you are weird.

Sorry, not in the mood for your circular logic today, Rob. Go play with someone else...

splat, told ya.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
  Well, at least this

  Well, at least this thread is highly entertaining; there is no pussy-footing around between those with opposing viewpoints, that's for sure.

  I see Blake's point of view and am largely sympathetic, the cognitive dissonance issue is largely why I have chosen to be a vegetarian ( as well as for my physical health ) but I have never lost my taste for consuming meat, I just choose to refrain.  Humans, like bears, apparently evolved as omnivores

  I also identify with rob's position as well.  Perhaps there is a conundrum within his pov and it doesn't go far enough to satisfy the "true believers" so to speak. Incidentally I wonder of the supposedly thousands of people actually involved in animal rescue activity what percentage are also meat eaters ?  Tippi Hedron , who has operated Shambala animal sanctuary for example ? ( I don't know. I'm just asking. )

  I still value rob's compassion ( however allegedly incomplete ) regarding animals.  Some people choose not to make the jump to vegetarianism.  There is certainly an argument to be made in it's favor ( which has been duly accomplished ) but I'd rather people like rob be at least partially on board the animal welfare movement than being completely indifferent.  I personally value a half-measure as opposed to none at all.

  I know I'm going to get ripped by Blake but I had to say it.

    carry on....

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Incidentally I wonder of the supposedly thousands of people actually involved in animal rescue activity what percentage are also meat eaters ?  Tippi Hedron , who has operated Shambala animal sanctuary for example ? ( I don't know. I'm just asking. )

 

I can't answer for Tippi Hedron, but I can answer for the group I hang with.  Almost all are omnivores, meat eaters.  But then, we rescue Australian Shepherds.  Herding dogs.  The different breeds generally have different attitudes about stock herding given the stock characteristics and the environmental conditions.  Aussies were bred to herd cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, human children, ducks, chickens, etc.  What is called a "utility" stock dog.  Australian Shepherds not only herd anything, they were used in the Pacific Northwest to move sheep between summer and winter pasture, for paddock work at stockyards, for small farms, and for getting wild cattle out of the Mesquite bosques in the South West US.  Some of my friends rescue Border Collies, who were bred to herd sheep on the moors of Scotland, Ireland and Wales. 

We have an attitude towards stock that Blake might think is very cavalier.  Sheep, cattle, chicken, goats, ducks are dumb.  Herd animals were evolutionarily selected for nervousness, sticking together in the herd, aggressiveness and speed.  Not for brains.  They survived by running and breeding.  They do not outwit their predators.  They are dirty.  They smell.  And the domesticated breeds could not survive on their own in the wild.  They are not aggressive enough, they do not run fast enough, and many need human assistance to birth offspring.  Today's domesticated breeds have low resistance to disease and parasites.

So, is this hypocritical?  We don't think so.  We have had discussions about this subject around the picnic table at trials.  Generally, we are city folk playing at being stock men with our herding dogs or we are real ranchers and stock men, out to have fun with our dogs.  And the consensus is that PETA folks and similar who get all dewy eyed about livestock have never had to deal with them.  If they think that it is cruel to the dogs to have them herd stock, they have never had their dog on stock and have never seen the dog whine and cry to get back in the field and play with the stock some more.  And the stock should not be stressed by being herded.  The idea is to get them to market without losing any weight.  That means, move them quietly and at a slow trot, no stress.  Yes, the younger dogs with inexperienced handlers may be more enthusiastic than that, but the goal is a gentle trot through the course.

We all agree that factory farming of animals is cruel and unnecessary, and everyone would be healthier if we ate less meat only from small local producers.  (Yeah, that is the people who are sitting at that picnic table.)

I have seen the videos of how cattle and pigs in particular are treated at the big packing plants in the US.  It is often cruel and it is often needlessly painful.  It doesn't have to be that way and we could change our meat packing plants so they are more humane for the stock and for the people working there.  It would mean more expensive hamburgers at MickeyD's and the other fast food outlets.  But to my way of thinking that wouldn't be a bad thing.

You want to see fewer animals slaughtered for meat?  Make factory farms pay for stream and water pollution in cash for the full mitigation costs.  Make the antibiotics and hormones illegal.  Pay the workers a living wage with benefits.  Watch the price of meat skyrocket and the amount sold and eaten vastly reduced.  Better for all parties involved.

Back to rescuing dogs.  Dogs are very involved with their people.  Sheep do not wag their tails with glee when they see you unless you are carrying a feed bucket.  My dogs bounce and woo-woo and give me kisses when I get home even if I don't have biscuits in my pocket.  It's the emotional involvement that keeps people rescuing dogs.  It is not hypocritical at all to love an animal back when they loved you first and to not love an animal who doesn't give a rip about you. 

For a discussion about dogs being able to love, see For the Love of a Dog: Understanding Emotion in You and Your Best Friend by Dr. Patricia McConnell a research ethologist and dog trainer.  The book is available from a lot of places, but here is her website: http://www.patriciamcconnell.com/product/for-the-love-of-a-dog-understanding-emotions-human-dogs

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
    My experience with

    My experience with animal recue has so far been limited to feral cats.  My family has always owned dogs, in fact the last family dog was a male sheltie collie that we named Mac, short for MacTavish.  He was a sweet little guy who lived a long, comfortable life ( and died an easy death )

 

   Why are there so many lesbians involved in cat rescue ?

 

  Anyway, this thread has covered various aspects of human / animal interaction and many good points have already been made.  One thing, my compassion for animals existed long before my jump to vegetarianism.  The first step was to have a sense of empathy ( which rob does ) and besides, my rescued cats didn't give a crap whether I ate meat after I had taken care of their physical needs and showered them with love. 

   ps, the factory farming methods really pissed me off ( videos on HuffPo )

 

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
What a curious thread, more

What a curious thread, more interesting than I thought it was going to be, based on the first couple of posts I looked at when it started.

A few observations:

In parts of Asia, and parts of China in particular, they do breed dogs for food - I remember a curious mix of thoughts coming to mind when I heard a dog bark while I was walking thru a market in China...

If the dogs are causing real problem in the original situation described, shooting them, assuming the guys are good marksman, is probably the most compassionate way out, although I personally don't particularly like the idea of deliberately killing dogs. There are some pesky mutts around here who have taken a dislike to me and run out after me yapping there stupid heads off. Hand me a gun at such times and I might just use it... although I am pretty sure I would regret it later.

I am pretty much a practical 'vegetarian', only occasionally eating meat for a bit of variety of taste, and then mainly chicken, occasionally pork.

I get my protein from a mix of beans, oily fish (sardines, mackerel, herring), eggs, and various vegetarian items such as tofu, tempeh, and TVP of various kinds. I am somewhat concerned about the fish, mainly  for environmental reasons, due to depletion of wild fish and the impact of most fish farms, but I am not entirely convinced that I can adequately and economically get the full complement of valuable compounds, not just the omega-3's, from artificial sources.

I studiously avoid steaks and the like, since reading of a probable increased risk of colon cancer with such a diet, and figuring in the fact that that is what took my Dad out, after a regular diet of steak for most of his life.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:Your raising

robj101 wrote:
Your raising Kapkao on a pedestal and implying at the same time that he does not give a shit. Should we all not give a shit? Most people don't give a shit untill things begin to invade their lives. You know what would happen if suddenly everyone who ate meat stopped giving a shit because they decided to follow your reasoning?

Well, following my reasoning, they would have to make a choice.

Do they value their trait of compassion for animals more than the flavour of meat, or vice versa?

Some people would go vegetarian (like ProzacDeathWish), and some would stop caring about animals (becoming more like Kapkao).

Either case would be consistent.

 

I understand ProzacDeathWish's sentiments that he or she would prefer that people half-ass cared as hypocrites than not at all (and certainly most animal rescuers are not vegetarians).

 

If you like, you can call me the obsessive compulsive rationalist who will cut off his nose despite his face; or you can say that I value truth and consistency above pretty much everything else.

Or, and this might be a long shot, you could say I'm a gambling man, and that I think the odds are in favor of people who actually do care about animals finding consistency in being vegetarian instead of surrendering that compassion to avoid hypocrisy.

 

I'm not going to criticize ProzacDeathWish's opinion on the matter; it's a perfectly consistent take on the situation.  I just don't really agree with it, personally.

 

Quote:
You have still completely missed the point in the op, did you ever get it at all or are you just focusing your little laser of doom on my mirror of opinion deflection.

I haven't- you've missed mine.

I understand that you aren't against the killing of cows (and possibly even dogs, from a rational standpoint) for meat because you think it's necessary and not wasteful.

And you are against the carelessness that caused this situation because now you see the whole situation (dog population being allowed to get out of control, and then the dogs all killed) as unnecessary and wasteful.

 

My point is that your killing of cows is both wasteful and unnecessary- the only drive behind it being the pleasure you obtain from the culinary entertainment provided by meat.  You lack any guilt over this.

By comparison, the only motivational drive behind the situation you're complaining about- assuming they knew it would happen- is human laziness or redirection of resources elsewhere.  They didn't care enough to spend the money/time/effort on this, particularly as they had other things to do.  They may or may not lack any guilt over this (you don't really know).

 

In distinguishing between the two, the important question is where that money/time/effort was redirected, which could have been used to stop this from happening.  There's a good chance, since it was (and still is to a degree) a war zone, that the money/time/effort was directed at protecting human life and ensuring survival. 

And for the people who didn't spay their pets a long time ago; the money was probably redirected into luxury goods and entertainment.

We'll assume defense of life is justified, so the worst motivation they could have had was (ultimately, through redirection of resources and opportunity cost) entertainment.  They likely didn't feel any guilt over this.

 

Neither the cause, nor the application of force in the solving, of this problem is anything for you to feel moral superiority over.

 

Animal suffering for pleasure/entertainment; no guilt.   Same as you.

 

 

Quote:
I don't have any guilt over eating a cow, I'm not swappin steaks for tofu and green beans to placate your weird reasoning.

 

I exert no ownership over the reasoning- if you swapped them out, it would be to be consistent to your own values, not mine.

 

 

EXC wrote:

Blake wrote:

 IMO, only vegetarians really have a place to complain about non-human animals being killed. 

But by eating any food or using any living space, you are taking away habitat and resources that could be used for animals. So you are effectively killing or not allowing wild animals to live, just by your mere existence.

I would suggest offering up your body to a wild animal for meat if you want to take a moral high ground. This is the only way to claim you don't harm animals.

 

EXC, please don't be an idiot.  I'm arguing for consistency, not a moral high ground.

In this discussion, at least, the primary argument is revolving around varying degrees and perspectives of necessity and motivation.  I have been abundantly clear that human life trumps the lives of other species wherein there is conflict or necessity.

Don't be a f*cktard; it doesn't suit you.  Try reading my posts before making stupid assumptions.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
can't stand it

Blake wrote:

If you like, you can call me the obsessive compulsive rationalist who will cut off his nose despite his face; or you can say that I value truth and consistency above pretty much everything else.

 

The correct phrase is: to cut off your nose to spite your face.

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spite wrote:

Spite

-noun

1. a malicious, usually petty, desire to harm, annoy, frustrate, or humiliate another person; bitter ill will; malice.

2. a particular instance of such an attitude or action; grudge.

3. Obsolete. something that causes vexation; annoyance.

-verb (used with object)

4. to treat with spite or malice.

5. to annoy or thwart, out of spite.

6. to fill with spite; vex; offend.

-Idioms

7. cut off one's nose to spite one's face.

8. in spite of, in disregard or defiance of; notwithstanding; despite: She arrived at school on time in spite of the snowstorm.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:We have an attitude

cj wrote:

We have an attitude towards stock that Blake might think is very cavalier.  Sheep, cattle, chicken, goats, ducks are dumb.  Herd animals were evolutionarily selected for nervousness, sticking together in the herd, aggressiveness and speed.  Not for brains.[...]

So, is this hypocritical?  We don't think so.

 

You didn't list pigs, so there's a good chance the dogs you are rescuing are more intelligent than the animals you are "against", in a manner of speaking.  Particularly because sheep dogs are bred to be extraordinarily intelligent.

Goats are close in intelligence, though; and some breeds of goats certainly exceed the intelligence of some breeds of dogs, so that's probably the most questionable area.  Sheep dogs are probably safely more intelligent than the domesticated goats they are herding.  That's a tricky call that would probably have to be made on the basis of the exact

 

Quote:
And the consensus is that PETA folks and similar who get all dewy eyed about livestock have never had to deal with them.

 

That's not exactly true; there's quite a bit of farm rescue that goes on (such as injured and discarded animals), and there are farm sanctuaries across the country.  Many, if not most people who are seriously into PETA, and other organizations like them, have served terms on these farm sanctuaries taking care of the animals.

When the animals are acclimated to humans, they can form attachments like any pet (particularly goats).

I challenge you to keep a goat and treat it like a pet instead of livestock... aside from the frustration of them trying to eat everything, they're very friendly and sociable (and to be fair, there are dogs that chew on everything too).

Psychologically, much of the response one gets from an animal has to do with how one treats said animal (including other humans)- don't fall into the trap of a self fulfilling prophecy.

 

Quote:
It would mean more expensive hamburgers at MickeyD's and the other fast food outlets.  But to my way of thinking that wouldn't be a bad thing.

 

There is free range meat that hasn't been finished in a factory farm, but it's in the minority- these companies aren't going to change their practices unless consumers do first.  You can't wait for corporations to preempt something like this; that's not the way economics works.

You know the saying "be the change you want to see in the world"?

 

Quote:
You want to see fewer animals slaughtered for meat?  Make factory farms pay for stream and water pollution in cash for the full mitigation costs.  Make the antibiotics and hormones illegal.  Pay the workers a living wage with benefits.  Watch the price of meat skyrocket and the amount sold and eaten vastly reduced.  Better for all parties involved.

 

The animal agriculture lobby is far too powerful to do anything like that.  The only way to change these practices is to change the demand- redirect the funding that consumers give the industry into those that don't use the practices- once that's done, the lobby would let up on these cost saving measures (as there would be fewer companies employing them), and then it would be relatively easy to outlaw them.

 

 

Quote:
Back to rescuing dogs.  Dogs are very involved with their people.

 

And people are very involved in their dogs.  There isn't exactly a great desire to get attached to animals who will be slaughtered when they fatten up.

It takes two to tango.  I'm not saying all of these species are as extremely energetic as dogs, but they can form attachments to people.

 

Quote:
It is not hypocritical at all to love an animal back when they loved you first and to not love an animal who doesn't give a rip about you.

 

Sure, for those particular dogs who happen to love you.  I'm pretty sure the wild dogs being killed on the streets there don't give a rip about you Sticking out tongue

It's arbitrarily and inconsistent to care about these particular dogs when there are more passive and intelligent creatures one doesn't care about.


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Blake wrote: If you

cj wrote:

Blake wrote:

If you like, you can call me the obsessive compulsive rationalist who will cut off his nose despite his face; or you can say that I value truth and consistency above pretty much everything else.

 

The correct phrase is: to cut off your nose to spite your face.

 

Ah, so it is- that probably would have been evident if I had thought about it.  I believe I was just copying what Rob said without thinking:

 

robj101 wrote:

I believe the saying is cutting your nose off despite your face.

 

Thanks for the correction cj.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Blake wrote:cj wrote:We have

Blake wrote:

cj wrote:

We have an attitude towards stock that Blake might think is very cavalier.  Sheep, cattle, chicken, goats, ducks are dumb.  Herd animals were evolutionarily selected for nervousness, sticking together in the herd, aggressiveness and speed.  Not for brains.[...]

So, is this hypocritical?  We don't think so.

 

You didn't list pigs, so there's a good chance the dogs you are rescuing are more intelligent than the animals you are "against", in a manner of speaking.  Particularly because sheep dogs are bred to be extraordinarily intelligent.

Goats are close in intelligence, though; and some breeds of goats certainly exceed the intelligence of some breeds of dogs, so that's probably the most questionable area.  Sheep dogs are probably safely more intelligent than the domesticated goats they are herding.  That's a tricky call that would probably have to be made on the basis of the exact

 

Actually, it is because pigs are pretty intelligent that I didn't mention them.  They used to use pigs in trialing, but they had to quit because too many handlers were injured.  The pigs would figure out they could ignore the dog because it was the person who was controlling the dog.  Pigs are nasty and vicious.  They will eat you if you fall in the pen and knock yourself out.  The stories of the grandchild getting away from the adults on grandad's pig farm and being eaten by the pigs are true stories.

 

Blake wrote:

Quote:
And the consensus is that PETA folks and similar who get all dewy eyed about livestock have never had to deal with them.

 

That's not exactly true; there's quite a bit of farm rescue that goes on (such as injured and discarded animals), and there are farm sanctuaries across the country.  Many, if not most people who are seriously into PETA, and other organizations like them, have served terms on these farm sanctuaries taking care of the animals.

 

And livestock used to being handled and given treats is a lot different that wild cattle or goats or even sheep.  Most livestock raised for slaughter is not had fed or petted or handled, so they aren't nice.  And old ewe is perfectly capable of charging you and stomping the dog.  My mother-in-law was raised on a farm.  Her mother's sister would come visit and have dinner.  My m-i-law would say, "Please pass the Spot" just to watch Auntie faint/hurl/leave.  How you feel about livestock seems to be something people pick up as little children. 

 

Blake wrote:

When the animals are acclimated to humans, they can form attachments like any pet (particularly goats).

I challenge you to keep a goat and treat it like a pet instead of livestock... aside from the frustration of them trying to eat everything, they're very friendly and sociable (and to be fair, there are dogs that chew on everything too).

 

Been there, done that.  We lived with friends for awhile and they had Pygmy goats.  They treated them as pets.  The goats never did get friendly with anyone.  The billy peed in his beard enough to keep everyone away from him even my friends who thought the goats were cute.  I never did figure out what was their charm.  Handled, petted, fed treats - they still were not pets, would not come up unless you had food and still stank.

 

Blake wrote:

Psychologically, much of the response one gets from an animal has to do with how one treats said animal (including other humans)- don't fall into the trap of a self fulfilling prophecy.

 

True for most everyone and everything.  Same back at ya.  If you are expecting the sweet little lamb to learn to love you, you can read an awful lot into their behavior that isn't there in actuality.

 

Blake wrote:

Quote:
It would mean more expensive hamburgers at MickeyD's and the other fast food outlets.  But to my way of thinking that wouldn't be a bad thing.

 

There is free range meat that hasn't been finished in a factory farm, but it's in the minority- these companies aren't going to change their practices unless consumers do first.  You can't wait for corporations to preempt something like this; that's not the way economics works.

You know the saying "be the change you want to see in the world"?

 

My point being that you can also change it from the other side.  I don't do fast food but maybe once a month and usually less.  And I am real picky about where since most of it tastes truly awful.  MickeyD's is at the head of my "never eat there" list.  So I change what I can - me - knowing MickeyD's could care less if I never ate there.

Also, the place where I buy a lot of my meat, butchers and makes their own stuff on site from local grass-fed cattle, and hormone and antibiotic free pigs.  Not a perfect choice, but it is working for me at this point in my life.

 

Blake wrote:

Quote:
You want to see fewer animals slaughtered for meat?  Make factory farms pay for stream and water pollution in cash for the full mitigation costs.  Make the antibiotics and hormones illegal.  Pay the workers a living wage with benefits.  Watch the price of meat skyrocket and the amount sold and eaten vastly reduced.  Better for all parties involved.

 

The animal agriculture lobby is far too powerful to do anything like that.  The only way to change these practices is to change the demand- redirect the funding that consumers give the industry into those that don't use the practices- once that's done, the lobby would let up on these cost saving measures (as there would be fewer companies employing them), and then it would be relatively easy to outlaw them.

 

I know that.  We need to go back and remove corp's person-hood.  Then we can limit their lobbying.  Then we can make real legislative changes.  The demand won't go away any time soon given how many people eat at these places.

 

Blake wrote:

It's arbitrarily and inconsistent to care about these particular dogs when there are more passive and intelligent creatures one doesn't care about.

 

I don't care about these particular dogs.  It is tragic, but it is a bad situation that will take time to fix.  I was responding to the question about rescue and vegetarianism.  I already posted my fix for the feral dogs.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:I am

BobSpence1 wrote:

I am somewhat concerned about the fish, mainly  for environmental reasons, due to depletion of wild fish and the impact of most fish farms, but I am not entirely convinced that I can adequately and economically get the full complement of valuable compounds, not just the omega-3's, from artificial sources.

 

For economy, I can suggest the biproducts of modern processed foods- such as molasses, which is a biproduct of sugar production and contains all of the minerals that have been stripped out of the white sugar.  It's like an iron supplement in every delicious spoon full.  Sea vegetables, such as kelp, are also likely more sustainable from kelp farms, and are dense in various ocean minerals.

Hemp and flax seeds are popular for essential fatty acids and additional protein- bought in bulk an stored in a freezer, they are quite economical (you can grind them with a coffee grinder easily- have to break them apart or they're useless inside the hulls).

You can also buy minerals in bulk that have been chelated with yeasts to be easily absorbed- that's even cheaper, but you end up with the inconvenience of having to buy several lifetime's supply and figuring out where to put it.  Might be able to find a co-op to get in, though, who would be interested.

 

If well planned and purchased in bulk even from somewhere as expensive as whole foods, I find one can eat very healthfully for about $3 a day- if very well planned and purchased as a co-op, you could get that down to less than $1 a day, with the only remaining need being to fill up the rest of the way on empty calories Eye-wink

TVP, yeast chelated minerals (yeast is delicious as a seasoning), molasses, sour calcium salts, ground flax... actually, add some beans and tomato paste to that, and some hot peppers and cumin, and you have some great chili.

 

 

During university, I spent quite a bit of time researching the economically optimal healthy diet.  I had spread sheets comparing price and nutrition, and everything (down to trace elements).  I kind of accidentally learned nutritional science by trying to save money.


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Actually, it is

cj wrote:

Actually, it is because pigs are pretty intelligent that I didn't mention them.  They used to use pigs in trialing, but they had to quit because too many handlers were injured.  The pigs would figure out they could ignore the dog because it was the person who was controlling the dog.  Pigs are nasty and vicious.  They will eat you if you fall in the pen and knock yourself out.  The stories of the grandchild getting away from the adults on grandad's pig farm and being eaten by the pigs are true stories.

 

Pigs can be vindictive, like any intelligent animal that has been pissed off (Elephants, cetaceans, and humans included).  I wouldn't want to get near a pig on a pig farm any more than I would want to get near a wild or abused dog.

 

Quote:

And livestock used to being handled and given treats is a lot different that wild cattle or goats or even sheep.

 

That's really just my point.  A large part of behavior is how an animal has been treated.  Yes, dogs have been bread longer for more impulse control (with biting gods being killed), but that is only a small margin of difference.

 

Quote:
How you feel about livestock seems to be something people pick up as little children.

 

Yes, and I think perpetuating those ideas of an adversarial relationship- they're mean and crazy and do vindictive things, so it's O.K. to treat them in such a way- is a large part of the problem.

 

Quote:

Been there, done that.  We lived with friends for awhile and they had Pygmy goats.  They treated them as pets.  The goats never did get friendly with anyone.  The billy peed in his beard enough to keep everyone away from him even my friends who thought the goats were cute.  I never did figure out what was their charm.  Handled, petted, fed treats - they still were not pets, would not come up unless you had food and still stank.

 

Goats are more cliquish in groups.  Generally, given more or their own kind to socialize with animals will be less inclined to get excited about human attention- even in the case of dogs- I think dogs still do so to a greater degree than some others in large groups simply because of instinctual notions of pack hierarchy; the humans are still alpha, so they are attentive and submissive.

Alone with humans, young goats can be down right pestering for attention.  It depends on the breed, species, and individual; it is of course harder to get some animals to give humans attention without food (e.g. many cats being more difficult than dogs, I've found rabbits nearly impossible, some horses seem to like attention even without food).

It's a mistake, though, to delineate entire swaths of species (particularly such near relatives which exhibit evident empathy towards others of their own species and sometimes cross species) as being incapable of forming any connection to humans.


 

 

Quote:
If you are expecting the sweet little lamb to learn to love you, you can read an awful lot into their behavior that isn't there in actuality.

 

How are you distinguishing between what's actually there and what appears to be there?  The difference in observation of a dog could just be attentiveness and submission to an alpha.

 

Quote:
We need to go back and remove corp's person-hood.  Then we can limit their lobbying.

 

That's like saying we need to remove the Muslim's religion, then we can limit their exploding.  More easily said than done.

Corporations are, in a sense, living macro-organisms in the same way religions are.  They have a kind of collective intelligence (although not very intelligent) formed from all of the actions and reactions in the market, and the myriad people behind all of their actions.  They will defend their own lives with everything they've got.  It would be *very* difficult to change that.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Blake wrote:BobSpence1

Blake wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

I am somewhat concerned about the fish, mainly  for environmental reasons, due to depletion of wild fish and the impact of most fish farms, but I am not entirely convinced that I can adequately and economically get the full complement of valuable compounds, not just the omega-3's, from artificial sources.

.....

If well planned and purchased in bulk even from somewhere as expensive as whole foods, I find one can eat very healthfully for about $3 a day- if very well planned and purchased as a co-op, you could get that down to less than $1 a day, with the only remaining need being to fill up the rest of the way on empty calories Eye-wink

TVP, yeast chelated minerals (yeast is delicious as a seasoning), molasses, sour calcium salts, ground flax... actually, add some beans and tomato paste to that, and some hot peppers and cumin, and you have some great chili.

 

 

During university, I spent quite a bit of time researching the economically optimal healthy diet.  I had spread sheets comparing price and nutrition, and everything (down to trace elements).  I kind of accidentally learned nutritional science by trying to save money.

Hmm.. 

Thanks, seems like a few things worth looking into.

Oh, and I should have said 'alternative' sources rather than 'artificial' back there.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
It's only fair

Blake wrote:

(with biting gods being killed)

 


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
While I quite like dogs and think them

 

friendly, hard working, possibly tasty, pleasingly grovelling, defense mechanisms; I do wonder why, that with 5000 species currently on the critically endangered list, we should worry quite so much about an animal that must reach giddy new heights of population in line with global household growth, annually. There are 75 million dogs in the U.S. alone and 5000 breeds of dog in the world. Globally the canine population must number in the low billions. This must be an all time high and an evolutionary victory. At the same time there are only 900 Wild Dogs left in the whole of Africa. The Ethiopian Wolf is down to 500. And the Low Brow Gorilla of Pretoria is down to just one inter-related group, including baby of the family, Bakkies Botha. 

People should be more responsible with dogs but I think it's something that needs to be addressed at a government level. Dogs have a way of doing their own thing - including illicit shagging - and in many third world countries they are semi-wild. That's not a good thing. I was followed by a pack of big dogs for about ten kays when I was out jogging in Turkey last year and it was a very odd feeling. I'm a big, cranky guy and armed with a branch could have held off 2 or 3 of them but not 10 or 12. They were lean and hungry and must have been sizing up my drumsticks.

One thing that must be said about the destruction of strays in Baghdad is that it shows increasing social order - not all bad, considering recent history

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:The dogs are

robj101 wrote:
The dogs are not at fault here, the people are.

Good; make it legal to shoot human-animals as well.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Blake wrote: Quote:How you

Blake wrote:

Quote:
How you feel about livestock seems to be something people pick up as little children.

Yes, and I think perpetuating those ideas of an adversarial relationship- they're mean and crazy and do vindictive things, so it's O.K. to treat them in such a way- is a large part of the problem.

 

There are people who think that way.  I am not one of them.  They are not mean and crazy and adversarial - they are behaving the way evolution has programmed them to behave.  Lions do not lie down with lambs because lambs know lions like them for lunch.  It is in the pig's nature to eat anything.  It is in the dog's nature to eat baby bunnies and little human children if they have learned that those are good protein sources.  Dogs, rabbits, goats, etc are not humans and will never be so.

That doesn't mean it is okay to treat them inhumanely under any circumstances.  If you need to put one down, you do so as quickly and kindly as possible.  If you are raising them for food, you don't need to mistreat them and you don't need to be cruel when slaughter time comes around.

 

Blake wrote:

cj wrote:
If you are expecting the sweet little lamb to learn to love you, you can read an awful lot into their behavior that isn't there in actuality.

 

How are you distinguishing between what's actually there and what appears to be there?  The difference in observation of a dog could just be attentiveness and submission to an alpha.

 

Well, my husband is a professional dog trainer.  And I have watched a lot of videos and read a lot of books on how to read dog body language.  Dogs are better at reading people than people are at reading dogs, BTW. 

To use my own dog that I had to put to sleep last year as an example.  From the time he was a tiny puppy, he was my dog.  He was under my chair, on my feet, next to me whenever I was at home.  But I am not the alpha in our house, my husband is The Big Dog.  My dog was properly submissive to my husband, and would hang out with him if I wasn't at home.  My dog also behaved better for The Big Dog than he did for me.  When I came home, my dog would greet me with a goofy grin that was for me alone.  He never did it for my husband.  And then he was under my chair.

Now, the other dogs in the house are all my husband's dogs.  Not mine.  They like me well enough, will hang out with me, but my husband is their favorite person.  There is no mistaking their preference for my husband and it is both submission and fondness.

Dogs have been bred for work long enough that the breeding has affected their personalities.  No, it is not all individuals of a particular breed, but you can make generalizations that roughly include 80% of a particular breed.  Herding breeds are usually pretty interested in people.  Because they had to work with a handler.  Herding is not easy and it requires team work.  Guardian stock dogs - Anatolian Shepherds, Maremmas, Great Pyrenees, Kuvasz, etc - are bred to hang with the stock.  They can be almost totally indifferent to humans.  And so on.

For other species, it depends on the intelligence of the species/individual, and whether they are predator or prey species.  Cats can be very attached to people or very indifferent depending on the particular cat.  Which I think is partly genetic and partly environmental from the few litters of kittens I have raised.  Horses can be ready to accept you into their herd and can demonstrate what looks like - and most likely is - preference for a particular person.  But most domesticated herd animals are just interested in the feed bucket.  You can easily tell by walking up without a feed bucket or treat in your hand and see how willing they are to make up to you.  Even if you are the person who has been feeding them and giving them treats, see how far you get without.  I have had people say, "maybe you need to hang a ways back", so I do.  Then, "oh, let me get the feed bucket and then she'll come to me.  See how she loves me?"  Yeah, I can see she loves the feed.

Romanticizing a relationship is always asking for trouble down the road - whether with other people, pets, livestock or wild creatures.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Blake wrote:If you

cj wrote:

Blake wrote:

If you like, you can call me the obsessive compulsive rationalist who will cut off his nose despite his face; or you can say that I value truth and consistency above pretty much everything else.

 

The correct phrase is: to cut off your nose to spite your face.

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spite wrote:

Spite

-noun

1. a malicious, usually petty, desire to harm, annoy, frustrate, or humiliate another person; bitter ill will; malice.

2. a particular instance of such an attitude or action; grudge.

3. Obsolete. something that causes vexation; annoyance.

-verb (used with object)

4. to treat with spite or malice.

5. to annoy or thwart, out of spite.

6. to fill with spite; vex; offend.

-Idioms

7. cut off one's nose to spite one's face.

8. in spite of, in disregard or defiance of; notwithstanding; despite: She arrived at school on time in spite of the snowstorm.

 My grandmother used to use "despite" which makes fine sense but I will stand corrected if you wish.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
The animals that have the

The animals that have the hardest time are domesticated rats. I would add mice but they are not on par with rats on several levels.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Are rats

 

 

smarter than dogs? They must be pretty close. Have bush rats in a shack I have in the country. The bastards are incorrigible. Can't bring myserlf to poison them.

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Rats actually learn things a

Rats actually learn things a lot faster than dogs, they can be taught a variety of tricks like dogs.

Someone had a dead rat and tied strings too it and posted a sick video on youtube making it do different dances, it got removed. There are plenty of sick fucks usually involving snakes but there are plenty of happy rat videos as well.

This girl taught her rat to fetch like a dog.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


freeminer
Theist
Posts: 304
Joined: 2010-07-04
User is offlineOffline
.........and as for me, I'm

.........and as for me, I'm just hacked off with the panther that ate my kitten........but, that's the Fall for you!

'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

smarter than dogs? They must be pretty close. Have bush rats in a shack I have in the country. The bastards are incorrigible. Can't bring myserlf to poison them.

 

I can.  We live near a little arroyo? canyon? deep gully? hole in the ground? and there are springs which used to be used for a watercress farm.  It is now in the middle of the metro area and surrounded by suburbs.  Anyway, we have rats, opossums, raccoons. blue herons (similar to storks), hawks, and other wildlife living there.  So we have rats.  Under the house, in the house, in the yard.  Rat shit on the kitchen counter can cause me to freak.  There is some blue stuff we toss under the house where the dogs can't reach it and the rats disappear for awhile.  Fortunately, the raccoons don't come near the house as they can fight and really tear up a dog.  Also, I haven't seen any skunks - which is a good thing.

Skunk de-scenter

If you or your dog run into a skunk, mix this up and it will take the scent away immediately without harming you, your clothes, the dog, your lawn.  It doesn't keep, so don't mix it up in advance.

1 quart (a liter is fine) of hydrogen peroxide

1/4 cup (roughly 50 gm) baking soda

1 tbsp (roughly 20 gm) liquid soap (any kind)

Amounts are approximate.  In the US you can buy quart bottles of hydrogen peroxide so I just dump the entire bottle in a bucket.  Usually I'm in a hurry and I'll just tip in some baking soda, give a squirt of the nearest liquid soap on hand and start washing.  Rinse with plenty of water.  You can double or triple the recipe if you and your dog are covered or if your dog is large and furry.  You can use it in the laundry if you have something that is very smelly and just laundry soap is not working.  Great recipe and I can attest it works.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
freeminer wrote:.........and

freeminer wrote:

.........and as for me, I'm just hacked off with the panther that ate my kitten........but, that's the Fall for you!

  I'm sorry for the loss of your kitten.  I have become very attached to that particular domesticated species, although I am still enamored of the larger and more lethal big cats.  

   Regarding the biblical "Fall" are you of the belief that "panthers" and all other present day carnivores only consumed plant matter before Adam and Eve allegedly ruined everything ?  I was actually thinking about this ( for better or worse ) type of thing recently.   I would think that if such plant eating panthers, croc's, bears, etc had existed at one time that we would have at least uncovered a few fossilized examples that possessed dentition suited only for plant consumption.  You know, perhaps a lion skull that completely lacked it's fangs and carnassial teeth but instead had a mouth full of blunt, crunching type of teeth.  Or perhaps even a set of fossilized jaws from a pre-fall shark species that completely lacked it's usual mouth full of razors....

  Also the "evil " talking snake in the Garden of Eden ( that was later specifically cursed by God as a species ) did pre-fall snakes not eat meat either ?   Did these tricky, talking snakes posses the flexible tongue and mouth parts that would have been necessary to converse in human language ?   Again an appropriate fossil would certainly substantiate that unusual claim.

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

 

smarter than dogs? They must be pretty close. Have bush rats in a shack I have in the country. The bastards are incorrigible. Can't bring myserlf to poison them.

 

Wild rats are basicly another animal, they are as intelligent but they have not been bred for friendliness towards humans. The difference is akin to the difference in a wolf and a family dog. I have caught a few wild ones with live traps and set them loose in the country where at least they have a decent chance. They do prefer a snug house but they do well wherever they are, I think the only thing that could out survive a wild rat would be a roach.

I'm not saying to torture the wild ones but I think it's twisted to breed an animal to be friendly and loving and then torture it.

I ride the domesticated rat bandwagon because so many people have no idea what a great little animal they are. When's the last time you heard anyone say anything good about rats at all? The age old stigma affects all rats.

Anyway you can buy a small live trap, they work well. Peanut butter is the best bait, they absolutely love it.

edit: a link to one similair to the one I own. http://www.biconet.com/traps/smallLive.html

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Yeah I am ok with a few of them around

 

and we have those wee fieldmice as well as big lizards and so on but when there are half a dozen doing wind sprints in the ceiling at night it can be very annoying. We have a pressed metal ceiling in that house and sometimes it sounds like they're trying to chew through the ceiling to get to you. I read Frank Herbert's The Rats when I was about 15 and never got over it...

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:  

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

  Also the "evil " talking snake in the Garden of Eden ( that was later specifically cursed by God as a species ) did pre-fall snakes not eat meat either ?   Did these tricky, talking snakes posses the flexible tongue and mouth parts that would have been necessary to converse in human language ?   Again an appropriate fossil would certainly substantiate that unusual claim.

The "talking snake" from genesis isn't actually a snake in most versions of that tale. The snake is actually a scaly woman-cum-fallen angel, as well as Adam's first wife. "Lillith" -half serpent, half woman, like the mythical Nagas of Bhurma- flew away in disgust of her being subservient to a mundane, mortal husband.

 

She later returns and (AHEM!) forces herself sexually on Adam despite him trying to resist her, and later seduces Eve as well. Leaving Adam and seducing Eve has become the referential inspiration for Lilith Faire -basically a "Girl's night out" rock concert.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Chortle

Kapkao wrote:

 

"despite him trying to resist her."

 


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

 

"despite him trying to resist her."

 

*chortle*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lillith

It's all right there. I'd focus on "Lilith in the Victorian period" from that article.

Quote:
For Evil Lilith, when she saw the greatness of his corruption, became strong in her husks, and came to Adam against his will, and became hot from him and bore him many demons and spirits and Lilin.

 

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:ProzacDeathWish

Kapkao wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

  Also the "evil " talking snake in the Garden of Eden ( that was later specifically cursed by God as a species ) did pre-fall snakes not eat meat either ?   Did these tricky, talking snakes posses the flexible tongue and mouth parts that would have been necessary to converse in human language ?   Again an appropriate fossil would certainly substantiate that unusual claim.

The "talking snake" from genesis isn't actually a snake in most versions of that tale. The snake is actually a scaly woman-cum-fallen angel, as well as Adam's first wife. "Lillith" -half serpent, half woman, like the mythical Nagas of Bhurma- flew away in disgust of her being subservient to a mundane, mortal husband.

 

She later returns and (AHEM!) forces herself sexually on Adam despite him trying to resist her, and later seduces Eve as well. Leaving Adam and seducing Eve has become the referential inspiration for Lilith Faire -basically a "Girl's night out" rock concert.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nightside_(book_series)

He does up Lilith well in this series.

 

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline