But couldn't one consider that an accident is an alteration from what we are predestined to be?
not more than a tragedy/frustration/etc. that makes someone commit a murder
Full synthetic insulin DOES exist, it's called Humulin and has been around since the early 1980's
that's the one i had found through google
and it makes you right about her then
i absolutely can't understand why she wouldn't take synthetic insulin since it exists
A homeless man in a city has a higher rate of survival on the streets. An animal in an urban setting has a much higher chance of being hit by a car, abused by passers-by, and starve to death
yes, but it still largely prefer to let animals have a risky life with 100% chance of being free than a non-risky life with a 0% chance of being free
if you have children, will you prevent them from going out because it's risky out there?
or will you let them have a free life despite of the risk?
Some people may want a warm environment, guaranteed food and shelter, and at least some form of social interaction
but you can't decide for them
if a cat comes knocking at your door, you adopt it, and it doesn't want to leave when you open the door, it's its choice. but most of the time the "owner" keeps preventing the cat from escaping
Besides, the vast majority of homeless people have no better chance of improving their situation on the street no more than they would have the desire to get out of jail - otherwise they wouldn't be homeless in the first place.
i don't see how you draw this conclusion
i easily understand why people would prefer to be homeless than waste their life on a 9 to 5 job they don't like
i don't see how that could make them more willing to stay in jail rather than be a homeless outside
i had this week the same conversation with 2 vegans who thought the same as you (they had recuperated a cat that they said needed to be adopted because it was abandoned. although they said they had seen her in the neighbourhood for one year, showing in my opinion that she was doing very well on her own)
Your uncle is a trainer (and a bad one, from what I read)
he's a bad trainer because horses like to be free and not to be tamed?
yeah right
but don't worry, he's not a bad trainer anymore. he shot himself in the head with a rifle. i'm sure you wanted to know
I already mentioned I'm studying to be a large animal vet
cool, but that doesn't make you all knowledgeable
some teachers have less teaching skills than a rabbit
most cops have less desire to serve and protect than a mass murderer
i've taught "dieticians" things they didn't know (and i don't know much about dietetic)
etc.
most of what you know about animals is what you're taught about them
if you're taught something wrong, you believe it's right "because you're a vet so you know the truth"
knowledge about everything evolves constantly and often proves what was thought to be true to be false
let's not be over confident about being right because of a label society has given us
You clearly don't, by supposing that in a group of 6 horses there is no alpha (and it DOESN'T need to be a male) because that is FALSE. There is ALWAYS a herd leader
there was no alpha male (and if you want me to understand you, precise before that it doesn't have to be a male) suiting your description (eating before the others, etc.) that i observed in this pack
however i have no problem believing what you say (although i can't find anything on the web saying if there is always an alpha in a horse herd) since you're the specialist
but i don't find it justifies in anyway you taking this role of your own will
this animal "habit" is a description of what happens in a herd, not an excuse to do the same out of a herd
sorry, but you and your horse are not a herd. that's something you decide for convenience
live in the box with you horse and i'll start thinking about it
Horses are tame. Horses need to be *trained* to be ridden. They are domesticated, yet retain "fight or flight" instinct, usually the flight instinct. They are easily frightened, and need to be shown that riding equipment (eg saddles etc) are nothing to be feared. I'm sorry your uncle or whatever is such a sorry horsetrainer; good ones don't need force or frighten young horses in training.
err.. calling a dwarf "a person of small size" doesn't change anything to the problem
saying you "need to show" is just using words that suit you to justify taming
an animal is not born domesticated. it is raised domesticated
humans neither i will point out as show the cases of feral children
When you were growing up hauling on a horse's mouth to "force" it to turn because "it hurts" shows you don't know how to ride
no, it shows the horse was not tamed enough to have no free will left
and you even say it yourself in the same sentence :
the horse knew it had a 'greenie' on it's back, took advantage of you, and wanted to do it's own thing (probably head back to the barn)
thanks, you said for me that riding is (often) forcing the horse to do something it doesn't want to
Yeah, sometimes I have to rein my horse in. OMG I know, I'm 'restricting his freedom' but sometimes, letting a horse do what he wants to do isn't in his best interest, as in, letting him run full out over muddy terrain where it's likely he'll step in a hole and pull a tendon injury or worse.
more like "it's not your best interest"
i don't see you put reins on every animal who doesn't act in their best interest
but because your on top of this one, it's not in your best interest if it doesn't go where you want to
BTW my horse is kept in a pasture 24/7
but you're aware that most are
and that allowing people to "own" horses will unmistakingly condemn most of them to a box
Your views are so twisted and distorted. So all horses and animals should just be running freely and happily in nature? Right. Sorry, but I'm sure my horse is a lot happier in a safe environment, with good food and veterinary care. Reality of the wild: parasitic infestation, biting flies, horse flies, migrating many miles per day in search of grazing and water, droughts, predators certain to pick off old, young, and sick horses (where he is also certain to die a much earlier death, and likely a grisly one), no veterinary care (horses are notorious for colic and foot problems), no one to take care of him in old age.
you think my views are twisted, but you don't realize how much wishful thinking there is in yours
you decide that your horse is feeling what you want him to feel instead of thinking what the logical interests of an animals are (first of which is: to be master of their own life, not slave of a human)
You are in denial that a horse being ridden can be happy and content
i don't deny that a horse can be happy when ridden
but do you ever ask your horse if he wants to be ridden?
do you ever ask him if he wants to stop?
you said yourself that you "frequently have to hold him back"
so you're deciding for him when he's going to ride, when he's going to eat, when he's going to stop ridding, where he's going to sleep, etc."
you're making him your slave
slaves can have fun too. but they'd have more fun doing the same things they like, and being free the rest of the time
if a horse likes to run, don't worry, he'll run without you telling him when and where
I tried being a vegie for a few months, but I got tired of being sick all the time. I put a lot of time into planning a balanced, non-flesh diet, but nothing worked
i don't plan my diet and i'm never sick
the problem didn't come from the fact that your diet was without meat but because from something else
BTW, plants are alive too. That also makes killing them bad.
yeah. and we've said before that by eating plants directly, you kill les plants than by feeding plants to animals during years and then killing the animals to eat them
For every 3 thousand kind gestures you have towards animals, people will always point to your faults. It's much easier to criticize than say "hey, I appreciate the steps you 'DO' do in terms of harm reduction." This is why I bring up the vice president of PETA situation.
so you're defending her or saying that her behaviour is an "hypocrisy that makes people scorn PETA."
But vegan takes it to the next level saying that animals are so unhappy being owned by people, and horses shouldn't be ridden, etc shows how little he actually knows about animals
and shows how much you decide to believe because it suits your position
i'm not denying that animals can be happy with humans
but i'm saying that for one that will be happy, there are many many more that won't
and that making your slave happy doesn't excuse you from enslaving it
if you have a house in the country with the door open and the cat can come and go as he wishes, fine with me
but that's the exception, not the norm
and by letting people to "own" animals, you let this norm be the life of most animals
But I can speak for the millions of people who do own and love their animals, and their animals love them in return
trust me, as much as you can say i'm ignorant about the behaviour of horses, i can say probably no one who's reading this thread has any idea of the cruelty inflicted to animals
i help a local association and every insanity that you can imagine towards animals exists
from dogs that have their front legs sawn of in a role game, or just burnt alive for fun, to being raped in turkey because it's believed to cure chlamydia, passing by hanged with their back legs touching the floor because it's how you traditionally get rid of them in spain
the little percentage of animals who are well treated by their "masters" doesn't compensate even in dreams the pain endured by others because we allow them to be considered as possessions
It's like, what, you really think creatures would be better off roaming the streets?
i think they'd be better off in the country
I have a cat I rescued from the humane society in my apartment
to me that's half the rescue
the other half would be to put it in the country
I just hate when people who know nothing about animals have this ideal picture in their mind of what a "free" life for an animal should be
be conscious that you have your own biased idea of what a "happy" life for an animal would be
and that animals surely dislike humans and being around people when they cannot be 100% "free,"
maybe with this present post you understand it's not
this that i think
the "but if you had to save a human or an animal" question is as meaningless to me as "but if you had to save your dad or your mom"
You expect me to believe that?
err, i don't think i let place for doubt
i said "for me it's as meaningless"
if you believe i write things i don't mean, just put me on ignore, that's save us both some time
wouldn't you have to keep killing animals as long as you wanted to survive? How many animals, exactly, would you kill before you let yourself die? [...] killing many lives to maintain one is senseless to me
Why is it senseless? Just because you say it is?
no. mathetically it's senseless
this way of feeding suppresses thousands of lives to prolong just one. not really efficient
Would YOU let yourself die instead of killing animals to survive? That's pretty much what it comes down to
yes, i would
if i wanted to survive and there were no plants around, i'd try to find dead animals to feed on their corpses (well, if i don't gag); but i wouldn't kill any
just as i wouldn't kill a human to feed on its flesh
Oh I see. When it comes down to the choice between you starving to death and killing an animal, you are just going to flip a coin and see who wins?
if it's one life for one life, i can decide whatever i want
but if i have to do the same the next day, that's not one life for one life anymore and i'll prefer to starve
the moral crusaders lamenting their own inability to fulfill their moral code. They say,
"Of course *I* would probably save myself, that's a bad example....but just listen...that doesn't mean humans are more important than animals."
no
it only shows that to them they are more important than other individuals, regardless of species
But vegan, humans tame themselves in the same way. Do you WANT to get up tommorow morning and work?
what, you really want my take on this failure of a society ?
he point is, a life of freedom without structure is not free at all.
without some more explanation i don't see any logic here
I view people who claim to know what animals think no differently that religious people who claim to know what God wants us to do.
then use this idea when criticizing you own views as much as when criticizing mine
Debates like these are healthy. They allow you to view other people's perspectives while reinforcing your own convictions.
is it with that state of mind that you open a thread?
damn. it's pretty much the opposite for me
i'm always hoping to read something about which i haven't thought that will change my mind and consequently will have enriched me and made me progress
on the present subject, you don't see me change much because i've been at it for more than 10 years, so i don't see many ideas that i haven't heard and thought about before
but i certainly don't start reading thinking i'll just reinforce my convictions
I also think that the way most produce is farmed should be changed drastically. People who refuse to buy completly organic and unfertalized produce should pick up the slack here.
extensive farming is only 10% of all farming
It made me think about the extremist like PETA who are willing to attack humans versus someone who is just willing to live life how they see fit and tell others their point of view while accepting those that differ.
see them as someone who's ready to attack his neighbour if the neighbour is beating his wife
I think the overpopulation of humans has, at this point, left us with very little options in the ways of overall environmental choices regarding the way we gather and distribute some of the necessities.
with the same ground surface and resources, you can grow much more plants than farm animals (understand : on this surface you can farm x calories of animals but grow 10x calories of plants)
animal lives have less value than humans. I don't care if someone states that they believe that animals are equal to humans. Deep down, almost everyone knows this is crap. Think about it. We all believe that all people are equal. But even among people, some are more important than others. Our parents and siblings are more important than that stranger, or that person we recently met. Even among our own species, there isn't equality, yet some will proclaim the equality of animals?
subjective preference is not universal hierarchy
you may prefer you mother, but that doesn't give you the right to kill someone else's mother
eating meat follows the natural path of an organism using another to sustain itself (herbivores eating plants, and carnivores eating meat), therefore, humans being omivores, there is nothing unnatural therefore unethical about eating meat.
where did you get that "natural" had anything to do with "ethical"???
there's not the slightest connection
and neither is there a connection between "natural" and "good"
earthquakes, tsunamis, aids, malformations, etc. are natural
I am really sick of the argument that just because we live in the West that we have reached a point where we don't need to eat meat, and therefore we shouldn't eat meat
"i'm so sick of the argument that just because we don't have to kill german soldiers anymore, we shouldn't kill them"
To argue that we shouldn't, you need to be able to argue one of these three 1) an animal cannot take advantage of another for any reason even survival,
that's not survival anymore, remember?
2) all animals are equal, and that humans are not more important than other animals,
for each matter, compare the criteria that count
when the question is suffering, animals are not less important than humans since they are sentient beings
Geez...hasn't this been discussed already? Lets say that animals definitely feel pain. And that plants definitely do not feel pain. In the specific example where you can kill an animal without inflicting pain (this can definitely be done), how would you be able to decide what can and can't be killed?
yes it's been discussed before
and i've answered before that by their behaviours animals show an interest in not dying (try to kill a dog and see if it lets you do)
if you don't take this interest into account, you can apply your "death without pain" argument to humans to
I am not going to complain to the herbivores, therefore I'm not going to complain to the carnivores
cause you know you don't have a predator
if you still had one, i bet you'd agree to stop predating others if that allowed you not to be predated anymore
it's not our fault that we eat meat. it's the genoms fault. it's built up on one dna based lifeform eating another dna based lifeform. since millions of years
"it's not their fault if people kill each other" is not an excuse
. with humans eating chicken for example they will never be extinct.
i don't see how chicken would want their species to survive in its current situation than you would like to have children for them to be born and live in prison
millions of people have to suffer at the hands of their own race each day. as long as man exists, he's going to inflict pain on whatever. It's a constant
it's (maybe) a fact, but not an excuse to let it happen
"Take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor never the tormented."
-Elie Wiesel
"The world is a dangerous place to live, not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it."
albert einstein
Since when do you have to eat meat and undervalue an animal's life at the same time?
you don't have to, but that's the excuse most give to explain what would give them the right to kill an animal
isn't it your case?
Animals are part of the food "web", "chain", or whatever you want to call it. If you choose to remove yourself from it, by all means you have the right to. . . . . . . kinda like we all have the right to eat meat
by removing yourself from the predator category, you're not hurting anyone. so there's no comparison of "rights" to do or don't
the freedom of each sentient being stops where start the ones of others
