LOL!
Too funny!

Wonder what they are doing with the marijuana??

Serving that to the prisoners, too!

Posted by: Tamara | January 25, 2008 05:19 PM

hah! i love this! totally made me laugh out loud, good thing I wasnt working.

Posted by: Sarah | January 25, 2008 06:00 PM

Someone is bound to post that marijuana is vegetation too, and if served will keep all the inmates in a very mellow mood.

J.B. sounds like a real open-minded guy.

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | January 25, 2008 06:42 PM

Haha, great!

Posted by: K | January 25, 2008 10:37 PM

i try understand what is that your group does i don't believe in the mistreatment of lower lifeforms but i don't understand the need to make them our equal. the natural food dictates the eating of meat for those who chose to. we must be kept warm because we don't our own fur to keep us warm. the enviroment is effected by all that we do. so synthetic materials that take 500 years or more to decompose in comparison to fur and leather are suppose to be better. how? before the introduction of fake things to replace the natural things the world seems more in tuned now it seems way out of balance this is just my thoughts, i live in texas where the nature order rules so please no hate responses i'm just trying to understand where y'all are coming from

Posted by: veronica panek | January 25, 2008 10:40 PM

veronica panek: I don't understand why you feel the need to classify nonhuman animals as "lower" life-forms, except that maybe you do so in order to minimize their suffering and deaths, thus desensitizing yourself so you feel more comfortable with supporting violent nonhuman animal exploiting industries. I must also ask why you say you are against the mistreatment of nonhuman animals while you clearly support the meat, fur, etc. industries? Having your throat cut open and being dismembered so people can enjoy your body parts isn’t what I would call good treatment, so your comment contradicted itself. People in highly developed civilizations do not “need” animal products to survive. Cave people needed to hunt for food, fur, etc., but you are on the Internet, which means you have a computer, which means you have electricity, which means you are living comfortably enough where the “cave person” situation doesn’t apply to you. I believe that faux fur and faux leather is better for the environment than real fur and real leather, which on top of requiring lots of water and grain to keep the nonhuman animals alive, also required poisonous chemicals to prevent the decomposition process of the skins. However, I do agree with you that faux fur and faux leather aren’t the best alternatives environmental-wise. So, environmentally-conscious vegans will buy winter coats made from hemp wool, or ones created with organic flannel or polar fleece made from recycled plastic bottles. A great place to look for eco-friendly apparel is the Internet, where you can also find clothing that is sweatshop free, which vegans should support, as humans are animals, and the exploitation of people should therefore, also be a concern for vegans. Buying (vegan) clothes from thrift-shops is also a good environmentally-friendly option, along with saving you a lot of money.

Posted by: Chelsea | January 26, 2008 01:10 AM

i see nothing wrong with marijuana.

Whats wrong is anti drug campaigns

Posted by: Caboose | January 26, 2008 02:28 AM

Veronica:
Where we are coming from is the belief that other species are NOT "lower life forms" to begin with, but simply DIFFERENT life forms, living beings who are not us but have the same feelings, the same fears, the same wish to live as we have. I have to ask you what the "nature order" is in Texas that "rules." If you're referring to the food chain idea, at which we are supposedly the top, therefore being entitled to eat everyone else, then I have to disagree. We are not "meant" to be carnivores. Oops. I know, that violates a LOT of assumed premises in our society, but it's still true. The next time you're out in "nature" look at a cow's teeth and then look at a wolf's teeth and see which ones look more like yours. Your cat cannot eat corn like you can. That's because, being a carnivore, its gut is too short to digest the hard outer shell of corn. Your cow and your pig can eat corn, even though it's not the best diet for them, because they have the longer gut that can digest it, like humans do. These little facts may not change your mind, but they might give you pause to think about a different idea. And that's what PETA does offer - a different idea, one based on the premise that we ALL, human and animal - have a right to live and not be hunted down for so-called sport, or raised to die for our flesh and skin and fur, or stuck in cages to be mutilated by laboratories. It's not the most familiar premise, no, but it's becoming more familiar by the day, by the year, and it bears thinking about, even if you decide you don't agree. History has proven that just because there are assumed givens in any society, that doesn't mean that it can't be changed and that new ideas can't replace old ones. PETA offers a new idea, a different way to think about the world around us, an alternative way to live among the other members of our planet. I hope this helps to clarify what I think we're about.

Posted by: Susannah S | January 26, 2008 09:41 AM

Veronica-

What, exactly, is your idea of the "nature order"? Quickest draw with a .44 takes whatever he wants? Is that the Texan way? Cut them testicles right off them bulls, they won't even notice the pain - nature's way? Cram them chickens into cages so small they can't move, and load them all up with antibiotics and growth hormones - nature's way? Rape the environment for cattle herds, chop down rainforests for hamburger, pollute rivers with hog waste - and on it goes, clearly not nature's way. If you have any interest at all in the environment, you really should be vegan.

As for making animals our equals, you don't have to go that far to treat them with a sense of common decency. One way that animals ARE our equals is in their ability to feel pain and to suffer. In many other respects - in whatever it is that they do in nature - they are far superior to us. Ever try to catch an insect on the wing at night by listening to echoes from your screams? Bats do that for a living!

As for fur: the pain and suffering behind the fur industry is utterly grotesque. Surely you've seen the film clips of cats in China being nailed alive to boards and having their skin stripped off. Or arctic foxes going crazy in tiny cages and then anally electrocuted instead of roaming hundreds of square miles and finding mates and raising families in the arctic. Leather: fine, I suppose, if you are a Bushman in the Kalahari, living "the nature way". But you aren't, and your leather coat is a lucrative byproduct of a very sick beef industry.

Posted by: Dogwalker | January 26, 2008 12:25 PM

Hey there Veronica!

I'm sorry I can't speak for PETA, but maybe I can answer some of your questions.

One of the warmest materials out there is fleece, made from recycled soda bottles. This is great for the environment and it's really cozy! I even use some of my fleece coats in our feral cat shelter to keep strays from freezing to death.

Humans have evolved since we were cavemen, so we no longer need meat, we can be healthy as vegetarians. PETA states clearly that they do not mind tribal groups killing animals for food, because tribal groups would die without meat. So they are reasonable.

Also, maybe you can think about this idea: why do you think animals are lower life forms? How are they "below" us? Why is a fox's life less valuable than a human's?

I'm not trying to be argumentative, it's just something to think about. Wild animals balance the ecosystem and keep our Earth healhy for us, so maybe we could even say that humans are destructive to the Earth and other animals are helpful.

No disrespect intended, of course! ;) Peace!

Posted by: Maya, C.V.T. | January 26, 2008 12:43 PM

Hello Veronica Panek I appreciate you are finding it hard to see our point of view and it is wonderful that you have come to find out more. I hope the following will help you understand why some of us feel the way we do.

As individuals with the capacity to consider moral choices we have an obligation to do the right thing. Animals have the capacity to suffer just as humans do so should be protected from that suffering just like humans are. This may seem a little ‘out there’ but it make sense to be caring to the ‘least of them’, this is our challenge on earth to care about everyone not just those that are like us.

Fur is actually put through a number of chemical processes and is therefore not eco-friendly. On the other hand, animal agriculture is more of a cause of global warming than all the cars and trucks in the world put together, this is directly from a UN source!

Posted by: Aran | January 26, 2008 02:21 PM

Veronica,

There are many things in our houses that may take ages to decompose—the computers we're using for one. So fake fur represents only a miniscule percentage of the myriad of things our consumer society disposes of.

I personally don't see the point of fake fur anyway. It still glorifies the real thing. There are many natural, non-animal and biodegradable materials that can be turned into apparel.

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | January 26, 2008 03:29 PM

Veronica, look at all the heart attacks and strokes going on around you in TX.

Eating means sure isn't helping Texans.

And where is there a need to wear fur in Texas? Fat housewives freezing in dark?

And if by "natural order" in Texas you are talking about all those dog fighters and puppy mills and bird fighters and all the other animal abusers that set up shop in Texas, what the hell are you even pretending?

Posted by: kelly | January 26, 2008 05:56 PM

Veronica,

Most fur and leather replacements ARE biodegradable. And the ones that last longer can be reused and recycled and made into other things or handed down to someone else to use. Thats HOW. Now i guess you are trying to say that fur is better because it is biodegradable? Killing mass quantities of animals that would otherwise be left alone, and chopping down huge amounts of rainforest areas is what pushes the natural balance out of order. Creating products that preserve the natural order of things is what helps the Earth. Im not sure your view on this topic. Many of the words in your comment are left out- Are you for or against animal rights? And if you dont know what Peta is about than how are you on their blogs? You are visiting the website- you should look into the Faq section where you can find all your answers there.

Posted by: Julia | January 26, 2008 08:37 PM

mike Q, I think that someone was you.
Be a nice peace of irony for the new inmates to have to eat their own lettuce.

Posted by: rojo | January 27, 2008 07:04 AM

Fur and leather is biodegradable until it is turned into clothing. It has to be sprayed with preservatives and toxic chemicals to last and not smell.

So then it becomes not so biodegradeable, and toxic. Better to let the animals keep their coats and die a natural death in them.

Posted by: Maya, C.V.T. | January 27, 2008 02:16 PM

Rojo,

Yeah, the thought did occur.

Here in Canada you can buy toasted hemp seed with sea salt. I'm not a stoner—good thing, because if you went the hemp seed route you'd have to eat about 30 pounds.

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | January 27, 2008 03:11 PM

hey Maya, not wanting to be argumentative either, I have a few thoughts on the value of life, and I guess it compares species to a certain extent. I'd like to know what you think.

I believe the value of life can be measured by how those left behind are affected, like how devasted we are when someone close to us dies, and even how we feel when someone we've only heard of(Heath Ledger recently) passes on.
As an example, I'm saddened when driving along and a couple of parrots fly out of the roadside bushes and I kill one(I avoid as much as posssible). I don't feel as bad for the one who died (instant and painless) as I do for its partner because they generally mate for life, and to see it swoop down to see what's wrong with its mate is gutting. That's me attributing what I would feel to the bird, so I don't really know, but it's saddening nonetheless.

I don't see these bonding traits between cattle, sheep or chickens beyond the mother-offspring relationship. Which typically ends at weaning. When cow no. 536 clambers onto that truck, will 537 care?

I was going to say that in the annals of time, people are but a speck, and are worth no more than animals to mother earth. I realised that isn't completely so, the carver of egyptian hierogliphs may well be forgotten, but his work lives on for millenia. His worth though depends on whether there are intelligent beings on earth in the future to see his works. They won't be much use for cockroaches, who I believe won't be too troubled by mans other legacy -nuclear waste.

Whether, millions of years from now, domesticated cow fossils create as much of an interest as dinosaur ones, will I guess be a testament to the success of animal liberation. Or the success of test tube meat and tofu.

To others, rather than just telling me how wrong and/or stupid I am, please share some of your thoughts on the matter as well.

Posted by: rojo | January 28, 2008 07:06 AM

Some very deep thoughts there, rojo, and I know what you mean by the one left behind. I think most animals though, and humans too, are quite egocentric and therefore the passing of their own individual lives would be quite devastating to them as well (presupposes, of course, the animal's or human's awareness of their imminent demise).

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | January 28, 2008 05:40 PM

Mike Q, LOL you made my day with that comment, thanks (ROTFL)

Rojo,

Hey buddy! Please pardon the following response, I managed to go all day without eating (hubby's making dinner right now) but I'm quite groggy.

I think the biggest concern I have is that we humans feel the need to see things in plain sight. Like when birds and reptiles get sick, they often show no symptoms until they die. Likewise, bonds and affection formed between ruminants like cows are not visible to the human eye.

Cows could not be more different than humans. I once heard a quote, "Even if a bat could tell us what it's like to be a bat, we still would not understand." Animals live in very very different worlds than us.

And I agree that great art and ancient drawings make humans facinating, but I'd argue that without other species, our ecosystems on Earth would collapse and what good would art be then? Animal's benefit to Earth is truly underappreciated.

Blessings, Rojo! Sorry I'm not more coherent. LOL. ;)

Posted by: Maya, C.V.T. | January 28, 2008 05:43 PM

Rojo: Do you want YOUR life to be valued by someone else??? According to your theory, the murder of a homeless person should warrant a lesser sentence than the murder of a well-known person because who will miss the homeless person compared to the number that will miss the well known person?? I don't think society will go along with that view...

Posted by: Antigone1000 | January 28, 2008 10:42 PM

Mike Q, I do wonder what animals would think, and as Maya says, would we understand.
I can only reason that animals can only be aware through actual experience( I do need to do some research on instinct), unlike humans who have language, specifically recorded language, and education systems. We are well aware of our mortality from an early age, and are warned of likely dangers along the way.

What I haven't got a grasp on is whether, using the bird example, the bird is afraid of dying(knowing it can) as the car approaches or afraid of the threat threat, instinct or experience defining threat. I can only compare that to say being startled, and the automatic fight or flight response that results. Death isn't a conscious factor in making the decisions (in my responses anyway) though the wrong decision could well result in such.
Instinct is a funny thing, and I've had it demonstrated to me on occasions where I've found myself within biting distance of a snake. I've found myself involuntarily screaming at the snake(they don't have ears as such) and stamping my feet(best thing is to remain still!) whereas the aboriginal employees I have instantly run away as fast as they can, literaly hundreds of meters, before turning around. [ Bit of background- 8 out of the worlds top ten most poisonous snakes are found in Australia, and it is rare to come across one thats not one of these]. My point, vague as it is, is death was an after thought, a thought that would otherwise cloud judgement at a critical time. I doubt that an animals reaction would be much different. Although we do have a lot of animal deaths as a result of snakebite, and assume they didn't realise the danger, nor that it spells the end if not given antivenene in time.

Posted by: rojo | January 29, 2008 08:49 AM

Hi maya, not quite sure of my own coherence this evening, I'll be brief, but don't take that as a slight.

I've grown up with cows, sheep and chooks and to the best of my observation the family circle breaks when the young can take care of themselves. They could of course be avoiding each other on purpose, as many family members do.

I can't say whether or not secret communications happen, only that I'm aware they can hold memories of dozens of their own breeds faces. Having seen some of the decisions they've made along the way, I doubt there's much going on.

Maya, I don't for an instant disregard the value of animals to this world, and us. My thinking has been largely on an individual level, the farmed species are thriving, it's the individuals take on survival I wonder about.

'night.

Posted by: rojo | January 29, 2008 09:25 AM

Hey again Rojo!

So you're an Aussie, eh? I didn't know that! Australia is one of my dream places - it must be gorgeous.

Regarding fear, having lots of experience with wild and domestic animals, I can tell you that "prey" animals (ones that are eaten in the wild, like rabbits) are born being jumpy and are easily frightened.

As a wildlife rehabber who handles wild animals, we had a saying about these types of animals: "You can kill them just by picking them up".

They would become so panicked that they would often have heart attacks, just from us touching them. So they do suffer and feel fear, and while they may not understand death the way we do, I guarantee you, they get the same, ugly "something really bad is happening" feeling that we do when death is imminent.

However, I quite frankly think that is besides the point. What I really think is so crucial is that animals don't have to be tortured by us. Cows living in a pasture and then being slaughtered for food is one thing.

It's quite another thing to factory farm them, where they are crammed into stalls, cages, kept in dark stalls, or chickens who have their beaks cut off with knives and are forced to live in cages barely larger than themselves, for years.

A quick death is nothing compared to years and years of toruture and confinement in a cage. I think that is the bottom line. I couldn't even do that to a house fly, much less a cow or chicken. Those factory farmed animals suffer tremendous suffering.

Okay, my Aussie dear. More later. ;)

Posted by: Maya, C.V.T. | January 29, 2008 11:19 AM

The Western Hemisphere did not care too much what was happening to millions of people in Europe during WWII. Life went on as usual. So what does that say about humans?

Posted by: Ana | January 29, 2008 12:12 PM

Rojo,

Yeah, Australia is certainly home to some weird and wonderful creatures. My cousin (from England originally, now lives in Tasmania) got bit by a tick in the Australian outback. She was literally laid up for 2 years in a state of total fatigue. Think I'll keep putting up with the Canadian winters :)

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | January 29, 2008 02:06 PM

Good mornin rojo

I hear you talk about “value”. What value to mother nature? Mother nature has not eaten from the Tree of Knowledge – we have. We are devolving into a psychopathic utility thinking:

Dog = friend
Chicken = food
Black = slave
Weed = enemy

This kind of utility thinking does not lead us to treat blacks, weeds, chickens etc better – albeit we value them as “products”. Your Mother Nature does not think that way. You do. Please do not turn this around. As for your other comments.

Rojo: “I do wonder what animals would think, and as Maya says, would we understand.”

I know what ya mean. I got the same issue with my girlfriend mate.

Rojo: “I can only reason that animals can only be aware through actual experience…”
And how can you reason this – based in experience perhaps?

Rojo: “humans who have language, education systems..”

..Animals don’t communicate and mothers don’t teach their young?

Rojo: “We are well aware of our mortality from an early age, and are warned of likely dangers along the way.”

Do you know that when fish see other fish get caught and wounded in fishing-nets – they learn to flee and avoid those in the future? The special sense that they apply is called empathy – it is rare in humans. Empathy empowers you to feel what another person feels. Fish feel the pain of other fish in the net and become afraid of the net.. every animal that has witnessed another animal die or that has lost a dear friend knows that our time comes. They are afraid of suffering in advance just as much as humans are. Humans are not more aware than animals of their own mortality etc. One must be very very removed from nature to assume that black mothers miss their babies less than white mothers, that children and animals suffer less and that animals are less scared of future suffering than humans!

Rojo: “Death isn't a conscious factor in making the decisions (in my responses anyway) though the wrong decision could well result in such. “

I have heard of you. You are the one who has already died and knows what death feels like? Jesus – is it you?

Rojo: “I've grown up with cows, sheep and chooks and to the best of my observation the family circle breaks when the young can take care of themselves.”

You mean animals eventually move out and stop living with their mothers? I know how hard this is to understand for some..
Rojo: “Having seen some of the decisions they've made along the way, I doubt there's much going on.”

Are you still talking about cows?

Rojo: “My thinking has been largely on an individual level, the farmed species are thriving, it's the individuals take on survival I wonder about.”

Species, borders, nations are virtual and cultural notions and not biological. For nature – there is no species – there are ONLY individuals. The name individual btw implies uniqueness. Get it? How are individual pigs thriving in this respect – they cannot move, sleep in their shit and never see daylight? Thriving? Are you back to the utility function where volume is automatically a positive? You mean that 10 billion tortured pigs are better off than 200 happy ones?

Do you further understand that when you give and important presentation, when you daydream in the car, when you play tennis, when you orgasm or go to a strip joint – you feel, regardless of your thoughts and images, the same animal emotions that all animals feel. You have the same senses and feelings that all animals feel. When you solve the most complicated mathematical problem on earth you feel the same as when a cow solves her riddle (cows feel the eureka effect just like humans). And if you feel the need for basic freedom and autonomy – you should assume that every other animal feels that too.

Posted by: hugo pottisch | January 29, 2008 03:11 PM

Regarding the intellectual life of animals and not merely the emotional – let me quote Socrates from Plat’s The Republic:

“Socrates: Would not he who is fitted to be a guardian,
besides the spirited nature, need to have the
qualities of a philosopher?

Friend: I do not apprehend your meaning.

Socrates: The trait of which I am speaking, I replied,
may be also seen in the dog, and is remarkable
in the animal.

Friend: What trait?

Socrates: Why, a dog, whenever he sees a stranger,
is angry; when an acquaintance, he welcomes him,
although the one has never done him any harm,
nor the other any good. Did this never strike you as
curious?

Friend: The matter never struck me before; but I quite
recognise the truth of your remark.

Socrates: And surely this instinct of the dog is very
charming; -- your dog is a true philosopher.

Friend: Why?

Socrates: Why, because he distinguishes the face of a
friend and of an enemy only by the criterion
of knowing and not knowing. And must not an
animal be a lover of learning who determines
what he likes and dislikes by the test of
knowledge and ignorance?

Friend: Most assuredly.

Socrates: And is not the love of learning the love of
wisdom, which is philosophy?”

Posted by: hugo pottisch | January 29, 2008 03:20 PM

I THINK JB IS A BADASS AND PEOPLE HATE THAT ABOUT HIM... ITS JUST JEALOUSY.. NO BIGGY =]

Posted by: NIKKI MILLER | January 30, 2008 04:03 PM

Hi Maya, Australia is gorgeous, although I may be a little bias on that one. I have had the good fortune to visit and live overseas, so it's not altogether uninformed bias.
I grew up in Ireland, where there are no poisonous anythings. Here you watch where you tread, check your boots in the morning and check the swimming pool before you jump in. I do enjoy kangaroos munching on the lawn, and Emus as they wander through. The good outweigh the bad.
I'm no fan of factory farming when it comes to cages, stalls etc that don't premit free easy movement and interaction with their own type. I think animals should be able to play in some dirt, and feel some sun.

Mike Q, that would be the old paralysis tick trick. You have to be careful removing them, it's too easy to squeeze more toxins into your body.

Hugo, a lot to get through there, and it would be easier if you had understood what was written. I'll try and address your points in order.

utility thinking- perhaps we could think of it as pecking order, something mother nature does quite effectively. Happens in packs of wolves, chicken runs and school playgrounds. No that doesn't make it fair or right, it just is.

I don't know your girlfriend, but I'm left in no doubt what my wife is thinking. How she obtains the info for those conclusions is the mystery.

Yes through experience, though I didn't have to survive the titanic to know what happened. Thats the difference.

Yes animals communicate, don't remember saying they didn't. Teach their young? I don't know. We've raised some chooks from an incubator, and with no other chooks to look up to they've ended up doing the things chooks do. How about the cow- here son eat that green stuff.

fish etc, yes I clearly said learn from "actual experience".
If your theory is correct that an animals knows it's time will come to an end after witnessing death, aren't we then relieving them of undue stress by taking some away to be slaughterd than simply letting them die in the paddock of old age?
I'm not sure why all the references to black people, and I can't help but wonder why. I don't discriminate between a black or white sheep, but if I wanted to catch a mouse I'd employ a cat.

death/decisions- no, I'm not Jesus. Maybe you should read that bit again.

Family circle- not as superficially as you take it. I had the pleasure of seeing my grandmother holding her great granddaughter. My sister has been taking care of herself for 15 years, we still catch up.

Yes i was still talking about cows, but have seen the same from sheep and chooks if it makes it easier for you.

species borders etc, I get it, but if it is all about the individual why be hormonally driven to procreate? Survival of the fittest is ultimately not about the individual, but the passing on of it's genes.
Anyway, I digress and wonder why you don't see what is written "it's the individuals take on survival I wonder about". I do.

Hugo, i'm aware of our basic programming, and don't doubt it for an instant. Think "animal rage" and all that.
As to freedom and autonomy, if you have experienced them you are likely to miss them. There's this thing called marriage that we(sweeping generalisation) actually sign up for...

Posted by: rojo | January 31, 2008 09:40 AM

antigone, it's quite possible someone will have to make a decision on my life one day, be it a doctor, family member or some suicide bomber who things I might be a handy bloke to stand beside. All are well out of my control.

Killing a homeless person is an act of murder, no less diminished by his/her status. It perhaps should generate a heavier sentence as it is cold-blooded, and without purpose, only sheer malevolence.
However in the scheme of things I would prefer a serial killer to target homeless people than 12 year olds, if that makes it any better for you.

Apologies for the delay, I didn't see your post before this evening.

Posted by: rojo | January 31, 2008 10:04 AM

Rojo: But YOU are the not the one to judge the value of someone else's life. It is not up to you to say it is okay for the murderer to kill the homeless person. Surely, the homeless person is going to defend his right to live. Same with animals. It is not up to you to determine who is and who is not worthy of life. Each being is here in his/her own right. If you truly believe what you wrote, then I hope you were not upset by what happened on 9/11. The perpetrators determined that the lives of those in NY were worth sacrificing. According to you, it is okay to make such a judgment about others.

Posted by: Antigone1000 | February 1, 2008 05:23 PM

Just on your thoughts Ana, I presume the Allies were doing their best to end the war as soon as they possibly could. I'm not sure it's fair to say the Western Hemisphere didn't care,(they may not have, I don't know) because what could they have done about it anyway, behind enemy lines? The Germans first real deathcamp did open a few months before Pearl harbour, do you think the US should heve engaged earlier? Was the western world aware of the Einsatzgruppen early in the war?

Genuine questions, you've raised an interesting point.

I often wonder whether Hitler would have done better in the war had he not wasted so many resources on the "final solution", and in doing so lessened his potential troop numbers.

Posted by: rojo | February 2, 2008 12:06 AM

antigone, if you read what I wrote carefully, I clearly say it is NOT ok to murder a homeless person. His/her death would serve no purpose.

With the tables turned I may have to judge the value of someones life. To turn of life support, to decide whether someone dear to me living as a vegetable is really living. Don't get me wrong they're decisions I truly hope never to make, but people do everyday.

In the case of homeless persons versus 12 year olds I know which I would choose, don't you?

As to 9/11, I was surely affected by the tradgedy, the loss of life, the anguish of those on hi-jacked flights, the firefighters that didn't make it out. Knowing also that I've been in those buildings, and that it could just as easily have happened that day.
Anti, I just don't know what you want me to say- that I'd prefer the buildings to have been homeless shelters? Or the truth, like with senseless murders, that it didn't happen at all.
It is a demonstration of how others value human life(or presumably any life), not of how I do.

Posted by: rojo | February 2, 2008 05:05 PM

Rojo: I simply don't feel it is up to me to judge the value of someone else's life, so I wouldn't choose btw homeless people and 12 year olds.

Posted by: Antigone1000 | February 5, 2008 08:47 PM

fair enough.

An orphaned mentally ill juvenile delinquent 12 year old would make it a tough choice.

Posted by: rojo | February 6, 2008 05:24 PM

Rojo: I don't think it would be such a tough choice to the orphaned mentally ill juvenile delinquent. I'm sure he would unequivocally state that he wants to live. Keep in mind, as well, that others may not value YOUR life that highly, so you may be on the receiving end of being considered disposable.

Posted by: Antigone1000 | February 7, 2008 11:10 AM

anti, I don't actually doubt that I'm disposable, the world will go on without me, i've had a good life. If I'm taken in a senseless act of murder, I won't be too happy about it though.
Yes we all value our own lives highly(which doesn't exactly explain suicide) so we can't very well choose ourselves to survive over another, we just have to do the best we can. Survival of the fittest.

Posted by: rojo | February 7, 2008 06:59 PM

Rojo: Animals value THEIR lives just as highly as we value our own.

Posted by: Antigone1000 | February 8, 2008 04:51 PM

I'm not so sure anti, I agree animals will have an equally strong will to live, but not necessarily have the same value on life. That IMO is a part of consciousness, and what they have in life(family, friends,comfort/misery etc)

i'm thinking along the lines of young parents with terminal illness who will fight to their last breath to stay alive to see their kids a second longer, vs those that have lived their life/have no ties and opt for euthanasia. Both fully conscious decisions that no one would question, but certainly have different life valuation. Evaluated consciously.
I can't think of the top of my head, too many animals commiting deliberate suicide (self harm maybe) or electing euthanasia. I doubt this would suggest animals actually value their lives more.

I might have to look up Lemmings to see what that's all about.

Posted by: rojo | February 10, 2008 07:44 AM

anti, I can't think why animals would actually need to value their lives, as that would infer being conscious of death.
The will to live is one of our(humans and animals) deepest instincts, and incredibly hard to override. I suggest that this instinct is involuntary, and not a decision on how we value life, or how valuable it is to us.

Posted by: rojo | February 11, 2008 09:06 AM

They have the same values on their lives that we have on ours. Obviously, you would prefer to deny that so you can continue to mistreat them without feeling guilty. Doesn't change a thing.

Posted by: Antigone1000 | February 11, 2008 06:04 PM

anti, Do they? perhaps you could give me some reasons as to how you have come to this conclusion. maybe you could touch on why the individual is more important than the species.

In doing so maybe you will evoke guilt, a strong emotion by any measure.

Posted by: rojo | February 12, 2008 09:35 PM

Hmmm..... we seem to feel the individual is more important than the species when it comes to humans, don't we??? If you don't agree, then why don't you offer to serve as a medical test subject, be operated on repeatedly for the sake of our species, then be euthanized. Let me know when you sign up for that. Don't be so quick to volunteer the life of another when you are not willing to volunteer your own. You are just being a hypocrite.

Posted by: Antigone1000 | February 14, 2008 01:12 AM

antigone, I suppose thats why assassinations happen then? Why the allies tried to kill Hitler

Hiroshima and Nagasaki, while not quite down to an individual level, cost lives but saved more. Someone made a decision on those lives, and it wasn't me.

Thanks for your thoughts on how they value their lives. Thought so.

Posted by: rojo | February 14, 2008 10:15 PM

Rojo: Not sure what point you are trying to make now. Yes, we do kill criminals from time to time but, other than that, we respect each person's right to exist. I fail to see how your comment relates to respecting an animal's right to exist.

Posted by: Antigone1000 | February 15, 2008 08:08 PM

So the civilians in japan were criminal? Where'd their right to exist fit in.

I'm aware you miss my points but thats ok, I have time. I'm just a litle surprised you miss your own.

My comment stemmed from something you wrote (on another post recently) to the effect of "once we stop using them[farm animals] they'll eventually just die out". The question is, is that what the species wants?

"I fail to see how your comment relates to respecting an animal's right to exist."

my last comment was regarding your assertion that humans feel the "individual is more important than the species". I'm sure the individual might think so, but not necessarily from the species point of view.

If you wish to extrapolate it back to animals, then would the many(say lots of cattle) trade off the lives of the few (those slaughtered) for the continued survival of the masses.

Posted by: rojo | February 16, 2008 09:24 AM

Rojo: I never said a species would die out. I merely said the domesticated version of the species would die out. Animals would continue on, in their natural versions. That was in response to a comment indicating that humans are doing animals a favor by raising them for slaughter because we are "preserving the species." Amazing that anyone would be stupid enough to truly believe that.

Posted by: Antigone1000 | February 19, 2008 07:50 PM

Your point? domesticated species don't count? Where to diary cows fit in, and merino sheep.

If the meaning of life is to pass on their genes, then yes animals would favour life with slaughter than extinction. Death being a certainty anyway they look at it, just sooner for some.

High child mortality rates in the past didn't stop the human race breeding.

Yes anti, I was aware of the context of your comment and had addressed it accordingly. That would be why I specifically noted "(farm animals)". That being the domesticated variety.
I'm surprised you think otherwise.

Posted by: rojo | February 21, 2008 08:04 AM

Rojo: If we were no longer going to eat animals, we would immediately stop breeding them. The ones in existence would have to be turned out into pastures where some would live and some would die. As the years go by, those that live would become less and less domesticated. It is like what happens with stray cats that become feral. Eventually, feral cats become essentially wild cats that cannot live in homes with humans. There is no reason any animal has to choose btw slaughter and extinction--there is the alternative of living as a being not subjected to human ownership.

Posted by: Antigone1000 | February 21, 2008 06:41 PM

anti , what you say is correct, some will become feral and survive- there are feral cattle in Northern Australia, so I know it won't mean total eradication. It will however result in eradication in many areas, especially where freezing overwinter conditions exist. After 10000(roughly) years our domesticated animals are unlikely to be able to remember how to migrate, especially the ones transported to different countries.
Starvation is not the most pleasant ways to go- weeks of suffering. Nature can be most unkind, it only has a few ways of balancing numbers, starvation/dehydration, disease and predators. None any less "cruel" than humane slaughter. Old age is not something an animal would knowingly strive for, unless something quick like a heart attack ends it all. Invariably it means a slow death from one of the above. Not being mobile enough to get food or water, having no teeth to eat with...

It's rather interesting that the cat, fully capable of survival on its own, will choose to be fed and hang around humans. Not yearning freedom it seems. I can't see why cattle and sheep etc would feel differently. Except for them there is no such thing as a free meal.

Do you really think a cow/ewe/sow... is aware of ownership, or even obligation for that matter? What offends you as a human about ownership is unlikely to have crossed their mind at all.

Posted by: rojo | February 24, 2008 06:14 AM

Well, Rojo, if you would choose to be born just so you could spend your life in a veal crate or slaughterhouse, that is your choice. I would prefer not to be born at all. However--those are not their only choices because there is the option of living free from man. Whether or not they understand the concept of ownership is irrelevant. What they do understand is the concept of needless suffering.

Posted by: Antigone1000 | February 25, 2008 08:28 PM

anti, how do they know any different. Granted you and I would not wish to live like that, but that is because we are aware of the alternative.

Not every calf is destined for veal, typically less than 10%, so 90% have a near natural life. I would take those odds. Not every human has a pleasant life, a third of the world living on a dollar a day. Hungry.

Did you miss my point on cats, they choose to be near man. Why cattle would knock back guaranteed food is beyond me.

Posted by: rojo | February 26, 2008 05:35 PM

Rojo: Animals KNOW they are suffering. Have you never heard a story about a cow or pig or chicken destined for slaughter who escaped?? Why do you think that is? As for cats choosing to be near man--of course, if they are cared for and loved. I am quite certain, however, that pigs/cows/chickens in slaughterhouses would be perfectly happy to never encounter a human again. It always amazes me how highly man views himself with very little justification.

Posted by: Antigone1000 | February 26, 2008 08:14 PM

anti, yes I'm more than certain animals know when they are suffering. Different to anticipating suffering.

You are now stepping into the realms of esp, for which very little scientific proof exists.
Animals don't like change in environment or daily routine. A trip in a truck must surely come as a surprise to them. No doubt in unfamiliar circumstances they would wish to escape. Not because the know they're heading to their deaths.

Don't worry anti, those pigs/cows/chickens in slaughterhouses won't have to encounter humans again.

I too am surprised how people think they are so far above other animals, they're generally the ones preaching that we don't have to kill animals because we know better. I tend to think we are just another animal, and part of the food web. We should however use our sensibilities to ensure our prey suffers as little as possible.

Posted by: rojo | February 28, 2008 12:29 AM

Rojo: Except that our bodies are better off eating non-animal products, so your talk of "prey" is not really relevant.

Posted by: Antigone1000 | February 28, 2008 07:00 PM

Rojo: So if you cannot ANTICIPATE suffering, then it is okay to be forced to ENDURE suffering?? Well, then, it's okay to torture retarded people and those with Alzheimer's and anyone else who cannot anticipate the suffering? Finally--a breakthrough in medical science because we can now use human test subjects!! Great thinking, Rojo. And, just so you know--few humans are truly above animals. The majority are far below them, but lack the intelligence to see that fact.

Posted by: Antigone1000 | March 4, 2008 10:03 AM

anti, our ancestors bodies have been consuming prey for millions of years, and lifespan is increasing(well maybe not in the US where obesity is a problem of massive proportions.(lame pun intended).

No anti, they shouldn't have to endure suffering, that is the premise behind humane raising and slaughter. I don't condone the torture of anything or anyone.

"Animals KNOW they are suffering. Have you never heard a story about a cow or pig or chicken destined for slaughter who escaped??"
You wrote this, and I can only conclude that you meant anticipation, through esp or whatever means. My point has nothing to do with whether or not an animal should be used on it's ability to anticipate suffering. It does seem to make a difference to you and you make an illogical statement as proof.

sadly some believe they must have superior intelligence because others don't see the world as they do. It's easier to think that than accept others may have valid views. Cuts both ways.

Posted by: rojo | March 4, 2008 06:16 PM

Rojo: Anyone who has spent time with an animal, or who watches any of the videos that PETA shows, has no valid view if they condone mistreatment of animals in any form. You are merely putting YOUR selfish interests above the interests of other beings on this planet who, contrary to YOUR selfish view, are not here for you to use as you see fit. Having the POWER and ABILITY to do something does not equate to having the MORAL RIGHT to do it. People want to reduce the issue of animal rights to an intellectual debate, but it is really a life and death issue involving living beings. It is sad that people like you refuse to see the seriousness and use it as a debating point in your spare time.

Posted by: Antigone1000 | March 8, 2008 12:50 PM

anti,
I've spent most of my life with pets and farm animals, so I'm afraid some of your thinking lacks credibility. Perhaps you haven't noticed my posts that specifically condemn mistreatment of animals. Death isn't one of those mistreatments when completed humanely.

If you wish to argue on anything other than an "intellectual" level(logic and reason) we may as well stop here. I'm not into faith based missions, nor human charaterisations on what an animal might feel, based on human experience/learning. Or even that animals have some sort of sixth sense, for that matter.

You have entered "moral high ground territory", which indicates to me that you wish to distance yourself from rigorous debate.
If you and others like you can't come up with a more rational debate on the immorality of animal slaughter it is destined to continue.

Posted by: rojo | March 10, 2008 06:32 PM

Rojo: That's the problem, Rojo. You consider this merely a topic for "intellectual discussion." As I stated before, the problem is that you have not gotten past your attitude that it is the right of human beings to determine the fate of animals. It is NOT. It is so selfish for you to think that it is. They are suffering and dying. I wish you (and others like you) could experience what a slaugtherhouse pig experiences for a week. Or what a circus elephant endures. Maybe then, you would get it. I think it is tragic that most humans cannot step outside their selfish view of life to recognize the suffering of another and understand that it must be alleviated. Since we do NOT need to eat meat, there is no need to even discuss humane death. If you truly believe what you say, then I suggest you start arguing in support of performing experimentation on mentally-deficient humans. If you cannot agree to that then your argument lacks all credibility.

Posted by: Antigone1000 | March 11, 2008 08:15 PM

So now we'll lay on the emotion. "suffering and dying" boo hoo. Had a look at nature lately? feral cats eating mother birds which then means the babies starve. Eagles swooping on cute little bunnies, ripped from their existence. Literally. I wonder how the prey feels as its life slowly slowly ebbs away in the embrace of a boa constrictor.

Anti spare me the invective, and take a hard look at what you're telling me.
- I shouldn't eat animals because of my human brain, but I shouldn't use that brain analytically, only emotionally.

The problem anti is that you need to spend a week with what a pig/cow/sheep... experiences, and not just imagining it from your own perspective and from info presented by vested interests.
Humane raising and slaughter is an absolute must.

Oh please- mentally deficient humans. theres a thought and a half.
Are you telling me you think they are worth less than animals? Worth nothing to their families?

I guess my credibility is lacking after all.

Posted by: rojo | March 12, 2008 11:18 AM

Rojo: Your credibility is not all that is lacking unfortunately. Why don't you find another site to post on because, trust me, you won't be swaying any AR people to your view of the world.

Posted by: Antigone1000 | March 13, 2008 03:51 PM

I'm truly saddened to hear that.
Having an open mind is one of the great attributes of being human. I do understand that animal rights is faith based, you just believe and thats that. nothing wrong with that, I'd just prefer you to base it on reason and fact.

Posted by: rojo | March 13, 2008 04:49 PM

Rojo: Sorry, Rojo, my mind is completely closed to supporting animal abuse in any form.

Posted by: Antigone1000 | March 15, 2008 07:19 PM

Ah, but that it is closed to what constitutes abuse is the problem.

Posted by: rojo | March 17, 2008 05:25 PM

Rojo: Well, that hardly takes a lot of thought. A good rule of thumb is that something done to another should be considered abusive if you would find it to be abusive if it were done to you. There--end of discussion. Wasn't that easy and not very time consuming?

Posted by: Antigone1000 | March 22, 2008 07:00 PM