Topics Topics Edit Profile Profile Help/Instructions Help Member List Member List Edit Profile Register  
Search Last 1|3|7 Days Search Search Tree View Tree View  

Archive through May 22, 2002

Sepulchritude Forum » The Absinthe Forum Archive thru June 2002 » Archive Thru May 2002 » Carbon: a Red Bull clone, with absinthe » Archive through May 22, 2002 « Previous Next »

Author Message
_Blackjack
Posted on Wednesday, May 22, 2002 - 7:27 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post


Quote:

Yes, I think auto-cannibalism using lumps of genetically modified human flesh would be the most ethical approach... if you must eat meat, don't subject other species to your depraved appetites.



You gotta watch eating too close to your own species, for reasons of disease. I suspect that even vat-grown human tissue might harbor some kind of nasty prions...

Anyway, it tastes like Spam...
_Blackjack
Posted on Wednesday, May 22, 2002 - 7:24 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post


Quote:

challenged individuals or small children do have rights but they don't necessarily meet your requirements.



Their rights are significantly limited proportionate to their capacity. They are not permitted the level of responsibility and self-determination that compotent adults are. They are not held fully accountable for their actions, under law.

If you want to argue for very limited rights for chimpanzees or orcas, by virtue of their approaching the intellect of a human child, I might hear it. But not chickens.
Admin
Posted on Wednesday, May 22, 2002 - 7:22 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

"self determination" can easily be a translateable concept for the critters. meaning, they get to live their little animal lives, as they would, as they should, were we not around.

anthropomorphizing is silly, but denigrating their rights to an undisturbed existance because we cannot or will not grant them what we expect ourselves, is selfish and, unfortunately, human nature.

I'm a meat eater, but I consider that a human flaw and or choice, not a right ...

then again "self-determination" among humans is a recent and arbitrary invention.
Verawench
Posted on Wednesday, May 22, 2002 - 7:18 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

How exactly do we determine another species' grip on its "sense of self" when I have serious doubts about our ability to comprehend our own individuality?
Destiny
Posted on Wednesday, May 22, 2002 - 7:17 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

>> Animals don't have "rights". They may, if we chose, have legal protections, but rights are a product of reason and free will. A chicken cannot understand the consequences of is actions, so it does not have rights.

I don't buy this reasoning on why animals aren't entitled to "rights". Mentally challenged individuals or small children do have rights but they don't necessarily meet your requirements. I just heard a radio documentary on NPR about some extensive studies done on bees and the scientist was somewhat alarmed that bees exhibited a very developed sense of "themselves" that could possibly be interpreted as entitlement to "rights".

Freaky shit!!!

P.S. Marc, I liked your simple statement on your vegetarian beliefs. I'm a vegetarian as well and share your view.
Chevalier
Posted on Wednesday, May 22, 2002 - 6:36 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

I can't wait to see the upcoming MATRIX films. The first one was right: Humans are the worst parasites on Earth, taking much more than they give and acting like bulls in china shops.
Marccampbell
Posted on Wednesday, May 22, 2002 - 6:32 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

I've tried discussing my vegetarianism with members of this forum. Its pointless. I do think animals have the right not to be tortured by human beings. If you want to eat meat, fine.
Go ahead. Just try to be as merciful as possible. The factory farms and slaughter houses are cruel and inhuman. We should be ashamed.
Chevalier
Posted on Wednesday, May 22, 2002 - 6:28 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Your turn, Marc. The podium is yours.
Anatomist
Posted on Wednesday, May 22, 2002 - 6:25 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

In a sci-fi future I see muscle and fat tissues of authentic meat origin being grown in giant petri dishes, bathed in nutrient fluid, at a nutritionally calculated fat percentage. It's hard to see how anyone could object to it, no matter how overdeveloped their conscience or how insular their life became.

Unfortunately, I don't see such an idealized sci-fi future actually happening. What I see is a worldwide degeneration into factional, extreme religiousity. I see unrestrained reproduction, disease, environmental catastrophes, terrorism, islamic jihads, and christian crusades on a scale that would blow all of our minds and make us weep and wet our pants. Be glad you're alive now, don't have kids, and pray that a colossal meteor spares the coming generations of undue torture.

K.
Marccampbell
Posted on Wednesday, May 22, 2002 - 6:16 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Christ, you folks are a bunch of calloused
dipshits. Of course, why should you guys care about a chicken's life, you don't have lives of your own. Fucking losers.
Mr_Rabid
Posted on Wednesday, May 22, 2002 - 5:53 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

What I mean is, would it be OK to eat from an animal rights perspective ethically?

How about from a vegetarian-cause-I-don't-want-to-eat-bambi view?

It can be done- there are some fellow's with a (I think) 40 year old piece of chicken heart. They just trim it when it grows too big.
Perruche_Verte
Posted on Wednesday, May 22, 2002 - 5:53 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Yes, I think auto-cannibalism using lumps of genetically modified human flesh would be the most ethical approach... if you must eat meat, don't subject other species to your depraved appetites.
Pikkle
Posted on Wednesday, May 22, 2002 - 5:47 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

It's people!!!
Mr_Carfax
Posted on Wednesday, May 22, 2002 - 5:40 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

hmmmmmmm....soylent green
Albertcamus
Posted on Wednesday, May 22, 2002 - 5:16 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

depends on what it tastes like and nutritional value i suppose.
Mr_Rabid
Posted on Wednesday, May 22, 2002 - 5:01 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

More productive just means that for the amount of resources expended, we get more meat.

How would the animal rights people feel about a way to grow meat in vats, minus the rest of the animal- just straight up solution-fed muscle tissue? Would that be better or worse?
Verawench
Posted on Wednesday, May 22, 2002 - 4:58 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

"but thinking of the process used to get hot wings is rather nasty"

If "nasty" and "painful" constituted the criteria for outlawing one thing or another, childbirth would most certainly be banned.
Chevalier
Posted on Wednesday, May 22, 2002 - 4:47 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

"Rights", for humans or anything else, are an invented concept. For the sake of benefits, we agree not to transgress certain boundaries. Lately, and I think wrongly, this definition has been expanded. "Rights" are not only unassailed and defended; they are "provided" by the State.
Albertcamus
Posted on Wednesday, May 22, 2002 - 4:39 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

I love hot wings!but thinking of the process used to get hot wings is rather nasty.i have been inside a poultry plant and its fucking gross.someone once said that "man is the only creature that refuses to be what he is".
_Blackjack
Posted on Wednesday, May 22, 2002 - 4:34 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post


Quote:

Animal rights are concerned with fairness, humaneness, self determination, dignity and just plan compassion.



Dude, it's a fucking chicken. OK, maybe it doesn't deserve to suffer physical pain of constant fear, but it's never going to feel dignity or be capable of self-determination. It can live with its head cut off, fer crissakes.

Animals don't have "rights". They may, if we chose, have legal protections, but rights are a product of reason and free will. A chicken cannot understand the consequences of is actions, so it does not have rights.
Mr_Carfax
Posted on Wednesday, May 22, 2002 - 4:24 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

"Animal rights are concerned with fairness, humaneness, self determination"

I have this bizarre picture in my head right now of a world where chickens have more right to their self determination than the populations of many third world countries......

So the chicken ranches of the future will now double as poultry nudist colonies ? - how liberating.
Verawench
Posted on Wednesday, May 22, 2002 - 4:20 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Dignity! Oh yes... I'm sure those chickens feel a great sense of shame without their feathers on. How embarrassing and cruel...

Quit projecting, silly.
Tortainglese
Posted on Wednesday, May 22, 2002 - 3:38 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Animal rights are concerned with fairness, humaneness, self determination, dignity and just plan compassion. what is wrong with that? this kind of perversion of nature is not funny, it is alarming.

and what about this absurb statement about mutated chickens being more "productive"? They will now write novels, organize a summer music festival and scribble off some algebraic equations? What moron buys into this propaganda?

Like I said before: fucking meat industry sickos.
_Blackjack
Posted on Wednesday, May 22, 2002 - 3:18 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

I know I'm cribbing from Douglas Adams, but would the animal-rights people be so upset if we could GUARANTEE that the animals weren't suffering, because we had redesigned their biology so they were in constant bliss?
_Blackjack
Posted on Wednesday, May 22, 2002 - 3:15 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post


Quote:

As a result, we have epidemic rates of cancer, a host of mysterious new diseases



Well, whatever the trends regarding rates of cancer (which I don't know offhand) or the dangers of new diseases, and to whatever extent these things are anthropogenic, they aren't enough to offset the decrease in death rates from common infectious diseases and such due to the advent of modern hygene, immunization, antibiotics, etc. So far, we're ahead of the game.

Administration Administration Log Out Log Out   Previous Page Previous Page Next Page Next Page