My guess is I might have come too close to airing the dirty laundry about animal agriculture and how it is not only unnecessary, but hinders our progress into the future.
So on those comments that were censored - I post my rebut here:
In response to Brett who said that he believes that God created mankind first and then animals, and that man should rule over them and care for them. I argue that this position has many flaws.
Whose "gOd"? Whose bible? This hierarchical system of "domination" was written by men to benefit men, "high priests" and kings. And we can see a continuation of such a structure in today's economics where countless favors are granted to "shepherds" of factory farms and animal industry as a whole.
There are many people who believe in the Christ man and see him as one whose philosophy was rooted in kindness. Many believe he was an Essene and walked with the Desert Fathers who lived on flat breads, fruits and seeds. And that the Christ man went into a rage at the Holy Temple because of the brutalizing and slaughter of the helpless. All this would be consistent to the teachings of a man who advocated non-violence and love to Others. Many believe that the caring of innocent nonhumans does not include feasting on their tender flesh...
Actually, I pointed out to Brett that many refer to Genesis 1:29-30 (King James Version) "And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so".
Brett also said "We humans are on a different moral plane. In my world view, cattle’s purpose is food. God created them for us. Just like the hawk we need meat as well. I’m not a nutritionist, but I say look no farther than our teeth. Our incisors in the front were made to eat meat, while our molars in the back were made to chew. God made us to eat both."
The idea that animals were created for the purpose of man's "use" calls to mind some other archaic views: Like other races were made for whites to use; And women were made for men... And the purpose of children was to be extra "hands" on the farm... etc.
I hold that every living being has their own "purpose". That each of us owns but one prized thing and that is our lives. And to steal this possession for frivolous wants is indefensible. And I do not embrace this belief on any disputable, or possibly contrived words written on paper or stone, but because of a belief in the value of fairness and compassion.
I pointed out that the hawk is following an imperative to survive... That biologically he has no alternative but to devour his prey. But that man, in contrast, can thrive on a plant based diet: From The American Dietetic Association: An appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes.
And my last comment to Brett was that I thought it was ironic that he should begin his argument based on the questionable "will" of a deity and conclude his position based in "science". But my science is: The Comparative Anatomy of Eating. by Milton R. Mills, M.D For isn't it possible that our ethics have evolved quicker than our dentures? Who bases their morals on molars anyway???
The only thing I failed to include was that no one will betray their faith if they refuse to kill or eat animals.
The other participant that I never fully got to engage was writenowbiz, who thought procedures done to cows should be acceptable because: "if consent is needed then we must immediately stop spaying and neutering pets – "
I say: There's a world of difference between a procedure that is done to protect an animal from harm... And one that is done to further the financial benefit of the "owner", no matter how benign.
S/he also said "It seems what the view of wrong is seems a bigger issue. To you it’s wrong to use animals – to the majority of the population it isn’t."
And I found this very troubling as I don't subscribe (and with good reason) to what mob rule might endorse. Just because a large group thinks or acts a certain way, does not make that way correct. Justifications that anchor themselves in crowd-think or "tradition" fall in line with ideas that "might makes right". And I sincerely don't believe that's so.
Finally, writenowbiz concluded: "No matter what we eat – I don’t see many oats or soy or carrots jumping onto a plate by themselves either – they too must die for people to live."
And this is similar to the time-worn "theory" that plants feel pain. To which I respond that even if someone is concerned about the "suffering of plants" they would still cause less harm by eating the plants directly, rather than fattening nonhumans in order to eat them. And that there is a world of difference between the accidental deaths of animals during crop harvesting and the deliberate breeding and slaughter of 10 billions of animal for the sake of "meat".
I also interjected that we should be exploring greenhouse expansions, vertical farms, urban gardening, barge cropping technology and humanure just to name just a few alternatives to animal eating. I concluded that our differing views divide us into those who expoloit captive subjects... And others who are repelled by such an idea. And that if one truly wishes to strive for a better world... Peace begins on your plate.
photo: Washday- my backyard
Showing posts with label my yard. Show all posts
Showing posts with label my yard. Show all posts
Feb 4, 2010
VEGAN MUST AIR DAIRY 'S DIRTY LAUNDRY
I wasn't even going to blog about the Mercy For Animals dairy investigation. I figured enough had been said about it:
ABC'sWorld News Tonight with Diane Sawyer and Nightline,CNN, and hundreds of newspapers, radio and television news networks from coast-to-coast featured the investigation, including the
Los Angeles Times, the New York Times and Forbes.
But when my comments were restricted from being heard on the Dairy Goddess blog site I am compelled to reply here.
However before doing so, I must say, in all my blogging - or communicating in any form -I've never attempted to silence my opponents viewpoint. I've invited everyone no matter what their opinions. I've never omitted, refused, trashed or deleted any one's input - Even if some comments are embarrassing to the author. I figure, if my position is worthy it will stand up to any critic and hold its own merit.
I really don't know why my comments were snuffed by the Dairy Goddess blog. It's not like it costs the blog owner time, or money - or even noticeable bandwidth. And I wasn't untruthful, irrelevant, vulgar, disrespectful, brash or crude either... 
My guess is I might have come too close to airing the dirty laundry about animal agriculture and how it is not only unnecessary, but hinders our progress into the future.
So on those comments that were censored - I post my rebut here:
In response to Brett who said that he believes that God created mankind first and then animals, and that man should rule over them and care for them. I argue that this position has many flaws.
Whose "gOd"? Whose bible? This hierarchical system of "domination" was written by men to benefit men, "high priests" and kings. And we can see a continuation of such a structure in today's economics where countless favors are granted to "shepherds" of factory farms and animal industry as a whole.
There are many people who believe in the Christ man and see him as one whose philosophy was rooted in kindness. Many believe he was an Essene and walked with the Desert Fathers who lived on flat breads, fruits and seeds. And that the Christ man went into a rage at the Holy Temple because of the brutalizing and slaughter of the helpless. All this would be consistent to the teachings of a man who advocated non-violence and love to Others. Many believe that the caring of innocent nonhumans does not include feasting on their tender flesh...
Actually, I pointed out to Brett that many refer to Genesis 1:29-30 (King James Version) "And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so".
Brett also said "We humans are on a different moral plane. In my world view, cattle’s purpose is food. God created them for us. Just like the hawk we need meat as well. I’m not a nutritionist, but I say look no farther than our teeth. Our incisors in the front were made to eat meat, while our molars in the back were made to chew. God made us to eat both."
The idea that animals were created for the purpose of man's "use" calls to mind some other archaic views: Like other races were made for whites to use; And women were made for men... And the purpose of children was to be extra "hands" on the farm... etc.
I hold that every living being has their own "purpose". That each of us owns but one prized thing and that is our lives. And to steal this possession for frivolous wants is indefensible. And I do not embrace this belief on any disputable, or possibly contrived words written on paper or stone, but because of a belief in the value of fairness and compassion.
I pointed out that the hawk is following an imperative to survive... That biologically he has no alternative but to devour his prey. But that man, in contrast, can thrive on a plant based diet: From The American Dietetic Association: An appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes.
And my last comment to Brett was that I thought it was ironic that he should begin his argument based on the questionable "will" of a deity and conclude his position based in "science". But my science is: The Comparative Anatomy of Eating. by Milton R. Mills, M.D For isn't it possible that our ethics have evolved quicker than our dentures? Who bases their morals on molars anyway???
The only thing I failed to include was that no one will betray their faith if they refuse to kill or eat animals.
The other participant that I never fully got to engage was writenowbiz, who thought procedures done to cows should be acceptable because: "if consent is needed then we must immediately stop spaying and neutering pets – "
I say: There's a world of difference between a procedure that is done to protect an animal from harm... And one that is done to further the financial benefit of the "owner", no matter how benign.
S/he also said "It seems what the view of wrong is seems a bigger issue. To you it’s wrong to use animals – to the majority of the population it isn’t."
And I found this very troubling as I don't subscribe (and with good reason) to what mob rule might endorse. Just because a large group thinks or acts a certain way, does not make that way correct. Justifications that anchor themselves in crowd-think or "tradition" fall in line with ideas that "might makes right". And I sincerely don't believe that's so.
Finally, writenowbiz concluded: "No matter what we eat – I don’t see many oats or soy or carrots jumping onto a plate by themselves either – they too must die for people to live."
And this is similar to the time-worn "theory" that plants feel pain. To which I respond that even if someone is concerned about the "suffering of plants" they would still cause less harm by eating the plants directly, rather than fattening nonhumans in order to eat them. And that there is a world of difference between the accidental deaths of animals during crop harvesting and the deliberate breeding and slaughter of 10 billions of animal for the sake of "meat".
I also interjected that we should be exploring greenhouse expansions, vertical farms, urban gardening, barge cropping technology and humanure just to name just a few alternatives to animal eating. I concluded that our differing views divide us into those who expoloit captive subjects... And others who are repelled by such an idea. And that if one truly wishes to strive for a better world... Peace begins on your plate.
photo: Washday- my backyard
My guess is I might have come too close to airing the dirty laundry about animal agriculture and how it is not only unnecessary, but hinders our progress into the future.
So on those comments that were censored - I post my rebut here:
In response to Brett who said that he believes that God created mankind first and then animals, and that man should rule over them and care for them. I argue that this position has many flaws.
Whose "gOd"? Whose bible? This hierarchical system of "domination" was written by men to benefit men, "high priests" and kings. And we can see a continuation of such a structure in today's economics where countless favors are granted to "shepherds" of factory farms and animal industry as a whole.
There are many people who believe in the Christ man and see him as one whose philosophy was rooted in kindness. Many believe he was an Essene and walked with the Desert Fathers who lived on flat breads, fruits and seeds. And that the Christ man went into a rage at the Holy Temple because of the brutalizing and slaughter of the helpless. All this would be consistent to the teachings of a man who advocated non-violence and love to Others. Many believe that the caring of innocent nonhumans does not include feasting on their tender flesh...
Actually, I pointed out to Brett that many refer to Genesis 1:29-30 (King James Version) "And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so".
Brett also said "We humans are on a different moral plane. In my world view, cattle’s purpose is food. God created them for us. Just like the hawk we need meat as well. I’m not a nutritionist, but I say look no farther than our teeth. Our incisors in the front were made to eat meat, while our molars in the back were made to chew. God made us to eat both."
The idea that animals were created for the purpose of man's "use" calls to mind some other archaic views: Like other races were made for whites to use; And women were made for men... And the purpose of children was to be extra "hands" on the farm... etc.
I hold that every living being has their own "purpose". That each of us owns but one prized thing and that is our lives. And to steal this possession for frivolous wants is indefensible. And I do not embrace this belief on any disputable, or possibly contrived words written on paper or stone, but because of a belief in the value of fairness and compassion.
I pointed out that the hawk is following an imperative to survive... That biologically he has no alternative but to devour his prey. But that man, in contrast, can thrive on a plant based diet: From The American Dietetic Association: An appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes.
And my last comment to Brett was that I thought it was ironic that he should begin his argument based on the questionable "will" of a deity and conclude his position based in "science". But my science is: The Comparative Anatomy of Eating. by Milton R. Mills, M.D For isn't it possible that our ethics have evolved quicker than our dentures? Who bases their morals on molars anyway???
The only thing I failed to include was that no one will betray their faith if they refuse to kill or eat animals.
The other participant that I never fully got to engage was writenowbiz, who thought procedures done to cows should be acceptable because: "if consent is needed then we must immediately stop spaying and neutering pets – "
I say: There's a world of difference between a procedure that is done to protect an animal from harm... And one that is done to further the financial benefit of the "owner", no matter how benign.
S/he also said "It seems what the view of wrong is seems a bigger issue. To you it’s wrong to use animals – to the majority of the population it isn’t."
And I found this very troubling as I don't subscribe (and with good reason) to what mob rule might endorse. Just because a large group thinks or acts a certain way, does not make that way correct. Justifications that anchor themselves in crowd-think or "tradition" fall in line with ideas that "might makes right". And I sincerely don't believe that's so.
Finally, writenowbiz concluded: "No matter what we eat – I don’t see many oats or soy or carrots jumping onto a plate by themselves either – they too must die for people to live."
And this is similar to the time-worn "theory" that plants feel pain. To which I respond that even if someone is concerned about the "suffering of plants" they would still cause less harm by eating the plants directly, rather than fattening nonhumans in order to eat them. And that there is a world of difference between the accidental deaths of animals during crop harvesting and the deliberate breeding and slaughter of 10 billions of animal for the sake of "meat".
I also interjected that we should be exploring greenhouse expansions, vertical farms, urban gardening, barge cropping technology and humanure just to name just a few alternatives to animal eating. I concluded that our differing views divide us into those who expoloit captive subjects... And others who are repelled by such an idea. And that if one truly wishes to strive for a better world... Peace begins on your plate.
photo: Washday- my backyard
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)