General Debate 27 November 2007
November 27th, 2007 at 6:57 am by David FarrarInsert debate here.
Related posts:
- General Debate 2 November 2007
- General Debate 5 November 2007
- General Debate 22 November 2007
- General Debate 28 November 2007
175 Responses to “General Debate 27 November 2007”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
November 27th, 2007 at 7:37 am
How can people can the gall to condemn pedophilia on the basis of consent, yet happily murder animals for food without their consent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partij_voor_Naastenliefde%2C_Vrijheid_en_Diversiteit
Why is eating meat OK because it tastes good, but twelve year old pussy is taboo despite the same logic?
Discuss.
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 7:41 am
I take it that this Stanley cretin is on home detention ?
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 7:43 am
If he’s not then he should be..
Vote:G
November 27th, 2007 at 7:52 am
Thanks Stanley – that was a wonderful start to the day. I guess after a post like yours, things can only improve!
BTW – the Scotch Fillet I had last night was cooked to perfection – juicy, tender, melt in the mouth – so, of course, I hate myself today for my part in the death of the poor wee beastie who gave up his life so that I could indulge!!
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 7:53 am
Hon Bill English gave these comments in an Oct 2005 speech at Auckland University. Discuss the merits…
“Suspicion of defining people’s rights by ethnic, gender or religious orientation is deep in our cultural DNA.
So it should be no surprise that Kiwis hold strong views about the nature of citizenship, and it is a mistake to label those views as racist or thoughtless.
It is this tradition and these codes of civil behaviour that lead me to the conclusion that Hone Harawira is wrong when he says the Treaty is the basis of good relations between people in New Zealand.
The Treaty is one source of cohesion, but by no means the only one or the most important.
Both Maori and Pakeha have a turbulent and sometimes violent history. Each society has learned lessons about what constitutes a civil existence. The Treaty is an acknowledgment of these, not an embodiment of them. To rest the good relations between future generations on that document is to rest an office block on a pinhead. Our respective traditions and our growing shared traditions represent a far broader, stronger foundation.
The Treaty did not replace or overwrite what had gone before, and the traditions it represents are more powerful than the Treaty itself.
A genuine, mutual respect for Maori and Pakeha civil society will be a far better basis for any relationship than ever more complex theories about the constitutional relationship between Maori and the Crown.”
http://billenglish.co.nz/index.php?/archives/32-Chapman-Lecture.html
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 7:56 am
Well, does anyone remenber what day Helen Clark Became PM? it was 27/11. Which today also is. I left the country that day and went to Aussie – probably should have styayed there.
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 8:00 am
The Exclusive Brethren may or may not have spent $ 1.2 million OF THEIR OWN MONEY last Election in attempt to sway voter opinion.
Vote:Now Labour, supposedly to reign in this type of influence has validated their own thief of TAX PAYER MONEY and now extended that, both in time and the scope, in what can be spent next year in favourable Government ‘publicity’.
Has anyone worked out exactly what Labour can now spend of TAX FUNDS against the alleged Exclusive Brethren $ 1.2 million spend that they claim triggers this grab.
Just to put this all in a little perspective . . .
November 27th, 2007 at 8:07 am
Go easy on Stanley people it’s not his fault they have shut all the mental homes down. Prehaps Stanley also smokes some of his veges besides eating them.
Stanley, Stanley, Stanley if you can’t tell the difference bewteen a nice medium rare steak and some pussy then you will live to be an old and lonely man.
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 8:08 am
Stan said…
happily murder animals for food without their consent.
I assume that you don’t eat products from any living things? See, if you’re vegetarian, then your logic applies to you, ie, you’re killing the plants without their consents in order for you to eat. Regardless of whether one eats Animal or Plant products, they’re both living things that their consents must be sorted first before they’re eaten (according to your world of logics).
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 8:12 am
The Exclusive cult, what useful fools they are.
Vote:Just suggest to the punters that the Nats will
be going into coalition with a bunch of cultists
and they say, bugger that.
November 27th, 2007 at 8:12 am
Great stuff , the cops have found the body of another murdered women in Ch Ch North . That’s good, as I can go back to the river and start whitebaiting again without having to worry about a young ladies body washing up in my net with the tide . I wonder if the Ch Ch press take a photograph of the body submerged in the water just like they did for the poor victim in the Avon ? Front page media dirty laundry !!! What a disgrace !
Meanwhile the stanely climbsmell bunt licks his Uncle Pervy sordid chops in anticipation . Warning all parents , go to Australia as it is far safer for your children !!!
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 8:18 am
Well done Helen Clark – RIP Girls !!!
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 8:19 am
This story in the Granny Herald.
and
Now, on the radio news, they were making this out to be a Government problem, saying they lacked targeted initiatives.
Vote:My question: how many Govt initiatives does it take for the parents of these children to take their own initiative?
November 27th, 2007 at 8:20 am
All the animals I eat are younger than the age of consent and in almost every case their parents have perished also. Therefore I can act in loco parentis and consent on their behalf.
works for me!
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 8:25 am
Seamonkey, Also heard some drip waffling on that it is a brown problem and that “rich white people” don’t have these health, education and housing issues.
Sheeesh, I would have thought that some cause and effect analysis would have been done on this before now.
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 8:25 am
“Warning all parents , go to Australia as it is far safer for your children !!!”
dad4justice : you have just confirmed that you are a moron,
“An Australian child was harmed, or found likely to be harmed, every 11 minutes in 2004-05 – nearly double as often as in 1999-2000. ”
http://www.earlychildhoodaustralia.org.au/early_childhood_news/jan_2006_statistics_show_child_abuse_in_australia_is_getting_worse.html
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 8:26 am
“Why is eating meat OK because it tastes good, but twelve year old pussy is taboo despite the same logic?”
So are you saying it is okay to eat twelve year old pussy because it tastes good?
Please Stanley, go take your meds before you get any worse.
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 8:29 am
sicoff are you a mutation of Mr Climbsmell, as you have the same odour ?
Per head of population – NZ child abuse stats sky rocket over Australia’s . Fact
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 8:29 am
I assume that you don’t eat products from any living things? See, if you’re vegetarian, then your logic applies to you, ie, you’re killing the plants without their consents in order for you to eat. Regardless of whether one eats Animal or Plant products, they’re both living things that their consents must be sorted first before they’re eaten (according to your world of logics).
Good point Falafulu, and might I add that if Stanley is a vegetarian then by selfishly killing plants to feet his gut, then he is contributing to global warming….
At least when we kill a cow to feed ourslves we are taking a greenhouse emitter from releasing more gases.
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 8:36 am
Is Climbfell ironic? Or is he a plant (yeah: a REAL vegetable) designed to lower the reputation of this blog?
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 8:37 am
Well said Bev – and I’ll choose a juicy steak over lentils any day!
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 8:37 am
Yvette, Good call:
While the EBs used their own money to campaign legally; it must be particular galling for them that the government used Taxpayers (EB taxpayers included) funds to rort the system illegally AND mount a bitter and successful program of “marginalisation” against them!
As for Stanley. If Chris Carter can ask constituents if they are Brethren, can we ask you if you vote for the Greens?
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 8:43 am
Stanely Scumill votes Labour – eh Tim . You’re onto it flashgordonnz.
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 8:59 am
Yvetee, no evidence for $1.2 million. More like 500K I believe.
Stanley, I’m not interested in that discussion. The law as it stands is just fine, and I like to eat meat. You’ve asked this question a number of times with no takers. You’re either a troll or a freak, either way you should go away.
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 9:03 am
Well said Bev – and I’ll choose a juicy steak over lentils any day!
Well I’ll have a smile on my face as I occupy the moral highground when Im chowing down on my eye fillet steak tonight!
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 9:03 am
I vote he goes back to The Standard.
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 9:06 am
Besides the Exclusive Brethren using their own money, my real point is “Using the EB’s $ 1.2 m as an excuse, what has Labour now given itself of our money to spend?”
Vote:DPF has from time to time listed aspects of this but I feel if a figure can be put on the total advantage Labour has given itself, it would place this whole EFB/appropriations is a perspective the public will easily understand.
November 27th, 2007 at 9:17 am
Happened across National Radio’s daily hand-wringing exercise yesterday. Jim Mora (rhymes with kia ora) had Mike “Helen’s Lapdog” Williams on and was asking him about Rudd’s election.
All Williams could bang on about was ‘tax cuts bad, badddd, baddddd’ rather than the topic of how NZ and Aussie would get on.
I know it’s important to stay on message, but these poodles are getting rather tedious by bringing the ‘baddddness’ of tax cuts into every debate. Just cut them, you thieving bastards. We want our money back.
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 9:17 am
“Why is eating meat OK because it tastes good, but twelve year old pussy is taboo despite the same logic?”
It isn’t ok because it tastes good, it is ok because animals do not have rights – because they do not have the conscious volition to have rights. There is a moral obligation to not inflict sadistic pain upon them, but they are morally different from a child. A child has the right to sovereignty over his and her body, but does not have the ability to understand the nature and consequences of all they may do – so has rights held in trust until the legal age of consent. These rights increase over time, and are codified into law to provide certainty and protection. Two children may engage sexually with each other, because they have similarity in power and understanding, an adult cannot legally with a child because of the high risk of exploitation and physical/emotional harm caused.
and those who grant animals and humans moral equivalency should try reasoning with the former.
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 9:21 am
Yvette: You have made a very good point about the Exclusive Brethern election expenditure.
They have been singled out by Labour and allied Parties to be the excuse for the introduction of the EFB. why? because they are like lambs to the slaughter. They don’t fight back.
How come the Human Rights Commission doesn’t take up the matter of their persecution.
Some 6,000 members of a religious denomination are persecuted because of the actions of some 7 members of their religion?
If this had been an Islamic religion, would they have been singled out in this manner?
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 9:31 am
it is ok because animals do not have rights – because they do not have the conscious volition to have rights.
I’m not sure I get this… Surely some mentally handicapped people don’t have
Vote:“the conscious volition to have rights”?
November 27th, 2007 at 9:32 am
Stan.
about 90% of all living things end their days via the digestive tract of another organism. Its called nature. I like nature. It tastes great.
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 9:36 am
Note with relish the rats leaving the sinking ship that is the Australian Liberal party.
The most senior elected Liberal official in all Australia is now the Lord Mayor of Brisbane !!
While he does have much more executive power than any mayor in Australia , his council is still 16 Labour to 9 Liberal.
Is like a defeated country, the huge ediface just crumbles like dust.
Vote:Apparently the shredders are working overtime in the cabinet offices but Im sure there will be enough scraps left for some convictions
November 27th, 2007 at 9:46 am
If the Almighty did not want us to eat other animals he would not have made them out of Meat!
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 9:46 am
What is Key’s ‘Special Announcement’ today?
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 9:49 am
Ghost cant help but put the boot in. Labour won what more does he want. It is the typical hatred of supporters from the left and it is born of jealousy.
Most of them have fuck all money and when they come into contact with those that are successful with a bit of cash it gets right up their nose.
You’ll find that with Labour supporters who have a bit of dough it was their parents who were serving us in McDonalds.
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 9:51 am
He is stepping down and handing the reigns to Bill English
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 9:52 am
Nick Smith is going to stop blogging as D4J and become deputy leaader
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 10:05 am
If the Almighty did not want us to eat other animals he would not have made them out of Meat!
And that’s like saying “If the Almighty did not want us to have sex with little kids he wouldn’t have given them reproductive organs!”
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 10:08 am
If there was an almighty he would exist
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 10:10 am
Frank -
Yvette: You have made a very good point about the Exclusive Brethern election expenditure . . . Some 6,000 members of a religious denomination are persecuted because of the actions of some 7 members of their religion?
No, that is not the point.
Vote:What I want to know is;
Exclusive Brethren 2005 : $ 1.2 million of their money
In response Labour 2008 ‘entitle’ themselves to spend taxpayers’ money to the tune of ????
November 27th, 2007 at 10:13 am
It’s also like saying “If the almighty did not want us to comment on a blog, he wouldn’t have given us brains with which to think with and finger with which to type.”
Although in RickyJJ’s case, I’m sure we could make an exception.
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 10:25 am
I notice that John Key has announced today that he has the necessary promises from potential allies in Parliament to from a government after the next electio.
Is this dynamite?
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 10:32 am
Yvette – I think I know the answer.
Labour will not know how much taxpayer money they will spend until after they finish spending it. There will be no limit as far as they are concerned!!!
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 10:48 am
Yvette: Perhaps i should have worded my response differently. I should have said: “You have (Raised not made) a very good point about the Exclusive Brethern election expenditure . . . “(Meaning that the EB’s election expenditure was insignificant compared to a possible $70M of State Departmental expenditure that could be construed as election expenditure instead of advertising keeping the public informed.
The EB’s are blamed for the introduction of the EFB because they tried to buy an election? RED herring.
Some 6,000 members of a religious denomination are persecuted because of the actions of some 7 members of their religion?
No, that is not the point.
Vote:What I want to know is;
Exclusive Brethren 2005 : $ 1.2 million of their money
In response Labour 2008 ‘entitle’ themselves to spend taxpayers’ money to the tune of ????
November 27th, 2007 at 10:50 am
Doesn’t the State Services allocations have some limit like $ 14 million. So what is the coalition share of that which they can spend in Election year?
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 11:04 am
Stanley Climbfall, why aren’t you asking why we don’t kill and eat other humans?
Some cultures used to do that, of course. And us imperialistic, colonialist, EXPLOITATIVE honkies came along and INTERFERED. HOW DARE WE.
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 11:40 am
Well Stanley Climbfall,,
I think you’ve proved we can all say what we like as long as its not what we all want to hear.
Yet Helen has been trying to encourage every ones line of thought along this very issue and they get upset,, whats that about ??????
You state your opinion and everyone wants to squash it.
But when Helen states she wants to squash everyones opinion, no one likes it.
Post away Stanley, while you’re still allowed to, you’ve got till Jan 1st, so go hard.
Plus DPF said you could.
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 11:49 am
Yvette; Election spending is allocated by the Electoral Commission.
Parliamentary Services is the responsibility of the Speaker. It is not subject to the Official Information Act 1982. If it was, we would know who ordered Helen’s Pledge Card.
Parliamentary Services allows MPs to report to constituents as to how good they are at doling out other people’s money.
Patsy questions in Parliament do the same thing. Quite sickening?
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 11:52 am
“I notice that John Key has announced today that he has the necessary promises from potential allies in Parliament to from a government after the next election.”
I was looking around trying to find out what the big announcement was. But this doesn’t seem to make any sense. Firstly, how many seats will each party have? You can’t know that until after the election so presumably the announcement means he thinks, pretty much, regardless of the distribution of seats he will have enough to form a government. That raises two questions. Firstly, if he can form a government regardless of the composition, how come he can’t form a government now? If NZ First and UF will go with the Nats come what may, how come they are unwilling to do it now? Secondly, what concessions has he made to the two parties above, and more importantly, to the Maori party to guarantee their support?
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
beshaky – the big announcement is reported on over at kiwiblogblgo: http://kiwiblogblog.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/ambitious-vacuous-more-like/
what’s with that signoff at the end?
and, John Key, is a two finger typist? He’s only 46.
LeeC – does he say he has the numbers sometime in his video? I keep on getting distracted by more interesting things liek paitn drying.
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
He is stepping down and handing the reigns to Bill English
Ahhh the Lefts wet dream, to have National polling on 20% again….
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
Going off topic here, is anyone else following the Coroners inquest in to the death of Karl Kuchenbeck following the release on parole of Graham Burton?
The more I read about this, and the more I learn about this, the angrier I get. How is it possible that the Parole Board even CONSIDERED releasing this time bomb in to our community, and how many other supposedly safe people are walking around in out community!
Forget the Environment Ministry for a while, there are people in the corrections department and the Parole Board who should face CRIMINAL LIABILITY for their part in this outrage!!
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
RoW – so do I!
http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2007/11/just-another-day-for-corrections.html
Corrections is a disgrace – Barry Matthews should resign or be sacked.
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Frank:
“Yvette; Election spending is allocated by the Electoral Commission.”
This is what I was talking about – from this blog Nov 12:
Parliamentary Party Funding
November 12th, 2007
People will (or should) be aware that Labour, NZ First, Greens, Progressive, United Future and ACT are about to vote to change the law so that they can spend their parliamentary budgets on election pledge cards and the like. Even worse, the law changes works in tandem with the Electoral Finance Bill, so that all the money they spend – even if done in the week before the election – is exempt from the spending limits in the Electoral Act.
So how much money are we talking about? Well from the 1st of December the parliamentary budgets available for pledge cards and the like increases to $16.2 million.
- I don’t know how to make a link back to that, or the table it has.
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Sam – he says that National HAS worked with ACT, NZ First & United in the past, and has a working relationship with the Maori Party
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Will John key follow Nelson Mandela and institute a truth & retribution commission if he wins the next election?
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
“beshaky – the big announcement is reported on over at kiwiblogblgo: http://kiwiblogblog.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/ambitious-vacuous-more-like/”
That isn’t anywhere near as exciting as having the numbers to govern. I’d still be interested to hear response to one question I raised initially: what could Key offer the Maori party that would: get the Nats their support; maintain the support of ACT, NZF, and UF; and not alienate Nat supporters? Obviously numbers and what is required of the Maori party (positive support or just abstention) would be relevant, but nonetheless, what will he offer them?
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
good idea freethinker – but I think you’ll find it was Truth and Reconciliation in South Africa! Still, after nine years of Clark, there will be plenty of retribution!!
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Sigh, why are you all so ignorant?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_of_eating_meat
It is not wrong to eat plants for the same reason that it is not wrong to kill bacteria. Every time I brush my teeth, I kill thousands of bacteria, yet I see nothing wrong with doing so.
The distinguishing characteristic between animals and bacteria is that animals are conscious beings capable of feeling pain and suffering. Animals are capable of feeling happiness, joy, and sorrow. Animals are capable of feeling a desire to live.
Bacteria, on the other hand, just like plants, and just like rocks, do not possess anything similar to a nervous system, nor do they exhibit any behavior which would indicate that they possess consciousness. Bacteria are not capable of feeling pain or suffering. Bacteria are not capable of feeling a desire to live. Bacteria, just like plants, and just like rocks, are not capable of feeling anything whatsoever.
When you kick a rock, you do not have to worry about whether or not you are inflicting suffering on the rock, or interfering with the rock’s desire to live, since rocks are incapable of such feelings. It is for this reason that it is not immoral to kick rocks, and it is for this same reason that it is not immoral to eat plants.
Many of those who have adopted a vegetarian diet have done so because of the ethical argument, either from reading about or personally experiencing what goes on daily at any one of the thousands of slaughterhouses in the U.S. and other countries, where animals suffer the cruel process of forced confinement, manipulation and violent death. Their pain and terror is beyond calculation.
Fifty years ago, racial segregation was considered acceptable in the United States. Two hundred years ago, slavery was considered morally acceptable by the vast majority of the world. Two thousand years ago, it was considered acceptable in Europe to feed innocent people to lions for public entertainment.
In each case, morality progressed because a small number of people looked at the ethics of their society, and concluded that it needed to be improved. Now is no better a time to think that we have it all figured out than were any of these other points in history. Simply put, truth is not democratic. The Earth does not become flat just because the majority of the population thinks that it is. Nor does an activity become morally justified just because it has been going on for a long time. Slavery, genocide, rape, and torture are all activities which have been going on since long before the dawn of recorded human history.
The following points I make are taken from vegetarian sites, as they can explain them better than me. If all you meat-eating apologists wish to engage in serious debate on a deep ethical level quote any part of it and rebut it with logic and reason rather than immaturity:
Considering how the vast majority of farm animals are currently raised in modern industrialized agriculture, these animals would have been far better off never having been born. The best moment in these animals lives is when they finally die, because only then does their suffering finally end.
However, if the animals are raised and slaughtered humanely, some would say that it is better for the animals to have experienced life for a brief time before slaughter, rather than never have been born at all. My response to this is the following.
Once an individual is born, we have the same obligation to act ethically toward them as we do towards everyone else. This is not changed by the fact that the individual would have never been born in the first place without our intervention. This is the reason that child abuse is immoral. Even though the child would have never existed without his parents, this does not give his parents the right to physically abuse him.
If we hypothetically lived in a cannibalistic society which bred and raised a race of humans for food, then we would be correct in condemning this practice, even though without it, these humans would have never existed in the first place.
In spite of all this reasoning, some people insist that by refraining from eating meat, I am guilty of depriving farm animals the chance to be born and experience life. One way to respond to this is to point out the inherent inefficiency of using farm land to grow crops for livestock, instead of growing crops consumed directly by humans. If everyone ate a vegetarian diet, then a much larger human population could be sustained with the available resources.
Therefore, if I am “guilty” of depriving farm animals the chance to be born, then people who eat meat are “guilty” of depriving human beings the chance to be born and experience life.
How animals are treated in production – http://www.veganoutreach.org/whyvegan/animals.html
Why humans are no different to animals – http://ar.vegnews.org/humans_are_animals.html
Some idiot earlier mentioned cannibalism as an argument in favour of meat eating – what the fuck? If we were to believe that eating meat is OK simply because other animals did it as well, then this would imply that there is also nothing wrong with cannibalism.
The phrase “survival of the fittest” describes the process of natural selection which has been occurring on our planet for the past several million years, but it is not a prescription for our ethical guidelines. Consider our ethics with regards to other human beings. We care for the weak and the sick, as well as for the strong and the healthy. We take care of the elderly and the infirm, and do not simply leave them to die outside in the cold.
Also, we should keep in mind that “survival of the fittest” has nothing to do with the way in which we currently kill animals for food. This is because all farm animals are eventually sent to the slaughter house, regardless of how fit they are. In fact, humans have altered farm animals through selective breeding to enhance characteristics humans find desirable, even though these characteristics significantly reduce the “fitness” of the animals. For example, turkeys have been selectively bred to produce large breasts, which consumers prefer. However, the breasts have now become so large that the turkeys are no longer able to mount each other and reproduce naturally. As a result, all commercially bred turkeys in the U.S. can reproduce only through artificial insemination.
Regardless of what we think about the more controversial aspects of animal rights, such as medical experimentation, there is a general consensus in our society that it is ethically reprehensible to set a cat on fire for entertainment. However, since we do not need to eat meat to survive, when we choose to eat meat, we are choosing to inflict death and suffering on others simply for the pleasure of tasting meat. Considering what goes on in factory farms and slaughterhouses, setting a cat on fire is, by comparison, actually relatively humane. In both cases, all that we gain in return is just a few moments of trivial pleasure.
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Retribution sounds good, can I get to sharpen the stakes!
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
From Wiki (sorry for the copy and pasting David but I am trained in civil law not vegetarian ethics and better debate can result from better explanations):
Philosopher Peter Singer believes that if alternative means of survival exist, one ought to choose the option that does not cause unnecessary harm to animals. With the exception of a small world minority of people, such as traditionalistic nomadic hunting and herding societies, those who live in agricultural (as opposed to hunter/gatherer) societies are usually free to choose not to eat meat or use animal products.
Most ‘ethical’ vegetarians argue that the same reasons exist against killing sentient animals to eat as against killing humans to eat. Peter Singer in his book Animal Liberation developed a list of qualities in sentient creatures that gave them consideration under utilitarian ethics and this has been widely referenced by animal rights campaigners and vegetarians. The animal does not want to die and is given no choice; the family and friends of that animal will suffer as a result; the animal has expectations of future enjoyment which are denied; the animal enjoys living, and the animal experiences varying levels of fear and pain in the process of being killed. Ethical vegetarians also believe that killing an animal, like killing a human, can only be justified in extreme circumstances and that consuming a living creature for its enjoyable taste, convenience, or perceived nutritional value is not sufficient cause. Another common view is that humans are morally conscious of their behavior in a way other animals are not, and therefore subject to higher standards.
As noted by John Webster, a professor of animal husbandry at Bristol: “People have assumed that intelligence is linked to the ability to suffer and that because animals have smaller brains they suffer less than humans. That is a pathetic piece of logic, sentient animals have the capacity to experience pleasure and are motivated to seek it, you only have to watch how cows and lambs both seek and enjoy pleasure when they lie with their heads raised to the sun on a perfect English summer’s day. Just like humans.”
Author J. Neil Schulman contends that “If human beings are no different from other animals, then like all other animals it is our nature to kill any other animal which serves the purposes of our survival and well-being, for that is the way of all nature. Therefore, aside from economic concerns such as making sure we don’t kill so quickly that we destroy a species and deprive our descendants of prey, human animals can kill members of other animal species for their usefulness to us. It is only if we are not just another animal — if our nature is distinctly superior to other animals — that we become subject to ethics at all — and then those ethics must take into account our nature as masters of the lower animals. We may seek a balance of nature; but “balance” is a concept that only a species as intelligent as humankind could even contemplate. We may choose to temper the purposes to which we put lower animals with empathy and wisdom; but by virtue of our superior nature, we decide … and if those decisions include the consumption of animals for human utilitarian or recreational purposes, then the limits on the uses we put the lower beasts are ones we set according to our individual human consciences.”
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
By the way I’m happy for meat eaters to copy and paste justifications for eating meat too, it’s the reasons that matter to me, not the originality of the arguments.
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
OK since one of my posts failed to be published:
It is not wrong to eat plants for the same reason that it is not wrong to kill bacteria. Every time I brush my teeth, I kill thousands of bacteria, yet I see nothing wrong with doing so.
The distinguishing characteristic between animals and bacteria is that animals are conscious beings capable of feeling pain and suffering. Animals are capable of feeling happiness, joy, and sorrow. Animals are capable of feeling a desire to live.
Bacteria, on the other hand, just like plants, and just like rocks, do not possess anything similar to a nervous system, nor do they exhibit any behavior which would indicate that they possess consciousness. Bacteria are not capable of feeling pain or suffering. Bacteria are not capable of feeling a desire to live. Bacteria, just like plants, and just like rocks, are not capable of feeling anything whatsoever.
When you kick a rock, you do not have to worry about whether or not you are inflicting suffering on the rock, or interfering with the rock’s desire to live, since rocks are incapable of such feelings. It is for this reason that it is not immoral to kick rocks, and it is for this same reason that it is not immoral to eat plants.
Many of those who have adopted a vegetarian diet have done so because of the ethical argument, either from reading about or personally experiencing what goes on daily at any one of the thousands of slaughterhouses in the U.S. and other countries, where animals suffer the cruel process of forced confinement, manipulation and violent death. Their pain and terror is beyond calculation.
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Considering how the vast majority of farm animals are currently raised in modern industrialized agriculture, these animals would have been far better off never having been born. The best moment in these animals lives is when they finally die, because only then does their suffering finally end.
However, if the animals are raised and slaughtered humanely, some would say that it is better for the animals to have experienced life for a brief time before slaughter, rather than never have been born at all. My response to this is the following.
Once an individual is born, we have the same obligation to act ethically toward them as we do towards everyone else. This is not changed by the fact that the individual would have never been born in the first place without our intervention. This is the reason that child abuse is immoral. Even though the child would have never existed without his parents, this does not give his parents the right to physically abuse him.
If we hypothetically lived in a cannibalistic society which bred and raised a race of humans for food, then we would be correct in condemning this practice, even though without it, these humans would have never existed in the first place.
In spite of all this reasoning, some people insist that by refraining from eating meat, I am guilty of depriving farm animals the chance to be born and experience life. One way to respond to this is to point out the inherent inefficiency of using farm land to grow crops for livestock, instead of growing crops consumed directly by humans. If everyone ate a vegetarian diet, then a much larger human population could be sustained with the available resources.
Therefore, if I am “guilty” of depriving farm animals the chance to be born, then people who eat meat are “guilty” of depriving human beings the chance to be born and experience life.
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
Some idiot earlier mentioned cannibalism as an argument in favour of meat eating – what the fuck? If we were to believe that eating meat is OK simply because other animals did it as well, then this would imply that there is also nothing wrong with cannibalism.
The phrase “survival of the fittest” describes the process of natural selection which has been occurring on our planet for the past several million years, but it is not a prescription for our ethical guidelines. Consider our ethics with regards to other human beings. We care for the weak and the sick, as well as for the strong and the healthy. We take care of the elderly and the infirm, and do not simply leave them to die outside in the cold.
Also, we should keep in mind that “survival of the fittest” has nothing to do with the way in which we currently kill animals for food. This is because all farm animals are eventually sent to the slaughter house, regardless of how fit they are. In fact, humans have altered farm animals through selective breeding to enhance characteristics humans find desirable, even though these characteristics significantly reduce the “fitness” of the animals. For example, turkeys have been selectively bred to produce large breasts, which consumers prefer. However, the breasts have now become so large that the turkeys are no longer able to mount each other and reproduce naturally. As a result, all commercially bred turkeys in the U.S. can reproduce only through artificial insemination.
Regardless of what we think about the more controversial aspects of animal rights, such as medical experimentation, there is a general consensus in our society that it is ethically reprehensible to set a cat on fire for entertainment. However, since we do not need to eat meat to survive, when we choose to eat meat, we are choosing to inflict death and suffering on others simply for the pleasure of tasting meat. Considering what goes on in factory farms and slaughterhouses, setting a cat on fire is, by comparison, actually relatively humane. In both cases, all that we gain in return is just a few moments of trivial pleasure.
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
How dare we indeed – seeing as some “honky” cultures also used to do it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalism
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Stanley Climbfall:
You’re not trumping your legal credentials like Sam Dixon by any chance?
Here’s an idea, Stan: try getting a bunch of lawyers in a room to discuss, say, Paris Hilton. Does that give them any more authority on the subject than Joe/Jill Public? So what’s the difference when you talk about vegetarian ethics then?
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Why is Stanley Climbfall not banned permanently for that first post? He’s clearly either mentally ill or is seriously promoting child molestation.
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Mr. Climbfall wrote:
Okay. Here’s something copied and pasted from somewhere, by someone:
I think that sums up the argument quite nicely.
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Stan:
Quick, ban KFC! They sell finger-licking good chickens.
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Unfortunately all the participants in the first vegetarian ethics conference died when they realised, too late, that living on fresh air was not a viable alternative…
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
The suffering you talk about Stanley doesn’t occur so much in NZ. I have killed animals for food, they didn’t overly suffer. The conditions they were kept in prior to that were very humane, and much better than the conditions they would live in if in the wild. The conditions for cows in India, for example, are very poor because they overbreed and therefore have insufficient resources to live off. This is the natural lot of most animals – living near the sustainability limit for their habitat. Farm raised animals suffer far less. In short, your arguments are crap and I still don’t know what the paedophilic intro was good for.
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
You’re not trumping your legal credentials like Sam Dixon by any chance?
Here’s an idea, Stan: try getting a bunch of lawyers in a room to discuss, say, Paris Hilton. Does that give them any more authority on the subject than Joe/Jill Public? So what’s the difference when you talk about vegetarian ethics then?
I was merely saying, if we were discussing legal ethics I would be able to write a coherent argument with all the technical terms. Likewise with Christianity, I would be able to quote specific Bible verses and Church doctrines. In terms of debating the justifications of vegetarianism however I am not trained in all the details such as its impact on the economy, environment, etc. so it’s more appropriate that I quote people who are qualified on the matter and have done the research.
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
I am actually astounded that when discussing libertarianism people here actually engage in the debate logically rebutting point by point, but when it comes to this you act like Left-wingers who simply claim: “economists are just greedy and heartless” without any reasoned backing.
Thanks libertyscott for your post above, it’s the best response so far.
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Stan:
Ok, having read your comment again in its intended context, I now see what you were saying. Thanks.
But I still think you’re approaching this subject the wrong way. There’s a sizeable body of armchair experts on any subject you care to mention. Anyone can quote Wikipedia. And anyone can Google. But vegetarianism is, I think, one of those subjects that anyone can have an opinion about – however informed or uninformed it may be.
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
In short, your arguments are crap and I still don’t know what the paedophilic intro was good for.
The reason for the comparison was because the very same arguments used in the moral high ground standing general debate the previous day is being ignored here in this thread simply because people have let their personal feelings affect their objectivity.
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Peak Oil Conspiracy – I came to my conclusion on vegetarianism because like politics, I found the economists’ arguments more persuasive than Green Party/student activists.
I am always open minded about eating meat – but besides irrational reasons such as ‘it tastes good’ or ‘animals are different from humans’ I haven’t really been affected.
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Stan:
It’s probably impossible to provide a complete account of the vegetarian mindset. For starters, you’d need to explain why some animals are herbivores (the human equivalent of vegetarian) and other animals are carnivores.
For what it’s worth, I’ve always seen vegetarianism and veganism as a lifestyle choice. A person is quite entitled to exercise that choice. But that doesn’t entitle them to exercise a value judgment over others who choose not to exercise that same choice.
As further evidence of the lifestyle choice, a quick Google search yielded http://www.veggiepets.com:
Now try telling me that dogs would be happy if their beloved chewy meat bones were removed from their diet.
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
We have a duty to act morally towards others regardless of how anyone else behaves. For example, the institution of slavery in the United States was not in any way justified by the fact that rival African tribes routinely conquered and enslaved one another.
Also, it should be mentioned that the way in which humans currently behave towards animals is actually far worse than the way in which animals behave towards each other (see this site it gives lots of examples, e.g. coverage of battery hen farms – http://www.veganoutreach.org/whyvegan/animals.html).
It is true that regardless of how hard we try, we are inevitably going to accidentally kill some animals during our lifetimes. It is also true that regardless of how hard we try, some people are going to be killed in car accidents. However, the fact that we might run over someone with our car by accident does not imply that it is ok to run them over on purpose.
Earlier this century, A female African lion, born and raised in America, lived her entire lifetime of nine years without ever eating meat.1 In fact, her owners, Georges and Margaret Westbeau,2 alarmed by scientists’ reports that carnivorous animals cannot live without meat, went to great lengths to try to coax their unusual pet (‘Little Tyke’) to develop a taste for it. They even advertised a cash reward for anyone who could devise a meat-containing formula that the lioness would like. The curator of a New York zoo advised the Westbeaus that putting a few drops of blood in Little Tyke’s milk bottle would help in weaning her, but the lioness cub refused to touch it — even when only a single drop of blood had been added.
The more knowledgeable animal experts among the many visitors to the Westbeaus’ 100 acre (40 hectare) ranch also proffered advice, but nothing worked. Meanwhile, Little Tyke continued to do extremely well on a daily diet of cooked grain, raw eggs and milk. By four years of age she was fully grown and weighed 352 pounds (160 kg).
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
For what it’s worth, I’ve always seen vegetarianism and veganism as a lifestyle choice. A person is quite entitled to exercise that choice. But that doesn’t entitle them to exercise a value judgment over others who choose not to exercise that same choice.
I believe in democracy, but I think generally people accept some values are fundamental, such as the right from freedom of murder and torture.
Fifty years ago, racial segregation was considered acceptable in the United States. Two hundred years ago, slavery was considered morally acceptable by the vast majority of the world. Two thousand years ago, it was considered acceptable in Europe to feed innocent people to lions for public entertainment.
In each case, morality progressed because a small number of people looked at the ethics of their society, and concluded that it needed to be improved. Now is no better a time to think that we have it all figured out than were any of these other points in history. Simply put, truth is not democratic. The Earth does not become flat just because the majority of the population thinks that it is. Nor does an activity become morally justified just because it has been going on for a long time. Slavery, genocide, rape, and torture are all activities which have been going on since long before the dawn of recorded human history.
Imagine saying to someone, “If you don’t want to beat your dog, that’s fine. But, don’t tell me not to beat mine.”
While we are entitled to believe what we like, we are not entitled to treat those weaker than us however we like. If we are responsible for harming others, people have every right to ask that we stop.
I do not make any claims of moral superiority. There are many factors that determine a person’s moral character, such as how much he gives to charity, his honesty, and how he treats people he interacts with. There are, no doubt, some vegetarians who exhibit a considerably worse overall moral character than do meat eaters. Nevertheless, considering the amount of death and suffering which we directly cause when we choose to eat meat, the decision to eat a vegetarian or vegan diet, in my opinion, is one of the most important moral decisions we will ever make.
The reason I eat a vegan diet is not to feel superior to others, but to reduce animal suffering. To this end, my influence on others is at least as important as the economic impact my purchasing decisions make. I believe that it is important for all of us (vegetarians and vegans included) to recognize the fact that we ourselves are not ethically pure, and to not have a condescending or “holier than thou” attitude.
We should all also try to not be offended when someone politely suggests to us that a commonly accepted practice is immoral. If everyone refrained from offering such criticism for fear of offending someone, then institutions such as slavery would have continued to exist down to today. Slave owners certainly viewed themselves as good and moral people, and they strongly resented any implications to the contrary.
This the same way in which some people today take offense at the suggestion that eating meat is immoral, given what this implies about the ethics of our lifestyles. It is only human nature for some of us to react this way. However, I believe we all need to try to not view criticisms of widely accepted practices as personal attacks on ourselves, but instead rationally evaluate these criticisms with an open mind, just as we would have wanted earlier generations to rationally evaluate criticisms of slavery and segregation.
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Stanley I think you need to get a job.
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
So why is a whale considered more valuable than, say, a rabbit?
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Stan:
Off-topic, but it’s possible that modern terrorism has altered this rule of engagement.
You state this as an objective fact, but it’s actually your value judgment. Try spending a day in the African wild, and then tell me that animals treat each other with respect.
Sorry, but I don’t find this argument convincing. Accidental and purposeful are two different states. The law recognises them as different states of mind. And yet you are applying a sort of moral equivalence: one doesn’t justify the other. And, to take one example of your logic, accidentally bopping a possum on a dark road has nothing to do with killing them as part of a regimented programme of environmental protection.
And your anecdote about Little Tyke is interesting. But one question: noting her nine-year life, what is the average life expectancy of a naturally carnivorous lion (a) in captivity; and (b) in the wild? I don’t know the answers – but just suggesting that your anecdote needs to be viewed in its wider context.
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
This guy sums up my views on morality quite nicely Stanley, so I guess I’m not in your target audience.
http://hem.passagen.se/nicb/morality.htm
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Stan:
Sorry, but your credibility takes a downward slide when you take my comment:
and convert it (apparently) into a defence of murder, torture, slavery and dog-beating. My words “that choice” were intended to limit the context of the second sentence.
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
“Why is Stanley Climbfall not banned permanently for that first post?”
Because DPF agreed with the Dutch Supreme court about freedom of speech.
who are you???
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
“I am always open minded about eating meat – but besides irrational reasons such as ‘it tastes good’ or ‘animals are different from humans’ I haven’t really been affected.”
What’s irrational about those reasons? Stanley you’re sounding like a killjoy.
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Stanley, if you think animals are equal to humans, be a good chap, go and cohabitate with Little Tyke’s relations down in the Serai, will you?
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Stanley I think you need to get a job.
Recently finished an internship at a law firm, am currently working at a supermarket despite job offers up North ‘cos it gives me more time for my music and band, and debating on blogs of course
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Old Stanley thought it might be time to venture from tbr, as shit splattered pastures are the norm these days? Well Stan, I notice your comments and ask were you involved in an incident recently that occurred in the Occidental Hotel – Latimer Square Christchurch ? Curfew ??
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
Dangerous game now Stanley ? Going to the March tomorrow as you are REAL good at lurking in squares !!!
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Stan all you’re going to learn from the inside of a supermarket is which aisle the raisins are on.
And you have a lot to learn.
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
I’m happy to compare credentials with you Julian, give me your e-mail address and I’ll send you my CV.
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
I’ve got a degree as well. Big deal.
However I don’t need one to completely disagree with everything you say, including your crazed religious rants and your views on paedophilia.
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Also I’d prefer you debate with merit rather than insults.
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Oh god, you sound like my soon-to-be (urgh!) brother-in-law.
Minus the internship.
Minus the job offers from up North.
Minus the job at the supermarket.
You don’t happen to not mow the lawns whilst sponging at your (future) parents-in-laws house “Cause it’s not what I do, maaannnnn“?
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
stan works on Manchester St ? The eyes of truth are ALWAYS watching you perverted filth !! Stanmore Rd New World eh ?
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Other than my first post which I admit was deliberately inciting and apologise for, I’d been trying my best to debate kindly and informatively. You haven’t made one decent post in this whole thread Seamonkey. Do you and D4J hang out quite a bit?
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
D4J:
Is this the thread you were referring to:
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2007/11/the-divinity-co.html#comments
I’m surprised you suggested that Stan bring a weapon for your fight during the EFB march.
Stan:
I don’t know what your perverted interest in Cup Chicks is, but as a lawyer, you should know better than most that R18 doesn’t apply in the case of banned publications.
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
“Do you and D4J hang out quite a bit?”
A BIG FAT LIE !!!@!
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
I think people are being a bit unfair in dismissing Stanley’s arguments. I don’t necessarily agree with them, but they are interesting, and some of the comments on them have been unduly harsh.
For a good statement of the position advocated by Stanley read Peter Singer’s The Ethics of What We Eat. Singer is fairly radical, and lots of people find his views both extreme and (in some cases) offensive. Nonetheless he is very respected for putting together very intelligent arguments to support his views.
I think most people here disagree strongly with Stanleys views, but most of the comments ignore some of the key arguments such as that animals suffer through our treatment of them (not just the killing for food but the entire process) and therefore we should change our treatment of them if we can.
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
stan , what time tomorrow ?
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
BeShakey:
Battery hen farms are the classic drawcard for veganism. And here is one area where consumers can exercise freedom of choice; those who claim to care about animal rights can pay a little extra for free-range eggs.
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
I don’t know what your perverted interest in Cup Chicks is, but as a lawyer, you should know better than most that R18 doesn’t apply in the case of banned publications.
Yes I do actually realise it’s illegal to distribute or cause others to view sex involving urine or excrement under the Broadcasting Act or something (a clause Lianne Dalziel added in after a public submission)… I’m generally just taking the piss most of the time when I debate with D4J and am not overtly concerned with breaking the law as I think the police have more serious matters to attend to than come after some internet joke blog post.
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
(Despite the fact that it is not actually illegal to engage in it here in NZ – it’s just illegal to view it, which is quite an anomaly).
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
stan – you are the one who should be worried about police .
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
On another general debate topic, does anyone with a missing pet wish they had unfeasibly large breasts and were famous for being, ah, famous? http://www.stuff.co.nz/4289775a1860.html
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
I meant to add ‘fer chrissakes’ to that last post…
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
Um, Stan, it’s actually covered by the Films Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993. See http://www.censorship.govt.nz/law.html for the legal low-down.
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
I know where cricket is – he opened for the black cups last night ? Golden duck and cold showers all around !!
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
Just did a quick search, it’s under the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993 section 3 subsection 2. Publication is illegal but arguably I can post a link to it with a warning, it would be similar to say you posting a link to http://www.rotton.com but warning that it involves graphic violence.
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
I will ring john brace notwell immediately in search of cricket , don’t worry dear .
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
In her ‘purveyor of tat’ case it might be cold duck , and…oh never mind…
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
OK to change the topic. Emma Agnew – is it just Christchurch or is the talk all over NZ?
Apparently she used to come to the Church I regularly go to and all the people there are quite sad about the situation. I actually think she’s probably dead by now and I really hope the person who allegedly met up with her buy her car comes forward.
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
stan crawl back into the sewage pond !!!
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
That’s a negative Stanley. D4J and I do not hang with each other. Nor do we have any commuication outside this blog.
My last post was supposed to be a witty barb against my future (here’s hoping…NOT) brother-in-law, not you.
I withdraw and apologise.
I was only letting off steam, but really it was pointless, as the neanderthal couldn’t even summon enough kinetic energy to read, let alone type.
My only excuse is I have a rather strong disdain for celery-munchers, and I’m sorry that you fall into that catergory. Well, that and your repugnant analogy in the first post. You have to admit that it got people talking though!
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Poor Emma looks a bit like Kirsty ? I hope they catch this mongrel dog and string the bastard up ! I hate to think it’s another cold case situation ? I have my fingers crossed , however things are never easy – eh LADS ?
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
“Battery hen farms are the classic drawcard for veganism. And here is one area where consumers can exercise freedom of choice; those who claim to care about animal rights can pay a little extra for free-range eggs.”
Not being a vegan myself it’s bit awkward to respond to that, but I think a vegan (and of course its not just vegans who oppose battery farms) would argue that market choice isn’t a morally acceptable vehicle to address what is, according to their view, effectively torture. Just as we don’t think it should be a freedom of choice issue about buying or not buying goods made using slave labour, or where people are harmed either deliberately or through negligence, neither should we accept a market solution in this case. Particularly when it is fairly easy (and relatively cheap based on prices) to fix this.
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Thanks Seamonkey, I’m sorry for being unkind to you too.
Just in… Actually about an hour ago but I only just saw it – a Christchurch man has been arrested in connection to the murder of Emma Agnew. No details yet really besides the fact that the police stormed his apartment complex.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10478649
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
Did anyone else see this:
“Older women join Kenya’s sex tourists”
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4288692a34.html
We live in interesting times.
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
Stanley’s biggest failing is that he is proposing that a WHOLE SHITLOAD of animals would never see the light of day, let alone gambol on the hills or paerticipate in the joys of both eating grass and having sex because – there would be no animals on farms. How dare you Stanley impose such a lack of existence on so many.
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
BTW Stanley, have you ever seen a sheep or a goat or a horse die of old age? It is a horrible, horrible thing to behold, I honestly don’t see how you can’t have thought this through to its logical conclusion.
Consider also that if we were evolved to be vegetarian we would have rumens and totally different teeth.
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
PLEASE READ before commenting david, you’ve shown nothing but your prejudice and ignorance when making a reply on a topic which obviously you had an answer ready for without even looking at the other side of the argument.
# Stanley Climbfall Says:
November 27th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Considering how the vast majority of farm animals are currently raised in modern industrialized agriculture, these animals would have been far better off never having been born. The best moment in these animals lives is when they finally die, because only then does their suffering finally end.
However, if the animals are raised and slaughtered humanely, some would say that it is better for the animals to have experienced life for a brief time before slaughter, rather than never have been born at all. My response to this is the following.
Once an individual is born, we have the same obligation to act ethically toward them as we do towards everyone else. This is not changed by the fact that the individual would have never been born in the first place without our intervention. This is the reason that child abuse is immoral. Even though the child would have never existed without his parents, this does not give his parents the right to physically abuse him.
If we hypothetically lived in a cannibalistic society which bred and raised a race of humans for food, then we would be correct in condemning this practice, even though without it, these humans would have never existed in the first place.
In spite of all this reasoning, some people insist that by refraining from eating meat, I am guilty of depriving farm animals the chance to be born and experience life. One way to respond to this is to point out the inherent inefficiency of using farm land to grow crops for livestock, instead of growing crops consumed directly by humans. If everyone ate a vegetarian diet, then a much larger human population could be sustained with the available resources.
Therefore, if I am “guilty” of depriving farm animals the chance to be born, then people who eat meat are “guilty” of depriving human beings the chance to be born and experience life.
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Look stan – go eat your pink poodle and red rabbit !!
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
Note also BeShaky’s sensible post:
I think most people here disagree strongly with Stanleys views, but most of the comments ignore some of the key arguments such as that animals suffer through our treatment of them (not just the killing for food but the entire process) and therefore we should change our treatment of them if we can.
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
“Well Stan, I notice your comments and ask were you involved in an incident recently that occurred in the Occidental Hotel – Latimer Square Christchurch ? Curfew ??”
Cacofinix, you pathetic Doe Doe nutbar
How do you know so much about all this. first hand knowledge??
You know not to go too close to the Sq. Men are waiting for you.
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
“Listed-healthcare and beauty product retailer Life Pharmacy is among a number of New Zealand businesses that expect the KiwiSaver scheme to hurt employers in the long term…”
Tutae, Sam & Co – feeling the knife twist yet? It’s not too late to go and live in North Korea before we take over next year, y’know…Winston can probably even jack you up a job in the secret police tell-tale tit division.
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
“Older women join Kenya’s sex tourists”
so what.
I really mean that
so what
??????????????
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Buggerlugs:
Got a link?
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
“You know not to go too close to the Sq. Men are waiting for you.”
Fuck off hinamanu you coward lump of dog shit !!
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
Hinamanu:
Have you read the article? Some selective quotes:
I just thought it’s interesting that sex tourism has been taken to a whole new level.
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
Stan I don’t know that they suffer that much at all. Meat is tough if the animal is experiencing stress before it’s killed. If you knew how the process worked you would know this – hence my suspicion that you’re making most of your claims up.
Animals lead pretty good lives on farms then they’re shipped to the works where they’re killed humanely and painlessly, unaware of what’s about to happen to them.
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
Japanese women travel to Thailand for the services of well endowed balck men
No one says a thing.
White women travel to Africa for the same, every ones talking about it.
If these countries had oil the US would be condemning it all.
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
“If these countries had oil the US would be condemning it all.”
What psych ward are you in hinumoo ?
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
Hinamanu:
I think that sex tourism debates have focused on paedophiles – clearly illegal sex. But, speaking more generally, you’d have to wonder why a person travels to another country looking for sex. It’s just my opinion, but if they can’t get enough of it in their home country, what with internet dating sites and all, then there’s probably something wrong with them.
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
“hinumoo”
cacofinix,,
I’m surprised you connect me wif your favourite animal.
Did you know there’s a whole country dedicated to these bovines.
Yes,, it s true !!!
India.
Go there, stay there.
Make all your fantasies come true.
Don’t forget the free milk. Titties everywhere.
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
Well lets put it like this Stan, you can’t have learnt much, during your internship, about capturing attention or presenting a concise and logical argument. To be honest, I have better things to do than to wade through screeds to find your argument.
Question, did the dried crickets I crunched on in North Korea as a bar snack, or the stingray whose partially decomposed wings I was fed, or the sea cucumber served in a Chinese Restaurant scream in paid while they were despatched and should I feel guilty for having consumed them? Have you ever tried to teach your pet crocodile to eat grass?, your python to eat vegetables?, your owl to exist on non-protein food sources?
Cheerio
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
POC – just shooting off to torture some unionists with the collected audiobooks of Keith Locke, but you’ll find the story on the Herald website under Business. Toodles…
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
Peak Oil Conspiracy,,
No.
Its the narrow minded excuses of anglo saxon socities and their hang ups
and why we have to conform to whats normal according to oppresive white politicians.
These dicks are why anarchy is promoted.
Intolerance and opposition to anything different.
I’m 47. I know a woman two decades older than me I can be seen with.
If I tried to be seen with a female two decades younger I would be treated close to a pedofile.
Society is oppresive and not worth conforming to.
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
“If I tried to be seen with a female two decades younger I would be treated close to a pedofile.”
Look hinumoo nutbar , give the nurse a buzz and tell her to ask the doc to up your meds urgently and you’re clearly delusional .
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
No delusion,
I know because hypocrites already talked about me being in the company of a 22 y o.
I’m med free and drug free
and in this blog, insult free. (except from a demented insulting machochist
Vote:craving the most imaginative insults to his dishonoured and personality chal;lenged character. and with htat, I just figured out I have been feeding him all this time. what a sad and woeful individual he is.)you can’t say that .
November 27th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
D4J:
What’s this about an “Islamic dad4justice imposter”?
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
I rest my case .
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
POC – the Muslims are getting angry with me !!
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Sorry, forgot to post the link: http://dad4justice.blogspot.com/2007/11/islamic-dad4justice-imposter.html
I don’t read your blog all that often, but these nuggets of gold are priceless
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
Oh come ON Hinamanu, there’s NO COMPARISON between society’s attitudes to a 47-year-old shacked up with a 27-year-old, and its attitudes to a 21-year-old with an 11-year-old. The latter IS, SHOULD BE, AND ALWAYS SHOULD BE, a CRIME.
And Stanley Climbfall et al, do you really MEAN to be indirectly pushing for the pardoning of Graeme Capill? Or is it OK by you if we only lock up Christian fundamentalist hypocrites for paedophilia?
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
Hinamanu:
I don’t think you can always promote anarchy as a tonic for living in an oppresive society.
If you’re 47 and in relationship with a 60-something year-old, then that’s none of my business.
If you’re 47 and in a relationship with a 20-something year-old, then I wouldn’t be among those equating you to a paedophile. But I might be asking questions about whether she’s thought things through properly, as her life goals (at that stage of her life) are probably very different to yours (at this stage of your life).
This is a moral relativist argument, so I’m not claiming to have a better argument than yours, but hopefully you can now see where I was coming from.
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
“Oh come ON Hinamanu, there’s NO COMPARISON between society’s attitudes to a 47-year-old shacked up with a 27-year-old.”
True.
I said i was criticised by being with a 22 yo.
If you notice US programmes, no one is fully sexual till around the 25 y o mark. The white house has everyone over there terrified.
I noticed the US had imprisoned a film maker for filming two 17 y o’s kissing. That is truly twisted.
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
POC, How often do you hear of couples (of the same age) one wants lots of kids the other wants few or none. Similar age is no guarantee of similar life goals, different ages no guarantee of different life goals.
Let people run their own lives, why should you be asking questions (unless it’s your 20 something daughter)?
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
“If you’re 47 and in a relationship with a 20-something year-old, then I wouldn’t be among those equating you to a paedophile. But I might be asking questions about whether she’s thought things through properly, as her life goals (at that stage of her life) are probably very different to yours (at this stage of your life).”
Agreed. Nothing in common what so ever.
I feel sorry for men who feel they need young girls to make them happy.
The communication problems would be shocking.
I do beleive once most people are over 25, they’ve pretty much figured themselves out.
I would have no problems being involved with a 28 y o. thinking about 30 by then anyway.
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
How many calves you got Miss Hinumoo ?
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
AndrewW:
The libertarian philosophy presupposes one thing: informed decision-making.
Now in the (hypothetical) case of a young, say, 18 year-old who shacks up with a 50-plus year-old, are you seriously telling me that she’s already made an informed decision not to have kids, to settle down with her chosen life partner, etc?
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
“I feel sorry for men who feel they need young girls to make them happy.”
That’s a shallow perception hin, could it possibly be that the relationship should be seen as being between 2 people, 2 individuals, rather than between a 40 something and a 20 something?
Don’t feel sorry for them, they may well be happier than you.
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
“How many calves you got”
You’ve already spoken of your preference for cows cacofinix.
stick to them.
My kids and how many I have will never be your affair.
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
informed decision-making is not guaranteed no matter what the age, if the relationship doesn’t work, either party, or both parties can be the loser.
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
AndrewW:
True, life experience comes with age, but age doesn’t necessarily correlate to informed decision-making. But surely you’d agree that (at least on the law of averages, allowing for the occasional exception) an 18-year-old woman is much less equipped to make significant decisions about her future than her 28-year-old future self? If the 28-year-old gets into a bad relationship, they can (hopefully) put it down to experience and move on.
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
“I feel sorry for men who feel they need young girls to make them happy.”
That’s a shallow perception hin,”
No,,
I’m talkin bout men (middle age crisis) who don’t understand a happy communication with some one who’s closer to understanding them.
To know any one of any age understands you is real communication.
Unfortunately, the generation gap is a real thing.
But most young people will listen to an adult who has shown their ears are open as well.
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
I have read some rubbish on this blog but hinamoo – you take the cake ? What a fruit cake . Is your real name Phillip John Mason ?
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
POC, personally Im inclined to agree that relationships between older guys and under 20s probably wont work out, but I suspect its more likely to be the guy who gets burnt, the young are more resilient, 18 year olds have shorter relationships and more break-ups, at least thats the impression I’ve always had.
hin, I’ve met plenty of 50 year old children and plenty of 20 year old adults.
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
I’m talkin bout men (middle age crisis) who don’t understand a happy communication with some one who’s closer to understanding them.
You mean like Stan trying to talk to Jesus?
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
Hey hin, there was a study recently that pointed the the reason for men having so called middle age crises as being the age of their wifes, men with older wives had MAC when they themselves were young, men with younger wifes had MAC when they themselves were older.
Vote:So the way to avoid a MAC is to always have a young wife, simple really.
November 27th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
Stanley Climbfall
Vote:At 1.54 you insulted my pet rock. My friend is not happy. I am thinking of going the the Human Rights Commission to see if my Pet Rock has any rights.
How dare you say my friend does not exhibit any behavior which would indicate that they possess consciousness?
You are advertising space, back into the woodwork sunshine, see you after the next FULL MOON.
Regards, Steve Thomas (what is your real nameStanley)
November 27th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
having read these posts , and knowing im a bit of a loose cannon with my mouth , SHIT there are a few posters who take the cake TONIGHT . but continue posters , but take your pills when you finish, John
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
Stanley: I have an answer to your question. Rights to not derive from the ability to feel pain. We gain our rights from our responcbility to respect other peoples rights. We gain our rights from our responcibility to be held accountable for our actions in a court of law. We gain our rights from our ability to make judgements based on morals and, most importantly tell right from wrong.
Animals can do none of these things. They act only on instinct and have no consideration for others or their rights. Because of this it would be silly to give people rights, as all rights derive from responcibilities.
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
Last paragraph should read: “silly to give animals rights”
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 9:04 pm
Still why is a whale considered more valuable than, say, a rabbit?
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
Yvette: Given that nethier has rights we must consider what other value they might have. Morally speaking they are equals (although opinions are often influenced by emotion). Whales are a valueable resourse, and killing them off would have an unknown effect on the marine ecosystem, which we depend on for food. On the other hand rabbits are pests to the enviroment in New Zealand, so we are even encouraged kill them at our leisure.
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
Totaly agree with Nick.
Vote:Stan is from a different place. He has no responsabilty or morals.
Lot of time here today Stan, day off or just don’t work for a living?
Cup of tea? Sav Blanc, or just water?
OMG I know, move to Australia Stan and leave us normal people in peace.
November 27th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
yeah Nick, fucken BANG!!
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
http://www.national.org.nz/ambitious.aspx
Vote:check out the vid
November 27th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
Just been to the Very Double Standard. They are crazy about John Key there! I think they have about four posts just about him, going on. He really has annoyed them for some reason.
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 11:22 pm
“The libertarian philosophy presupposes one thing: informed decision-making.”
No it doesn’t, it presupposes adults generally know best how to run their lives, and that other adults generally don’t and the state generally does not, as none of the above have the right incentives to make good choices and not make bad ones. Many religions believe the opposite, as do most utopian grand visions of humanity that worship sacrifice.
Vote:November 27th, 2007 at 11:54 pm
Um, LibertyScott, spot the difference between “informed decision-making” and “adults generally know best how to run their lives”?
Vote:November 28th, 2007 at 3:20 am
side show bob suggests:
Vote: