EnviroLink Forum
http://www.envirolink.org/forum/

Pig
http://www.envirolink.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16016
Page 1 of 4

Author:  mothy [ Mon Jan 23, 2012 5:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Pig

Pig is a name given to a certain animal. A negative resonance in the human pyche.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AU7_Ar9C_iI

Can you be sure why this pig was doing the stuff it did? All answers will be seen as sanctimonious unless perceived as otherwise.

All animals and insects have a mind. To which extent in comparison to the human mind do they perceive? Is it okay if they fall below the human standard that they can be 'murdered' without due term applied, only slaughtered'. We as humans have no idea how animals think, feel in this reality.

It seems in slaughter the only prerequisite is the exsanguination of the slaughtered, murdered creatures in all religions.. Or beasts as the bible says.

In your ability to empathise maybes your next door neighbour may aswell be a dragonfly.

Maybes your empathy is misplaced or misdirected.?

Maybes the perception of the fulllness of the world will never be attained until humans can empathise and sympathise with other creatures.

My 5 year old nephew beat me at a card game. I'm 46. I will try to nuture his intelligence. Not like the school suppression regime that will control and destroy him like it did me.


Control seems to be all around.


Like I said Pig is not a nice name to give to people but pig is a sentient creature under our control. We decide what happens to pig!

Democracy decides what happens to people..

Pig is what you decide what pig is.

Author:  Donnie Mac Leod [ Mon Jan 23, 2012 6:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Pig

Bacon, pork chops and shoulder ham works for me although I have been known to throw the odd pig skin at running backs and recievers.

Author:  mothy [ Tue Jan 24, 2012 2:59 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Pig

Donnie Mac Leod wrote:
Bacon, pork chops and shoulder ham works for me although I have been known to throw the odd pig skin at running backs and recievers.


If your tastebuds outweigh your conscience then enjoy baseball with clear thought and empathy.
There are two kinds of Psycopaths:

i}Those with no regard for humans
ii} Those with no regards for animals and those with selective conditions for animals in their mind.

A multiple personality disorder one could discern if one stood a bit back back. Not seeing the wood for the trees or the wood for the trees. Or the wood, bark of the tree. Close up or distance? Depends on the circumstance I guess.

Sometimes seeing a tree is important, sometimes seeing the wood is important and sometimes seeing the bark is equally important.

Mothy.


Slavver and drool on the food knowing you will never be locked up for it. Taste the freedom.

The author of books reveals himself albeit in minor ways.
Mothy


Compassion is the basis of morality.

Arthur Schopenhauer.

Author:  Donnie Mac Leod [ Tue Jan 24, 2012 10:04 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Pig

My conscience is clear because it is no more immoral for me to eat "Rusty the Rooster" or "Porky the pig" then it is for any other predator such as a cougar or wolf to do so.

Author:  mothy [ Tue Jan 24, 2012 4:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Pig

Donnie Mac Leod wrote:
My conscience is clear because it is no more immoral for me to eat "Rusty the Rooster" or "Porky the pig" then it is for any other predator such as a cougar or wolf to do so.


Are you saying your ability to moralise is no better than the cougar or wolf?

It seems you make an ugly and imbalanced comparison.

Author:  Donnie Mac Leod [ Tue Jan 24, 2012 5:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Pig

I am saying eating meat or plants are equally amoral despite the sanctimonious claims that the emotionalists are moralizing over. .

Author:  mothy [ Tue Jan 24, 2012 5:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Pig

Donnie Mac Leod wrote:
I am saying eating meat or plants are equally amoral despite the sanctimonious claims that the emotionalists are moralizing over. .


You seem to refrain from the question. Is cannabilism okay? Or are you frightened someone might be pulling your leg?

Would you put a nettle above a cat in the evolutionary scale?

And you seem to admit you are eating amorally.

Author:  Wayne Stollings [ Tue Jan 24, 2012 7:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Pig

mothy wrote:
Donnie Mac Leod wrote:
I am saying eating meat or plants are equally amoral despite the sanctimonious claims that the emotionalists are moralizing over. .


You seem to refrain from the question. Is cannabilism okay? Or are you frightened someone might be pulling your leg?

Would you put a nettle above a cat in the evolutionary scale?

And you seem to admit you are eating amorally.


Nature is amoral so eating anything in nature would be acceptable. It is when humans create morals to provide guidance for what they should eat or how they should live that we have issues outside of what is natural.

Author:  mothy [ Wed Jan 25, 2012 6:50 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Pig

Obviously morals and ethics are imperative for healthy friendships, communities, societies, countries and ultimately the world. I feel animals deserve a bigger share of the pot when it comes to morals and ethics despite the possibility they may only be a human trait.

Author:  Wayne Stollings [ Wed Jan 25, 2012 7:18 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Pig

mothy wrote:
Obviously morals and ethics are imperative for healthy friendships, communities, societies, countries and ultimately the world. I feel animals deserve a bigger share of the pot when it comes to morals and ethics despite the possibility they may only be a human trait.


Some people think animals should have the whole pot, but should share it with potatoes, carrots, onions, and the like. :mrgreen: #-o

The level of moral or ethical consideration for animals has changed but also remained the same throughout the record of human history.

Author:  mothy [ Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:07 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Pig

Wayne Stollings wrote:
mothy wrote:
Obviously morals and ethics are imperative for healthy friendships, communities, societies, countries and ultimately the world. I feel animals deserve a bigger share of the pot when it comes to morals and ethics despite the possibility they may only be a human trait.


Some people think animals should have the whole pot, but should share it with potatoes, carrots, onions, and the like. :mrgreen: #-o

The level of moral or ethical consideration for animals has changed but also remained the same throughout the record of human history.


And why is that? Is it how far the human mind is prepared to go in employing its compassion to other creatures?

I believe we are in a position in which we should embrace all creatures with the ethics, morals and compassion we have.

They may not meet our standards in that respect but our being in this reality should not make us drop below what we are capable of.

Author:  Wayne Stollings [ Wed Jan 25, 2012 9:11 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Pig

mothy wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
mothy wrote:
Obviously morals and ethics are imperative for healthy friendships, communities, societies, countries and ultimately the world. I feel animals deserve a bigger share of the pot when it comes to morals and ethics despite the possibility they may only be a human trait.


Some people think animals should have the whole pot, but should share it with potatoes, carrots, onions, and the like. :mrgreen: #-o

The level of moral or ethical consideration for animals has changed but also remained the same throughout the record of human history.


And why is that? Is it how far the human mind is prepared to go in employing its compassion to other creatures?


No, there has always been a symbiotic relationship with domestic animals where they are used for the benefit of humans but are afforded the benefit of our care and the concept that we would not cause them undue suffering. The Kosher and Halal slaughter, for example, were constructs to help ensure the treatment was as humane as possible in the production of food from animals.

Quote:
I believe we are in a position in which we should embrace all creatures with the ethics, morals and compassion we have.


That is your belief, but it is clearly not shared by the majority of the rest of humanity and as such not likely to be something seen. This is especially true since humans are not embraced with all of the ethics, morals, and compassion we have available.

Quote:
They may not meet our standards in that respect but our being in this reality should not make us drop below what we are capable of.


It think we would have to see all humans treated with all compassion and respect possible before animals have a chance at getting similar treatment, but that is just me. 8)

Author:  mothy [ Thu Jan 26, 2012 5:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Pig

Do we really create morals or are they an inherently conscious phenomenon directed at what we perceive as wrong.

There are many conflicting reports whether halal/kosher are good practices or bad.

Author:  Wayne Stollings [ Thu Jan 26, 2012 5:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Pig

mothy wrote:
Do we really create morals or are they an inherently conscious phenomenon directed at what we perceive as wrong.


They do not exist outside of our civilized creation.

Quote:
There are many conflicting reports whether halal/kosher are good practices or bad.


That is now and based on the biased AR views of the present time, but too many forget both were created thousands of years ago to ensure the better slaughter methods were followed.

Author:  mothy [ Thu Jan 26, 2012 6:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Pig

Wayne Stollings wrote:
mothy wrote:
Do we really create morals or are they an inherently conscious phenomenon directed at what we perceive as wrong.


They do not exist outside of our civilized creation.

Quote:
There are many conflicting reports whether halal/kosher are good practices or bad.


That is now and based on the biased AR views of the present time, but too many forget both were created thousands of years ago to ensure the better slaughter methods were followed.



If it's based purely on the AR views why is it an accepted practice seen as more humane to stun the animals prior to slitting the throats over here in the occident. Eeg results seem to show no pain following the slitting in the Halal/Kosher method but that still leaves 3 to 4 minutes if the animal is conscious . The pro Hala /Kosher sites state the animals are surrendered unconscious within seconds of slitting so long as the cut was deep enough to cut the jugular veins and carotid arteries of both sides together with the trachea and esophagus. There was no recording on the eeg scan therafter. BOLLOCKS!

Of course it is not like religious types to deceive is it?!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_hSg-npPnw

Page 1 of 4 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/