EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Sat Dec 20, 2014 5:37 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon May 05, 2014 1:34 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1352
animal-friendly wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
animal-friendly wrote:
"the treatment of animals and the environment is better than it ever has been"

Wayne, the treatment of the environment, of which we are all a part, is abysmal. Animals are included, as we are all. How to respond to such a statement?

"..... but the cumulative effect of abuse of the environment over the history of mankind is still a threat?"

Yes, of course it is. it was and continues to be as long as our consciousness does not shift. Do you not feel the danger?


Not as much danger as there was in the past though. what was done to protect the Passenger Pigeon compared to more modern endagered species? How about the emissions of harmful compounds?
There are restrictions and controls now which were not in place when I was young.


So you cite the incidence of the Passenger Pigeon as some kind of justification or rationalization for the present day violence? We never had restrictions before because the need was never there.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 05, 2014 5:59 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20603
Location: Southeastern US
animal-friendly wrote:
So you cite the incidence of the Passenger Pigeon as some kind of justification or rationalization for the present day violence? We never had restrictions before because the need was never there.


The reference was to refute your incorrect claim that animals had never been treated like this before. Animals, on average, have been treated much worse in the history of humanity, and the treatment now is much better on average. The need for restrictions has always been there, the impact of not having them was just better concealed in the past. That is why the creation of animal protection laws was so popular in the Victorian era, but the first known laws that resemble protection date back to Hammurabi.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 05, 2014 2:45 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2314
Location: Central Colorado
That is all very interesting, but I am talking about humans causing the extinction of millions of species from single cell to ourselves.
This is short and to the point;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILahdcT7Usw

Sure, eat less meat or go vegan, but if you emit more than 10% of what you did back in 1990, the trail ends.
I did it by one child and going all solar, changing my diet, and sacrificing at times, but it already looks very bad for Arctic temps and going past that tipping point very soon. We may have run out of time, and the end result may be much worse than the Permian ELE. There is definitely enough sequestered carbon to cause a runaway greenhouse if all released by increasing heat, and the oceans boiled away........

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 18, 2014 7:28 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1352
Wayne Stollings wrote:
animal-friendly wrote:
So you cite the incidence of the Passenger Pigeon as some kind of justification or rationalization for the present day violence? We never had restrictions before because the need was never there.


The reference was to refute your incorrect claim that animals had never been treated like this before. Animals, on average, have been treated much worse in the history of humanity, and the treatment now is much better on average. The need for restrictions has always been there, the impact of not having them was just better concealed in the past. That is why the creation of animal protection laws was so popular in the Victorian era, but the first known laws that resemble protection date back to Hammurabi.


Both "refute' and "incorrect" are words you shouldn't have begun with. Although they show a fighting spirit, they point to nothing at all.

It is impossible that animals have been treated much worse in human history than they are now. The breadth and depth of animals in industry is much greater now than it has ever been for obvious reasons. They are much more tide up with the entire economic process than they ever were .... ever, in human history. They are now inextricably linked up in industries never even dreamed of a few hundred years ago. And the need for "restriction" as you put it, has always been there, but never, ever had we had so may restrictions as we do now and that is only because the industry has grown so large. Yet, we do not have enough restrictions and that is partly due to consumer taste which has been influenced by advertisement and propaganda.

To put it quite simply, the vast majority of the meat producing industry is unnecessary. It really is that simple. You will debate it of course, but there is no rationalization which could possible justify this industry in real terms. It's an industry that is as fabricated as any .....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 18, 2014 8:03 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20603
Location: Southeastern US
animal-friendly wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
animal-friendly wrote:
So you cite the incidence of the Passenger Pigeon as some kind of justification or rationalization for the present day violence? We never had restrictions before because the need was never there.


The reference was to refute your incorrect claim that animals had never been treated like this before. Animals, on average, have been treated much worse in the history of humanity, and the treatment now is much better on average. The need for restrictions has always been there, the impact of not having them was just better concealed in the past. That is why the creation of animal protection laws was so popular in the Victorian era, but the first known laws that resemble protection date back to Hammurabi.


Both "refute' and "incorrect" are words you shouldn't have begun with. Although they show a fighting spirit, they point to nothing at all.


The nothing they point to is the basis for your claim, which is why they were used.

Quote:
It is impossible that animals have been treated much worse in human history than they are now.


And you have some evidence for this claim? No, you do not because it does not exist other than your assumption.

Quote:
The breadth and depth of animals in industry is much greater now than it has ever been for obvious reasons.


You mean the breadth and depth is greater now than when the majority of the population were farmers which relied upon animals for labor and food without ANY oversight of the treatment of those animals? You are saying animals were treated better BEFORE any animal protection laws were enacted than after? That position makes no sense when approached logically.

Quote:
They are much more tide up with the entire economic process than they ever were .... ever, in human history.


You mean when they were the major source of labor for transport and work in addition to the food source owned by the majority of the population, they were LESS tide up in the econominc process? How is that possible?

Quote:
They are now inextricably linked up in industries never even dreamed of a few hundred years ago.


And delinked to other industries even some of those with which they were linked in the interim.

Quote:
And the need for "restriction" as you put it, has always been there, but never, ever had we had so may restrictions as we do now and that is only because the industry has grown so large.


So the restrictions have done nothing positive? That is the only way the basis can be claimed. If the restrictions were always necessary but not in place the only way the situation could be worse now is for the restrictions to cause the problems you are claiming and thus are a reason to remove the restrictions.

Quote:
Yet, we do not have enough restrictions and that is partly due to consumer taste which has been influenced by advertisement and propaganda.


You claim it was worse for animals priot to the restrictions but then claim more restrictions are needed. This refutes your basic claim that animals were treated worse prior to said restrictions.

Quote:
To put it quite simply, the vast majority of the meat producing industry is unnecessary.


That is an opinion and one not shared by the majority of the population.

Quote:
It really is that simple. You will debate it of course, but there is no rationalization which could possible justify this industry in real terms. It's an industry that is as fabricated as any .....


So the industry has always been irrational or did it become irrational at some point in time in your opinion?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 15, 2014 12:57 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2314
Location: Central Colorado
Johhny Electriglide wrote:
That is all very interesting, but I am talking about humans causing the extinction of millions of species from single cell to ourselves.
This is short and to the point;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILahdcT7Usw

Sure, eat less meat or go vegan, but if you emit more than 10% of what you did back in 1998, the trail ends.
I did it by one child and going all solar, changing my diet, and sacrificing at times, but it already looks very bad for Arctic temps and going past that tipping point very soon. We may have run out of time, and the end result may be much worse than the Permian ELE. There is definitely enough sequestered carbon to cause a runaway greenhouse if all released by increasing heat, and the oceans boiled away........

Save the humans from bad animals, too;
Animal Rights
Little Girl With Scars From Attack Reportedly Asked To Leave KFC Restaurant
article image
By Michael Allen, Fri, June 13, 2014

"Victoria Wilcher, 3, was reportedly told to leave a Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant in Jackson, Miss., because her facial scars supposedly scared customers.

Wilcher's face was mauled by three dogs.

"The right side of her face is paralyzed. She's got a lot of surgeries to go through and she won't even look in the mirror anymore," Wilcher's grandmother Kelly Mullins told 16 WAPT News."
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/ ... restaurant

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group