EnviroLink Forum

This is Sandra, from the wide brown land downunder (that's Australia in case you didn't know). Looking forward to fascinating enviro-chats with other, "tree-huggers", "veg-it-arians", and (kindly) "carnivores".

Will someone please tell me how to register a catchy little non-de-plume like everyone else who (obviously of a higher order of intelligence) has alreadyworked it out.

_________________
The wild Deer wand'ring here and there,
Keeps the Human Soul from Care.

From Auguries of Innocence, by Wiliam Blake (1757 -1827)

The use of ones own name says a lot about the credibility of the poster, and since you are more of the "pro" persuasion there should be no nasty e-mails or the like to deal with.

(Yes I posted under my own name for a few years, but when the board crashed and we had to sign up again I used a name I had been called in the past as I am what would be called an "anti" by the ARAs)

If you really wanted to change your "handle" I believe the only way is to register again under that different handle, but Josh (the board admin) may be able to help you out if you ask him in the Feedback section.

_________________
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

Dear Satan Jr, I'm not surprised many people are not sure - how ever did you come by such a name, and what do you mean by espousing justice, truth, and freedom; I thought you were batting for the other side?

Anyway, Dark Lord, thank you for your kind assistance. I'm not sure I'll bother with the nom-de-plume after all. Didn't want to be the only one out of step but, if it's O.K. with you, well it's O.K. with me. But, yes, the feedback section - what a very good (why ever didn't I think of that) idea.

P.S. Do you know my signature poem by William Blake, if so, have you noticed hell being, "shuddered through all its regions", yet?

_________________
The wild Deer wand'ring here and there,
Keeps the Human Soul from Care.

From Auguries of Innocence, by Wiliam Blake (1757 -1827)

Someone called me the son of Satan once and it seemed like a good moniker when I had to reregister. Justice and freedom for those who agree to "share" with others those traits, and truth gets a pretty good beating in some of these posts. If you mean for the anti-animal rights, yes I disagree with the concept, but I do believe in animal welfare. I see more misrepresentations on the pro-AR side, but that is where the support of the truth comes in. If you follow the AR movement as a belief much like the religion it mimics, I have no problem with that. If you try to convince others to follow by using misrepresentations I will probably point them out.




It is Satan Jr., so it is more like the Dim Lord ....




There are others who use their name, so you will not be alone in either choice.



Because you are not the Dim Lord ....



No, they do not let me visit very often. They fear I will take over ... and they are right too ....

_________________
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

Dear Dim Lord Shame on them, and you the heir apparent! It's a wicked world - oh!, but you knew that!

I think we might find common ground after all, on the truth theme - we don't need any more casualties in that particular theatre of war.

Philosophically and emotionally I'm probably with the angels. I can't remember when I didn't feel that we just ought to leave animals alone (unless there was a reciprocal relationship based on mutual need/respect or (dare I say it) love.

I believe our principle should be (this is a quote and I can't remember the source so can't credit it) "do nothing that is not in accord with reason and love". If we act according to that principle (difficult as it may be sometimes) I don't see that we can go far wrong.

On the other hand, not all think and feel alike. The sense of the interconnectedness of all things, on which compassion depends, is an evolving consciousness that is not yet well established; to say the least. As to reason (and intellectual rigour) on which truth depends; well, except to remark that it takes a pretty sound thrashing in most forums, I pass on in silence (for once - thank goodness!).

So, if we want to ensure that animals are not mistreated we will need laws that establish their status as "sentient beings" and their right to proper care. Such laws would certainly put an end to factory farms and, "mis-use upon the road", (Blake again) and blood, "sports", where humane methods of slaughter cannot be ensured.

On the other hand again, how many angels do you know who have just finished an infrequent and free range but all the same, chicken dinner? There you are, truth will out - in the course of time.

Speaking as, albeit, an occassional visitor, what is the view from Hades?

_________________
The wild Deer wand'ring here and there,
Keeps the Human Soul from Care.

From Auguries of Innocence, by Wiliam Blake (1757 -1827)

Ahhh, but we cannot leave the animals alone for we too are animals, even if we like to think of ourselves as more than that.



If we could find a universal definition of what is reasonable maybe it would be easier to work out a common agreement, but that is the rub, is it not?



It does and this forum seems to be more balanced than most in that regard.



No, we do not need to establish "rights" because there are no such rights under the law. We can and do provide protections under the law to prevent what most of us would think is cruel, but the problem is where some small minority holds a much more broad view on what is cruel. When they cannot get their way or as fast as they believe they should they turn to lies and violence and the whole of animal welfare is damaged because it creates a highly polarized situation.



There is nothing wrong with factory farms. They can actually provide better conditions than the smaller farms. Waste can be treated instead of just naturally spread out over a larger area. Not to say there cannot be improvements just as we call human care improved in factories over the years.



Some of this "mis-use" may exist, but the act of transportation could be called mis-use by some ... and there are more than a few who seem to do just that.



This dips into a more cultural theme and one which I have very mixed feelings. While I may not agree with the sports and have no desire to participate, nor was I raised within that particular culture. When one believes they can judge another they are trying to fool themselves, but when they believe they can judge another culture they have succeeded in both fooling themselves and proving their arrogance.



Ahhh, but angels also need to eat to survive and there are some things we cannot produce without the use of animals or their direct consumption, it is as we were designed by nature or whichever deity you choose to make such attributes.



It is looking forward to expansion due to global warming, which should extend the habitable range and of course the anticipation of new members outside of the norm. We have so many politicians, celebrities, and lawyers you cannot turn around without being lied to, hit, or sued ... but that is the nature of the palace is it not? The only recreation is the view. You would never believe how many women wear skirts and forget the inhabitants of Hell have nowhere to look but up ..... the down side of that is the number of people who need to trim their nose hair too....

_________________
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

Dear Lord of Darkness, I give you the point that we are animals - and that's a pretty fair start coming from an angel.


Angels believe that, for practical purposes, there is no need of a universal definition of reason (let alone of love); the finding of which, as every student of Plato knows, is indeed, "the rub". That is a game (and a very fine one too) for reason to play at leisure. We (rational animals) just need to consult our higher selves (angels) to know what is reasonable and loving in a given case - and that's because both conditions have something to do with fellow feeling and reciprocity; and you're not going to say, are you Dim Lord, that you don't know when you've got, "that loving feeling"?


Re Rights: I don't see how we can ensure protections for animals unless they are enshrined in laws that recognize an animal's right to protection. I mean a duty to provide implies a right to receive. But, I am happy to concede the word - just so the law protects animals from abuse and cruelty.

You are right of course (there's that word again!) there are different views on what is cruel. But consciousness does evolve. I mean, when I was a girl no-one thought it cruel to torment dancing bears or dunk witches. Rather good fun really (provided you weren't the bear or the witch) and to be honest, all this namby pamby Angel stuff takes a bit of getting used to and ..... uhhhh where was I? Oh, yes, the times; they are a changing.

One understands the frustration of holding a minority view that gets no hearing but (in an unprecedented act of agreement between the two worlds) Angels and Devils agree - it's a definite No! to lies and violence.

On the other hand - are you serious? Factory farms might provide for the animals' physical health (lack of disease) but that is surely only to maintain them as "productive units". Welfare means faring or living well; and nothing can be said to live well that is evolved to move freely in the natural environment but is kept in very close confinement under artificial conditions. Re waste - dung beetles are very effective and there are other methods of keeping paddocks clean.

Re Transport. Most transport conditions are O.K. I guess; for short journeys. So is strap hanging on the Japanese underground, I guess, for a half an hour or so. But, Dark Lord, have you tried it for a week in very hot weather without adequate food and water? That's different!

I share your ambivalence about some blood sports. The cultural aspects ae often very attractive. But when one considers the plight of the animal involved the feeling changes. I also agree we should try not to be judgmental. But it isn't necessary to be judgmental to object to something that you find morally offensive, and it isn't an adequate retort to say that it is sanctioned by tradition (we've always done that!).

Re nature: It's true that we are by nature omnivores - a carnivorous angel make you think though.

Re Hades. I gather the old place hasn't changed much, except that it sounds rather more uuuuuummm distracting

P.S. You must really tell me how to use the quotes machine - if you please.

_________________
The wild Deer wand'ring here and there,
Keeps the Human Soul from Care.

From Auguries of Innocence, by Wiliam Blake (1757 -1827)

Not much of a concession from an honest angel, but as you say it is a start.




Ahh but there is not reciprocity where reason and animals are concerned or even when people are concerned. The concept of love is a human emotion that we like to believe is in the other animals as well, but that is an assumption that cannot be proven.




The animals have no rights now, yet they have protections. They have had some level of protection since biblical times and it has increased since that time. The problem seemed to be in the definition of that from which they should be protected. Some see cruelty in keeping them as pets and others see it as protection, for example.



Ahhhh dunking witches, there was a sport that got many new residents in Hades, but it is odd that none were the witches themselves .... but only where the witches were killed in the process.




Yes and not fast nor far enough for some minority views ... some may be correct and others are not, but only time will tell.



A very good start indeed.



I am generally serious, especially in this case.



They are also protected from the extremes of weather and fed too.



So you believe there should be no pets then?



On the small scale this works, but takes much more land than the larger operations, which was the point of the comment on spreading it out over a larger area instead of treating it.



Adequate food and water is a bit of a generalized statement, for anything less would result in death and that is not the case with all of the animals. I assume you are speaking of the live transport of animals to the Middle East, which has had some very interesting incidents reported of late, which were due to the actions of those who oppose it. That seems to be a type of self fulfilling prophesy to me.



I do not oppose the attempt to change by reason or by role-model, but I do oppose the attempt to force a change because one "believes" the beliefs of another are not correct.



Like an Inuit angel for example?



No, not much changes but the distractions.



You have already used the italic function, so the quote function should be easy. If you hit the quote reply it will also indicate from whom you are quoting, but if you want to break up the quote you will have to cut the final "/quote" (include the brackets) and paste it where you want the first quote to end. The other quotes can be provides by highlighting the passage with the cursor and clicking the "quote" button (just like the "Bold", "underline" and "italic" buttons. If you are not comfortable with the quote reply you can just cut and paste the post and use the highlight/quote procedure.

_________________
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

Dear Satan Jr,

I must defer my answer to, "these high things", for a short time as - other duty calls: except to say it's a good point about the Inuit. And, I gather we aren't meant to be debating points here - should we move to the envirochat site? And, thanks for the info on quotes. I now see the button is right in front of my eyes which, for some reason, I thought had a different function.

_________________
The wild Deer wand'ring here and there,
Keeps the Human Soul from Care.

From Auguries of Innocence, by Wiliam Blake (1757 -1827)

Greetings and Salutation to your Satanic Majestry. I have returned with answers to all your questions.

Re: proving the assumption that love is present in others - human or animal. You are probably right. A rational proof is difficult to find. That is because love is an emotion and, "the heart has reasons that, reason knows not of": as do the senses. In any case, very few things are proved to reason as for instance I cannot prove that you (or indeed, I exist. Yet, I seem to feel very sure of that ... somehow.

Re: Rights. It's a logical (and perhaps a legal?) point. If people are obliged to take certain measures to protect or to care for animals then, by that very fact, the animals acquire a right to that care and protection. But, I give you the point. Let's by all means speak of obligations to protect or care for animals Then as you suggest, the important question is who is obliged to do what, and perhaps, why?

Re: Pets. No. I don't believe there should be no pets. Nor do I think that domestic animals would necessarily be better off in the wild. I was referring to keeping animals in cages too small for them to move in and denying them any semblance of normal animal life. Not the same thing really.

Re: Transportation. Food and water. Yes, vast generalisation. Not meant quite literally. I was trying for a graphic analogy. But, literally. Hundreds of thousands of Australian sheep and cattle have died protracted deaths in squalid conditions on board ships plying from Australia to the Middle East over the past ten years or so. There is sufficient evidence to justify the conclusion that all these animals died of exhaustion, infection, exposure, asphixiation or starvation (unable to adapt to pellets) and no-one troubles to deny it. Many are disembarked in very poor condition and die shortly thereafter in holding yards. Many are disembarked lame, injured or blind (from the pellet dust). No-one troubles to deny that either. I do not know to what recent events you refer. I do know that it isn't animal liberationists who put these animals on these ships or run the ships or, in the case of the Cormo express, prevented their unloading.

Re: Forcing change. Yes that's a difficult one. Impossible to impose ethical change. Use of force highly undesirable. On the other hand, forceful intervention in a situation of abuse, by the strong, in order to protect the weak has generally (I think rightly) been considered a moral duty. One assumes it is agreed that there is a difference between force and violence (e.g. amputating a gangrenous limb in the face of protests by a delerius patient who would otherwise die of it is, I suppose, force. Chopping off the leg of your pet dog for, "fun", is I should say, (extreme) violence.

_________________
The wild Deer wand'ring here and there,
Keeps the Human Soul from Care.

From Auguries of Innocence, by Wiliam Blake (1757 -1827)

You are correct and I have taken the liberty of moving your following post to a new thread under the Animal Concerns section. I am running late so I will address your points a little later today.

Wayne

_________________
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