Sandra John wrote:
Dear Lord of Darkness, I give you the point that we are animals - and that's a pretty fair start coming from an angel.
Not much of a concession from an honest angel, but as you say it is a start.
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"?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes and not fast nor far enough for some minority views ... some may be correct and others are not, but only time will tell.
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.
A very good start indeed.
On the other hand - are you serious?
I am generally serious, especially in this case.
Factory farms might provide for the animals' physical health (lack of disease) but that is surely only to maintain them as "productive units".
They are also protected from the extremes of weather and fed too.
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.
So you believe there should be no pets then?
Re waste - dung beetles are very effective and there are other methods of keeping paddocks clean.
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.
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!
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 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!).
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.
Re nature: It's true that we are by nature omnivores - a carnivorous angel make you think though.
Like an Inuit angel for example?
Re Hades. I gather the old place hasn't changed much, except that it sounds rather more uuuuuummm
No, not much changes but the distractions.
P.S. You must really tell me how to use the quotes machine - if you please.
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.