Vegitarianism And The Slaughter Of Animals For Human Use

Feel free to debate any issues you wish here. Warning: The topics discussed and their content may on occassion offend some.

Re: Vegitarianism And The Slaughter Of Animals For Human Use

Postby Remus » Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:32 am

Dino wrote:How do you know I'm not in "your field"? Don't ever presume anything.


I don't need to presume, I know you're not in my field because you wouldn't last five seconds in my field with your opinion on hunting. I haven't met a single soul in my field who would even dare support hunting for any other reason that food and maybe fur for tribal people. Say if we were debating history or plants, I may disagree with you on something but I wouldn't undermine your knowledge or anyone else if it was their field so I expect the same courtesy. Plants and animals may be linked but they are two very different worlds. But I know get why you would support hunting. Hunted animals such as deer and rabbits feed off their natural food source which is of course, plants. No wonder you want people to go out and shoot them. Kill the animals, the plants thrive for awhile. But the truth is without animals, your precious plants wouldn't be here and vice-versa. Most importantly we wouldn't be here if either one of them wasn't here. We need both of them to survive but what I find funny is that they don't need us to survive.

Dino wrote: Also, from your paragraph I think you have missed the point that what both me and Brian have been trying to say. In both cases which we've mentioned (Brian about certain animals being pests and me about deer and the Australian mammals) are examples of where the natural order has been severly disrupted because either the natural predator has been removed, letting populations explode uncontrolled, or foreign species have been introduced in areas where there are no natural predators to control their population sizes, so they end up completely devastating the environment around them and driving other species of plants and animals into extinction. No one was talking about areas where the food chain hasn't been disrupted and things are in the order that they should be in. But in disrupted food chains, human intervention is necessary otherwise the entire ecological system could collapse. One of these interventions is to control the population of speciehich have spun out of control as there is no natural predator around to control them naturally. Humans are merely playing the role that a natural predator would, and are decreasing the populations in a controlled manner and not killing them all off completely, so what's the difference between doing that and those animals having natural predators? It's very different to wading into balanced and undisrupted food chains and killing the animals there, which I agree is not a good road to go down.


1: (Either the natural predator has been removed) This is mostly likely due to human intervention in the first place.
2: (Letting populations explode uncontrolled) As I have been trying to get across on this debate, this is nothing but natural occurance, it's supposed to happen and it's controlled naturally to.
3: (Foreign species have been introduced in areas where there are no natural predators to
control their population sizes) Again, down to our involvement so our fault.

I agree on number 1 and 3. We shouldn't of meddle in the first place but I suppose we have a duty to put things right again for the native species in that area unless of course, it's a natural invasive species like the Canadian Geese who have every right to invade another species territory. However, number 2 is a perfectly natural cycle and we should not mess. If we continue to intervene with species, it will just lead to more species going extinct. Ecosystems can be rebuilt, species cannot. We don't need to be a natural predator because we have choice, free will and some of say no. If you ask me, massive intervention is nothing more than trying to playing God.

Dino wrote:Your definition of genocide is wrong. Genocide is not just "mass killing". It is the extermination of every single member of a particular group either completely or in one or more particular areas. It also includes forced deportation and forcing all members of a particular group to leave their homes through threats, torture, forced detentions and intimidation. Humans controlling animals populations which are out of control and unbalanced due to a complete lack of natural predators is a completely different issue and concept.


Just like the whole "barbaric" meaning, different things mean different things to other people. Fair enough if you want limit genocide to humans but to me, it applies to every species. Believe me humans do all those things to animals. Animals are forced out of their habitats all the time due to the threat of things like deforestion due to us. Take the Smilodon for example, after the ice age the earth's ecosystem was a wreck and due to various factors the Smilodon population decreases rapidly. Pre-historic humans hunted down the Smilodon and eventually the Smilodon went extinct. No, of course humans then were in a early evolutional stage and obviously didn't have the same intelligence we do now. But if they hadn't of hunted the Smilodon it would have had a fair and natural chance of survival. We should take things like that as a lesson. Species these days face so many dangers as well as their natural predators and we really do not need to add ourselves to that list.

Dino wrote:It doesn't have to and hasn't made the topic of hunting animals go off topic. If you didn't read mine and Vicky's posts, we managed to keep culture on the topic of hunting animals. Talking about psycopaths going into schools with guns is a completely different and irrelevant topic, so it isn't mentioned. Simple as that. Also, no one here is the "debate police", but if you post something anywhere on a public place (so not just on this forum) it is perfectly natural to get people who will challange you on certain issues, like I have. It's all part of a debate.


To me, culture is nothing more that society's many ways of influencing us. We can simply choose to ignore it if we wish. For me, culture brings nothing new to the table. I like to stay on the raw topic. True, it is a public forum but it is also a support group and I think some people have lost sight of that recently.

Dino wrote: Yes, human intervention did cause that situation. But we made the mistake so we have to go and fix it. And that includes culling the fox and rabbit populations in Australia. That is an excellent example where hunting is necessary and not a choice.


Yes and due to our intervention, innocent animals lost their lives when they shouldn't have.

Dino wrote:Earlier you claimed that you "defend all animal life" and that "all hunting is wrong". Also, seeing as you eat meat, does that meat come from free range or organic farms? All the meat which is eaten in my house is either organic or free range because we do not agree with how animals are treated in mass produced commercial farms. (Think battery hen farms here).


Now you just twisting my words into something else. Believe me, I didn't say things like that but in the very unlikely situation I did due to miswording, I would never say things like that and if I did, I blame tiredness. After all, I have been debating on this topic for ages now and it's quite draining. I eat chicken about two times a week and that comes from free range farms. That's it. I used to eat a lot more but those animal welfare videos took their toll.

Dino wrote: Until you get a particular job then it is an "if". I'm certain you will end up doing something with animals. But you may later change your mind and decide to do something like full time conservation of animals, for example.


Trust me, I won't be changing my mind. I've worked way too hard and it's been my dream for a very long time. "The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams".

Dino wrote: All the examples you list are valid. But there is a difference in torturing animals in that way (which is what all your examples are) and hunting animals and killing them with a single shot to the head to minimise the suffering, as is the norm among many hunters. (Not in fox hunting, though). I actually remember speaking to a hunter in America who goes hunting regularly and he said him and his family, as well as many of his hunting friends, hate seeing animals suffer so they always kill the animal with a single gunshot to the head. To me, that is not animal cruelty, but chaining animals up in a tiny space for their whole lives or skinning them alive/ripping them apart while still alive is.


Wow. Well I'll give you one thing, you were right about people being predators. Ruthless and cold-hearted ones at that. How those can people live like that with that on their conscious? They are denying their own emotions. I mean when I'm doing something I hate and know is wrong, I stop but those people... You may see that as a bit of remorse for their actions but to me, that's nothing more their guilty consciouses trying to masked the issue by put the "oh, it was humane" excuse on it. What annoys me the most is that most people who hunt don't need to and can go to the supermarket like the rest of us. But no, there would rather kill a wild animal themselves then to spend a few bucks at the supermarket.
Image
User avatar
Remus
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5395
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm
Location: Luxvia, Austria, The Machine, lol! :D

Re: Vegitarianism And The Slaughter Of Animals For Human Use

Postby Dino » Tue Jan 26, 2010 2:30 am

Remus wrote:I don't need to presume, I know you're not in my field because you wouldn't last five seconds in my field with your opinion on hunting. I haven't met a single soul in my field who would even dare support hunting for any other reason that food and maybe fur for tribal people. Say if we were debating history or plants, I may disagree with you on something but I wouldn't undermine your knowledge or anyone else if it was their field so I expect the same courtesy. Plants and animals may be linked but they are two very different worlds. But I know get why you would support hunting. Hunted animals such as deer and rabbits feed off their natural food source which is of course, plants. No wonder you want people to go out and shoot them. Kill the animals, the plants thrive for awhile. But the truth is without animals, your precious plants wouldn't be here and vice-versa. Most importantly we wouldn't be here if either one of them wasn't here. We need both of them to survive but what I find funny is that they don't need us to survive.


If by "your field" you are reffering specifically to animals, then no I'm not directly in it. However, I'm in the wider field of conservation/ecology which includes animals. You see, they aren't really that different because they are so directly linked. And no that's a ridicilous thing to say, I don't support hunting for that reason at all. I just support hunting that's done in a humane way (so no fox hunting) that's done upon wild populations of animals which have spun miles out of control because they have either been introduced or their natural predator has been removed. To say that I don't want plants killed is very silly, as lots of plants need to be killed or eaten as that keeps up their vigour and ability to keep flowering. Besides, too many plants would choke everything else out. I look at the issue from an entire conservationist/ecological perspective. You see it mainly from the view of the animals.

Remus wrote:
1: (Either the natural predator has been removed) This is mostly likely due to human intervention in the first place.
2: (Letting populations explode uncontrolled) As I have been trying to get across on this debate, this is nothing but natural occurance, it's supposed to happen and it's controlled naturally to.
3: (Foreign species have been introduced in areas where there are no natural predators to
control their population sizes) Again, down to our involvement so our fault.

I agree on number 1 and 3. We shouldn't of meddle in the first place but I suppose we have a duty to put things right again for the native species in that area unless of course, it's a natural invasive species like the Canadian Geese who have every right to invade another species territory. However, number 2 is a perfectly natural cycle and we should not mess. If we continue to intervene with species, it will just lead to more species going extinct. Ecosystems can be rebuilt, species cannot. We don't need to be a natural predator because we have choice, free will and some of say no. If you ask me, massive intervention is nothing more than trying to playing God.


You have missed the point yet again with 2. Almost all animal species in the world which have become pests have achieved that status because they are either introduced to an area which has no predators or because their natural predator has been removed. Thus it is necessary to hunt them and control their population. Australia is an excellent example of this, as are parts of America where bears and wolves have been permanently exterminated, which has allowed certain species of mammals to reproduce with no restrictions and become pests, not only to humans but to other animals and plants in the habitat too. And yes it is people's fault to start with that those situations exist, but at the same time we have to try and put it right.


Remus wrote:To me, culture is nothing more that society's many ways of influencing us. We can simply choose to ignore it if we wish. For me, culture brings nothing new to the table. I like to stay on the raw topic. True, it is a public forum but it is also a support group and I think some people have lost sight of that recently.


Funnily enough, this country's "animal loving" culture and all the associated animal welfare ads have had a profound impact on you. That is a part of this country's culture. I 100% guarantee you if we didn't have that culture, this country wouldn't be a pioneer of animal love and animal rights like it is today. And if much of America didn't have such a strongly built in hunting culture then America wouldn't be a major centre of hunting.

Remus wrote:
Now you just twisting my words into something else. Believe me, I didn't say things like that but in the very unlikely situation I did due to miswording, I would never say things like that and if I did, I blame tiredness. After all, I have been debating on this topic for ages now and it's quite draining. I eat chicken about two times a week and that comes from free range farms. That's it. I used to eat a lot more but those animal welfare videos took their toll.


I didn't twist your words-it's what you said. But if you misworded yourself because you were tired then I accept that. By the way, I advise you on the fact that animal welfare videos are notorious for their exxageration of the situations which they present and they certainly don't represent how the majority of animals are treated. (That is unless those animals are from non organic/free range farms). PETA, for example, have been in and out of court numerous times because of allegations that they have distorted both their videos an the information which they give to the public. If meat comes from an organic or free range farm, then you can guarantee that is has been treated well and killed in a humane manner.

Remus wrote:Wow. Well I'll give you one thing, you were right about people being predators. Ruthless and cold-hearted ones at that. How those can people live like that with that on their conscious? They are denying their own emotions. I mean when I'm doing something I hate and know is wrong, I stop but those people... You may see that as a bit of remorse for their actions but to me, that's nothing more their guilty consciouses trying to masked the issue by put the "oh, it was humane" excuse on it. What annoys me the most is that most people who hunt don't need to and can go to the supermarket like the rest of us. But no, there would rather kill a wild animal themselves then to spend a few bucks at the supermarket.


To them (and most people, actually) it's not "wrong", therefore why would they feel remorse? That iswhere culture comes into play. The chap which I mentioned, like many Americans from the South and the Midwestern states, don't constantly have animal welfare videos shovved down their throats. Nor do they have constant door step visits by the RSPCA. Instead, they get adverts and TV ads from people like the National Rifle Association and all sorts of different hunting organisations. And as I've mentioned before, most of the Americans from these regions get taken on hunts at a very young age-I've heard it can be as young as 5-and thus they grow up with it and don't see it as "wrong". They see it as a natural tradition and part of their culture. And also, to them it's not strictly about the food they get from that animal. It's also because it's seen as a fun, traditional activity that's part of the culture, and I have been told several times (and have read it too) that many Americans who hunt also do it because they genuinly enjoy hunting. Going on weekly hunts is the same to them as you or I going to the cinema on a saturday night. Also, humans hunted animals for a very long time before we domesticated them. The reason we have such big brains in comparison to most other animals is because of all the animal protein our ancestors ate. So to be honest, if we wern't "cruel" and didn't committ "barbaric acts" then we wouldn't be as advanced and as intelligent as we are today.
Dino
Member
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 8:50 pm

Re: Vegitarianism And The Slaughter Of Animals For Human Use

Postby parnassus » Tue Jan 26, 2010 10:49 am

Remus,

I can see that you're upset about this, but I think you are starting to presume a bit too much now - nowhere in this previous posts has Dino given any indication that he supports hunting for the sake of keeping plants alive. As he says himself, that would be a rather strange and illogical position to take. I think your passion for the subject is leading you to get a bit paranoid in your thinking.

I'm also a bit perturbed by your comparison of hunting to genocide. Genocide literally means 'killing of people', and it applies only to a very specific kind of killing - the attempt to eradicate a group of people based on a characteristic that they share, such as their ethnic origin. The Nazi mass murder of Jews was a genocide, because their aim was to eradicate all Jews worldwide. The same applies to the slaughter of Tutsi people in Rwanda - they were killed purely because they were Tutsi, and because their Hutu killers believed them to be inferior. Hunters do not go out with the specific intention of wiping out all the Canada geese in the world, on the grounds that geese are inferior to all other animals and deserve to die. I think that killing an animal just for sport is wrong, but I wouldn't compare a hunter who goes out and shoots birds that he doesn't intend to eat to the perpetrator of a genocide. That does diminish the suffering of genocide victims.

Dino,

I'm still very unsure about the arguments you're making from culture. What you say about the wide distribution of people who hunt in the US is true, but the areas where they live are much more sparsely populated than the cities. The fact that people who hunt are spread over a wider geographical area does not mean that they have more cultural influence. As these huge stretches of forest and field are well-stocked with animal life, hunting for food in rural America is practical in a way that it is no longer in rural England. This surely has more to do with space and the availability of edible animals than culture. The argument that British people are exposed to more animal welfare advertisements than Americans does not make sense to me either, especially as you yourself mention PETA in your post - they're American-based and they publicise themselves very widely. It's hard for me to imagine that most Americans won't have heard of them. The US also has its equivalent to the RSPCA, the American Animal Welfare Society. It is much less controversial than PETA and it has a nationwide presence. It was even set up with the aid of the US government, so it's difficult to argue that Americans have limited exposure to these ideas.

The same applies to China. I was in the Oriental Museum yesterday and interestingly enough, there was a whole exhibition on animals in Chinese artwork. The explanatory texts talked about how in Chinese culture different animals are linked with different qualities and attributes, and feature often in artwork because of this. I asked one of the museum specialists about the use of the character 'moving things' to describe animals, and whether it suggests that animals were not truly alive. He had never heard of this interpretation before and found it very strange. He pointed out that the Chinese character for inanimate things that move (transport, etc.) is completely different, so life and sentience are definitely implied in the character for animals. It was difficult to look round that art gallery and come away with the impression that Chinese people have no understanding or respect for animals, and need to be 'educated' by Western animal welfare organisations.

As for the role of Hinduism and Buddhism in shaping attitudes towards animals in the Far East, Buddhism was introduced to China in the first century AD. Hinduism in Nepal is far older than that. I don't think it's possible to argue that in Nepal and China there are hostile cultural attitudes towards animals that have survived for thousands of years, in spite of the influence that these two religions have had. Your explanation for the vegetarianism of Chinese Buddhist monks does not make much sense to me either. Most Buddhists are allowed to accept meat if it has been offered to them by other people, on the condition that it is 'triply-clean' (not killed specifically for the use of the monks). This is so that they do not cause embarrassment to the people who have given them food. The basis for accepting meat is a sutra (Buddhist scripture) in which the Buddha himself is shown eating meat that was given to him as alms. While most schools of Buddhism accept this sutra, the Mahayana Buddhists of China and Korea dismiss it as inauthentic. Most Buddhists in China and Korea are strictly vegetarian as a result, even if people donate meat to them.

Arguing that they only live like this because there is shame attached to begging publicly and not because they believe in compassion towards animals is actually quite insulting to them. You're making out that they're not capable of thinking beyond the confines of their culture - or what you think is their culture. It is possible to grow up in a a culture where hunting is prevalent without accepting it yourself. The norms of your society don't prevent you from reaching your own conclusions, and suggesting otherwise can actually cause us to slip into racism without meaning to - I got a bit uncomfortable when I read about Western welfare organisations having to educate the Chinese, who apparently don't understand that animals feel pain. The concept of animal welfare is a lot older in China than it is in this country, even though China's track record for animal welfare is very poor. I think it's important to ask ourselves whether it would be as poor if there weren't such a demand for dubious 'traditional' medicines in the West, where people who live in desperate poverty are paid a pittance to slaughter bears and extract the bile for the use of health junkies over here. As with other global welfare concerns, the issue of animal rights is more complex than the 'culture' argument makes it sound.
"This above all, to thine own self be true." - Polonius, Hamlet.
parnassus
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5883
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 8:10 pm
Location: Over here

Re: Vegitarianism And The Slaughter Of Animals For Human Use

Postby Dino » Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:45 pm

You should read this article, which explores the concept of Chinese Buddhist monks and nuns being vegetarians. I think it basically explains everything that I've been trying to say (i.e. that Chinese Buddhist monks are vegetarians because of the Chinese culture and not because of their religion, which does permit eating meat in some cases). It also explains how Chinese Buddhism has adapted and has been influenced by the Chinese culture. http://chaxiubao.typepad.com/chaxiubao/ ... dhism.html

As for the issue of hunting in America, I can't speak for myself as I havn't been there, but I know several people who have been to the Midwest and South regions of the USA. All of them say the same thing: that the local newspapers and media are all very local, and deal with local issues. In fact, they all proclaimed shock and disbelief that the whole time they were there not one report was published on Iraq or Afghanistan. Contrast that to here, when we hear about Iraq and Afganistan virtually every day. There was also never any mention of what was going on in Washington D.C. One of the people actually described it as if the people there "lived in a bubble with no knowledge of what was going on nationally in America or in the world". However, one feature which consistently featured heavily was articles about local hunters, including articles from the National Rifle Association and various hunting groups. At the same time, ads from PETA and other similar organisations were not seen once. Things work differently in America to do the way things do here. States control their own media, and thus there are literally hundreds of daily newspapers in the USA and dozens of local television channels. In this country, on the other hand, we have roughly a dozen newspapers which are published nationally and local newspapers are not that highly regarded. The number of local channels which people have are also very limited-in fact, I'm not sure if I have any in my region. And as there is such a high regard for freedom of speech in America, media outlets there write whatever they like to write about and don't feel obliged about anything. This means that in the hunting regions of America, stories about hunting feature very heavily whereas stories about PETA and the suffering of animals do not. This is what I have been trying to say in my previous post when I said that people in the hunting regions of America do not get heavy exposure to animal welfare ads like they do here.

As for China and the Chinese attitude towards animals, I would still reccomend you read "Shark Fin and Sichuan Pepper" by Fuchsia Dunlop. (Which you can get via her website, which is here: http://www.fuchsiadunlop.com/ ) She explores animals in Chinese culture in great detail within it, and while I am aware that she may be wrong, she offers substantial evidence to back up her claims, and to date I have not seen a more comprehensive review of why the Chinese people treat animals in the way they do.
Dino
Member
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 8:50 pm

Re: Vegitarianism And The Slaughter Of Animals For Human Use

Postby Remus » Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:29 pm

That's it. I've had enough. I'm sick of this board as well as not being listen to. I'm only going to say one more time:

Overpopulation cannot occur. The species hits the critical mark when it is no longer sustainable and then the population decreases until it's reach a safe, sustainable level. FACT. It's a natural cycle. Us going around shooting just lowers the numbers even more and serve no purpose whatsoever.

I'm tired of coming on here, to once I place I considered to be a very helpful and kind support group but no longer. I'm tired of coming on here and getting attacked constantly without rest. I took that week break to relax and hoped to come back to a quiet, relaxed forum but no such luck. It's hard enough trying to be a zookeeper with dyspraxia with the whole physical side but what makes it more difficult is people like you who make our jobs impossible. I can take the whole disturbed freaks who stick guinea pigs in microwaves because we know they just evil but I can't take people like you who are intelligent and know right and wrong but still decide to pick the wrong side.

I'm off now for good because I'm literally drowning in this poisonous, negative atmosphere. But I will leave you with one last scenario:

One day, the human race is going to reach the same critical mark and no longer been sustainable and carnage will pursue either way. But what do you do?

A: Starve and fight for yourself and your family and help others to survive.

or

B: You allow mass genocide to take place.

I know which one I would prefer and I know is more fairer. Take whatever option you chose and put yourself in the animal position. Why it should be any different for the animal world, I don't no.
Image
User avatar
Remus
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5395
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm
Location: Luxvia, Austria, The Machine, lol! :D

Re: Vegitarianism And The Slaughter Of Animals For Human Use

Postby k9ruby » Tue Jan 26, 2010 5:43 pm

The above post really saddens me. It saddens me that someone has been made to feel unwelcome here. :(
Image
User avatar
k9ruby
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2379
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2004 4:00 pm

Re: Vegitarianism And The Slaughter Of Animals For Human Use

Postby Dino » Tue Jan 26, 2010 6:02 pm

Remus, I'm a bit confused as to why you feel this way. Perhaps you took this debate personally-but you shouldn't have, debates aren't supposed to be taken personally. There are no bad feelings from my side at all, and in all my posts I've never been rude to you (like Brian has). I'm really sad that you've been made to feel unwelcome because of this one thread, especially as you've been around for so long and seem to be one of the main posters here. And now I feel bad because I'm obviously the one who's made you feel unwelcome. :/
Dino
Member
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 8:50 pm

Re: Vegitarianism And The Slaughter Of Animals For Human Use

Postby Remus » Fri Jan 29, 2010 12:58 am

You confused because you don't know me. Anybody who really does know me, knows I'm quite warm hearted and I literally takes things to heart which is an awful trait in one aspect but I wouldn't change it for anything. No, we debate about real life topics on here and sometimes people are just bound to get upset regardless. So I'm not going to apologize for being upset over people agree with wonderful species I've had to pleasure to work with to been hunted down for the most unnecessary reasons.

But you shouldn't feel bad, it was my fault. I should have just stayed away from the debate forum as I always do but no I had to be an dumbass as soon I saw it was to do with animals and I got involved straight away and if it hadn't, this whole drama would have never of occurred. But in a way I'm glad I stepped in because if I didn't it would just make me a coward and a disgrace to my profession.

Vicky, if it one thing I don't like, it is my own personal issues being chucked in my face. I have made it clear on this forum before, paranoid thinking is a big issue for me especially when I'm tired and stressed and to throw that one at me, I don't appreciate it. But, can you blame for being a little paranoid? This board has gone on for awhile now, never resting. There has been many times when I have just want to come onto board to relax and chill but I can't because there is one more post on the debate which I just can't let slide.

Now whether I stay on DT or not, I don't know because one, I'm one of the most indecisive people ever and secondly, I'm too stressed right now to even think about it. One thing I would like to clear up though is before I vanish again is please don't think I don't care about humans as much as I do animals but that's just untrue. I care about human losses just as much as animal ones. Have a look at this:

http://www.all-creatures.org/cash/accid ... ve.html#sh

Just look at all the people dead or seriously injured just because they decided to hunt. Now I could be a really cold hearted you know what and say they deserved it but I won't. It was partly their fault but it also our fault for not trying hard enough. We should of campaigned hard enough, maybe them change their minds about hunting and if we did, they might still be here but sadly not. So, don't ever say I only ever see it from animals view because I don't.
Image
User avatar
Remus
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5395
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm
Location: Luxvia, Austria, The Machine, lol! :D

Re: Vegitarianism And The Slaughter Of Animals For Human Use

Postby parnassus » Fri Jan 29, 2010 11:03 am

Remus wrote:Vicky, if it one thing I don't like, it is my own personal issues being chucked in my face. I have made it clear on this forum before, paranoid thinking is a big issue for me especially when I'm tired and stressed and to throw that one at me, I don't appreciate it. But, can you blame for being a little paranoid?


I don't blame you for being paranoid, and I wasn't trying to throw this difficulty in your face. You know that paranoid thinking is quite a common problem on here, and everybody has been supportive to you about your share of it in the past. It is not likely that I would start criticising you for it now. It is just that you seemed to be getting more upset with each passing post, and I was hoping to give you pause for thought. Sometimes in this forum it's good to stop and think calmly about what you're saying before you speak, and it seems that you have got to the point where you are so stressed that you can't do that as well as you might do ordinarily. This is why I tried to draw your attention to it. It wasn't a criticism.

I don't think anybody here doubts that you care for human beings. You've demonstrated that in all your posts on DT. It would be a shame to leave a place where you've made friends because something has happened to hurt you. I have been upset by posts in the debate forum on a couple of occasions, but as I know that everybody is prone to misunderstandings and it is nearly always possible to find something I like about people, it doesn't trouble me for long.
"This above all, to thine own self be true." - Polonius, Hamlet.
parnassus
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5883
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 8:10 pm
Location: Over here

Re: Vegitarianism And The Slaughter Of Animals For Human Use

Postby Brian » Fri Jan 29, 2010 7:38 pm

Remus wrote:I'm tired of coming on here, to once I place I considered to be a very helpful and kind support group but no longer. I'm tired of coming on here and getting attacked constantly without rest.


Just because some one doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they are attacking you. I have been so called attacked by you and dan until Dino came along if you wanted to put it that way.

Remus wrote: I took that week break to relax and hoped to come back to a quiet, relaxed forum but no such luck.


Your choice but it backfired.

Remus wrote:It's hard enough trying to be a zookeeper with dyspraxia with the whole physical side but what makes it more difficult is people like you who make our jobs impossible.


Stop making excuses if you want it bad enough you will not let dyspraxia get in your way of being a zookeeper.

Remus wrote:I can take the whole disturbed freaks who stick guinea pigs in microwaves because we know they just evil but I can't take people like you who are intelligent and know right and wrong but still decide to pick the wrong side.


Completely off topic
Talking is a sign of strength and not weakness

Help is always available and can be found here: http://www.dyspraxicteens.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=8414
Brian
Splendiferous Member
 
Posts: 603
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 12:25 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: Vegitarianism And The Slaughter Of Animals For Human Use

Postby parnassus » Fri Jan 29, 2010 11:01 pm

Remus is upset. People are rarely at their most logical when they're upset. I don't think it is achieving anything to dissect his posts and make confrontational comments.

That's enough.
"This above all, to thine own self be true." - Polonius, Hamlet.
parnassus
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5883
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 8:10 pm
Location: Over here

Previous

Return to Debate Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron