VeggieBoards banner

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,009 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Okay, so I got into yet another debate on that other board I post on. I know, I know...why do I even bother.<br><br><br><br>
Anyway, it was a thread about Europe, and if Europe is anti-semitic. One guy (who hates Europe, hates ARA's, hates feminists, hates liberal, etc) quoted some article about European protests against kosher slaughtering. He says this is proof that Europe is anti-semitic.<br><br><br><br>
So I pointed out that objecting to a religion's practices concerning animals, does not make you anti-whatever. It just means that you are concerned about cruelty towards animals.<br><br><br><br>
I used an example about female gential mutilation. I object to FGM, and want it to be stopped. Does that mean that I am racist against cultures that practice it? (instead of answering me, he got all indignant that I would DARE compare suffering in humans to suffering in animals)<br><br><br><br>
Anywho, as it appears that I can't have a nice debate about religion and ethics over there, I thought I'd ask all of you.<br><br><br><br>
Can you object the practices of a religion or culture (concerning treatment of animals, women, children etc) without being labelled prejudiced or racist? When should one accept certain religious and cultural practices and when should one protest them?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
295 Posts
The logic seems flawed that if one is opposed to a partiular practice of a group that that implies that one is against the entire group. I can understand Kosher practices and respect the reasons behind them. But I am against all slaughter, whether Kosher or non. I think one can be opposed to an action within a group and not be opposed to the group as a whole or not be opposed to the reasons behind the action.<br><br><br><br>
And when someone is indignant over you comparing animal suffering to human suffering, well... I usually just walk away at that point because we are on two totally different pages, will never agree, and if the person is indignant, then there's no space to debate respectfully.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,612 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block"><i>Originally posted by SilverC</i><br><br><b>When should one accept certain religious and cultural practices and when should one protest them?</b></div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
In every case where it does not infringe on anyone else's freedoms it has to be tolerated. When a belief system imposes on another's freedom, it has to be protested.<br><br><br><br>
(that's my $.02)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,612 Posts
DAMMIT VAL!!! I wanted to be the first to respond to a thread on religion and ethics!!!!<br><br><br><br><img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/wink3.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=";)">
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,146 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block"><i>Originally posted by SilverC</i><br><br><b><br><br><br><br>
So I pointed out that objecting to a religion's practices concerning animals, does not make you anti-whatever. It just means that you are concerned about cruelty towards animals.<br><br><br><br></b></div>
</div>
<br><br><br><b>Word.</b> This reminds me of when people say that killing animals is okay if you kill them like the Native Americans did (e.g., the Makah whale hunt). That attitude just perpetuates the "noble savage" stereotype, like Native American cultures are so backwards that they only know how to hunt and "thank the animal's spirit." (I wonder, does the animal ever say, "You're welcome"?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,612 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block"><i>Originally posted by Verbivore</i><br><br><b>Word. This reminds me of when people say that killing animals is okay if you kill them like the Native Americans did (e.g., the Makah whale hunt).</b></div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
I don't know if I would really cast a negative light on the animal usage practices of Original Peoples. I mean, besides being an apologetic white(ish) male, I just have to respect that they had a respect for the Earth rivalled only by ancient pagan traditions. The attitutude of the OP hunter was, in a nutshell, kill only what you need, and use all that you killed. To that end, a number of references to white hunters as "the great wasters" and the such can be found in OP historical narratives. When hunting, only the "middle aged" buffalo would be targetted, meaning only those that were too old to mate but still not too old to be useful to the tribe, thus ensuring the health of the overall herd. Just like the buffalo, themselves, who migrated according to where their prey was in most abundance, the OP hunter tribes lived and travelled to follow the herd as their livelihood depended on the livelihood of the herd.<br><br><br><br>
Vegetarian or not, they lived in a manner that completely fit in to a natural role on Earth. They got it right, and if it was still that way, today, we'd have far less polution, land errosion, starvation, farm failures, and so on, and I probably wouldn't feel the need to be vegetarian, myself.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
0 Posts
Unfortunately, since we've pretty much hunted so many types of whales to the verge of extinction, it's hard to step back and see any kind of whaling as "natural" now, regardless of who is doing it. <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/sad.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=":(">
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,009 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
<br><br>
It's a Lord of the Rings discussion board: Council-of-elrond.com<br><br><br><br>
Here's the links to the two threads that concern animal rights:<br><br><br><br><a href="http://www.council-of-elrond.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=694" target="_blank">http://www.council-of-elrond.com/for...=&threadid=694</a> <--- about PETA and ARs in general. Trying to convince them that all ARA's are not like the ALF, not really getting anywhere though <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=":rolleyes:"><br><br><br><br><a href="http://www.council-of-elrond.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=380&perpage=30&pagenumber=9" target="_blank">http://www.council-of-elrond.com/for...0&pagenumber=9</a> <---one about anti-semitism in Europe, this is the page where he started about the animal right's objection<br><br><br><br>
I am the only ARA who posts, and it's getting kind of old. Everyone else is either for animal welfare, or thinks that humans can do whatever they want to animals. Fun! <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/tongue3.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=":p"> The attitude is definately hostile towards ARA's.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,902 Posts
Funny that it is a LOTR discussion board. If Hobbits and Elves were real, humans would probably say, "Not genetically human, let's do what we want."<br><br><br><br>
ETA-<br><br>
I scrolled through the first 1.5 pages. It looks as though just one or two people seem convinced that all AR's are like PETA. It seems like all you can say is that PETA is the AR's answer to Jerry Falwell. Not taken very seriously by long term Ar's. Then maybe link to some of those other AR groups someone mentioned, like IDA, Farm Sanctuary, and maybe include some others, like Animal Legal Defense Fund, Compassion Over Killing, and Vegan Outreach. That's about all you can do.<br><br><br><br>
It's funny when people say as one person did on that board, that they will take AR's more seriously when they stop using leather. I hear this sort of thing all the time, "They hate fur? I bet they eat hamburgers, I bet they wear leather shoes."<br><br><br><br>
Um, no, they don't. Some people don't realize there are a lot of people against all of this stuff.<br><br><br><br>
ETA (again) Read some more of the thread. I think you are letting yourself get caught up in the unsolvable areas of philosophy that are not worth arguing about. It would make more sense to instead just re-emphasize that when it comes to suffering, animals <i>are</i> equals, and whatever anyone may argue about is man part of nature, etc., if we can avoid purposely causing suffering in this world, why not?<br><br><br><br>
Also, that "man is a predator thing." Yeah, if everyone hunted with their bare hands. Most people I know eat met from animals raised on a factory farm by people they've never met, using machines. Doesn't sound like a "natural predator to me".<br><br><br><br>
If everyone were a predator like a cougar (or even just hunted with guns) I think either we'd all be eating a lot less meat, or our population would sharply drop after we hunted off all of the wild, non farmed animals.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,009 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
LOL!! I can just hear them now! "We have a right to use elves anyway we want because they are inferior. ERA (elf rights activists) are just anthropomorphizing and are over emotional!" <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/tongue3.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=":p"><br><br><br><br>
Yeah, I know Thalia. Nothing I say is going to make a difference, and I feel like I am just repeating myself most of the time. I tried to stay away from that thread. It is actually a newer thread, there was a system crash, and the site was rebuilt. At the old site, they were saying that all ARA's were like white supremists and child pornographers! It is basically just 3 or 4 guys, but they just get under my skin!<br><br><br><br>
I support PETA, but I did mention that there are a lot of ARA's who do not. I'm trying to get across that ARA's have a lot of different views on a lot of different issues, but they keep coming back with the whole ARA's are terrorists thing. Sigh.<br><br><br><br>
Anyways, I'd like to link to various other ARA sites, but the site has strict rules on what you are allowed to post to. I got in trouble a few times for posting a PETA link.<br><br><br><br><div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">if we can avoid purposely causing suffering in this world, why not?<br></div>
</div>
<br>
Exactly my thoughts! Why should we continue to do things out of tradition that cause suffering, when all it would take is a little reworking to accomplish the same things without causing suffering?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,146 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block"><i>Originally posted by Max Power</i><br><br><b><br><br><br><br>
Vegetarian or not, they lived in a manner that completely fit in to a natural role on Earth. They got it right, and if it was still that way, today, we'd have far less polution, land errosion, starvation, farm failures, and so on, and I probably wouldn't feel the need to be vegetarian, myself.</b></div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
There's a fine line between respecting and romanticizing OP. I'm going to PC hell for this, but humans are humans, and we're all capable of doing the wrong thing. I guess one's POV depends on your reasons for being a vegetarian. Hunting is certainly easier on the environment than factory farming is, but the I way see it is, the animal doesn't care about the ethnicity of the person doing the killing.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,612 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block"><i>Originally posted by Verbivore</i><br><br><b>[...]but the I way see it is, the animal doesn't care about the ethnicity of the person doing the killing.</b></div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
Agreed. Believing in a more individual responsibility to animals makes it hard to defend any practice that hurts any animal in any way. But I think it is fair to say that there are degrees to which cultures, on a more macrocosmic level, affect the environment, and modern society is by far the worst when compared to OP, romanticized or not.<br><br><br><br>
That an animal "cares" about its killer is kind of hard to consider as an argument, anyway, because it just doesn't matter. It's inconcievable and thus moot whether an animal has the ability to differentiate between species of predator, let-alone the ethnicity. What matters is what the culture affecting the animal cares about, and the OP culture (realistically, NOT romantically) cared far more about environmental aestheticism as any culture on this continent since.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,902 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block"><i>Originally posted by Verbivore</i><br><br><b>There's a fine line between respecting and romanticizing OP. I'm going to PC hell for this, but humans are humans, and we're all capable of doing the wrong thing. I guess one's POV depends on your reasons for being a vegetarian. Hunting is certainly easier on the environment than factory farming is, but the I way see it is, the animal doesn't care about the ethnicity of the person doing the killing.</b></div>
</div>
<br>
Another thing I wonder about is what percent of people who qualify under say, whaling allowances for native peoples, are actually doing it out of necessessity and are actually living like their ancestors? I can just imagine some guy with a Native American last name getting a special permit and starting a big whaling company. I have no idea if this is possible according to these kinds of laws, but I think part of our romanticizing lets us forget that some of these groups may be more modern than we imagine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,785 Posts
I have a problem with native people, looking at their clocks on the wall, realizing it's time for "the hunt", turning off their T.V. sets, getting in their cars and driving to the seashore...to kill a whale.<br><br>
I think they could find a better way to bond with their ancestors and each other.
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top