torsdag 28 februari 2013

The domestication of animals started 10000 – 15000 years ago, was propagated by Torah and later on Christianity – and now you see terrible animal abuse and slavery by humans of more than 57 billion land animals per year and more than 1000 billion marine animals each year.


Why would you ever want to eat a product that causes disease, see the research behind: http://www.adelicatebalance.com.au/
Why would you ever want to eat a products that causes animal such cruelty: http://www.earthlings.com/
Why would you ever want to eat a product which cause cows and their babies to be separated:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rg3Yfdbs24I&feature=player_embedded

Or eggs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wu5RrqMTUtM
The domestication of animals started 10000 – 15000 years ago, was propagated by Torah and later on 
Christianity – and now you see terrible animal abuse and slavery by humans of more than 57 billion land animals per year and more than 1000 billion marine animals each year.
All of this is a result by claiming that animals are “property”.

“Almost all animals will eat dairy products but none of them hav the capability to make cheese or milk another animal.”

A capability doesn’t make it moral.

“What the author doesn't focus on is our ability to inflict almost no pain at all pain when shecting an animal. “

You can kill human animals also without almost any pain. It doesn’t make it ethical. Cows are enslaved all their life. We can live symbiotic with animals wild in the nature. We can’t live symbiotic with animals if we force upon them a confined lifestyle on our conditions.

“Perhaps the author sees nothing symbiotic in domesticating milk animals in exchange for their protection.”
I don’t see any symbiotic in draining a cow on her calcium and to take the milk that the calf needs.
Cows love their children as much as you love yours: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vcQ6yBEE5N0
It is not ethical to deprive the cows on the most precious that they have – their relationship with their family and their life.

Think of this:
1. The imposition of suffering on any sentient being requires an adequate moral justification and pleasure, amusement, or convenience cannot suffice as adequate to justify imposing suffering on any sentient being
2. The most “humane” animal agriculture involves considerable suffering imposed on sentient beings
3. As a general matter, our best (and only) justification for eating animal products is pleasure, amusement, or convenience
4. Therefore: We cannot morally justify eating animal products
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/moral-concern-moral-impulse-and-logical-argument-in-animal-rights-advocacy/#.US-3TVeFnQJ

8 kommentarer:

  1. You have yet to prove imposition of suffering on domesticated animals.

    The tree that has a knot has a mechanism of defense and an ability to sense something that attacks it. How can you eat it's fruit that would potentially grow to be another tree? How do you know it is not sentient and the animal is? Is the tree and the plant and the animal not alive? You now have nothing to eat. You can't even eat rotting meat or garbage of any kind because you would be taking the fly's food. Such suffering we put the fly through. Congratulations. Now you can die of starvation peacefully and reverse this endless cycle of suffering. Just remove yourself from the equation and everything will be the way it should be.





    SvaraRadera
  2. "You have yet to prove imposition of suffering on domesticated animals. "
    Please watch the movies that I referred you to.

    Plants are not sentient:
    http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/a-frequently-asked-question-what-about-plants/

    Please also read this article: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animal-emotions/201208/scientists-finally-conclude-nonhuman-animals-are-conscious-beings

    SvaraRadera
  3. Please give a scientific reference. You are referencing a blog.

    SvaraRadera
  4. Eliyahu,
    You can easily find the scientific reference yourself by reading the article on the blog.

    SvaraRadera
  5. Maybe the URL will load for you. It doesn't for me. But it will probably not say what you want it to just like the Yale course didn't verify your conclusions.

    SvaraRadera
  6. URL, try again: Link.

    2. " just like the Yale course didn't verify your conclusions."
    You carefully read all the lectures and the books it referred to?

    Which conclusions? What statement are you referring to?
    The Torah's unsubstantiated view of animals contradicts with human intuition that it is morally wrong to cause other sentient beings unnecessary pain.

    I don't need Yale-lectures to understand that the Torah is heavily influenced by its authors understanding of the world, but the lectures was one of the tools that made me start thinking instead of assuming that Torah is the truth (and, no, the reasoning on the Netzarim-website doesn't prove this).

    How do you know that the Torah's commandments weren't heavily influenced by its authors understanding of the world, including the beliefs of the culture that they lived in? People usually work in that way - that the events and "miracles" they encounter confirm their way of thinking.

    SvaraRadera
  7. I read every course in the "old testament" Yale course of Christine Hayes. Did you? And the books? What kind of question is that? Did you read the books?

    The conclusion was to reject that the Torah is the best and most concise instruction manual for life.

    "The Torah's unsubstantiated view of animals contradicts with human intuition that it is morally wrong to cause other sentient beings unnecessary pain."

    The Torah does not contradict that it is morally wrong to cause another animal or human unnecessary pain. But the Torah is unequivocal that the earth was created for man and animals are for his use. Can you work out a logic statement from that? Man use's animals but does not cause animal unnecessary pain.
    What is human intuition? Your intuition, my intuition? Is it a majority ruling? And what is the Torah's unsubstantiated view? This is not about Torah. You forget that David the King would have executed a man for killing a lamb that was dear to another man. I suppose that part of Torah you exclude. Or the story of the "angel" that would have killed Bilaam and spared his donkey. Why is it even permitted to ride a horse? How do we know what the horse feels about that or maybe your intuition tells you?

    You should know better as a computer programmer. You know how complex a program can be and how mistakes and omissions can cause warnings and a program not to run at all. So suddenly animals are equal to humans. Not just cruelty and mistreatment of animals which was addressed thousands of years ago. I doubt you have even read one research paper on the difference between a rain forest and a grassy plain when it comes to the real effects on the ecosystem. You had trouble understanding caloric intake with vegetables and bread until you looked at some numbers on the internet. But I have not seen any numbers in your posts besides those that would take weeks or an expert to verify. You grab data from any website that agrees with your premise, a premise based on human intuition.

    The URL still doesn't load after trying twice again. Maybe Chrome is the problem.

    Of course Torah's commandments were influenced by it's authors. Why must you try and remove man from this equation? Your reasoning and anyone you read that you happen to agree with is better than Torah, why? It's still human reasoning, but is it based on an objective discrete mathematical logic?

    How many times have you tried to input your data into a logic equation and found it to be true? Let's see it. Your preference or opinion is all that seems to matter to you. You have built into your opinion a fiction that an animal is equal to a human when they are clearly not. You have imagined that an animal has rights when apart from morality, which is what the Torah is, a man has no rights. It is the Torah that says not to boil a kid in it's mother's milk, which is a clear direction not to be cruel to animals. But that is not good enough for you. Nature allows for the killing of animals for food but that you do not allow. If animals and humans were equal you would need to hunt down all predators animals and keep them from killing for food. But all animals are clearly not equal, nor do they feel like humans nor love their families.

    SvaraRadera