Guest guest Posted July 13, 2005 Report Share Posted July 13, 2005 On 7/13/05, Deanna Wagner <hl@...> wrote: > http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=34 > " Some people wonder if it's " unnatural " to omit meat from the diet of a > dog or cat. Animals in the wild commonly eat quite a lot of plant > matter. Besides, to feed them the meat that they would naturally eat, > you would have to serve them whole mice or birds or allow them to hunt > for themselves, an option that is unfair to native species of birds and > other small animals, since companion cats and dogs have been removed > from the food chain and have advantages that free-roaming animals lack. > Vegetarian or vegan dogs and cats enjoy their food and good health, and > a vegetarian diet for your companion animal is ethically consistent with > animal rights philosophy. " Domesticated animals enjoy " unfair competition " ? That's hilarious! They should be anti-trust lawyers for animals. I guess animals shouldn't have the " right " to hunt with their domesticated privileges... Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2005 Report Share Posted July 13, 2005 --- In , Deanna Wagner <hl@s...> wrote: > > >Do they advocate a vegetarian diet for cats? I know they do for dogs, > >and have seen it on tv. They recommended a diet based around steamed > >vegetables for dogs. > > > > > Yes they do. In fact, they say, since we can't give our companion > kitties live mice and birds (sez who <weg>), then we must give them > vegan fare, because commercial pet food is nasty. That's a false > dilemma if ever I saw one. Many WAPFers feed their furry pals raw grass > fed meat and other healthy, natural stuff. I give my cats some raw > meat, liver and heart, but with six of them, I can't afford to feed them > that exclusively. They get a natural cat food as well. > > Here's the lowdown from their website: > > http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=34 > " Some people wonder if it's " unnatural " to omit meat from the diet of a > dog or cat. Animals in the wild commonly eat quite a lot of plant > matter. Besides, to feed them the meat that they would naturally eat, > you would have to serve them whole mice or birds or allow them to hunt > for themselves, an option that is unfair to native species of birds and > other small animals, since companion cats and dogs have been removed > from the food chain and have advantages that free-roaming animals lack. > Vegetarian or vegan dogs and cats enjoy their food and good health, and > a vegetarian diet for your companion animal is ethically consistent with > animal rights philosophy. " > > >When I was younger, I ran into a few PETA folks at a Revolutionary > >Communist Party table that I was walking by. I was vegan at the time, > >and surprised that the PETA woman fed her cat tuna fish. She said she > >had to compromise her ideology because it was her (correct) > >understanding that cats couldn't synthesize an amino acid only found > >in animal products. > > > >Chris > > > Well, 'tis very true that indefinite, long term style veganism is an > ideal that one can never quite reach. You can't stop the killing of all > animals. Bugs will get squashed. And the whole idea that it is > unethical to kill for food flat out divorces us from the reality that > many animals kill for food. Is that unethical of them or us to eat in > order to survive? > > Anyhoo as a vegan, I fed my cats meaty foods, and I myself used wool and > leather (though I never bought leather whilst vegan). Why take away the > felines' natural diet and supplement unnatural food all to make yourself > feel like you are " ethical " doing so. Nonsensical. The PeTA website > speaks for itself. > > http://www.peta.org/ > > That said, animals should be treated humanely. 's typo was > probably more of a Freudian slip when he said, " Second, PETA is for the > human treatment of animals. " I think that quote may be true. > > > Deanna > > Deanna: All of this raises, in my opinion, an interesting or may be impertinent question: if mice and birds are the natural flesh foods for cats, what would the " natural " flesh foods be for humans? carlos Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2005 Report Share Posted July 13, 2005 > Here's the lowdown from their website: > > http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=34 " ...Besides, to feed them the meat that they would naturally eat, > you would have to serve them whole mice or birds or allow them to hunt > for themselves, an option that is unfair to native species of birds and > other small animals, since companion cats and dogs have been removed > from the food chain and have advantages that free-roaming animals lack. " What I wanna know is this: are you allowed to serve your cats/dogs the non-native, interloper birds and other small animals? B. /it's just, like, this glaring *loophole* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2005 Report Share Posted July 14, 2005 --- In , <harringtonwa@b...> wrote: > To my way of thinking being tip-top of the food chain is where no other > animal regularly sees you as dinner. The fact that humans can avoid the > other predators (most times) by using brain power makes us tip-top. > Correct me if I am wrong but even without technology, native tribes can > outsmart many predators. > > Can a monkey throw a stone? If he can, that is technology. The native or the " primitive " (whom I would rather call the " illiterate " ) also had their own technologies, even if they looked less sophisticated than ours. Modern men have simply been assembling the pieces. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2005 Report Share Posted July 14, 2005 On 7/14/05, <harringtonwa@...> wrote: > Primitive doesn't equate with illiterate, either! I think we've already > touched on this subject, too. Aren't Primives in many ways 'smarter' > than us? Depending on your definition of smarter anyway. ....And " illiterate " doesn't mean " stupid " either. Someone can be very smart, and still not know how to read. Or a population could be very successful, and not have a written language. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2005 Report Share Posted July 14, 2005 > > > Primitive doesn't equate with illiterate, either! I think we've already > > touched on this subject, too. Aren't Primives in many ways 'smarter' > > than us? Depending on your definition of smarter anyway. > > ...And " illiterate " doesn't mean " stupid " either. Someone can be very > smart, and still not know how to read. Or a population could be very > successful, and not have a written language. > > Chris But I never said or thought that " illiterate " means " stupid " . What I think is that the word " primitive " (at least in my own language) may sound more pejorative than " illiterate " . In fact, both can sound pejorative, but primitive carries it further, by associating itself with lack of refinement or even brutality. JC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2005 Report Share Posted July 14, 2005 > > > > > Can a monkey throw a stone? If he can, that is technology. The native > > or the " primitive " (whom I would rather call the " illiterate " ) also had > > their own technologies, even if they looked less sophisticated than > > ours. Modern men have simply been assembling the pieces. > > > Ummm......maybe could give us the definition of " technology " ? * Why ? He is silent, by the way. If I remember well, it was Mark (or maybe ) who first mentioned the word " technology " . > > Primitive doesn't equate with illiterate, either! I think we've already > touched on this subject, too. Aren't Primives in many ways 'smarter' > than us? * I believe so. At least there are no couch potatoes among the primitive. Depending on your definition of smarter anyway. Don't we have > evidence that they were at least happier? At least in the terms that > Price put it - without the degenerative societal problems that came with > the decline in our nutrition. Technology increase/health decrease. * As for happiness, I don't know. Perhaps a better word here would be bliss, which is, in my opinion, a sort of happiness of which you are not aware. Happiness, on the other hand, implies that you experience sadness now and then and that you are aware of the fragility of your actual condition. Suddenly everything can change. But certainly all the primitive people experienced fear, too. In fact, fear has always been around. José > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2005 Report Share Posted July 14, 2005 --- In , " mark robert " <colowe@i...> wrote: > Yup. Our (Human) technology puts us squarely on top, or anywhere > in between that we want. We don't HAVE to eat big game; we can > eat lower plants or microbes if we want. If it's not immediately > edible, we can often process it until it is. And it doesn't hurt > that we are omnivores. But it's our big brains (and resultant > technology) that are our main predatory weapons, and they are no > less of a natural adaptation than big sharp teeth or claws or > strong muscles or wings or gills or venom or speed etc. Big > brains are apparently superior to the defensive/offensive > adaptations of all top predators put together. Hi Mark: Excuse my poor English, but I find your approach very suggestive (not in the sexual direction, mind you). I have always thought along those lines without knowing it until I read your piece. Yes, to some extent, I think all our weapons, tools, our clothes, our houses, our languages, our cooked food etc - all of these are at bottom extensions of our body. Cheers, José > > > -Mark > > > > > > _____ > > > > Nope. Domestic cats. We feed them. Their eco-niche is the dent > they make > in the bed after sleeping there all afternoon. > > We really aren't the tip top. Our technology is what keeps other > animals > from eating us. Without that, big cats, hyenas and bears would > eat us. The > tip top of the food chain would be obligate carnivores that eat > other > carnivores. There aren't that many and they don't have that big > of an > effect on the food chain. Polar bears, killer whales, some birds > of prey. > The " top " of the food chain is more " way out there " than " the > acme " . > > It's not really all that great to be high up on the food chain. > Poisons > collect at the top of the food chain. The lower animals each get > a little > bit of pesticide or whatever. Whatever eats them gets that poison > multiplied > by the number of contaminated prey it eats. > > YR > > > > _____ > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2005 Report Share Posted July 14, 2005 > > > At least there are no couch potatoes among the > > primitive. > > I have read that in a study where they put Australian Aborigines back > into their natural environment and diet that they actually did less > work/exercise that previous to the study. Kangaroos must be easy to > catch! Or maybe the bush has such a plethora of goodies. I envy them. * I see. But in my mind a couch potato has no energy at all. I can't imagine an Aborogine lacking energy. > Out of all the ancient people I would like to have been in a past life, > I think Australian Aborigines and Native Americans are top of the list. > Mostly because they had such a spiritual connection to the universe. > Maybe that's something I need to work on in my life!? It's funny where > my musings have led me lately. * Being an Australian, what concrete experience have you had with the Aborigines? Do you think it is something relevant to tell us? Please. > > * As for happiness, I don't know. Perhaps a better word here would be > > bliss, which is, in my opinion, a sort of happiness of which you are > > not aware. Happiness, on the other hand, implies that you experience > > sadness now and then and that you are aware of the fragility of your > > actual condition. Suddenly everything can change. But certainly all > > the primitive people experienced fear, too. > > > > In fact, fear has always been around. > > yes definitely bliss. But not sure what you are getting at with > happiness. Do you mean that Primitives or premodern (?) peoples were > not aware of their condition? Surely, modern man is equally as unaware > on the whole? <puzzled look> > * Yes, you are right. Modern man has become sort of blind. Maybe in the Renaissance man was better and he is not that far, actually. Good day to you, . It is almost time to go to bed here. JC > > José > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2005 Report Share Posted July 14, 2005 > > > > > Can a monkey throw a stone? If he can, that is technology. The > native > > or the " primitive " (whom I would rather call the " illiterate " ) > also had > > their own technologies, even if they looked less sophisticated > than > > ours. Modern men have simply been assembling the pieces. > > > Ummm......maybe could give us the definition of > " technology " ? > > Primitive doesn't equate with illiterate, either! I think we've > already > touched on this subject, too. Aren't Primives in many ways > 'smarter' > than us? Depending on your definition of smarter anyway. Don't > we have > evidence that they were at least happier? At least in the terms > that > Price put it - without the degenerative societal problems that > came with > the decline in our nutrition. Technology increase/health > decrease. > > > > I would be interested in seeing this evidence of greater > happiness. Most of their babies died. > > > -Mark I am speculating, Mark. Maybe in those " golden " days the death of a baby was much less tragic than it is nowadays. To start with, a defective baby was not probably welcome. And then I think they could have as many children as they pleased, every year, whereas we usually can't afford to have more than 3 in most cases. But in any case it may be wrong to idealize that ancient world very much... Just my two cents' worth. José > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2005 Report Share Posted July 14, 2005 I'm trying to look for an > alternate word to happiness, but I still want to use that. Does anyone > get what I mean? Or am I being too idealistic? , Peace of mind. B. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2005 Report Share Posted July 14, 2005 --- In , " mark robert " <colowe@i...> wrote: ....Ants do not consciously refrain from > exhausting their environment. Were they to have their way, they > would take over the world, as would any species; as we have > largely done... > -Mark Argentine black ants, right? How I miss the horned toads of my youth! B. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2005 Report Share Posted July 15, 2005 > > > At least there are no couch potatoes among the > > primitive. > > I have read that in a study where they put Australian Aborigines > back > into their natural environment and diet that they actually did > less > work/exercise that previous to the study. Kangaroos must be easy > to > catch! Or maybe the bush has such a plethora of goodies. I envy > them. > Out of all the ancient people I would like to have been in a past > life, > I think Australian Aborigines and Native Americans are top of the > list. > Mostly because they had such a spiritual connection to the > universe. > Maybe that's something I need to work on in my life!? It's funny > where > my musings have led me lately. > > > * As for happiness, I don't know. Perhaps a better word here > would be > > bliss, which is, in my opinion, a sort of happiness of which > you are > > not aware. Happiness, on the other hand, implies that you > experience > > sadness now and then and that you are aware of the fragility of > your > > actual condition. Suddenly everything can change. But certainly > all > > the primitive people experienced fear, too. > > > > In fact, fear has always been around. > > yes definitely bliss. But not sure what you are getting at with > happiness. Do you mean that Primitives or premodern (?) peoples > were > not aware of their condition? Surely, modern man is equally as > unaware > on the whole? <puzzled look> > > > > > José > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _____ > > > > Romancing the distant past a little I'd say. Weather didn't > cooperate; crops failed; people died from small infections and > injuries, not to mention freezing, being eaten alive, being > savagely killed by enemies or stronger tribe members. Few died of > " old age " ; infants died from even less (most of them). Are we > denying that these harsh Darwinian realities existed then? There > are very good reason why we invented modern comforts. It's > because the general experience of Darwinian evolution (survival > of the fittest, etc) is one of painful struggle. Sure, there were > times of plenty, but then came drought and winter. A large reason > why primitive camping is pleasant is because we know we are able > to return home. I'd love to visit our pre-agriculture past, but I > would bet big money that none of us (after staying for a while) > would want to live there. > > > > -Mark > > Mark: You don't usually save a lot of space when you are typing, do you? Funny, I find that I have to scroll down all the way to read your message. I think your voice and your way of putting forward some questions were much needed in this group, if I may say so. Well, I don't want to sound pretentious. I am not the owner of the group, anyway. But I feel you have made an impressive arrival, assuming that you are a recent member. I don't know. I will ask the opposite question: do you think our primitive ancestors would generally want to live in our world? Wouldn't most of them choose to run away from all the pointless noise? Best regards, José > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2005 Report Share Posted July 15, 2005 --- In , " mark robert " <colowe@i...> wrote: > > > Mark: You don't usually save a lot of space when you are typing, > do > you? Funny, I find that I have to scroll down all the way to read > > your message. > > I think your voice and your way of putting forward some questions > > were much needed in this group, if I may say so. Well, I don't > want > to sound pretentious. I am not the owner of the group, anyway. > But I > feel you have made an impressive arrival, assuming that you are a > > recent member. I don't know. > > I will ask the opposite question: do you think our primitive > ancestors would generally want to live in our world? Wouldn't > most of > them choose to run away from all the pointless noise? > > Best regards, > > José > > > > _____ > > > > > > , > > > > Sorry about the posting style. Thanks for the compliments. > > > > That's a good question. Of course there are a lot of possible > answers, and most of them start with " it depends " . Although the > question surely relates to our discussion at hand, there would > likely be psychological factors to complicate the answers. > Quickly transporting any person to a foreign environment will > incur stress, no matter the life-supporting features of that > environment - they won't be immediately appreciated by the > transported. > > > Mark: Yes, of course: the stress. May I make a " little " digression now? You sort of reminded me of our " primal " stress: the stress of being born. You leave a warm, dark, silent, watery environment and is launched into something quite different. That is why I believe in LeBoyer. Maybe we could also think of death in those terms. Even if you don't believe in a soul, a dying person (and an animal for that matter) should be provided with support to better cope with the transition. Unfortunately, death is a lot more accidental than birth, and sometimes there is no time for a preparation. Sorry for moving away from the main subject, but I had to say that. And sorry again for making this very indiscreet question which of course doesn't demand a serious answer or actually any answer at all from you. In fact it is not a question, but an exclamation: how come such an interesting man like you remains (if your self-description is accurate) a bachelor?! Cheers José > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 17, 2005 Report Share Posted July 17, 2005 > > " Water life " ? Most fish are carnivores. > > > > -mark Was an afterthought. Guess its not considered quite the same as four leggeds eating four leggeds, carniverous or carrion eating birds. Wanita Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.