Moo!

[Saltmeister]

So one of your main points here, is that you have a soul, an animal doesn't so that makes you better than it... But, then you say that may not even be true that you have a soul, that perhaps it is just a business to con people, and you have bought your shares.... Seem's odd.

What would cows do anyway if we granted them citizenship status? Does the Constitution say all animals are equal?

Are they going to vote? Go to school? Learn to read, write and speak our language? Go to college and have careers in science, engineering, law and medicine?

Of course not. Cows are already employed. They don't need to go to school or college and get an education. They are already fully qualified for the job they serve. --- Food. What else does a cow live for?

Until they turn up with banners of protest for societal reforms I think we can go on having our McDonalds and Kentucky Fried Chicken!!!

I don't expect any rebellion or revolution anytime in the near future. Why don't animals start campaigning for their own rights? It seems to be done more by humans nowadays; some of them still eat McDonalds and Kentucky Fried Chicken.

 

[Snoopy]

I don’t think I’ve ever read so much in one thread that I disagree with, and find so callous.

Just because you can, that doesn’t mean you should.

"I have from an early age abjured the use of meat, and a time will come when men such as I will look upon murder of animals as they now look upon the murder of men" - Leonardo de Vinci.

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way it treats its animals" - Mahatma Gandhi.

s.

 

[17th Angel]

Does the Constitution say all animals are equal?.

The what?

Are they going to vote? Go to school? Learn to read, write and speak our language? Go to college and have careers in science, engineering, law and medicine?

Of course not. Cows are already employed. They don't need to go to school or college and get an education. They are already fully qualified for the job they serve. --- Food. What else does a cow live for?

Until they turn up with banners of protest for societal reforms I think we can go on having our McDonalds and Kentucky Fried Chicken!!!

I don't expect any rebellion or revolution anytime in the near future. Why don't animals start campaigning for their own rights? It seems to be done more by humans nowadays; some of them still eat McDonalds and Kentucky Fried Chicken

Again they haven't out grown their brains... To the level we are currently at... Without many animals/bugs/insects/living things... This world would be a very different place... (that's not a good thing btw.)

 

[Saltmeister]

Hey, I was just fooling around.......

But seriously......is it really so wrong to eat animals? Am I an ugly, dark sinister or contemptible person just because I've been eating meat?

I know a friend who used to be vegetarian, but had to give up that lifestyle because her body needed meat (ie. iron). Without meat, her body couldn't get enough iron to make haemoglobin. Her body just couldn't take it. She was often dizzy and vomiting, especially during her periods. Her iron levels were so low.

So she stopped being a vegetarian. It was a lifestyle that wasn't sustainable. Morality of not eating meat just wasn't reasonable. "Morality" had to be given up for reasonableness.

With regards to morality, the idea that animals shouldn't be eaten has itself to do with beliefs. That is what I meant by "subjective reality."

I did, of course, have to justify and rationalise my lifestyle, but this is in response to the idea that I am a contemptible person just because I eat meat. I am being condemned for being a carnivore. Carnivore behaviour is being labelled as a disease. It's being seen as an attitude problem.

If laws in Western society change in the near future, my physiology may suffer. I need the iron. Moreover, it may hurt my chances of getting a job just because I can't go without meat. People are going to despise carnivores. Anyone who is a carnivore doesn't deserve to be a citizen just because he eats fellow animals. Everywhere I go, meaty food is outlawed.

Carnivore attitudes are going to be just as despised as homosexuality and pornographic addictions. It's just so unjust and unfair. What if I can't help being a carnivore? Do I lose my rights? So I'm going to have to writhe in pain just because of my physiology?

It's like the Wraith from Stargate Atlantis. If you don't watch the series, the Wraith are a species that eat humans. A bunch of humans tried to turn a Wraith into a human (because the Wraith are really just humans infested with a disease), and tried to assimilate him and make him live, think and feel like them as a human.

His memory was wiped out so he wouldn't remember the brainwashing, but when he found out and remembered (which was a matter of time), he was furious. His identity as Wraith couldn't be suppressed, even though he was supposed to be a human infested with a disease which made him hunger for human flesh. The idea that his "Wraith-ness" was a disease was an insult to him. He rebelled and escaped his human captors.

No I do not want medication or a technological solution to my "condition." I want something natural, and if I have a natural need for natural meat I don't want to have to go medical.

Why do we have such high standards of morality anyway? Aren't we animals?

The other animals eat each other. Why can't we? We have a human nature, but we also have an animal nature. That's where our sexual appetite comes from. When we have sex we behave like the other animals.

Do you see what I mean by "subjective reality" and "beliefs?" We started forming beliefs with regards to "morality" but then we're forgetting that regardless of what level of "morality" we achieve we are still just "animals."

It would just be more fair if we could be carnivores just like some of the other animals.

 

[Saltmeister]

The what?

You know.....the Constitution which says that all men (human beings) are equal -- the one all Western or Western-styled governments are supposed to have. It could be extended to include animals.

Oh yeah.....the luxuries of modern society are great, but I think humans are starting to think too much about their distant cousins. Too smart for their own good.

 

[17th Angel]

You know..... Meat isn't the only source of Iron right? Potato and Brocolli(incorrect spelling I am sure.) are very, very high for Iron... also drink loads of tea with it Tannin really helps that Iron flow lol..... What else is there hmmm, Wheat, chickpeas, tofu, watermelon, oatmeal, pita bread, spaghetti, loads of soy products and many other natural material. So I think the "I need meat for my Iron balance" is a poor and weak debate....

I myself eat meat lol... But, I am saying that maybe those who say we shouldn't eat meat it's wrong (religiously) and animal care wise.... Could be right there are many other meals that are there, without the need to consume real meat... Or that horrible crap you get from takeaways served by some scrotey little spotty teenager. (thanks america for those food chains....)

Caring for other animals is being too smart for your own good? Yet destruction isn't?

 

[wil]

I got no grief if you choose to eat meat...like I said there are reasons not to...and eventually if we continue to overpopulate the world we will come to similar conclusions as did India thousands of years ago...that providing pounds and pounds of vegetable protein and tons of water to create one pound of flesh to eat is economically not viable.

I guess it is a good thing that Asian people don't need iron...as so hundreds of millions of them survive on little or no meat...many western vegetarians believe corn chips and potato chips are sustenance...it is a huge issue when someone becomes a veggie without looking into dietary concerns..green vegetables, whole grains and dried fruits all contain iron and it doesn't take much to meet the requirements...

Yes some animals are carnivores or omnivores...their digestive tract is a fraction of the length ours is (to get the toxins out of their system before they are absorbed) and they don't have molars to grind nuts and veggies instead they have oversized canines and cutting teeth all the way around...now if you were to eat meat...best to be eaten the way animals do, raw and warm with blood still coursing through it...that is unless you believe you are more closely related to the vultures...scavengers...eating flesh which has been dead for days, cooked in the sun..

Eating meat is a choice...today...and is not required to be dictated for or against...yet...

 

[Snoopy]

I genuinely can’t tell about the seriousness or not of some of the stuff on this thread.

People are omnivores, not carnivores or herbivores as wil points out. The great majority of people around the world eat some sort of meat so I don’t think anyone need worry it’s about to be outlawed. A diet is balanced or not, irrespective of whether or not it contains meat.

Maybe the rest of the animal kingdom doesn’t matter, haven’t got souls and are here just to die and be eaten. But the joke’s on us, cos we’re wiping out the forests and the biosphere, feeding the animals junk, eating the crap we make from them and then dying from the pleasure of it.

Amazon.com: Chew On This: Everything You Don't Want to Know About Fast Food: Books: Eric Schlosser,Charles Wilson

Fox Searchlight - Fast Food Nation

Business | The 7,000km journey that links Amazon destruction to fast food


s.

 

[Neemai]

I used to be a hunter...I quit eating storebought, farm raised meat over 25 years ago, due to what I knew about slaughter houses and farms. I only ate what got in front of my gun. I used to catch a lot of grief from both veggies and carnivores....the veggies knowing I often ate vegetarian couldn't believe I hunted and a surprisingly high amount of carnivores had issues with hunting. I thought it hilarious that they found it ok to hire someone to raise animals for food, hire assassins and slaughterers to cut, slice, dice, sanitize and provide cadavers for food wrapped in plastic, while chastising me for dealing directly with the animal and nature myself. (haven't hunted since 87...not to say I may not return to it in the future) Although I don't eat meat today ('cept at the sushi bar) I really can't see the difference if your going to eat cow, sheep, why not dog and cat and monkey and rabbit and horse...

I respect your thoughts a lot there Wil. Having been a vegetarian for about 10 years or so I don't see the activity of hunting animals, in order to eat them, to live, as being a sinful at all. In fact I see this as being more honest because the animal has lived a natural life, and you've had to deal with the reality of killing it, before eating the meat. The thing I'm really dead-set against is the wholesale, mechanised slaughter of animals on a massive scale which occurs across much of the 'civilised' world. Animals that are kept purely as commodities, in half-decent, semi-contained conditions at best, but in many cases something much worse. Can anyone sane person who believes in an all-loving God, not see the problem with this?

What is the soul but consciousness? And consciousness is certainly there in the cow and the dog, and any other animal or creature you wish to mention. Maybe in some it is a more developed consciousness than in another, but it is consciousness nonetheless. To treat conscious living beings as possessions and commodities surely undermines any attempts we may make at living a more godly or spiritual life?

"The humble sages, by virtue of true knowledge, see with equal vision a learned and gentle priest, a cow, an elephant, a dog and a dog-eater." (Bhagavad-Gita 5.18)

... Neemai

 

[Saltmeister]

You know..... Meat isn't the only source of Iron right? Potato and Brocolli(incorrect spelling I am sure.) are very, very high for Iron... also drink loads of tea with it Tannin really helps that Iron flow lol..... What else is there hmmm, Wheat, chickpeas, tofu, watermelon, oatmeal, pita bread, spaghetti, loads of soy products and many other natural material. So I think the "I need meat for my Iron balance" is a poor and weak debate....

I was aware of iron being part of other foods, but simply thought iron was most abundant in meat. Too lazy to do the research.

You also get fat from meat......

Is there a need for iron or fat? Just think meat.........

As I said, I was just being lazy.

Meat was just the only thing I could think of with a good source of iron. Everything else was fuzzy.

Caring for other animals is being too smart for your own good? Yet destruction isn't?

Well......as long as we're not destroying ourselves in the process.

Maybe indeed it isn't economically viable. I'm just not one wishing to change the world and morality is not high on my agenda. I make no claims at being virtuous. I'm satisfied with taking life as it is. I have no high ideals or standards. I'm not much of an idealist with regards to morality. I think the notion of morality is often pursued beyond human limitations, and sometimes beyond what is expedient. We just can't be perfect. The result is hypocrisy, where we accuse others of violating some principle, due to human limitations, when we ourselves are violating some other or the same principle again due to our own limitations.

I understand that civilisation is progressing, but methinks civilisation and morality are not so important in my religion (as I see it) as understanding and appreciating the relationships and experiences that come from it. ie. Not so much about making rules or considering what is right and wrong, setting values but just merely learning life's lessons.

I make no claims at being "civilised" or of "morality." I just do my best to follow the laws of my country and to be a person with dignity and self-respect in the choices I make, personal relationships and learning from past mistakes and experiences. That said, I don't consider being "civilised" and pursuing "morality" as essential for dignity and self-respect, provided you look after your relationships and learn life's lessons. Civilisation and morality are there if you want to go further. Next level up on the hierarchy.

I make no claims at having reached that level of virtue. I don't consider myself as one who qualifies just because I live in a modern 21st-century society. The society is just a framework, infrastructure. On a more personal level, I'm still somewhere at the bottom.

 

[17th Angel]

lmfao... Not eating animals, I would hardly call that destroying ourselves.. Sounds a bit like a hypercondriac response ;\

 

[Tao_Equus]

I'm sorry my friends. I simply have no respect for animals other than humans. I think it was the way I was brought up. I blame me parents for teaching me badly.

Flies, spiders and moths get the worst treatment. When I see one, I like to get rid of it as soon as possible, but squashing it. I don't want it getting my books dirty.

For me personally, human dignity is more important than that of animals, because, you know, animals don't have dignity......they're subhuman as in......er......you know......they're not human.

Pets are different. Pets have sentimental value.

Farm animals have sentimental value too.......as the food we eat.....

God created the other animals to serve us human animals. The difference between us and the other animals is that we have a soul. The others don't. Cats and dogs don't go to heaven even if they're our pets.

We're the gods of the earth, a degree higher than the other animals. We rule. We pet them for our own pleasure. We feed them. We look after them. Then we eat them. That's the pecking order.

Back here to your first post Salty. It was precisely this attitude the made ethnic variety 'lesser' to the white man in times past. The blacks of Africa for slavery, the Aboriginals of Australia for 'hunting'. Yes you at one time could go on a package tour of Australia to hunt savages.
You demean and belittle what you cant comprehend. There are more animals that show a high degree of self awareness than do not. Chimps and certain parrot species and certain crow species have been shown to have greater cognitive ability than us!! Ignorance of the full range of what constitutes intelligence does not mean that it does not exist.

TE

 

[Saltmeister]

Back here to your first post Salty. It was precisely this attitude the made ethnic variety 'lesser' to the white man in times past. The blacks of Africa for slavery, the Aboriginals of Australia for 'hunting'. Yes you at one time could go on a package tour of Australia to hunt savages.

Wasn't talking about humans there, and nor am I a white man or of European descent either. Moreover, I don't think the sins of European forefathers should be revisited and attached to their descendants. Whatever behaviour was due to the naivete of the European races. Descendents should not be blamed.

You demean and belittle what you cant comprehend. There are more animals that show a high degree of self awareness than do not. Chimps and certain parrot species and certain crow species have been shown to have greater cognitive ability than us!! Ignorance of the full range of what constitutes intelligence does not mean that it does not exist.

We don't eat chimps, parrots or crows. Chimps I assume live in the zoo. Zoo animals are not eaten. Parrots and crows are kept as pets. Horses run in races. In terms of giving a specific example, I talked about a cow.......the thing about cows voting, getting an education and food being the only job a cow could ever properly fulfil.

Anyhow, it was not exactly intelligence, but emotional sophistication that I was specifically talking about, which human beings demonstrate in their language. We've been given thousands of years to demonstrate this "sophistication." Chimps, parrots and crows may indeed have intelligence and cognitive abilities, but there is something that we have that they don't, and my view was that it was not anything to do with their brains. Whatever concepts I was hovering around derived from the idea that intelligence comes from the brain, but we have something else on top of our "intelligence" if you follow. Something higher than the intelligence that biological species can possess. They may well have feelings, but perhaps not on the same level as us.

An animal sees something that moves. It sees patterns. It adapts itself to those patterns and uses them to its advantage. Intelligence yes. But we tend to see a lot of things differently. Take society and politics for example. Or even religion. We don't just see patterns, we often see things as "having a soul." Religions, ideologies, political systems and societies have a kind of "soul." A soul isn't just a mere pattern. It has a life of its own. Like a life in itself. A religion, ideology, political system or society is not really "just a pattern" as some think. It has a soul. It lives and breathes. Like a living person. Ideology operates much like some invisible framework built on language that can develop and grow over time, just through common human understandings.

Intelligence alone allows one to see patterns, to reason by logic. There is something that allows us to see "souls" in things which probably takes things up to the next level. I believe it takes more than just intelligence and feelings to be human. We have the ability to see some greater picture or purpose, to think in the abstract.

As far as chasing up what I said before, I'm heading in a different direction now. I didn't exactly come into this thread with an unchangeable position. I'm curious about where it might head. I may indeed have a position quite different from most. But a lot of us eat meat anyway. I hear that a lot of us here aren't vegetarians anyway.

Neemai was saying it was the large-scale systematic slaughter of animals that he/she didn't like. That I can understand and relate to. It falls short of saying all meat-eating is wrong. My response is to the idea that those of us eating meat are eating species that should be given the same level of dignity as us -- that it's a contemptible practice. What I was discussing was perhaps a justification for whatever "mistakes" humanity has made.

I'm no activist here. If you'd like this to change, no problem. But it sounds like we're condemning millions and billions of meat-eating humans around the globe. Would you like the world to change or do you want to condemn people? You will probably say the former.

But ethics and morality could go further than that. This could, sort of relate to other issues like abortion and stem-cell research. How far do we have to go? The notion of sanctity of life could go a long way. Then we might ban car-racing, boxing and some violent sports. Down with alcohol and drugs. When you start making rules for one thing you have to justify that logic with rules for other things.

Should abortion be legal?

Stem-cell research?

Cloned humans?

 

[dauer]

I don't eat any meat or animal biproducts such as dairy, egg or honey. I also recently cut out gluten, soy and cane sugar (food sensitivities related to autistic specrum.) But I feel better now than I did when eating meat. The truth is that both meat and dairy are not good for one's health, not vice versa. They increase the risk of heart problems and put the individual at risk for other ailments too. Many think that milk is the best source of calcium but it's not true. Milk also contains things that effect the absorption of calcium (meat too.) It's been suggested for this reason that vegans might require a lower calcium intake than other people. One of the best sources of calcium is quinoa which is generally regarded as a superfood. It's tasty, too.

There are many excellent plant sources of iron. The essential nutrient that's most lacking in most vegan food is b12 which can be had via supplements or nutritional yeast. Whether we were original omnivorous or carnivorous or herbivorous doesn't really matter so much. I think most would agree anyway that we were omnivorous. But we've evolved to the point that we're different from other animals in that we can consciously choose for ourselves to act against our impulses and biological inclinations. We can thusly prevent suffering to other people and to animals by making better choices.

Truth be told, I don't think we really have an instinct to eat meat anyway. If you give an apple and a small animal to a young child it'll eat the apple and play with the animal. If you give an apple and a small animal to a young cat it'll kill the small animal and play with the apple.

In English we're fortunate *cough* to be able to call the cow we eat beef, baby cow is veal, pig is pork or ham and so on. This helps us to divorce the food on our plates from its source as a living creature. In other languages this is not always the case like German where pork is pig-flesh and beef is cow-flesh. It might be an interesting experiment to refer to your food in that manner and, before you eat, draw to your mind an image of the living animal that died so you might eat it.

I don't have anything against the choice some make to eat animals, but to then go and say that animals live to be food for humans, that it's their purpose, that to me is just ridiculous. Does that also include animals we keep as pets? And what of those animals we can't eat because they're too poisonous? What is their purpose? Is it only the purpose of those animals that we've domesticated over time that we might more easily slaughter them to be food? How do you feel about the force-feeding of geese to make fois grais? I'm not going to include a link to pictures but a tube is forced down their gullet and they're fattened by forced-feedings until their slaughter. But I do encourage you to go look for images yourself. It's quite horrific.

Dauer

 

[Impqueen]

I have in my freezer the meat of pigs I oohed and aahed over when they were cute little piglets. I watched them grow and fatten knowing I might be able to get some of the meat. I talked to them and scratched their heads, sprayed them with water on hot days. And then when they had been taken to slaughter (poor piggies) I asked if I could have some of the meat.

I think the pigs had souls of some sort (pig souls are probably a bit different to human souls...?) and they were deserving of good treatment, respect and a death as 'comfortable' as it is possible for a death to be. They tasted damn good too.

The life my piggies led was incomparable with the life most meat-animals live however. Animals are part of our natural food, yes. But there's no reason we have to torture the poor things in the process. No, cows don't go to university but how is this relevant? I know plenty of people who won't go to university either but I'm not about to eat them for it.

Where are you getting the idea that meat eaters are vilified? Maybe one or two evangelical veggies got a bit irritating in high school but I haven't been vilified for being an omnivore.

A side note - not all of us 'westerners' have a constitution...

 

[Saltmeister]

No, cows don't go to university but how is this relevant? I know plenty of people who won't go to university either but I'm not about to eat them for it.

Yeah.....that's a good one.

Where are you getting the idea that meat eaters are vilified? Maybe one or two evangelical veggies got a bit irritating in high school but I haven't been vilified for being an omnivore.

It started off as a joke, but as I've never really thought about the dignity of animals I had trouble reasoning myself into the other side of the issue. So I guess I was left on the dark side.

Then I was afraid I might get slugged for my initial comments and decided I might find some rationalisation behind what I said. The "carnivore attitude" thing was my attempt to wiggle out of the situation.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Ty for your reply Salty,

Wasn't talking about humans there, and nor am I a white man or of European descent either. Moreover, I don't think the sins of European forefathers should be revisited and attached to their descendants. Whatever behaviour was due to the naivete of the European races. Descendents should not be blamed.

You misunderstand me. Twice I believe. I was talking about how by making something lesser than us can and does become an excuse for abuse. I certainly was not trying to infer culpability on you or your ancestors for crimes long since committed.
I am not a vegi .. far from it, and i have raised and slaughtered many animals by my own hand too. I disagree with you on what you believe regarding man having something 'more' in the way of soul. But I am a Gaia theorist in that department, I believe what you would term soul as being our connection to the super-organism that is life on Earth. And thus all creatures are a part and in some sense equal in a much bigger picture.

In regards to your questions:

Yes abortion should be legal and the choice is one every woman has the right to make for herself.

Stem cell research. Of course. It offers huge potential for easing the suffering of countless people.

Cloning humans. Well if its good enough for US republican presidents.....

Regards

TE

 

[Saltmeister]

You misunderstand me. Twice I believe. I was talking about how by making something lesser than us can and does become an excuse for abuse. I certainly was not trying to infer culpability on you or your ancestors for crimes long since committed.

Hello and greetings, Tao.

I was dropping a comment there, with no intention of opposing or directly counter-acting what you were saying. I was a bit unsure as to how to respond at first. What I did say was that I wasn't talking about comparisons between beings of the same species.

What I perceived was a comparison of "human racism" to "animal racism."

With "human racism" we demean members of the same species because of their appearance or the way their cultures have evolved. It seemed to me that that was being compared to "animal racism." But humans and the other animals are not equal and not the same species. There are, however, physiological differences between us and the other animals.

Human racism was based more on ideology than physiological differences. They look different. Their cultures, attitudes, ways of thinking and social arrangements are odd and don't seem sensible. Therefore they are inferior.

That's the Ideology of Race.

The Europeans who mistreated indigenous peoples didn't see a distinction between culture and behaviour. They thought they were smarter just because of the concepts taught in their culture. We now see a distinction between Biological (genetic/physiological) Evolution and political/social/ideological evolution. Racial/ethnic differences back then were thought of as part of one's biology. I don't apply that analogy to "animal racism" because realistically, there are indeed big differences in how we perceive "meaning," how we learn and adapt to things.

I was talking about how by making something lesser than us can and does become an excuse for abuse.

With regards to abuse. Let's consider what we do with the other animals.

Some animals are pets, some are food/live on a farm and we hunt them for clothing and sport. We eat them. We put them in chains and in cages. We whip horses in races. We use them in scientific experiments (poor rats). I'm not saying we abuse them, but there is one common element in all this: they're our slaves. We use them for whatever purpose we choose. They are "lesser" in that sense.

Abuse, I suppose is where we hurt them after they've served us well or where we inflict some undeserved pain. But I suppose because they're "lesser" they don't deserve it anyway. What I mean is, if we use them for food, it's because they're our slaves. Human slavery has been abolished, but not animal slavery. It's because they're "lesser beings" that we use them as "slaves" in scientific experiments.

But conversely, since whatever pain we inflict is less deserved/undeserved, the importance of the pain inflicted would obviously diminish with the importance of the animal's dignity. Let's say I spray a bunch of insects with insecticide.

 

[Saltmeister]

I am not a vegi .. far from it, and i have raised and slaughtered many animals by my own hand too.

Because you've had intimate interactions with animals, I'd like you to know I'm not talking about specific practices here, just the general idea of using them as food. I'll let the specialists deal with issues arising from methods and practices, and assume they do their job properly.

I did say that animals may have sentimental value, and that we decide what value each animal receives. That said, I wouldn't go into my neighbour's backyard and mutilate his dog for fun. I wouldn't do that even to an unowned dog. Dogs are pets. They have sentimental value. But even if I found myself with a cow...and since I'm not in the slaughtering business, I wouldn't do it because I don't have the training to kill a cow in a dignified way.

I don't want you to get the wrong idea, because as I said, we just use them for food. But if there's a reason why we use them for food, it's because we just don't consider the life of a cow as important as that of a human. Whatever I said was alluding to that.

I disagree with you on what you believe regarding man having something 'more' in the way of soul. But I am a Gaia theorist in that department, I believe what you would term soul as being our connection to the super-organism that is life on Earth. And thus all creatures are a part and in some sense equal in a much bigger picture.

I used "soul" in a number of different contexts in my posts to convey my views, but I usually think of "soul" as something divine, but not necessarily to do with consciousness. It's much like a separate body and mind. A body that can be damaged and suffer disease and a mind that can perceive. Physical diseases cause damage to the physical body, and spiritual diseases to the spiritual body. I think of spiritual diseases as having a moral/sentimental nature but independent of ideology. What happens in the body can affect the mind, so physical/spiritual diseases can affect the physical/spiritual minds.

I make a distinction between the brain, the physical/biological mind and that of "a soul." By "soul" I did not mean "consciousness" as many mean by "soul." I meant a kind of "illumination" that doesn't come from physical matter. It's the kind of thing that I assume Hindus and Buddhists believe in as well as, obviously, Christians. Wiccans probably believe in it too. You can't get reincarnated without a soul can you? Can you cast spells and pray without a soul?

Again, with regards to abuse, I can understand your concerns about an attitude that can encourage abuse of animals. But as I said I was just saying it's why we eat them. I recognise that animals can have sentimental value and respect them with whatever a culture demands. I regard people with the same notion -- the notion of sentimental value and it was for that reason that I developed a concern that someone might be vilified. It seemed like "animal rights" might serve to condemn certain people as "contemptible people." But I see now that most of you do eat meat, but didn't approve of certain practices. I'm beginning to think maybe we're not so different in thinking after all. Because I'd never explored this issue before I suppose I accidentally ended up on the wrong side.

That was the idea behind my earlier use of the word "soul." In a much more recent post I was talking about a "soul" driving ideology, but it didn't mean the same thing in that case. The "soul" of a spiritual mind is not the same as the soul of an ideology pursuing some agenda (ie. a social plan). The former is that of a real person, the latter being something we create to align people to the same purpose.

With regards to the super-organism idea, I don't see people from a biological perspective, but I understand what you mean. My "soul driving ideology" idea might have similarities with your super-organism idea, in the sense that it's to do with how we organise/engineer ourselves, though I'd say we're talking about a different kind of "soul" there -- your's being the biological soul and mine being the "social plan."

 

[sam1008]

Regardless of whether our society is capable of affording love and respect for beings with animal bodies we should at least be able to respect the religious beliefs of our fellow humans and not go around insisting on slaughtering thier sacred cows.

Here's some definitions for 'sacred cow' as it is used in the English language from the web:

a person unreasonably held to be immune to criticism
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
[SIZE=-1]A sacred cow is a person, institution, idea (often a theory - then: "pet theory") or ideology that is immune (usually unreasonably so) from criticism or opposition.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_cow

This use of the phrase is unacceptable as it is disrespectful to Hindus and should, and I believe soon shall be, outlawed as politically uncorrect. [/SIZE]