Michael lawson wrote:

Documentation of abuse by PETA is, by nature, suspect.
They are not a reputable organization because for every
legitimate thing they document, they ruin their reputation
by guerilla tactics and dubious assertions, such as beer
is better for you than milk. (I may prefer beer to milk, but
milk has much more calcium and other nutrients that I
could use as opposed to beer, which has pretty much
a good amount of B6.) Their current fish campaign
echoing Finding Nemo assigns characteristics to fish
found in higher level vertebrates or humans, not accepting
fish for what they are.

Fish are creatures that feel pain, as do you and I. When it comes to
compassion and the inherent existence of "rights" as we human call
them, that is the only factor that matters.

If we as humans did not feel pain or could not be harmed, there would
be no reason for the concept of rights. No matter what anyone did, we
could not be hurt.

You may not like PETA, and I may not support everything they do, but
the concept of treating every other living thing with as much kindness
and as little cruelty as possible is both (1) a very human thing to do,
and (2) a just and ethical thing to do. To purposely make life
miserable for fish, or any other animal, in the name of profit and for
the purpose of the luxury of meat, is neither human (humane) nor
ethical.

Bruce Jensen

And it's a well established fact that plants respond to light and
temperature. So they too appear have some sensory response akin to
pain. Why should we be concerned about fish but not plants.

Have you ever considered how difficult it must be to live the life of a

carrot? Living your early solitary life 6 inches beneath the ground
you are summarily yanked from the ground, your curly green hair is torn

off and you are thrown into a scrubber. As a carrot your ultimate fate

is to be either peeled, chewed, boiled or frozen. Not a pretty picture

for carrots is it...

Pretty soon we won't be eating anything....


bpnjensen wrote:
Michael lawson wrote:

Documentation of abuse by PETA is, by nature, suspect.
They are not a reputable organization because for every
legitimate thing they document, they ruin their reputation
by guerilla tactics and dubious assertions, such as beer
is better for you than milk. (I may prefer beer to milk, but
milk has much more calcium and other nutrients that I
could use as opposed to beer, which has pretty much
a good amount of B6.) Their current fish campaign
echoing Finding Nemo assigns characteristics to fish
found in higher level vertebrates or humans, not accepting
fish for what they are.

Fish are creatures that feel pain, as do you and I. When it comes to
compassion and the inherent existence of "rights" as we human call
them, that is the only factor that matters.

If we as humans did not feel pain or could not be harmed, there would
be no reason for the concept of rights. No matter what anyone did,
we
could not be hurt.

You may not like PETA, and I may not support everything they do, but
the concept of treating every other living thing with as much
kindness
and as little cruelty as possible is both (1) a very human thing to
do,
and (2) a just and ethical thing to do. To purposely make life
miserable for fish, or any other animal, in the name of profit and
for
the purpose of the luxury of meat, is neither human (humane) nor
ethical.

Bruce Jensen

, you've spent to much time out in California... you need to come
home!

Ah, were it only the truth - once you've seen the light, the darkness
no longer tastes as good.

By the way, that Whopper I had yesterday sure was good. I may head to
Mikky D's
today for a tasty Big Mac (or two).

Give your crackling arteries and 160/120 my best regards ;-)

Bruce Jensen

dxAce
Michigan
USA

bpnjensen wrote:

, you've spent to much time out in California... you need to come
home!

Ah, were it only the truth - once you've seen the light, the darkness
no longer tastes as good.

By the way, that Whopper I had yesterday sure was good. I may head to
Mikky D's
today for a tasty Big Mac (or two).

Give your crackling arteries and 160/120 my best regards ;-)

Just had it taken and it was nowhere near that high!

dxAce
Michigan
USA

And it's a well established fact that plants respond to light and
temperature. So they too appear have some sensory response akin to
pain. Why should we be concerned about fish but not plants.

We should be concerned about as much as we can. We still need to eat,
so we simply do the best we can and eat to the highest level of
compassion . Your comment on *akin to pain* is interesting, BUT..,
evolutionarily, it would not be worthwhile or advantageous in any way
for a plant to develop a "pain" sensor, since it cannot do anything to
run or defend itself. My *guess* is that anything that gives
discomfort akin to pain in plants is probably nonexistent. To say that
response to light is like pain is a stretch - it is more like saying we
humans prefer relative warmth to cold.

Have you ever considered how difficult it must be to live the life of
a
carrot? Living your early solitary life 6 inches beneath the ground
you are summarily yanked from the ground, your curly green hair is torn

off and you are thrown into a scrubber. As a carrot your ultimate fate

is to be either peeled, chewed, boiled or frozen. Not a pretty picture

for carrots is it...

Very sweet and quaint, but see above.

Pretty soon we won't be eating anything....

I will eat so that my life contributes the least to the pain and
suffering of others. Simple as that.

Bruce Jensen

Actually many plants have evolved responses to dangerous situations.
Some close up or fold in response to cold and heat, some curl when cut,
and many move in reaction to sunlight or darkness. Those are responses
to stimuli that in some cases are akin to what we generalize as pain.
So again, why are you concerned only about animals experiencing pain
when it is clear that plant life responds to dangerous or painful
situations too. I think you should exhibit the same level of
compassion for the carrot that you have for the sheepshead. Don't you?



bpnjensen wrote:
And it's a well established fact that plants respond to light and
temperature. So they too appear have some sensory response akin to
pain. Why should we be concerned about fish but not plants.

We should be concerned about as much as we can. We still need to
eat,
so we simply do the best we can and eat to the highest level of
compassion . Your comment on *akin to pain* is interesting, BUT..,
evolutionarily, it would not be worthwhile or advantageous in any way
for a plant to develop a "pain" sensor, since it cannot do anything
to
run or defend itself. My *guess* is that anything that gives
discomfort akin to pain in plants is probably nonexistent. To say
that
response to light is like pain is a stretch - it is more like saying
we
humans prefer relative warmth to cold.

Have you ever considered how difficult it must be to live the life
of
a
carrot? Living your early solitary life 6 inches beneath the ground
you are summarily yanked from the ground, your curly green hair is
torn

off and you are thrown into a scrubber. As a carrot your ultimate
fate

is to be either peeled, chewed, boiled or frozen. Not a pretty
picture

for carrots is it...

Very sweet and quaint, but see above.

Pretty soon we won't be eating anything....

I will eat so that my life contributes the least to the pain and
suffering of others. Simple as that.

Bruce Jensen

"bpnjensen" wrote in message
oups.com...
Michael lawson wrote:

Documentation of abuse by PETA is, by nature, suspect.
They are not a reputable organization because for every
legitimate thing they document, they ruin their reputation
by guerilla tactics and dubious assertions, such as beer
is better for you than milk. (I may prefer beer to milk, but
milk has much more calcium and other nutrients that I
could use as opposed to beer, which has pretty much
a good amount of B6.) Their current fish campaign
echoing Finding Nemo assigns characteristics to fish
found in higher level vertebrates or humans, not accepting
fish for what they are.

Fish are creatures that feel pain, as do you and I. When it comes
to
compassion and the inherent existence of "rights" as we human call
them, that is the only factor that matters.

So do plants, but I don't see people advocating
the stoppage of agriculture anytime soon.

If we as humans did not feel pain or could not be harmed, there
would
be no reason for the concept of rights. No matter what anyone did,
we
could not be hurt.

No, that would make the concept of rights more important,
because we could not understand what we were
doing.

You may not like PETA, and I may not support everything they do, but
the concept of treating every other living thing with as much
kindness
and as little cruelty as possible is both (1) a very human thing to
do,
and (2) a just and ethical thing to do. To purposely make life
miserable for fish, or any other animal, in the name of profit and
for
the purpose of the luxury of meat, is neither human (humane) nor
ethical.

Ah, but PETA does not stop there, which is why I
said what I said. Relying on PETA for data means
that you are opening yourself up to criticism about
the source, and allow your argument to be lumped
in with the extreme, rather than the mean. I may not
like sprawl very much myself, but I do not in any
way, shape or form want to associate myself with the
eco-terrorists (the Earth First! people, for instance)
who will destroy property in the name of the
environment. That only provides sympathy for the
property owners, and in effect encourages the very
thing that the eco-terrorists don't want.

--Mike L.

Actually many plants have evolved responses to dangerous situations.
Some close up or fold in response to cold and heat, some curl when cut,

and many move in reaction to sunlight or darkness. Those are responses

to stimuli that in some cases are akin to what we generalize as pain.


An opinion. Maybe a good one, but an opinion nonetheless. Pain is not
generalized - pain is pain.

So again, why are you concerned only about animals experiencing pain
when it is clear that plant life responds to dangerous or painful
situations too.

You misread me. I am concerned about all living things, down to
microbes.

I think you should exhibit the same level of
compassion for the carrot that you have for the sheepshead. Don't you?


As I said before, I will eat and live my life so as to avoid as much as
possible causing grief to other living things. For now, and until I am
shown something like proof (internet assertions do not fill this void),
I am going to have to assume that animals have the most developed
nervous systems and greatest potential for feeling pain...and that they
will get first consideration. That represents the best information I
have.

All of life is a compromise...it is unavoidable. What we can avoid is
doing any more damage than we must to survive. That is what I do when
I choose not to harm animals. I also try to use products with minimal
packaging, recycle as much as possible, work to preserve natural areas
and give other living things the best shot I can. You can argue it any
way you want - but when it comes down to it, I am acting on my
conscience and the best information I have. As one who apparently
requires not as much from yourself, you may wish to consider whether
you have a leg to stand upon when lecturing someone else when he is
trying to do what is morally right.

Bruce Jensen

Does that mean no more lawn mowing? I don't mind mowing my yard at all,I
like to mow my yard.No more Fishing? There are a lot of people on Earth
whos very life depends on Fishing and eating Fish.I need to go to the
Tobacco Town (I suppose in your mixed up opinion,No more Tobacco growing
either?) discount tobacco store now for two six ounce cardboard cans of
TOP cigarette Tobacco and then to the foodstore and decide on what kind
of Animals I will have for supper tonight.
cuhulin

Barbecued Vulcans,,, I wonder how that would go over? I bought some
Trout and Chopped Steak at the foodstore this afternoon.
cuhulin