Contact | Business | Psychology | Neptune | Science | Politics | Astrology | Index | Karma | Health | MUSIC |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
THE FOUNDATION OF ANIMAL RIGHTS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegan#Philosophical_foundations WIKIQUOTE: Tom Regan, professor emeritus of philosophy at North Carolina State University, argues that animals are entities which possess "inherent value"[47] and therefore have "basic moral rights," and that the principal moral right they possess is "the right to respectful treatment."[48] Regan additionally argues that animals have a "basic moral right not to be harmed," which can be overridden only when the individual's right not to be harmed is "morally outweighed" by "other valid moral principles."[49][50] From this "rights view," Regan argues that "animal agriculture, as we know it, is unjust" even when animals are raised "humanely."[46][51] Regan argues against various justifications for eating meat including that "animal flesh is tasty," that it is "habit" for "individuals and as a culture", that it is "convenient," that "meat is nutritious," that there is an obligation to the economic interests of farmers or to the economic interests of a country, or that "farm animals are legal property," and finds that all fail to treat animals with the respect due to them by their basic rights.[52] Regan therefore argues that "those who support current animal agriculture by purchasing meat have a moral obligation to stop doing so" and that "the individual has a duty to lead a vegetarian way of life."[53] Gary L. Francione, professor of Law at Rutgers School of Law-Newark, argues that animals are sentient, and that this is sufficient to grant them moral consideration.[54] Francione argues that "all sentient beings should have at least one right—the right not to be treated as property" and that there is "no moral justification for using nonhumans for our purposes."[54] Francione further argues that adopting veganism should be regarded as the "baseline" action taken by people concerned with animal rights.[54] Peter Singer, professor of bioethics at Princeton, argues that there is "no moral justification" for refusing to take sentient animal suffering into consideration in ethical decisions.[55] Singer argues that an animal's interests warrant equal consideration with the interests of humans, and that not doing so is "speciesist."[55] Based upon his evaluation of these interests, Singer argues that "our use of animals for food becomes questionable—especially when animal flesh is a luxury rather than a necessity."[56] Singer does not contend that killing animals is always wrong, but that from a practical standpoint it is "better to reject altogether the killing of animals for food, unless one must do so to survive."[57] Singer therefore advocates both veganism and improved conditions for farm animals as practical means to reduce animal suffering.[58][59][60] :UN-WIKIQUOTE |
Have MERCY HUMAN RIGHTS: How can you have rights unless animals have rights? You are an animal (Great Ape). Law is supposed to represent Truth and Justice, what is Right. Eating meat was once thought of as necessary, but we now know that it is not, in fact its unhealthy ref "The China Study". So WHY does this barbaric cruelty and torture continue? Have we firmly established the existence of the Living Hell that Man has created and goes on daily? Perhaps you are not aware of what goes on in a slaughter house? maybe you have missed some details? turned a blind eye, and maybe there is worse things you didn't know? ![]() PSYCHOLOGY OF EATING MEAT: TAKING HOSTAGES Man has taken Animals as a Hostage. Man says "I want to live forever; but someday we all die; so unless God grants me Eternal Life, I will cause suffering in cruelty and death to others". Like a kid "unless you give me a donut, I am going to hold my breath and turn blue". Or like a Terrorist "Unless you give me what I want, I am taking hostages"; like it’s really going to help. Is it going to help? Not in the long run. If Eternal Life is possible, that’s not the way to gain it, and it isn't going to be gained that way. Lower IQ people or "not as intelligent as others", use Meat as a Self Defense mechanism, saying "I don't care if the animals suffers for my dinner, I want the animal to suffer, maybe I should kill it myself, to show you and everyone how dangerous and cruel I am, then you will all fear me and respect me and give me everything I want, ha ha ha". (no one is going to attack him, he is dangerous, go take advantage of someone else). They take hostages in order to protect themselves, but does it help protect one’s self to take a hostage? No. "The Hermetica" The Lost Wisdom of the Pharaohs, Translated by Freke & Gandy, Written by the Egyptian sage Hermes, Writings attributed to Thoth 3000 BC, a translation from 6000 BC, pg 137 CHAPTER XVIII: "The inexorable working of destiny, imposed on man by the turning of the Zodiac, subjects all human beings to the pain of birth and death. Man's problem is that in his ignorance he believes himself to be just a body, one that will grow old, suffer and eventually die. His sense of injustice at the inevitability of this fate leads him to hurt himself and others, either through lust for more life or fear of approaching death. These crimes serve further to bind the soul to the body and so increase man's suffering." |