the following thread contains a debate subsequent to a facebook status line which my old childhood friend, charlie, posted as his status on sunday, 9.25.10. he found a rattlesnake in his yard, hissing at his rottweiler and without first attempting to see if he could capture and relocate the snake, decided to resolve the matter by killing it outright. knowing charlie for no less than 30 years, i knew his status line was aimed at me, considering i'm the only animal rights activist he knows. at times, we veer a bit off-topic and i am referred to alternately as both paula and seraphime (for those of you unaware of my dual personality), but i think you will get the gist of the discussion.
and, is it just me or were michelle's and james' assertions TOTALLY INSANE, based on no merited scientific findings whatsoever?!?
i, for one, had hard a time stomaching the frivolity by which everyone was addressing the snake's killing; common but disheartening. and notice, i did not get any "likes" under my comments. :P
Charles
8:08 pm, 88 degrees outside, and the sprinkler I heard outside was actually a 2.5 foot rattlesnake warning our rottweiler to stay away. I killed it. Sorry all you PETA people.
Sunday at 8:08pm · Comment · Like
Robin
Jesus Christ, remind me not to ever visit you. ;)
Sunday at 8:17pm · Like
Ray
do you seriously have to be reminded NOT to visit him. think not.
Sunday at 8:49pm · Like
Kathleen
The snake or the rottweiller? - Bob
Sunday at 9:27pm · Like
Charles
touche!
Sunday at 9:28pm · Like
Michelle
The Rottie deserved to be saved!
Sunday at 9:31pm · Like
Mary
Rules......if you kill it, you must cook it and eat it...Charlie, duh! Please tell me that I need to send recipes!
Sunday at 10:38pm · Like
Seraphime
well, for sure the rottweiler deserved to be protected but there were other solutions. you could have captured the snake to separate him from the dog then release him somewhere else.
Yesterday at 5:39am · Like
Alisha
that is gross!!!!!
Yesterday at 12:34pm · Like
Michelle
Charlie - I'm glad you didn't try to "relocate" the snake. I stand by your decision!
Yesterday at 12:44pm · Like
James
Catchin' your own vittles now, Charlie? Skin it, dice the flesh, and fry'm up, shikkabob-style, tomatoes, onions, peppers, on the barbi! Mmmm.
Yesterday at 2:17pm · Like
Mary
Sounds yummy. Save the skin for boots the snake then had a purpose in life. How zen of you. You are my hero! All that and saved the puppy, too!
Yesterday at 2:31pm · LikeUnlike · 1 person
James
Whose baby needs a rattle? don't be shy, now!
Yesterday at 2:52pm · Like
Sheryl
I'm a peta person but my dog comes first!
23 hours ago · Like
Seraphime
well, to be a peta person inherently means thinking of your dog...but it also means thinking of the snake, the wildlife, too, not just the easy-to-like domesticated buddies we're used to championing. i don't stand by your decision, sir charles, but i'm glad you were interested in protecting your sweet dog.
20 hours ago · Like
Charles
rattlesnakes are territorial. If they are within 100 feet of the house, then, sorry. Paula, have you ever had a rattlesnake inside of your house? Human + pet = snake life?
20 hours ago · LikeUnlike · 1 person
Seraphime
don't apologize to me. i'm not the one you killed. snake territoriality as a justification for your action? i'd rather accept your panic - for that's more honest and relatable. many of us would have done what you did as a result of panic, but not all of us would turn around and brag about it.
how about investigating alternative reactions and methods of preparation which protect everyone involved and then rehearsing yourself to react differently in the future?
19 hours ago · Like
Charles
paula, as the girl that I once loved, sometimes you have to kill to live. If I'm wrong for being here, then I shouldn't defend my space in this universe.
19 hours ago · Like
Seraphime
sometimes you have to kill to live: yes, perhaps. but with you, we're not just talking sometimes. the snake in conjunction with your daily intake of meat and dairy make you a full-time killer and not even for the purposes of survival. the problem with that philosophy is that we have convinced ourselves that every action of murder is absolutely necessary for our base survival. that's just not the case anymore. if you are truly interested in preserving life you'll look into possible solutions for your panic which include safety of the snake, too.
here's a few:
18 hours ago · Like
Charles
seraphime, I don't kill when the venomous snake inside of my territory. I need snakes to keep the population of rabbits down...or coveys of quail
18 hours ago · Like
Seraphime
i'm def. glad to hear that, sweetie. :) check out some of those relocation sites. you'll likely be able to find tips for safely capturing venomous snakes if not find
companies which'll provide that service.
18 hours ago · Like
Mary
When someone such as Charlie makes the initial statement that he did, it is obvious that he is feeling bad for the snake....otherwise no comment need be made by him. He is definitely doing the "yikes" thing or he would have not posted it on FaceBook. For anyone to chastise his behavior is foolish. As to the comments about panic -
not in his vocabulary.....sticking up for my little brother.
18 hours ago · Like
Seraphime
his remorse is not necessarily so obvious when one takes into account his occasionally goading, sarcastic tendencies, of which i cannot believe you have never been exposed to. having known charlie for 30 years myself, i'd say i know a thing or two about his rascally ways. besides, he knows my political viewpoints stand in diametric opposition to his. it wouldn't be the first time he said something inflammatory knowing i'd see it. of course i'd respond! no biggie, it's our dynamic. i wouldn't have it any other way. and you sticking up for your brother is totally understandable. i'd do the same if it were my brother, too.
as for it being foolish to remind him of the possibility of preserving all the life involved in that kind of situation - if that's foolish, then count me a fool a thousand times over. however you categorize me is fine, as long as the kernel to more compassionate living has been planted.
18 hours ago · Like
Charles
I will never compliment your sexiness again. I suck.
18 hours ago · Like
Seraphime
hahahahahaha! no, no, wait!! i wasn't sayin' your sarcastic nature isn't sexy. in fact, it IS!!! it's one of the things i always think of and enjoy the most about you (in my own very challenging way).
18 hours ago · Like
Mary
please do tell of his rascally ways......I am actually an old family friend. I formally step aside and welcome the sidebar! This is cute. I must point out that I can only "whack" Charlie - so milady - do tell! On the other hand....Charlie is Charlie.....Charlies are always that way.....
18 hours ago · Like
James
Um, we are talking about a 2.5 foot long rattlesnake that had no problem confronting a Rottweiller. That's a pretty bold snake -- and it wasn't hunting to eat. As far as
animal projects, it would be IMPOSSIBLE for as many human beings who do so to live on this planet with the alternation of crops and livestock: you would have soil
depletion and total deforestation.
18 hours ago · LikeUnlike · 2 people
Mary
how many times can I press the" like" button for that comment! Mr. Conlan - thank you!
17 hours ago · Like
Seraphime
@mary: lmfao! i'm gonna use that myself: "charlies are always that way." hmmm, let's see...rascally ways include, but are not limited to, writing nasty poems about nuns
in grade school, taking on high school sports coaches in a way that makes them completely regress into cro magnon status and the courting of jr high girls with
valentine smurfs until they cannot refuse his charms. rascally, rascally, rascally!
as an unrelated sidebar, not two seconds ago, i just referred to a friend of mine as "milady." trippy. ;)
17 hours ago · Like
Seraphime
i'm sorry, james, i don't fully understand your comment: you said, it would be impossible for the many human beings who live on this planet to do so "WITHOUT" (---did you accidentally leave that word out?) the alternation of crops and livestock?
@mary, world peace would be an excellent topic! ...though i suspect not nearly as engaging. ;)
3 hours ago · Like
Seraphime
please set me say though: i doubt anyone on this thread is someone who purposely tries to be mean-spirited or abusive toward animals. it's an important paradigm shift that's happening, that's required of us, to continue evolving into the most compassionate creatures we're capable of being.
3 hours ago · Like
Mary
KIDS!!!! I've got it!!!!!! We are all trying to say the same thing here! Vegetarian/animal rights, etc. Ready????
Save a horse, ride a cowboy!!!!!
3 hours ago · LikeUnlike · 1 person
James
LOL, Mary! Stephen Wright is prompting me to say, "Hi, my name is Bucky Goldstein."
2 hours ago · Like
Seraphime
also, @michelle, the health benefits to a vegan/vegetarian lifestyle have been well-established. one needn't look far to find copious support for this:
“It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes.… An evidence-based review showed that vegetarian diets can be nutritionally adequate in pregnancy and result in positive maternal and infant health outcomes. The results of an evidence-based review showed that a vegetarian diet is associated with a lower risk of death from ischemic heart disease. Vegetarians also appear to have lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, lower blood pressure, and lower rates of hypertension and type 2 diabetes than non-vegetarians. Furthermore, vegetarians tend to have a lower body mass index and lower overall cancer rates.”
from the “Position of the American Dietetic Association: Vegetarian Diets,”
Journal of the American Dietetic Association, July 2009
~the consumption of animal fats has been linked to numerous health problems: heart disease, colon and lung cancer, osteoporosis, diabetes, kidney disease, hypertension and obesity (among others).
~the myth about not being able to get enough protein on a vegan-based diet is precisely that, a myth. you can get plenty of protien in beans, nuts, lentils and vegetables that are much easier for your system to digest than meat-based protein. much healthier for you too, for they stave off colon cancer by passing through your system much more quickly.
~by eliminating meat and dairy from your diet you will reduce the likelihood of heart attacks, strokes and diabetes by at least 40%. considering heart disease is the number one cause of death for both men and women in this country, that's no bit of inconsequential trivia there. that's serious stand up and listen information.
~also, eliminating any food that comes from an animal will eliminate all dietary cholesterol from your diet, which is a good thing.
~a major study showed that men in the early stages of prostate cancer who switched to a vegan diet either stopped the progress of the cancer or even reversed the illness.
~countries where women eat very little meat and animal products have a much lower rate of breast cancer than do the women in countries that consume more animal products.
http://www.nursingdegree.net/blog/19/57-health-benefits-of-going-vegan/
http://library.thinkquest.org/C004833/health_en.shtml
http://www.veganhealth.org/
http://www.pcrm.org/health/veginfo/vegetarian_foods.html
James
At Seraphime: Murder can not be committed against an animal in any culture. Cruelty toward animals is immoral; however, it is not the same thing as (a) killing an animal; (b) eating its flesh once it is killed; (c) raising an animal to be ...eaten, or (d) using an animal to relieve the burdens on human beings. That's the point of the sacrifices in Exodus -- to show PUBLICLY that human beings are MORE IMPORTANT than animals.
Same thing in Cain and Abel in Genesis -- a story, by the way, which encapsulates what happens when a farmer ceases to work alongside a shepherd -- he wanders forever, killing people in his path, until he arrives on a flood plain.
Incest, as you call it, is allowed in Genesis, a time before the law of Moses. But read Exodus, Deuteronomy, & Leviticus, and you'll see that God tightens the reins up on the Chosen in a big way. You can't even sleep with your brother's widow, much less your sister (like Abraham) or your father's concubine (like Reuben, who was punished for it, btw).
Sensitivity toward the environment means, principally and fundamentally, thinking about how to feed people and dispose of the waste without diminishing resources for
the next generation. As there are expected to be more people in the next generation than in this one, it would spell an environmental disaster if we adopted less efficient means of fertilizing the earth than those we have now. So, you can be a vegetarian, but all you are doing is lying to yourself: the crops you eat are fertilized with the waste of animals who are raised to be slaughtered for meat. One less consumer of meat does not mean that there is less livestock raised for the slaughter; it means that the price of meat goes down.
McDonald's thanks you for your support.
2 hours ago · Like
James
@Seraphime [Paula?]: (P.S.: in other words, the thousand+ metric tons of water than went into that 1000-pound steer didn't stay there: Enjoy your sprouts.)
2 hours ago · Like
Seraphime
@james: as i mentioned earlier, it is an untenable position to rely solely on one source for the dictate of one's moral actions. equally as incomplete is the act of
deciphering the contents of the bible in a purely literal way. to do so locks you into the behavior of ancient civilizations whose values are not necessarily inclusive of the growth humanity has made over time. why would we want to regress ourselves? we've made some very necessary, enlightened improvements over the centuries with regard to how we treat ourselves, each other and the planet. additionally, a purely literal interpretation of the bible dismisses all that is to be gained from metaphor, whose infinite complexity endows us, for one, with the ability to retain ethical direction while growing into the improvements and realizations made by a more mature consciousness.
if you are truly interested in conducting yourself morally, as i assume you are, it would be beneficial to expose yourself to several treatise of highly principled contemplation. otherwise, you are merely a christian rather than an objectively well-rounded, ethically sound christian.
in the vein of biblical foundations for our actions, this text makes the point that the Golden Rule, which Helmut F. Kaplan calls the Theory of Everything in Ethics,
should also be adopted when dealing with animals.
however, my purpose is not to discuss the bible. it is to point out that while acting to save the rottweiler was a very noble action on charlie's part, it was equally as
important to keep the snake's life intact. at least to try. for one animal life is not better than another. just as human life and need is not more important than animals' lives and needs. to say that killing an animal is not murder is based on the assumption that animal life does not contain consciousness and, observationally alone, that does not bear out, not to mention how study after study supports the demonstration of animals' amazingly deep capacity to think, feel and reflect. and when i say consciousness, i'm referring to the ability to develop attachments and preferences like that of connection to one's family and environment or the preference to continue living; the ability to contemplate one's own existence and place in the world (and to have definite opinions and feelings about it) and the ability to feel and experience pain, torture and mistreatment. both factory farming and the act of killing to consume wage war on all of these sensations. if you insist animals are not capable of experiencing emotion or cognition, just spend a day with your dog and observe how s/he will whine or bark when unhappy, wag their tail when pleased, cast you sorrowful "puppy dog eyes" when left behind from that fun trip to the beach. and this isn't endemic to mammals alone. the proof of animals' inner experiences being comparable to that of humans is easily observable; just open yourself to it.
if you agree that cruelty toward animals is immoral then you cannot support ingesting anything the meat and dairy industry have provided because intrinsically those industries are barbarous and cruel beyond your wildest imagination. please watch earthlings for clear examples of this. www.earthlings.com/
and finally, i don't know where you're getting your info from re what goes into environmental hazards but it is not based on anything science is supporting. the notion that fertilizing the earth with animal carcasses is saving the planet is bizarre. perhaps you mean animal feces? that is literally what fertilizer is comprised of.
as for the vegetarian/vegan movement constituting only "one less [meat] consumer" - again, i am getting the impression you are not regularly exposed to respectable news media because we constitute a hell of a lot more than one mere consumer. we are a viable movement comprising a large part of the consumer market, gaining formidable size and purchasing power with each handful of years. if anything, i'd be worrying about how to hold onto the meat market, if i were you - that's what all the captains of your industry are doing. and they're managing it by diversifying into the vegan/vegetarian markets. why do you think soy products have exploded with the fervor of a gold rush in our grocery marts? high demand.
33 minutes ago · Like
Seraphime
james, we're not recouping our investment (in any sort of vital way) of that thousand+ metric tons of water that went into the steer for several reasons. one being factory
farm cattle are literally not allowed to die on the spot, simply dissolving into the earth to fortify it. from the abattoir they're cut up and shipped off to supply unnecessary industries like leather, an industry which no longer serves to keep us alive the way it did back when we depended on it for warmth. the rest of the bovine matter is often just tossed in the trash, not benefiting anyone, least of all the cattle or the planet. if you doubt this, watch earthlings www.earthlings.com. the depraved waste of the meat and dairy industry is legendary.
7 minutes ago · Like
*according to facebook, james did respond to my last comment above but must have written something he soon regretted for it was deleted and now i can't access it.
No comments:
Post a Comment