|
Sign Up Now!
Home
Discussion
Topic
Last Day
Last Week
Search
Date
Keyword
Board Archive
Photo Gallery
Contacting Us
|
 |
|
Threads : Goldfish in the centerpieces?
|
| |
From : Therese ( - 149.136.185.1)
|
05 May 2000 11:54
Message : 101 of 214 (ID: 10327)
|
|
I agree with your views Lethe - although I've never done a cost-benfit analysis like that on who's winning :) I just was wondering if you were a PETA nazi or something like that. I think a lot of the stuff PETA does is great - but they tend to get a little out of control - as if they are not harming any living creature whatsoever. Some people just need a reality check.
|
|
|
Back To Top
|
From : Suznyc ( - 204.143.177.186)
|
05 May 2000 14:26
Message : 102 of 214 (ID: 10350)
|
|
A news item I ran across today... somehow, I felt it relevant. How, I'm not sure.
'Attack' Chickens Cause Flap
May 5, 2000 7:59 am EST
SONOMA, Calif. (Reuters) - Chickens have long ruled the roost in this picturesque California town, where a wandering flock of hens and roosters has given the downtown plaza a homey, rural charm appreciated by tourists and residents alike.
But something has put Sonoma's chickens into a foul mood, and after a flurry of attacks on neighborhood children, city officials have voted to ban the belligerent birds.
"It's not charming when you have to see your baby attacked," Monica Garcia of nearby Boyes Hot Springs told Sonoma's City Council on Wednesday evening after her 16-month old son was jumped by a rooster.
"Seeing the blood going down his face and seeing him screaming ... I can't sleep at night," Garcia said.
The Santa Rosa Press Democrat reported on Thursday that the Sonoma council, faced with horrific stories of mounting chicken aggression, decided it was time for the chickens to go -- approving a plan to roust them from the downtown plaza and distribute them to local farms in this northern California county.
One theory circulating in Sonoma is that too few hens among the many roosters has made the chickens more aggressive.
"I don't know if it's possible to envision a roosterless plaza," Councilman Ken Brown said after the vote. "But I have to tell you, when it comes to a question between a kid and a chicken, it's the kid."
|
|
|
Back To Top
|
From : Janette ( - 63.66.78.131)
|
05 May 2000 14:44
Message : 103 of 214 (ID: 10354)
|
|
Sexually frustrated males getting aggressive, huh?
Might be a stupidly simple solution, but how about putting in more hens or just reducing the roosters by a few so they get the "proper" ratio for the species?
|
|
|
Back To Top
|
From : Lethe ( - 212.151.57.212)
|
06 May 2000 03:42
Message : 104 of 214 (ID: 10371)
|
|
Suznyc, why do you find the term welfaredisease insulting? I don't know who said it first but it describes something exactly for what it is. Because of our "welfare" we are able to eat to much of different things and that gives us "diseases" that you don't find that much in poorer countries. And as I said it's not something only in America. We have it here too. And the term is accepted and it has been used by the WHO.
Maybe I form all the sentences in my post so I sound like I am preaching, I don't know. But telling someone else about the advantages in some issue is a good thing wich all of us have the right to do. We live in a democracy. Mankind will not continue it's evolution if agreeing in everything. Both all the individuals and the world itself will develop if argueing. I don't have the same opinions that you do, but I can tell you mine and you can tell me yours and from the other persons thoughts we can form new thoughts and maybe reinvent our view of the world. That's how we stay alive.
Therese, I know a lot of organisations like that tend to go out of control and that jus makes me angry cause it just gives the animalrights a bad name and it will scare people away. I often get questions like "How many hot dog stands have you burned down?" If they could control themselves we would be more accepted and taken more seriously. I'm a member in an organisation here in Sweden. They make protestlists you can order and get people to sign and they arrange peaceful demonstrations and they have their own paper to inform people and offer you books and vegie recipies and stuff like that. They never stand behind violent actios. Therefor they are more accepted. That's how I think we can make a difference. Personally I think it's better if everyone reduce their meateating with half then that we have an elitegroup of 1 percent of the population not eating any meat at all and being seen as "wierd outsiders" by the society.
I have another quote by the same genious.
"A human being is a part of the whole, called by us the 'Universe', a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separate from the rest - a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. Nobody is able to achieve this completely, but the striving for such achievement is in itself a part of the liberation and a foundation for inner security" Albert Einstein
|
|
|
Back To Top
|
From : Suznyc ( - 209.245.112.70)
|
06 May 2000 14:10
Message : 105 of 214 (ID: 10382)
|
|
I guess I just find the term demeaning, somehow, Lethe. It sounds like it means only the poor and disadvantaged have bad diets, when plenty of people do. It just seems one more way to denigrate people who are less fortunate. Maybe I'm reading way to much into the term, it just bugged me. I asked a couple of people if they ever heard of it, and they hadn't either.
Oh well! I will consider that I have learned somehing new!
|
|
|
Back To Top
|
From : Lethe ( - 212.151.80.139)
|
07 May 2000 09:36
Message : 106 of 214 (ID: 10399)
|
|
I guess I don't understand what you mean Suznyc. It doesn't mean the poor and disadvantaged have bad diets, it means the opposit. We rich and can afford to eat to eat to much of different things that we were only supposed to eat smaller amounts of. And I can admit you can have a bad diet whether you are a vegetarian, poor or rich or whatever.
Just anoter question for Suznyc, you used the word denigrate wich I couldnät understand. Did you perhaps mean degenerate?
Another quote:
”Non-violence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages.”
Thomas Edison
|
|
|
Back To Top
|
From : Chryse ( - 24.112.233.99)
|
07 May 2000 10:36
Message : 107 of 214 (ID: 10400)
|
|
I think she meant denigrate. Denigrate means to insult, defame, cast aspersions on. Degenerate means to have declined, having "sunk to a condition below that which is normal for a type."
:)
|
|
|
Back To Top
|
From : Jane ( - 163.232.4.209)
|
07 May 2000 20:42
Message : 108 of 214 (ID: 10408)
|
|
Lethe I also don't want to have a go at you personally BUT, chickens that are kept for producing eggs are treated far worse than those kept for their meat. and as Lovebug said, you still eat eggs.
|
|
|
Back To Top
|
From : Lovebug ( - 212.151.107.235)
|
08 May 2000 12:57
Message : 109 of 214 (ID: 10413)
|
|
Well I hate to say it but Lethes out now for two weeks... military duty in the forest so... he wont be here to deabte this for a while! :)
Yes Jane he still dose eat eggs and he is aware of the conditions... but let me tell you it is very hard to get him to eat eggs.... he normally dosen't accept when there is food like cake or cookies... wich he dosen't eat much of either.
|
|
|
Back To Top
|
From : Suznyc ( - 204.143.177.186)
|
08 May 2000 07:35
Message : 110 of 214 (ID: 10423)
|
|
Thanks, Chryse! :-)
I'm tired of Lethe's quotes at the end of every post, I'm not going to ever be a vegetarian, so I'm just going to drop out of this one!
Just remember - "no one can make you feel inferior without your consent." Eleanor Roosevelt.
|
|
|
Back To Top
|
|
|
Next 10 Messages >>> |
|
|
|
