Mel Gibson, Morrissey and Tom Jones pic in Los Angeles

Re: Mel Gibson, Morrissey, Tom Jones

3 legends!
Beautiful Morrissey

 

[Rowntree]

So the weak have greater protection? Is it then more barbaric to kill a small female than a man who is twice her size?

Singer claims it is morally wrong to kill an intelligent being over a lesser one regardless if it is an animal or human. An infant is not as cognitively developed as an adult. And the genius trumps the disabled individual. And clearly an ape is more aware than a vegetative human.




But you seem to be both arguing that it is about intelligence and defenselessness. And talking more about the horror of death rather than the quality of life.

Is your argument about a creature's intrinsic intelligence making it worthy of life? Or that its intelligence makes its death worse?

Is it OK to kill an animal to save a human life?

You've got a bit of time on your hands today RB

I can give a view on what seems more barbaric to me, this is easy as it's an emotive response, I can't tell you which person should die before another because it doesn't seem like a very logical debate to have. Is one person's life worth more than another's? I don't think so but I think if you get into a fist fight with somebody the same size it's less barbaric than picking on somebody half your size or mentally retarded.

As for what we choose to kill and eat, well we don't have to kill and eat any animal and that's my personal view, it seems worse to me to kill and animal of a higher intelligence so I would choose the dolphin to survive before a goldfish and a dog before a beetle. Are their lives worth more? Of course they aren't, putting value on life in these ways is a purely human invention. If we were still wild then these ideas would carry more weight but we control everything around us so we have to make choices of what's right and what's wrong unless we just want to destroy everything around us.

Finally, if I was in the wild and it was a toss up between me dying of hunger or me killing, cooking and eating an animal then there's no choice to make. Also if it's a choice between being killed or killing then I think that killing is justified - whether against an animal or human. As rational beings though we can make choices, yours may not be the same as mine but neither will be right because it's all a matter of personal choice no matter what Peter Singer says.

 

[MIDNITE]

a) the Tariji dolphin hunt results in the death of approx 2000 dolphins a year.
b) the species of dolphins hunted and killed are not on the endangered list.
c) killing practices have changed. Dolphins are killed with a pin to head which is considered to be more humane.
d) although some dolphins are killed for food (the Japanese appetite for dolphin is declining), more money is made by keeping the animals alive and exporting them.
e) recent and repeated studies have found that consumption doesn't cause any kind of poisoning.

Oh but hey, don't let facts get in the way eh?

You can twist the facts and fiddle about with the numbers as much as you like.....

The numbers slaughtered are a conservative estimate, the true number is probably far higher as its all covered up.

Dolphins are highly evolved psychic spiritual empathic and healing beings !
They have been known 2 fend off human shark attack despite risking there own safety 2 save us.
Will actively seek out and help people who are drowning and help guild and carry them 2 safety.
Seriously unwell children who are privileged enough 2 swim with dolphins, receive incredible healing and friendship from these kind healers and will very often get well and better again.
Dolphin and whale songs, are a very effective in lifting ones darkness in depression and other emotional imbalances ect.
The list of help they share with us is endless.

And what do we do to repay these kind little friends ?
Slaughter 1000s and 1000s of them each year!!!!

You also mention that the species that are slaughtered and butchered each year in japan are not on the endangered species list?
Many unclassified and unidentified mammalian marine species and marine fish species are on the verge of extinction or will be in the very near future due 2 man if the trend of over fishing and pollution ect continues without major change.
Fact!

 

[MIDNITE]

Would it be morally wrong to kill and eat Mel Gibson?

Mel Gibson has a long standing history of " alledged " domestic violence and abuse towards women!

So you make up your own mind!

 

[realitybites]

Actually, Rowntree, I am away from home most of the day and can't respond to your last post until tonight.

 

[Rowntree]

Actually, Rowntree, I am away from home most of the day and can't respond to your last post until tonight.

No worries, I was only joking 'cause you had me thinking hard!

 

[HandThatRocksTheCradle]

c) killing practices have changed. Dolphins are killed with a pin to head which is considered to be more humane.

Is that the same "pin" used to "humanely kill" cattle? The animal is not killed, it is stunned; it's like having a stroke. The heart is still beating. This is done this way so that the heart beats and the blood is quickly drained from the animal. So, the animal is very much alive while being eviscerated. Those who work in the slaughterhouses can tell you how the cow is hanging upside down, blinking its eyes, while they saw off its hooves.

 

[Anonymous]

Would it be morally wrong to kill and eat Mel Gibson?

No, but it would be a stale bitter taste, like vegemite and old Foster's. I'd rather eat Morrissey's testicles.

 

[Anonymous]

Is that the same "pin" used to "humanely kill" cattle? The animal is not killed, it is stunned; it's like having a stroke. The heart is still beating. This is done this way so that the heart beats and the blood is quickly drained from the animal. So, the animal is very much alive while being eviscerated. Those who work in the slaughterhouses can tell you how the cow is hanging upside down, blinking its eyes, while they saw off its hooves.

No. The pin or metal rod is supposed to sever the spinal cord causing death in seconds. The stun gun in cattle is used to subdue before slaughter.

However, it seems there is some dispute whether it is as effective as reported.

http://www.newscientist.com/article...-method-for-killing-dolphins-is-inhumane.html

 

[CrystalGeezer]

Is that the same "pin" used to "humanely kill" cattle? The animal is not killed, it is stunned; it's like having a stroke. The heart is still beating. This is done this way so that the heart beats and the blood is quickly drained from the animal. So, the animal is very much alive while being eviscerated. Those who work in the slaughterhouses can tell you how the cow is hanging upside down, blinking its eyes, while they saw off its hooves.

That doesn't seem very humane to me.

 

[CrystalGeezer]

No. The pin or metal rod is supposed to sever the spinal cord causing death in seconds.

A team of dolphins found a gold torpedo off the coast of Coronado recently. The Navy has trained them to find underwater mines and foreign objects.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-torpedo-dolphins-20130518,0,7621822.story

Why are we killing them with a metal rod in the their spinal cord? Oh yeah, they eat fish which makes fisherman money.

 

[Anonymous]

A team of dolphins found a gold torpedo off the coast of Coronado recently. The Navy has trained them to find underwater mines and foreign objects.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-torpedo-dolphins-20130518,0,7621822.story

Why are we killing them with a metal rod in the their spinal cord? Oh yeah, they eat fish which makes fisherman money.

No. They are a source of food for some people (and selling them alive or dead makes fishermen money).

 

[realitybites]

Is that the same "pin" used to "humanely kill" cattle? The animal is not killed, it is stunned; it's like having a stroke. The heart is still beating. This is done this way so that the heart beats and the blood is quickly drained from the animal. So, the animal is very much alive while being eviscerated. Those who work in the slaughterhouses can tell you how the cow is hanging upside down, blinking its eyes, while they saw off its hooves.

That is an exception to the rule. The animal is almost always successfully bled-out and dead before being disassembled. Description of the slaughter process.

 

[realitybites]

You've got a bit of time on your hands today RB

I can give a view on what seems more barbaric to me, this is easy as it's an emotive response, I can't tell you which person should die before another because it doesn't seem like a very logical debate to have. Is one person's life worth more than another's? I don't think so but I think if you get into a fist fight with somebody the same size it's less barbaric than picking on somebody half your size or mentally retarded.

As for what we choose to kill and eat, well we don't have to kill and eat any animal and that's my personal view, it seems worse to me to kill and animal of a higher intelligence so I would choose the dolphin to survive before a goldfish and a dog before a beetle. Are their lives worth more? Of course they aren't, putting value on life in these ways is a purely human invention. If we were still wild then these ideas would carry more weight but we control everything around us so we have to make choices of what's right and what's wrong unless we just want to destroy everything around us.

Finally, if I was in the wild and it was a toss up between me dying of hunger or me killing, cooking and eating an animal then there's no choice to make. Also if it's a choice between being killed or killing then I think that killing is justified - whether against an animal or human. As rational beings though we can make choices, yours may not be the same as mine but neither will be right because it's all a matter of personal choice no matter what Peter Singer says.

Rowntree, your posts are always thoughtful, articulate, and civil. So regardless if your views differ from my own, I respect your opinions and appreciate you sharing them on the forums.

I agree that what Peter Singer thinks is irrelevant. But I do think he is a great thinker and find his insights to be thought provoking.

You sound like you have a fairly balanced perspective when it comes to animal rights. You are sensitive yet also able to also retain degree of rationality and reasonableness.

 

[cornelius blaze]

No, but it would be a stale bitter taste, like vegemite and old Foster's. I'd rather eat Morrissey's testicles.

 

[Anonymous]

Rowntree, your posts are always thoughtful, articulate, and civil. So regardless if your views differ from my own, I respect your opinions and appreciate you sharing them on the forums.

I agree that what Peter Singer thinks is irrelevant. But I do think he is a great thinker and find his insights to be thought provoking.

You sound like you have a fairly balanced perspective when it comes to animal rights. You are sensitive yet also able to also retain degree of rationality and reasonableness.

The post is about a picture of Gibson/Morrissey/Jones so whats with all this animal/dolphin shite ? Can we please get back on topic if you want to discuss animals
go to a farm/zoo or start an animal post

we'll let you know

 

[Rowntree]

Rowntree, your posts are always thoughtful, articulate, and civil. So regardless if your views differ from my own, I respect your opinions and appreciate you sharing them on the forums.

I agree that what Peter Singer thinks is irrelevant. But I do think he is a great thinker and find his insights to be thought provoking.

You sound like you have a fairly balanced perspective when it comes to animal rights. You are sensitive yet also able to also retain degree of rationality and reasonableness.

Thanks, reading back my Peter Singer comment was a bit obtuse but it wasn't intentional, and throwing him into the mix does get you thinking!

 

[realitybites]

Thanks, reading back my Peter Singer comment was a bit obtuse but it wasn't intentional, and throwing him into the mix does get you thinking!

He's got some pretty controversial views. But I actually agree with a great many of them. He's a utilitarian. And so am I. Here is an interesting article, written by religious scholar, Mark Oppenheimer. It highlights some of Singer's ethical positions.

 

[Oh my god. it's Robby!]

just weird, just weird man
funny thread though

 

[Anonymous]

yall be hatin cuz moz be chillin with tom n mel. You wish you was tom n mel but you aint so you gotta hate on mozzer. You gotta be kiddin. Moz is a boss. He rolls with ballers and Hollywood types. Mel is straight comedy. did yall listen to them tapes his wife recorded of him. oh man I was lol'in all night after them. Tom Jones was a boss before yall even rocked black eyeliner. bown down to the three horsemen yall.

 

[Anonymous]

From touring with Morrissey? Or her dead mother's estate? Just a failed European keepin' it classy, folks.

Still going strong, eh?

Your parents didn't do a great job with you, honey.

How many IRL friends do you have? Any? YOU'RE ALWAYS ON HERE.

Does it make you feel powerful/cool/with it/ spreading lies about people on here?

I hope I have the great privilage of being at the same gig as you again in the future so I can tell you what a coward and what a complete joke I think you are.

Also, if you want a spot at the rail- Get your ass to the venue in the morning....and.....wait for it.....queue. It's rather simple. Shut up about about the "inner circle" already. It's as simple as getting there early.

You really are too f***ing twisted to still be going on about Kristeen. You are nothing but an ex fan who didn't get the attention you wanted. So f***ing sad.
Move on.

Here's a thought: Maybe Kristeen isn't f***ing her producer. Maybe Morrissey really likes the music. Maybe Dave G heard her stuff and was really into it, too. Maybe you're just a bitter woman with (at least) one or two mental issues. And maybe you should stop throwing bricks in glass buildings. The walls may fall down....and smash your rather unflattering face. Just a thought.