how you define "race." is rather different between species, or rather the evolutionary origins of races and it does matter to your point.
the meaning of your gibbering is rather dependent on you having some understanding of the biology of the species concept and of the origin of race. But I assume you realise that.
You clearly haven't understood. </p> I'm sure we both know things the other doesn't. Do you actually have anything to say?</p>
I think you upset him with your animal trap story. You're not allowed to be cruel to animals but you can be as racist as you like. That's *Windy for you.</p> By the way, this thread was about equating racism to eating meat if you hadn't gathered.He eats fish though so I don't know how he quite reconciles that but I'm sure, in his mind,he does.</p>
Yes there was and with The Cats Protection League aswell. One of them moved it's headquarters into central London, which increased running costs by a significant amount. I cancelled my direct debits to 3 animal charities and i now buy food instead and take it direct to the animal shelters in Barnsley.
Absolutely The company I work for used to donate money each year to various charities, or so we thought. Slowly it dawned on us that we are actually donating part of our profits to companies producing Christmas cards, diaries etc. In the end we stopped it all and gave money directly to local charities instead. A tin of Pal is far more valuable to Cliffe Kennels at Hoylandswaine than a donation to the RSPCA.
Given that I was the only person who knew what this thread was about that must make me the cleverest person on this board! (bustin) </p> Also, given that I don't eat meat, or fish, that makes me the least racist! (bustin) </p> Cleverest and least racist, proven all in one thread.Thanks *Windy! (Y)(bustin) </p>
I have a Dream..... I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character....... Not in Barnsley tho'
The difference is... I don't wear a fancy hat. No sorry, that wasn't my point. The difference is... we've got to eat. No choice. So we are forced to invade the habitat of the native creatures, wiping out entire species or at best reducing their numbers. Plough their lands for our crops. Turn ecosystems into monocultures. Affect the natural drainage, create a deathly chain reaction right up the food chain. And if anything tries to make a go of it and tries eating the crops, they get wiped out too. Now we're turning to bio-fuels, even more land is being eaten by agriculture. So we have to draw the line at species. Looking at the bigger picture, eating a bacon sandwich is the least of our worries.
Indeed we do. </p> Every species is selfish. But we go way beyond what's necessary and, in general, view animal suffering with indifference, even, quite often, pleasure. We don't care about them. We're not hard-wired by evolution to care what happens to members of another tribe let alone race and yet, in our age of enlightenment, we do because we of our understanding of right and wrong. </p> On a practical level I can see that our actions are dictated by our needs but, ona purely philosophical level,I can't see any moral difference between speciesism and racism. And, if we're saying that we're speciesists because we're forced to be then we have to ask ourselves how we would act if we were forced to be racists.</p> You'll remember Acky'shigh high-horse dressage on here all day. His "little doggies" sneer madethe point perfectly.</p>
No. It really doesn't. </p> Regardless of how hard you try to steer the debate into youreducational comfort zone.</p> Take a look at Jay and Budmustang in this thread.</p>