..2 and it may apply to all forms of farming other than meant for, taking fully riped fruits, naturally dead, waste & superfluous parts, nector, honey drops, honey after beescleave, milk from happy animals, cotton, silk, pearls after worms leave, etc.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Gratitude, Compulsion, Idiocy or Nobility?
- Thread starter Kumar
- Start date
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Do you eat bread, Kumar?
Bees no not cleave of their own accord, you know. If you see half a bee it has had an unpleasant accident. And you are possibly in the "fish licence" sketch.
What do you think happens to the calves of dairy cattle?
Do you think silkworms survive the process of boiling them alive to extract the silk from their cocoons?
Pearls are not produced by worms. And, once again, the oysters don't benefit from the process that results in having them retrieved..
I do not know, what and how nature had maintained us(also other species) since most of our evolution, mostly without our active interventions? Do you know it?
The same way nature can still go on.
I'm sorry, I haven't the faintest idea what you are trying to ask. Could you try again, please.
Where? In wild places or in breeding farms?
I was talking about "wild silk" and this one:
""Peace silk", also known as "vegetarian silk" is raised and processed differently. The moths are allowed to emerge from their cocoons to live out their full life cycle. The silk is degummed and spun like other fiber, instead of being reeled. The resulting yarn is soft, fluffy, and light like a cloud. This is the best silk for warmth and therapeutic use."
Filippo Lippi
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2002
- Messages
- 5,554
Drivel
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Mojo
Mostly harmless
If they "die naturally" it is pretty much inevitable that something will have killed them. Animals in the wild rarely have a "what a nice way to go" death.
Yes that is natural to them. Moreover that is for their basic need.
That will be natural.
Nature had maintained since long even without unnature.
NO. I can evaluate the discussion so conclued. Any odd in conclusion?
fagin
Philosopher
I see words, I don't see meaning.
No, that's made it worse.
You know that English you use when you complain in FMF? That version which everyone can understand: plain, simple, proper grammar, and error-free? How about trying that now, so that I can begin to understand what meaning you are trying to convey.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
https://www.petakillsanimals.com/proof-peta-kills/
This is not a new thing, PETA has always done this. For an animal, being taken in by PETA is akin to a death sentence.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Yes. You have failed to honestly evaluate the discussion, because your conclusion ignores pretty much everything that everyone other than you has posted. You don't want a discussion, you want an echo chamber.
You have a one-sided approach.
It is shoking. No belief. However I need to carefully check it in view of there can be many many opponents to them. Moreover, if such animals were not fit to be maintained with other animals. Sterlization still an odd but may be a compulsion.
Anyway, inspite of their odds, it does not entitle for a caveat to do the same.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
PETA has many opponents because of their egregious behavior. The examples I cited of their misbehavior were things that PETA does not dispute. They admit they do these things. In some cases the admit it proudly, such as their vice president's use of animal-produced insulin. Her excuse was that she's personally important enough to warrant breaking their supposed moral code on her behalf. They admit that they euthanize animals on a grand scale. You should have known all this before using them as a source. But you didn't; you just found a random link that supported what you already wanted to believe and thought it would be okay.
That's not the point. The point is that this is the group you cited in favor of your argument, from whom you borrowed your moral mandate, and upon whom you relied for information about diet and animal keeping. Upon having been given reason to doubt your rosy view of them, you did nothing. You "dug in" and demanded that your critics produce information you should have already known about. Despite being warned several times that you were not wise to base your morals on them, you didn't do even the slightest amount of due diligence. Now that you've realized your critics were right and you were wrong, you're still trying to find some way to salvage the situation.
The point is that you take no critical thought to your own beliefs and sources.