Skip to main content

quote:
Originally posted by I_am_mohogany:

And oh, by the way, if someone knows of website or link that gives scientific evidence of plants being able to feel or perceive pain I'd love to check it out.



Scientists Prove Plants Feel Pain, Vegans Face Starvation

DALLAS--Research scientists at Baylor Medical Center have proven that plants, including vegetables, feel pain when subjected to trauma such as being yanked out of the ground, peeled, cooked, and eaten. "Veggies and plants initiate a massive hormone and chemical barrage internally when they suffer any kind of injury," says professor Barry Lindzer. "This response is akin to the nerve response and endorphin release when an animal is injured. We cannot ignore the similarities." When Tarnish asked professor Lindzer and his research team what they thought this finding might mean, they responded unanimously, "Nobel prize, baby!"

Other agencies, namely People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and the sum total of the world's hard-core vegetarians (known as vegans) registered formal complaints against the research. Their team of lawyers has already submitted a motion to have the results of the research destroyed or sealed. Others fear the damage has already been done. A spokesman for PETA said, "This is bad for us. Most of our members haven't eaten anything since hearing about the results. Our lawyers are looking into suing Mother Earth for false advertising, but concede that the suit will probably be inconclusive. In the meantime we'll be surviving on vitamin supplements and water."

In an ironic related story, a dozen PETA protesters picketing the Hungry Carnivore Steak House in New York City were allegedly assaulted by three patrons of the restaurant. Eyewitnesses say that the picketers were making their typical nuisance display of scorn and righteous indignation over the willful consumption of "the flesh of murdered animals" outside the Hungry Carnivore when two unidentified men and a woman stepped out of the establishment and sprayed the picketers with several gallons of what appeared to be blood. Victims and bystanders alike were surprised to discover that the liquid was actually V-8 juice. The truly shocking result of the alleged attack was the reaction of the picketers. All of the PETA protesters were wracked with convulsions and suffered hours of dry heaves while many of the bystanders merely laughed. This reaction within vegetarianism's great bastion of faith has many true believers reconsidering their dietary requirements. Others are quietly making funeral arrangements and the Environmental Protection Agency is considering declaring vegans an endangered species.

http://www.department13designs.com/vegan.html
The starting point of the exchange seems to have been "The Secret
Life of Plants", which we can safely dismiss as not worth much
beyond a temporary entertainment value, but the subject is argued
in deadly earnest by proponents of so-called "ethical" vegetarianism
and animal rights philosophy. In rec.food.veg and talk.politics.
animals, it comes up about once every two months...or perhaps more
often.

There are two distinct facets to the argument, as it is usually
developed. The first is a semantic one which retreats to the
human-centered definition of the word "pain" found in most
dictionaries...and from this standpoint, it is virtually certain
that plants do not, indeed, "feel pain." It is this facet that
"ethical" vegetarians and AR advocates most often seek to exploit,
but it is clearly not a direct addressing of the issue....it is
merely defining the question out of existence.

The second facet is far more challenging, since it deals with moral
and biological significance rather than semantics. To address this,
one must first define pain, its significance to an organism, and
the significance of reactions to it, as well as the moral signifi-
cance of inducing it. [Even then, one will not have silenced the
true believer, because the conversation will then turn to the
deprivation caused a "sentient" being by premature death, but that's
another matter.]

At its base, pain can be viewed as a warning to the organism that
experiences it, that it's life and/or ability to propagate its
genetic heritage is under threat. It can be argued that organisms
are essentially [as some wag once said] "DNA's way of making more
DNA." Virtually ALL organisms have sensory mechanisms that are
aimed at warning the individual of threats to life and/or repro-
duction, thus, while plants probably can't "feel pain" (as defined
in human dictionaries), plants can certainly sense their environment
and react in ways that are clearly intended to minimize threats to
life and/or reproduction: threats that humans would interpret as
painful. In other words, whatever one chooses to call it, plants
certainly experience the *functional equivalent* of that which we
humans call "pain", as do essentially all other organisms.

Having settled that, one must consider (assuming one remains
interested) whether consciously inducing these responses in plants
is the moral equivalent of consciously inducing them in humans
[as well as cute, furry, non-human creatures]. Can one "torture"
a plant by making it waste its resources and energy on self-protec-
tion rather than directing to toward reproduction? There is ample
evidence of systemic response in plants to external threats, as
I'm sure many researchers in the field of botany would agree.
Wildon has published evidence of an electrical signalling system
in plants similar to the epithelial conduction system found in
several "lower" animals (NATURE 360:62-65; 1992); others have
published evidence of intra-plant chemical signalling systems and
have even found intriguing indications that plants may even signal
to each other (an interesting lay review can be found in Science
News, Dec. 22/29, 1990, pp. 408-410).

However simple plants may seem as viewed from our position of
evolutionary complexity, we should not fall into the trap of
thinking plants to be simply "passive green things."

http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/plantbio/1994-December/004565.html
quote:
Originally posted by I_am_Mahogany:
Plants have to die? Excellent point. I mean, there are so many similarities between harvesting and picking fresh produce and enslaving, torturing and slaughtering animals. Although plants don't have central nervous systems (the only indicator of pain that I know of), I can see why anti-vegetarians would compare eating a salad with eating a pork chop. ***note the sarcasm***
And oh, by the way, if someone knows of website or link that gives scientific evidence of plants being able to feel or perceive pain I'd love to check it out.


I would suggest reading 'The Secret Life of Plants', or watching the video on it posted in the spiritual section... You may have to become a Breatharian.

In fact, I can't wait to suggest it to some of my vegan/vegetarian friends... daz

I'm off to humanely slaughter a free range organic chicken for ebo(sacrifice) and communal dinner. tongue

On another note, I really appreciate Empty Purnatra pointing out the hypocricy in all of this...
I'm going to respectfully agree to disagree with you guys on this topic and keep it moving...Oshun, I have some free time coming up, I may check out The Secret Life of Plants just for kicks. I looked it up online and this book is not accepted by the scientific community because the experiements within the text are full of faults. Ok, so we discover that plants respond to a stimuli...and? I think I learned that in grade school.
But anyhoo, you guys enjoy your holiday.
There is nothing to disagree on considering no one has been able to objectively answer such a simple question. None of these sidetracking commentaries about what is morally right or wrong have nothing to do with the fact that Michael Vick simply broke the law. End of story. Somewhere on planet Earth someone is eating roasted dog. Somewhere on planet Earth someone is eating rat on a stick. Somewhere on planet Earth women are being raped every 30 seconds. But the point is, right here in North America, dogfighting was, is, and always will be illegal.
quote:
Originally posted by jazzdog:
Its not consider illegal it is illegal, and yes it bothers me to see animals suffer, however, since legal hunting has benefits that if you bothered to educate yourself on you would see that the monies raised from hunting are actually put back into the system to set aside land not just for hunting


I don't hunt, so how does that benefit me?

quote:
but also for animal reserves where hunting is not even allowed, it provides for educational programs to educate the masses (like you) on wildlife conservation.


Animal reserves are paid for much more by money raised by private humanitarian groups and even government grants than by money raised from hunting.

But going with your points, did you know that people who make money from illegal poaching sometimes donate a fraction of the money to different charities? Mobsters donate money to charity. Does that mean the Mob or poaching is good?

Now again, how is hunting more humane than what Vick did?

quote:
Second, anybody who has ever spend anytime out in the woods (no the Zoo does not count) understand that with any population that gets to large it becomes susceptible to disease and hunger, there are several states that recently open up hunting for animals that were traditionally not hunted in recent years because the population got so large the animals were actually straving themselves out,


That doesn't account for the majority of hunting. Most hunters hunt for sport, not to thin out the local population. And there are other ways to deal with the problem. There's a reason why hunting equipment is in the "sporting goods" section with athletic equipment.

quote:
As for dogs being more deeming of care, obiviously you never talked to a horse person who would give you a different perspective, and did you know that they eat horses, it hard to find somebody to provide the meat but it can be done.


I'm saying that if Vick was doing this to boa constrictors, no one (or at least few) would care. Most people only care because cute doggies were the victims.

quote:
While the sentence was to long I have no pity for the fool,


I don't feel sorry for him so much as I think they did him wrong by making such a public spectacle out of him when people have done things much worse than him and don't get made into a public stock to be tarred and feathered by the town. And I think it was racially motivated - a big stupid black man killed the most beloved animal of all to middle-income white folks - doggies. I remember a few years ago the police found some white guy up here in Baltimore, Maryland with a dog fighting ring bigger than Vick's. They didn't do all that to him, making him show up to court in jail clothing.

I'm also upset at the hypocrisy of the people condemning Vick while they wear leather coats, alligator shoes, ivory earrings and munch on their hamburger made from a cow that lived in sub-inhumane conditions in a small cage and was killed when they took a spiked hammer and clubbed its brains out.


quote:
anything that you have to do behind close doors because its illegal,


Growing weed is illegal, but I don't think it's wrong to grow it behind closed doors. But I agree that what Vick did was definitely wrong. I have never supported what Vick did or thought he is innocent. I do think they are making this brother into a modern-day black buck being publicly lynched (symbolically) for a wrongdoing.

quote:
Oh, by the way there's this white guy in LA who got 10 years for dog fighting and he was not a professional football player, I wonder if you are beating your chest over his sentence.


Who was that guy?
quote:
Originally posted by negrospiritual:
quote:
Originally posted by jazzdog:

Oh, by the way there's this white guy in LA who got 10 years for dog fighting and he was not a professional football player, I wonder if you are beating your chest over his sentence.


My dad and his peeps were hunters. I have been taken hunting and fishing. I was a member of the 4-H club, not the brownies/girlscouts. My family has had game wardens release "extra" wild animals near our property in the name of "wildlife conservation"

With all that said, I can still see that the common thread in big game hunting, sport hunting, dog fighting and cockfighting is that animal death is exploited for human pleasure. Animal death provides human satisfaction.

and the white guy who received 10 yrs? was it a federal sentence? or a state one? had he been arrested for the same offense or others before? How many animals were involved in his operation? These questions have to be answered before he can be compared to Michael Vick's case.



P.S. Is that a leather belt, wool sweater, and snakeskin boots youre wearing? Big Grin


Absolutely, and I killed the snake myself.......with my bare hands Smile
quote:
Originally posted by jazzdog:
quote:
Originally posted by negrospiritual:
quote:
Originally posted by jazzdog:

Oh, by the way there's this white guy in LA who got 10 years for dog fighting and he was not a professional football player, I wonder if you are beating your chest over his sentence.


My dad and his peeps were hunters. I have been taken hunting and fishing. I was a member of the 4-H club, not the brownies/girlscouts. My family has had game wardens release "extra" wild animals near our property in the name of "wildlife conservation"

With all that said, I can still see that the common thread in big game hunting, sport hunting, dog fighting and cockfighting is that animal death is exploited for human pleasure. Animal death provides human satisfaction.

and the white guy who received 10 yrs? was it a federal sentence? or a state one? had he been arrested for the same offense or others before? How many animals were involved in his operation? These questions have to be answered before he can be compared to Michael Vick's case.



P.S. Is that a leather belt, wool sweater, and snakeskin boots youre wearing? Big Grin


Absolutely, and I killed the snake myself.......with my bare hands Smile


And...............that's better than what Vick did?
quote:
Originally posted by negrospiritual:
quote:
Originally posted by listener:
It wasn't meant as a plea for animals, it is the face of white supremacy when it comes to animals and the disconnection of European culture from live and nature. I do not agree with organizations which make animals more important than humans or people who look away when it comes to human rights violations but can organize when it comes to animals.
But I also don't agree that humans are the only ones who belong to planet earth, because earth can exist without us, but we can't without earth.
For me personally there is no either-or. No either human rights or animal welfare or environmental protection. All belongs together for the balance of life.The white obsession when it comes to Michael Vick displays again the hypocrisy and racism of white supremacy, because most of those who wanted to see M. Vick punished give a sh't about dogs or at least fighting dog breeds. For most of them it never was about the well-being of dogs.



For me, personally, there is an either or. Humans are more important than pets. I will kill every guppy on the planet if it means saving one human life. *shrug*


Are you a Christian?
quote:
Originally posted by Empty Purnata:
quote:
Originally posted by jazzdog:
quote:
Originally posted by negrospiritual:
quote:
Originally posted by jazzdog:

Oh, by the way there's this white guy in LA who got 10 years for dog fighting and he was not a professional football player, I wonder if you are beating your chest over his sentence.


My dad and his peeps were hunters. I have been taken hunting and fishing. I was a member of the 4-H club, not the brownies/girlscouts. My family has had game wardens release "extra" wild animals near our property in the name of "wildlife conservation"

With all that said, I can still see that the common thread in big game hunting, sport hunting, dog fighting and cockfighting is that animal death is exploited for human pleasure. Animal death provides human satisfaction.

and the white guy who received 10 yrs? was it a federal sentence? or a state one? had he been arrested for the same offense or others before? How many animals were involved in his operation? These questions have to be answered before he can be compared to Michael Vick's case.



P.S. Is that a leather belt, wool sweater, and snakeskin boots youre wearing? Big Grin


Absolutely, and I killed the snake myself.......with my bare hands Smile


And...............that's better than what Vick did?


Huh........that was a joke! But I have eaten rattlesnake......taste like chicken Cool
quote:
Originally posted by Romulus Burnett:
There is nothing to disagree on considering no one has been able to objectively answer such a simple question. None of these sidetracking commentaries about what is morally right or wrong have nothing to do with the fact that Michael Vick simply broke the law. End of story. Somewhere on planet Earth someone is eating roasted dog. Somewhere on planet Earth someone is eating rat on a stick. Somewhere on planet Earth women are being raped every 30 seconds. But the point is, right here in North America, dogfighting was, is, and always will be illegal.


Absoltely! appl
quote:
Originally posted by Romulus Burnett:
There is nothing to disagree on considering no one has been able to objectively answer such a simple question. None of these sidetracking commentaries about what is morally right or wrong have nothing to do with the fact that Michael Vick simply broke the law. End of story. Somewhere on planet Earth someone is eating roasted dog. Somewhere on planet Earth someone is eating rat on a stick. Somewhere on planet Earth women are being raped every 30 seconds. But the point is, right here in North America, dogfighting was, is, and always will be illegal.


So? Lynching used to be informally legal. It's legal to discriminate between white Cubans and black Dominicans via the racist-ass "wet foot/dry foot" law. It's illegal to grow marijuana in your garden but it's legal for pharmaceutical companies to put out pills on the market that have literally lethal side effects. What does that say about the US legal system?
Without question the legal system in America is flawed...always have been and always will be. That doesn't give anyone an excuse to break the law. There have been some very determined and courageous people who have taken it open themselves to change laws and/or get new laws passed that make sense. But there is no honor in breaking the law. Follow laws, or take your punishment.
quote:
Originally posted by I_am_Mahogany:
I'm going to respectfully agree to disagree with you guys on this topic and keep it moving...Oshun, I have some free time coming up, I may check out The Secret Life of Plants just for kicks. I looked it up online and this book is not accepted by the scientific community because the experiements within the text are full of faults. Ok, so we discover that plants respond to a stimuli...and? I think I learned that in grade school.
But anyhoo, you guys enjoy your holiday.


Just for an FYI, the book and film are about far more than just 'plants responding to stimuli'... It goes way beyond what we learned in grade school...(otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned it Roll Eyes)and the reason(s) the scientific(read Western scientific) community rejected the tests are adressed.

Anywho,

I come from the school that there is plant, animal, and human consciousness. The way the cycle of life works is that each consumes the other. We also become 'food' for the plants eventually. As long is all copnsumption is done with respect, then there is no problem. Hence what Michael Vick did is reprehensable... but... the way an indigenous/traditional people, who apologize to, as well as thank the animal(and plants because of their consciousness) for giving their life force to us to continue living, before slaughter and consumption of their flesh... I see nothing unethical or hypocritical with that.

I guess it's all about worldview. I take no issue to agree to disagree with vegans/vegetarians on this one, as long as it's truly done respectfully... with no insulting 'grade school' comments. Our worldviews aren't that drastically different... At least that has been my experience. It's definately closer than with those of the meat industry...

All of that being said. No matter what one's view is on meat consumption, I do not understand how anyone can 'brush aside' the hypocracy(morally and ethically, let alone the racial disparity) of the legal system. Hence I like what EP has stated.
quote:
Originally posted by Empty Purnata:
quote:
Originally posted by negrospiritual:
quote:
Originally posted by listener:
It wasn't meant as a plea for animals, it is the face of white supremacy when it comes to animals and the disconnection of European culture from live and nature. I do not agree with organizations which make animals more important than humans or people who look away when it comes to human rights violations but can organize when it comes to animals.
But I also don't agree that humans are the only ones who belong to planet earth, because earth can exist without us, but we can't without earth.
For me personally there is no either-or. No either human rights or animal welfare or environmental protection. All belongs together for the balance of life.The white obsession when it comes to Michael Vick displays again the hypocrisy and racism of white supremacy, because most of those who wanted to see M. Vick punished give a sh't about dogs or at least fighting dog breeds. For most of them it never was about the well-being of dogs.



For me, personally, there is an either or. Humans are more important than pets. I will kill every guppy on the planet if it means saving one human life. *shrug*


Are you a Christian?


Is that @ NS? or Listener?

if me (NS) then yes, i attend a missionary baptist church, read the bible, and am attracted to the teachings of christ.
quote:
Originally posted by negrospiritual:
quote:
Originally posted by Empty Purnata:
quote:
Originally posted by negrospiritual:
quote:
Originally posted by listener:
It wasn't meant as a plea for animals, it is the face of white supremacy when it comes to animals and the disconnection of European culture from live and nature. I do not agree with organizations which make animals more important than humans or people who look away when it comes to human rights violations but can organize when it comes to animals.
But I also don't agree that humans are the only ones who belong to planet earth, because earth can exist without us, but we can't without earth.
For me personally there is no either-or. No either human rights or animal welfare or environmental protection. All belongs together for the balance of life.The white obsession when it comes to Michael Vick displays again the hypocrisy and racism of white supremacy, because most of those who wanted to see M. Vick punished give a sh't about dogs or at least fighting dog breeds. For most of them it never was about the well-being of dogs.



For me, personally, there is an either or. Humans are more important than pets. I will kill every guppy on the planet if it means saving one human life. *shrug*


Are you a Christian?


Is that @ NS? or Listener?

if me (NS) then yes, i attend a missionary baptist church, read the bible, and am attracted to the teachings of christ.


I was asking you because you had such a blasé attitude about killing animals. I was going to say that doesn't sound like a very Christian attitude to take towards animals. In Genesis, God gave humans the responsibility as stewards/caretakers of the earth.

Even though I'm not a Christian, I always agreed with the idea of humans as stewards of the earth. No other being on this planet has the same power as humans to take care of it.
quote:
Originally posted by Empty Purnata:

I was asking you because you had such a blasé attitude about killing animals. I was going to say that doesn't sound like a very Christian attitude to take towards animals. In Genesis, God gave humans the responsibility as stewards/caretakers of the earth.

Even though I'm not a Christian, I always agreed with the idea of humans as stewards of the earth. No other being on this planet has the same power as humans to take care of it.



I suppose it could come off as blase. I don't have a problem with it being read that way. But, to add context, I was responding to what I perceived to be Listener's attempt to make puppy saving tantamount to fighting white supremacy. I do not view rescuing puppies, dressing them in sweaters, lugging them around in purses and kissing them in the mouth as a huge offense to white supremacy. When listener seemed to doubt that pets were being saved before the human body count had been completed during Hurricane Katrina, and later stated that she does not place human rights above animal welfare or vice versa, it struck me as more of the same 'puppies are people too' schlock i hear from white people with sweater clad purse dogs and pets who are "members of the family". The same people who would probably put Vick to death if they could.

So with that said, my "guppykiller" response was meant to emphasize my position of placing human life above that of animals. I have not considered whether that is consistent with my chosen religion or not but I hold human life as more sacred than animal life and have no regrets about such.


this is a bit of an earlier post between Listener and me:

quote:

Listener, I understand your point and I probably went overboard with the guppykiller bit but your last post and your post insisting that "don't mess with white folks dogs" is not true is not consistent.

"Negroespiritual, in which way is it not consistent?"


We already know that white people's attitude toward their pets is inconsistent with respect for life/nature etc. It is the very assertion that we have already been making. You cannot exterminate races of humans and claim to have respect for life. You cannot suck all the life out of the oceans, strip the forests bare, dump chemicals in the ocean, and drop atomic bombs and convincingly proclaim yourselves as earth friendly or animal lovers complete with purse dogs and puppy sweaters. We understand environmental racism.

We already knew that the white man places extroadinary importance on his housepets and displays extroadinary cruelty to other living things, namely nonwhite humans.

A black human life is worth less than the life of a dog in a purse to white people.

so when you speak of the defenselessness of dogs, as if that is comparable to humans like somehow black people ought to identify with the "oppression of dogs" as part of white supremacy it seems like more of the same old same old.

"when they try to defend themselves they're put to death" sounds incredibly similar to saying dogs who rip people's throats out shouldn't be put to death because they're only defending themselves.

If you're one of those people who loves dogs as much as or more than humans, and judging from your avatar, and this statement



"For me personally there is no either-or. No either human rights or animal welfare or environmental protection. All belongs together for the balance of life."


you are, that's fine. Pet's are cool, but don't diminish the struggles of a PEOPLE by denying the truth about white people's obsession with dogs and cats and then trying to compare the black experience with white supremacy to puppy mills.


I didn't feel a disclaimer was necessary but just in case here goes...

No animals were harmed during the production of this post. NS grew up with pets including dogs, cats, chickens, and pigs which she was responsible for feeding and cleaning their pens. NS is of the old school which believes that pets don't belong in the house. However, NS currently has an aquarium. Although taken hunting and fishing as a youth NS does not routinely engage in animal destruction. NS admits to the use of roach spray, mouse traps, fly swatters as well as chopping off the head of a snake in her mama's garden. NS eats meat, has a leather jacket, shoes, and belts, wears wool, has slept on a feather bed and uses health and beauty products which contain varying degrees of animal derived ingredients. NS finds an inconsistency in the eating, wearing, or slathering on of animal based products, while condemning others for cockfighting or fur wearing. For this reason, NS openly admits her carnivore status. NS does agree that Michael Vick is a bonehead for throwing his millionaire future away on some damn dogs and fickle friends.
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by negrospiritual:
quote:
Originally posted by Empty Purnata:

I was asking you because you had such a blasé attitude about killing animals. I was going to say that doesn't sound like a very Christian attitude to take towards animals. In Genesis, God gave humans the responsibility as stewards/caretakers of the earth.

Even though I'm not a Christian, I always agreed with the idea of humans as stewards of the earth. No other being on this planet has the same power as humans to take care of it.



I suppose it could come off as blase. I don't have a problem with it being read that way. But, to add context, I was responding to what I perceived to be Listener's attempt to make puppy saving tantamount to fighting white supremacy. I do not view rescuing puppies, dressing them in sweaters, lugging them around in purses and kissing them in the mouth as a huge offense to white supremacy. When listener seemed to doubt that pets were being saved before the human body count had been completed during Hurricane Katrina, and later stated that she does not place human rights above animal welfare or vice versa, it struck me as more of the same 'puppies are people too' schlock i hear from white people with sweater clad purse dogs and pets who are "members of the family". The same people who would probably put Vick to death if they could.

So with that said, my "guppykiller" response was meant to emphasize my position of placing human life above that of animals. I have not considered whether that is consistent with my chosen religion or not but I hold human life as more sacred than animal life and have no regrets about such.


this is a bit of an earlier post between Listener and me:

quote:

Listener, I understand your point and I probably went overboard with the guppykiller bit but your last post and your post insisting that "don't mess with white folks dogs" is not true is not consistent.

"Negroespiritual, in which way is it not consistent?"


We already know that white people's attitude toward their pets is inconsistent with respect for life/nature etc. It is the very assertion that we have already been making. You cannot exterminate races of humans and claim to have respect for life. You cannot suck all the life out of the oceans, strip the forests bare, dump chemicals in the ocean, and drop atomic bombs and convincingly proclaim yourselves as earth friendly or animal lovers complete with purse dogs and puppy sweaters. We understand environmental racism.

We already knew that the white man places extroadinary importance on his housepets and displays extroadinary cruelty to other living things, namely nonwhite humans.

A black human life is worth less than the life of a dog in a purse to white people.

so when you speak of the defenselessness of dogs, as if that is comparable to humans like somehow black people ought to identify with the "oppression of dogs" as part of white supremacy it seems like more of the same old same old.

"when they try to defend themselves they're put to death" sounds incredibly similar to saying dogs who rip people's throats out shouldn't be put to death because they're only defending themselves.

If you're one of those people who loves dogs as much as or more than humans, and judging from your avatar, and this statement



"For me personally there is no either-or. No either human rights or animal welfare or environmental protection. All belongs together for the balance of life."


you are, that's fine. Pet's are cool, but don't diminish the struggles of a PEOPLE by denying the truth about white people's obsession with dogs and cats and then trying to compare the black experience with white supremacy to puppy mills.


I didn't feel a disclaimer was necessary but just in case here goes...

No animals were harmed during the production of this post. NS grew up with pets including dogs, cats, chickens, and pigs which she was responsible for feeding and cleaning their pens. NS is of the old school which believes that pets don't belong in the house. However, NS currently has an aquarium. Although taken hunting and fishing as a youth NS does not routinely engage in animal destruction. NS admits to the use of roach spray, mouse traps, fly swatters as well as chopping off the head of a snake in her mama's garden. NS eats meat, has a leather jacket, shoes, and belts, wears wool, has slept on a feather bed and uses health and beauty products which contain varying degrees of animal derived ingredients. NS finds an inconsistency in the eating, wearing, or slathering on of animal based products, while condemning others for cockfighting or fur wearing. For this reason, NS openly admits her carnivore status. NS does agree that Michael Vick is a bonehead for throwing his millionaire future away on some damn dogs and fickle friends.


...and the fact that he will also have to pay the NFL back 40 million dollars. Vick is dumb as fuck. I want to be at the gas station that hires him to pump gas for them. I just want that dumb motherfucker to clean my windshield. I don't want him to pump my gas cause he'll blow my shit up. Dumbass.
quote:
Originally posted by Romulus Burnett:
...and the fact that he will also have to pay the NFL back 40 million dollars. Vick is dumb as fuck. I want to be at the gas station that hires him to pump gas for them. I just want that dumb motherfucker to clean my windshield. I don't want him to pump my gas cause he'll blow my shit up. Dumbass.


And many more people do all sorts of horrible things and get away with it. Things that affect me way more than anything Vick has ever done.

So that said, why should we be mad at Vick and condemn him? What's he done to me that I should be mad at him for. So he's dumb. Who cares? We have a dumb president who hurts me and likely his actions will hurt my children as well, Vick is dumb but he doesn't hurt me. So why the selective outrage at Vick? If Vick is locked up, how will it help the black community or the world in general?

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×