Cats debate via other thoughts

[Guest guest]

But that wouldn't kill them Lesley !! Angie

 

 

 

 

This must be a common problem at hospital entrances and I think they should go well away from there to smoke, or better still not smoke at all.

Maybe I'll take a big supersoaker water gun next time and use it on them.

 

Lesley

 

 

 

Its a pity people stand outside and smoke

If I had a machine gun I could remove a large number in one go ,so there is a plus side

 

Angie (off to look for aforementioned gun )

 

 

 

 

 

 

....

 

 

 

---

 

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.449 / Virus Database: 251 - Release 27/01/2003

[Guest guest]

What is ?

 

 

swpgh01 [swpgh01]

05 April 2003 15:26

 

Re: Cats debate via other thoughts

 

 

 

Thats exactly the point I made when I started this stream, looks as

though we have gone around in a circle!

>

 

Peter H

 

--------------------

 

---

 

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.449 / Virus Database: 251 - Release 27/01/2003

[Guest guest]

What? 1/10th of Tibet is forest...how can you say there are no trees?

 

 

Quoting Oliver Slay <oliver:

 

> there are no trees in Tibet ... what makes you think a world without

> trees won't be the outcome of evolution...?

>

> i'm not even guessing what it'll be like ...

>

>

>

> simonpjones [simonpjones]

>

>

>

> I think your thinking the worst.Trees would probably be

> are saviours. Let them grow ! grow ! grow !

>

> Simon>

>

>

>

> **

[Guest guest]

There have been incidences of vegetarian " carnivores " ...certain lions

(individuals, not whole species) have been vegetartia in history for

example...although it is rare...

 

 

Quoting simonpjones <simonpjones:

 

> Message

> -

> Lesley Dove

>

> Friday, April 04, 2003 11:26 AM

> RE: Cats debate via other thoughts

>

>

>

> I only think vegan lions, tigers, etc, can happen through humans already

> having become compassionate vegans and taking control of nature, and really

> that is such a big job,>

>

> Ideally there wouldn't be any human intervention.But If we are saying that

> animals have the same rights as we have, then we must have at least an

> obligation to encougage animals as we do humans of the beneifits of a vegan

> diet, they would most likely live longer and happier lives.

> I don't think it would be as difficult as it first appears to be, given the

> amount of animals humans already feed.

> I'm sure there's no-where as near the amount of meat-eating animals (at

> least the larger ones) in this world as the amount of animals that humans

> feed already.

> I agree with your stance on smoking the sooner it is banned altogether the

> better.

>

> Simon

>

>

>

> and probably impossible, even if it is the right thing to do because it

> would reduce the killing and suffering. I do agree with Oliver that such

> evolution is unlikely to happen in the animal kingdom, because of the points

> he has made here, and what you hope for is unlikely to happen or at any rate

> it is a very long way off. I DO empathise with you Simon as I too very much

> like the idea of such a utopia and there is nothing wrong with you working

> towards it. I don't understand why there is so much disrespect for you from

> some on this group, really I don't. But I do think it is the right thing for

> us to do, to make other animals vegan if we can, I just don't think we can do

> it all, and we have to pick our battles and try to get humans to change

> first.

> There are polite and impolite ways of disagreeing and I always (well nearly

> always) feel Oliver is putting you down, but anyway you are in good (?)

> company as he always put me down for my anti-smoking feelings and the way I

> get ill from tobacco smoke.

> I think some vegans like to put others down, even their fellow vegans

> unfortunately, for very little reason sometimes, and it is not helpful

> usually. I only make an exception if the other vegan is doing something

> seriously harmful like being a smoking parent.

>

> Lesley

>

>

> Oliver Slay [oliver]

> 04 April 2003 10:58

>

> RE: Cats debate via other thoughts

>

>

> To think that nature would evolve in such a way that the food chain would

> no longer be a food chain

>

> To think that nature would evolve in such a way that fits into your own

> special ideal lifestyle

> a minority view

>

> To think that nature cares at all about humans and animals

> when it kills them every day

> when it makes their life a misery

> when it makes them sick

>

> To think that nature should become something when nature would have no

> qualms about killing you

> in a landslide

> in a strike of lightning

> in a flash flood

> in a forest fire

> in a hurricane

> in a tornado

> in an earthquake

> in a bacterial poisoning

> E. Coli

> E. Coli

> E. Coli

>

> To think that there is any such thing as control in the first place

> no control over the future

> no control over our death

> no control n n n no o o o oon n n n cnc

> nnccnoOCoOOotntnrntrttrrooortoortorotrotrorrollllllllll

>

> To think that pondering on what might happen in the future is going to

> have any effect on the way things will be

> action speaks louder than words

>

> To think that endless repetition is going to endear others to your cause

> round and round in circles

> not going anywhere

> back where we started

> getting dizzy

> gotta stop or i'll fall off

>

>

>

> simonpjones [simonpjones]

>

> Are you saying I'm mad because I think animals could live on plant

> based foods or because I'm saying they should.

> I'm only thinking ahead, pointing out how things will most likely

> turn out given we or some other intervention doesn't destroy us or the planet

> first.

> Am I thinking too far ahead for you?

>

> Simon

>

>

> ~~ info ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> Please remember that the above is only the opinion of the author,

> there may be another side to the story you have not heard.

> ---------------------------

> Was this message Off Topic? Did you know? Was it snipped?

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> Guidelines: visit <site temporarily offline>

> Un: send a blank message to -

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Exactly....

 

 

Quoting Catherine Pritchard <abergirl82:

 

>

>

>

>

>

> but should we really be taking control of nature? or forcing it to do what

> we want? as i've said before (i know it's a guideline of the list not to

> keep on repeating yourself, but...) that idea implies that humans are the

> most important/best/superior species, who 'deserve' to/rightly have power

> over every other species. and personally, I cannot see why my life is

> necessarily more important than an ant's or a vole's or a hippo's or

> whatever.

> Cath

>

> > " Lesley Dove " <Lesley

> >

> >

> >RE: Cats debate via other thoughts

> >Fri, 4 Apr 2003 11:26:30 +0100

> >

> >I only think vegan lions, tigers, etc, can happen through

> >humans already having become compassionate vegans and taking control of

> >nature, and really that is such a big job, and probably impossible, even if

> >it is the right thing to do because it would reduce the killing and

> >suffering.

>

> _______________

>

>

>

>

> ~~ info ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> Please remember that the above is only the opinion of the author,

> there may be another side to the story you have not heard.

> ---------------------------

> Was this message Off Topic? Did you know? Was it snipped?

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> Guidelines: visit <site temporarily offline>

> Un: send a blank message to -

>

>

[Guest guest]

give it time...

 

Tibet is China's largest forest zone with 7.6 million hectares of forests, including2.08 billion cubic metres of living dragon spruce trees. 94% of the treesare mature or aged.

 

 

shawnam [shawnam] What? 1/10th of Tibet is forest...how can you say there are no trees?Quoting Oliver Slay <oliver:> there are no trees in Tibet ... what makes you think a world without> trees won't be the outcome of evolution...?> > i'm not even guessing what it'll be like ...> >

[Guest guest]

I should probably just keep stifled on this issue, but i cannot help

but think that people are not comprehending my stance. I, too, feel

that humans have interfered too much with nature. However, because

humans made the decision to breed domestic animals and because this has

led to their overpopulation, it is obligatory, i think to sort the

situation out -- for *their* benefit! My theory is that we should keep

the well being/health of other animals in mind when we are deciding

what to feed our companion animals. If we can provide happy, healthy

lives for our domestic animals without jeopardising the lives of

others, then we should. The end result will not necessarily benefit

human(un)kind, but will, i hope (albeit, idealistically) prove

beneficial for the animals.

 

k@

On Monday, Apr 7, 2003, at 17:44 Europe/London, shawnam wrote:

 

> Exactly....

>

>

> Quoting Catherine Pritchard <abergirl82:

>

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > but should we really be taking control of nature?  or forcing it to

> do what

> > we want? as i've said before (i know it's a guideline of the list

> not to

> > keep on repeating yourself, but...) that idea implies that humans

> are the

> > most important/best/superior species, who 'deserve' to/rightly have

> power

> > over every other species.  and personally, I cannot see why my life

> is

> > necessarily more important than an ant's or a vole's or a hippo's or

> > whatever.

> > Cath

> >

[Guest guest]

so you equate mostly mature trees to no trees at all?

 

Quoting Oliver Slay <oliver:

 

> give it time...

>

> Tibet is China's largest forest zone with 7.6 million hectares of

> forests, including

> 2.08 billion cubic metres of living dragon spruce trees. 94% of the

> trees

> are mature or aged.

>

>

>

>

> shawnam [shawnam]

>

>

> What? 1/10th of Tibet is forest...how can you say there are no

> trees?

>

>

> Quoting Oliver Slay <oliver:

>

> > there are no trees in Tibet ... what makes you think a world

> without

> > trees won't be the outcome of evolution...?

> >

> > i'm not even guessing what it'll be like ...

> >

> >

>

>

>

> **

[Guest guest]

i'm no logger...

 

 

 

shawnam [shawnam] so you equate mostly mature trees to no trees at all?

[Guest guest]

I don't understand?

 

Quoting Oliver Slay <oliver:

 

> i'm no logger...

>

>

>

> shawnam [shawnam]

>

>

> so you equate mostly mature trees to no trees at all?

>

>

>

>

>

> **

[Guest guest]

is that a question? ... i don't know the answer...

 

 

shawnam [shawnam] I don't understand?Quoting Oliver Slay <oliver:> i'm no logger...

[Guest guest]

-

<shawnam

 

Monday, April 14, 2003 6:20 PM

RE: Cats debate via other thoughts

 

 

>Trees are the opposite of no-trees, whether they are mature trees or not.>

 

 

> so you equate mostly mature trees to no trees at all?

>

> Quoting Oliver Slay <oliver:

>

> > give it time...

> >

> > Tibet is China's largest forest zone with 7.6 million hectares of

> > forests, including

> > 2.08 billion cubic metres of living dragon spruce trees. 94% of the

> > trees

> > are mature or aged.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > shawnam [shawnam]

> >

> >

> > What? 1/10th of Tibet is forest...how can you say there are no

> > trees?

> >

> >

> > Quoting Oliver Slay <oliver:

> >

> > > there are no trees in Tibet ... what makes you think a world

> > without

> > > trees won't be the outcome of evolution...?

> > >

> > > i'm not even guessing what it'll be like ...

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > **

>

>

>

>

> ~~ info ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> Please remember that the above is only the opinion of the author,

> there may be another side to the story you have not heard.

> ---------------------------

> Was this message Off Topic? Did you know? Was it snipped?

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> Guidelines: visit <site temporarily offline>

> Un: send a blank message to -

>

>

[Guest guest]

Does no one make any sense anymore ?. This is getting like a

farce ----or a mad house !

 

 

shawnam [shawnam]

14 April 2003 19:42

 

RE: Cats debate via other thoughts

 

 

I don't understand?

 

Quoting Oliver Slay <oliver:

 

> i'm no logger...

>

>

>

> shawnam [shawnam]

>

>

> so you equate mostly mature trees to no trees at all?

>

>

>

>

>

> **

 

 

 

 

~~ info ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Please remember that the above is only the opinion of the author,

there may be another side to the story you have not heard.

---------------------------

Was this message Off Topic? Did you know? Was it snipped?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Guidelines: visit <site temporarily offline>

Un: send a blank message to -

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I don't understand the statement, " I'm no logger. " as a response to my previous

question. I was asking for clarification on your point.

 

 

Quoting Oliver Slay <oliver:

 

> is that a question? ... i don't know the answer...

>

>

> shawnam [shawnam]

>

>

> I don't understand?

>

> Quoting Oliver Slay <oliver:

>

> > i'm no logger...

>

>

>

>

> **

[Guest guest]

i see.

 

it means i am not an expert in deforestation - in response to your question do mature trees = no trees

 

it may have been obscure but it was a joke

 

 

 

shawnam [shawnam] I don't understand the statement, "I'm no logger." as a response to my previous question. I was asking for clarification on your point.

[Guest guest]

I was originally asking for clarification on your first point about there being

no trees in Tibet and then you responded w/ the information regarding

percentage of mature trees, which I assumed meant that you regard mature trees

as equal to no trees...which made no sense, so again I asked for

clarification...and you responded by saying you are not a logger....obscure

joke or not, I'm wondering what your original point was.

 

 

Quoting Oliver Slay <oliver:

 

> i see.

>

> it means i am not an expert in deforestation - in response to your

> question do mature trees = no trees

>

> it may have been obscure but it was a joke

>

>

>

> shawnam [shawnam]

>

>

> I don't understand the statement, " I'm no logger. " as a response

> to my previous

> question. I was asking for clarification on your point.

>

>

>

>

> **

[Guest guest]

i'm sorry ... i have written an answer and deleted it ... forget first line ... 'no trees in Tibet' not factual statement ... habitual interjection ... second bit ... article on trees ... deforestation ... disturbing thoughts ... trees in pain ... animals deprived of natural habitat... people derived of their natural environment... lost interest in talking about Tibet's trees... problem not just tibet's ... when tired of topic .. tend to make jokes ...

 

 

 

shawnam [shawnam] I was originally asking for clarification on your first point about there being no trees in Tibet and then you responded w/ the information regarding percentage of mature trees, which I assumed meant that you regard mature trees as equal to no trees...which made no sense, so again I asked for clarification...and you responded by saying you are not a logger....obscure joke or not, I'm wondering what your original point was.

[Guest guest]

-

<shawnam

 

Thursday, April 17, 2003 4:48 PM

RE: Cats debate via other thoughts

 

 

>

> What about Tibet.. theres no trees in Tibet >

 

I think he only said that in response to me saying.... trees would save

us(humans and animals) from any plant-type creatures that might try and make

us their food and take over the world, if animals stopped eating animals.

Though I can't see the connection between animals not eating animals and

plant -type creatures trying to take over the world. It might have been a

joke, but I don't think so.

 

Try and have pleasant dreams in a world with so much killing.

 

S.

> >

> >

> >

> > **

>

>

>

>

> ~~ info ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> Please remember that the above is only the opinion of the author,

> there may be another side to the story you have not heard.

> ---------------------------

> Was this message Off Topic? Did you know? Was it snipped?

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> Guidelines: visit <site temporarily offline>

> Un: send a blank message to -

>

>

[Guest guest]

with China deforesting Tibet ... logging upto $56 million worth of timber upto

1985 ... and with aforestation plans that fail beause there is no enforcement of

the policy... it will not be long before there are no trees in tibet...

 

already the soil slips and diseases are carried along the mekong... the

ganges... and the yangtze river has flooded more often than before...

 

http://www.tibet.com/Eco/eco1.html

 

 

simonpjones [simonpjones]

 

 

> What about Tibet.. theres no trees in Tibet >