F1technical.net

Pandamasque wrote:Just a point. Nature is a cruel system. Animals kill other animals to eat, just like the two-legged relatively more intelligent animals called humans.

The same happens in F1. So complaining about Hamilton aggresive manouvres also applies to this example.

Belatti wrote:The same happens in F1. So complaining about Hamilton aggresive manouvres also applies to this example.

No. F1 has written regulations. Everything else is BS.

But Hamilton overtakes drivers with eyes!!! That makes them sad, only you can't see it because of the helmets! That's so wrong. Thank god for helmets!

Pandamasque wrote:Just a point. Nature is a cruel system. Animals kill other animals to eat, just like the two-legged relatively more intelligent animals called humans.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYbjnPvk6uE

think about it for awhile.

If that's not explicit enough to imagine the pain they go through, you can find lots of cute cuddly baby animals being killed by predators on youtube.

The biggest difference between us and other predators is that most of us don't actually have to slaughter our food personally.

No, the biggest difference between humans and predators is that we think, while they only follow instincts. That is why we... sorry - some of us, care for the kids that are not our own, why we heal the ill instead of leaving them to die, why we give to charity, and why we have ethical barrier when it matters killing for food, clothing or medical experiments.

People are into constant evolution of their civilizational level, and vegetarianism is just a phase to veganism. Just compare animal rights and human rights evolution in the past half century. It is a parallel process. 50 years ago a black person had no right to drive in same bus with white in the US. Nowadays, people go to jail if abusing animals, 50 years ago people had the right to abuse blacks if they wanted to...

manchild wrote: People are into constant evolution of their civilizational level, and vegetarianism is just a phase to veganism. Just compare animal rights and human rights evolution in the past half century. It is a parallel process.

OK, this sounds right. I agree with it.

However I will keep eating meat.

Belatti wrote:OK, this sounds right. I agree with it.

However I will keep eating meat.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not imposing, just preaching. I was also learned to eat meat, and I've enjoyed it for over 30 years before ethical reasons forced me to quit eating and wearing leather. It is absolutely pointless to force someone to become vegetarian or vegan. It has to be self-derived.

If people were forced to slaughter and chop the animals all by themselves, most of them would not eat meat. Industrialization is the biggest obstacle in human development, since the potential is there, 99% of people would puke if they'd ever seen how slaughter looks like, but they never did, since they by processed meat in the supermarkets.

Humans follow their desires mostly. Even when it comes to caring about others or being vegetarian.

manchild wrote:
I can't agree. Pick an apple, eat it, throw away the seed, and it will grow to another plant just as it would if it dropped from the branch all by itself. Same thing would happen if you'd digest the seed and poop on fertile soil. Name me one animal that you can eat and that it can continue life-cycle afterwards.

Tapeworm.

Try pulling a carrot from the ground, eating it and seeing what grows afterwards. It's a single living thing. It's alive. When you eat it, it dies.

There also isn't any proof of intelligence within plants, as well as emotions, most of all the senses. On the other side, IQ of animals can be measured. Pigs you've mentioned, have greater IQ than 3 y.o. child.

Since when did intelligence become the defining issue one whether something can be eaten or not?

The fear, the pain and the agony they go trough when being killed by a butcher gun, or slaughtered to meet Halal, is therefore equal to what the child of that age would feel if it was being killed.

My view is that the animal should be given a good life and a quick death so that suffering is minimised. That seems only fair to me, indeed, in my view it is part of the 'bargain' we make when we eat them.

http://www.google.com/images?as_q=3+yo+ ... es&as_st=y

Think of that for a while.

Think about what? 3 year old children?

Just_a_fan wrote:That seems only fair to me...

That's problems in your analysis - you are self-centric. It is fair to you because it suits you. You don't think further than that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machiavellianism

manchild wrote:Just compare animal rights and human rights evolution in the past half century. It is a parallel process. 50 years ago a black person had no right to drive in same bus with white in the US.

MC, you cannot draw the same analogy here and that statement is not quite correct. They were obliged to sit at the back of the bus or give up their seat on demand by a white person.

Nowadays, people go to jail if abusing animals, 50 years ago people had the right to abuse blacks if they wanted to...

Also incorrect unless no one person had any right to abuse any other person, unless by 'blacks', you meant to imply they are not people (thats not to say it did not and does not happen)

manchild wrote:If people were forced to slaughter and chop the animals all by themselves, most of them would not eat eat.

I am not sure I agree with this because when this was not the case, there were fewer vegetarians than there are now. I have met adult human beings who have no idea where or how the meat they eat get to the supermarket or comes from the cow, goat or chicken the see when they happen to pass though or vist the country. I have no problems with people who eat meat or people who slaughter said meat. What I have a problem with is people would kill just for the sake of it, eg for sport.

I don't have intention start a war here. Just expressed my opinion.

There are so many issues apart from ethical. Industrial farming is killing the planet, also, if soil used for production of cattle food was used for rye for instance, there's be no hunger on planet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmen ... production

That post was not meant to attack or cause offence (my apologies if it did) but to disagree or state an opinion particularly with regard the question and definiton of ethics. For example

Industrial farming is killing the planet, also, if soil used for production of cattle food was used for rye for instance, there's be no hunger on planet.

I agree with most of that, but this is quite different from the 'ethics' of one animal killing another for food.

No, no it's ok, I'm not upset. I'm used to debate about this. No need for apologies.

Let me try to sum it up in a textual-graphic way. There are so many levels.

- Buddhists (even malaria spreading mosquito is something they would not kill)
- Vegans (eating eggs, milk, honey etc. isn't ok, but drop dead malaria spreading mosquitoes etc.)
- Vegetarians (eating eggs, milk, honey etc. is ok, drop dead malaria spreading mosquitoes etc.)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- People who think that it is ok to kill other people, children, animals, pollute, destroy if that is in their interest.

P.S. I don't agree with Buddhists. I'm only vegetarian in a final phase of becoming vegan (it's expensive)

manchild wrote:
No, the biggest difference between humans and predators is that we think, while they only follow instincts.

Would that mean it's ok to eat predators?

That is why we... sorry - some of us, care for the kids that are not our own, why we heal the ill instead of leaving them to die, why we give to charity, and why we have ethical barrier when it matters killing for food, clothing or medical experiments.

Altruism for other humans is not the same as not eating animals. The reason we look after other humans is because they do the same for us. Try standing in front of a hungry lion and saying "I don't eat animals so don't eat me" and see how far it gets you.

People are into constant evolution of their civilizational level, and vegetarianism is just a phase to veganism. Just compare animal rights and human rights evolution in the past half century. It is a parallel process. 50 years ago a black person had no right to drive in same bus with white in the US. Nowadays, people go to jail if abusing animals, 50 years ago people had the right to abuse blacks if they wanted to...

Sadly some people used to think of non-europeans as 'less than human'. Happily that is no longer the case.

manchild wrote: If people were forced to slaughter and chop the animals all by themselves, most of them would not eat meat. Industrialization is the biggest obstacle in human development, since the potential is there, 99% of people would puke if they'd ever seen how slaughter looks like, but they never did, since they by processed meat in the supermarkets.

Now here I agree with you 100% - it is one of our society's great hypocracies in my view.