Submit your best shots of 2016!

Got the same thing. I hope this will be fixed.

Ditto!

And the vegetables vegans eat are things, too. BTW; beefs are things, pork meats are things, chicken are things, animal and people can be considered to be things. But, remember: animals are not human beings like people. You have to think more widely, cheers.

Vesa1,
Animals and humans have intrinsic moral value. Things do not have any moral value. That is all the difference!

Vesa1, they aren't smart in the same way as humans, but they definitely have a capacity to suffer, to desire, a D to think. To say that they are "instinctive' and therefore just things with no moral value is the height of speciest arrogance. If they are just things, why do people go to jail for certain mistreatment of them?

Fwellers,
I don't understand why to put people and animals to the same level of category? Humans became humans during the evolution, AFTER HAVING LEARNT TO HUNT AND EAT ANIMALS. Proteins, vitamins, energy etc. from animals were necessary for (the coming) humans, in developing clever brains and creating societies and technologies of today's modern times. That's why humans control the world, and, in some cases, the population of animals, in order not to allow them to spread too widely. (Sorry for my bad English).

Animals are animals, not people.
Can they be categorized as persons, in a broader sense? Maybe.
But no less persons than plants.

My best friend can talk with plants. About the meaning of life, the human nature, what kind of literature they prefer
(she reads them books, to two trees that are her friends, trees prefer long historic novels, flowers prefer little poems).
They even share with humans many aspects of their personality (roses are very narcissistic, if you don't admire them, they can react stopping to smell).

So it's a crime against Nature to eat plants or use the wood?
Nope, they know their role in life, and they are proud of being useful.
Even the wood that isn't dry has conscience. That's why you have a cold feeling in a house with only artificial furniture.
So when a musician says he can talk with his violin, don't think he's crazy ;)

And before thinking I'm very credule for believing in what my friend say, science just start to discover that it's really possible to talk with plants:

http://www.geekwire.com/2016/microsoft-talking-plants-project-florence/

Microsoft doing something good, for a change :p

I wrote you a long reply, with a lot of logic and facts in it, only to realize afterward that I have a small word limit in the forum.
So I am not going to continue this conversation. I think you need to read up on animal rights, and veganism. there is just too much scientific evidence even concerning our own physiology being way more closely aligned with herbivores than carnivores or omnivores. You're just gonna have to do some research if you care at all about learning the truth about what how you satisfy your appetite really means to the world and to others.
My initial request stands.

Yes, the 1000 characters limit... in this case you can paste your text to Notepad and split it between 2 or more posts.
I know the animalism theories, we have too many of those people in Spain, and they are a bunch of radical haters that even put the life of an animal above the life of a child.
I love the animals, but those loons keep people away from animals with its nonsense.

Anyway, my friend can communicate with animals too, but not on the same level than with plants, animals aren't telepaths as humans and plants. And they are primarily beings responding to their instincts, so few have the intelligence and self consciousness level of the plants (they have some millions of years of advantage in evolution), but I agree that animals have feelings and intelligence, and people not treating animals respectfully doesn't deserve my respect. Another thing is to treat them as equals to humasn.

And while the vegans, etc, to defend the "animal rights" (debatable concept from the point of view of law), point out its reasoning capacities and other qualities that make them close to the humans to defend the morality to not eat animals, they despise the plants as living beings not capable of any quality like intelligence and personality to defend the right to kill them and devour them without thinking twice.
That what's annoys me mostly, and I had to tell it, feel free to respond, of course ;)

Well I have to admit, I don't consider plants having an sentience in a physical sense. They don't even have a brain. I wouldn't deny the possibility of them having intelligence on another level though.
Humans have to eat somethng though. We can't harness our energy from the sun yet. <grin>. So in doing the least harm possible, or put another way, causing the least suffering possible, I am forced to eat plants.

Fwellers,
You don't consider plants having an sentience in a physical sense. Are you sure? My grandmother told to flowers and she claimed they understood her speech. Brain is a very complicated system; maybe we don't understand yet the nature of brain of plants. Maybe the whole nature around us understands very much about what humans are doing. So, everything we do on the Earth can be illegal. Why to build big cities, streets, railways, airports, power plants, computers, CAMERAS, etc.; all it is against the nature.
We have to live together with the nature, but we may also take what we need from it. Cheers.

Vesa1, your plant argument is just trying to cloud the issue.
If Animals matter morally at all, then they should be respected and not exploited. They are not things.
By your argument, since plants are alive, and we eat them, then we should eat animals. The same logic would say that we should eat humans also, because we eat plants.
If you love your dog or cat enough see that they are a person and not a meal, or a jacket, then you should treat other animals with no less respect. Because morally they do matter.

Fwellers,
Fortunately, major part of humans think they are above animals, for one simple reason: humans are at the top of evolution and they are intended to control the world. We eat animals - wild or not - and that's okay and very natural. But a dangerous animal which has killed a human must be evaluated. Of course we have to protect nature and animals, but we can't put them to the same category as humans.

And now, I'll stop my part in this very interesting discussion. HAPPY SEASON HOLIDAYS to everybody! Let's enjoy vegetables, fishes, turkeys, pork and lamb. Maybe together with a glass of quality wine. Cheers.

Versa, I wish you happy Holidays also, but I won't be partaking in the flesh of other animals.
You made one comment that stands out as one of the crux's of our impasse.
Humans are at the top of evolution and are intended to control the world.
For one thing, I am not so sure we are at the top of evolution. Only in one sense, that we can use our brains in a special way.
But we can't fly, we can't smell a drop of blood miles away, we can't do a great many things that Non Human animals can do.
You also said that we are intended to control the world. Who told you that ?
What text book did you read that in ? I think we would do much better to cooperate with the world. Matter of fact, our control and domination over the word will most likely be the cause of the next great extinction, which would also include us.
In our supposed advanced state of evolution, we should realize that causing other beings to suffer for our own pleasure and nothing more, is beneath us.

Meant joke of course

People are so boring nowadays.

Or think about it a different way you get free advertising for your work! What people do with their work is their business of course, but not every one uses the same business model as you!

Barney Britton,

I think LeonP was just cracking a joke, based on an earlier article you guys posted.