animal farming

上堂雖然曾經大言不慚可以用那video來送飯, 可是我的真的慶幸在那video 之前就把晚餐吃完了
好奇心的關係, 再找了些video 來看

Dr Sin 說的長太大腿根本支持不了身體的重量這video就有, 那些乳牛根本連步行都有困難... (血腥注意...

Perception of Danger

Should we kill the wolf?

This illustration is about the witch trials of the middle ages.
These innocent people have been blamed for illness, dead crops, poor weather.
These innocent people could be witches or normal women.

Should we kill them, if we don't know they were witches or not?
If we know they are witches, should we kill them?
We kill the wolf or witches because they are dangerous or we perceive they are dangerous?

活取熊膽汁：李天命反駁歸真堂「人不知熊痛」一說

李天命的書看就看過, 他的錄音我倒是第一次聽...6分鐘就講的很清楚了

20120303一虎一席谈 "活熊取胆"该不该被叫停. 正如特首辯論,結果還是誰都說服不了誰就是

Rights v.s. Duties

Rights come from the ability to think – not the ability to suffer?

The ability to think like a human is an arbitrary criterion for rights.

Rights come from the ability to think, then some humans – babies and the mentally incapacitated – are not deserving of rights, while some non-human animals with the ability to think like a human do deserve rights.

The ability to suffer makes sense as a criterion for rights holding, because the purpose of rights is to ensure that those who might suffer if their rights are not recognized are not allowed to suffer unduly.

Animals cannot have rights because they do not have duties?

Like the ability to think, having duties is an inappropriate criterion for rights holding because some classes of humans - babies, the mentally ill, the mentally incapacitated or the mentally retarded – do not have duties. 

If only those with duties deserve rights, then the mentally ill would have no rights and people would be free to kill and eat them. 

Rights: Does it really exist?

In contemporary moral system, human rights is usually painted as an irrefutable fact. But does it really true or even exist? Is there really any "rights" being inherent, at the day you come to exist? Say:

1. If you are not a believer (of any religion) , who authorizes you to have rights?
2. Who will refuse a jetso at no cost? Human rights is such a jetso. That's why human rights are always welcomed by the majority. Put it this way, everybody wants human rights but it does not entail its existence.
3. Human rights is sometimes a good political weapon. See how U.S. interfere other counties at the name of human rights.
4. "No pain no gain" and "no free lunch": Why should we think there is something we can take it for granted?

I think we can use "human rights" as a means to yield a better world. But "human rights" itself cannot be treated as a reason of act, because its existence is doubtful. So as "animal rights".

In a nutshell, I refuse to accept that "animal rights" can be a justification for human to treat animal better.

卓韻芝 - 續

早朝天下 3 月7日 就這事件作出討論
http://www.hkreporter.com/channel_list.php?channelid=351

她重申自己重時動物權益, 而從來亦沒有買過fur.
外間反應是認為她是沒有認錯的道歉 (實際情況的話, 裡面有她的道歉錄音, 自己聽一下她的語氣吧

因為她是資深電台DJ, 根本上不能以口才不好為藉口胡混過去.
要是支持動物權益的話, 她就只能無條件的道歉了,像這樣再說三道四, 只顯得她心不甘情不願而已

不過她既然嘗試以此片段道歉, 那她本來就認為這樣的道歉就夠了, 情況跟曾蔭權上立法會"解畫"一樣. 結果越描越黑.

有了名利權力, 人就非常容易驕縱. 對錯判斷脫軌.
對事情的對錯推理, 唸應用哲學就是很好的訓練

Peter Singer: Reciprocity is not ethics

Peter Singer said, in his "Equality for Animals?", that if we concur that reciprocity is the origin of ethics then posterity becomes meaningless to us, because human beings of hundreds years later cannot benefit to human beings as of now. He said so in an attempt to conclude ethics should be something beyond mutual benefits among beings (human and even non-human)

I think this argument has problem in both the premise and conclusion; Firstly, no one can deny that breeding has its intrinsic value, which reflects the very primitive need of a group being (such as human) in maintaining the continuity of a group/community such as human species, country, community, villege, family and etc. It implies even if reciprocity is proven the origin of ethics, posterity caring is still a reasonable action. Secondly, for the conclusion, I think before we can find a more convincing reason other than reciprocity being the origin of ethics, we should treat it as. For example, before we find a faster one, light is always the fastest.

卓韻芝披皮草遭聲討

卓韻芝解釋：「我要解釋狐皮係我巴黎朋友搬屋前，我喺佢哋垃圾筒搵到嘅，我好鍾意時裝，我有諗過到底要定唔要，我好想強調我係支持動物權益，支持環保，希望大家明白。如果令人不安，我要講句對唔住。」

source: http://www1.hk.apple.nextmedia.com/template/apple/art_main.php?iss_id=20120303&sec_id=462&art_id=16121149

其實到今時今日, 光要禦寒不用穿皮草, 就價格而言, 亦有更好更便宜的衣服. 唯一動機就是因為皮草的"美".

皮草的製作過程血腥, 買皮草的行為就助長就種行為. 已然, 皮草商總是對外宣稱, 自己使用的皮草都來自受到「人道對待」的動物,所有養殖農場都對其養殖環境,飼料和動物健康作了最好的控制. 但事實是，大多數被養殖的皮草動物，如狐狸、貂、海狸等，終其一身都被關在狹小的籠舍內，忍受便溺的惡臭和失去自由的痛苦。這些皮毛動物原本天性好動、敏感，且行蹤隱匿，卻因為長期的禁閉而反覆在籠子內不斷繞圈打轉、搖頭晃腦，或因無聊而一動也不動，呈現出不符其自然天性的病態行為。因缺乏動物福利法律而躍升為世界最大皮草生產及貿易國的中國，則是將動物活生生重摔、斷尾、剝皮，製作行徑更令人心寒。

source: http://forum.yam.org.tw/bongchhi/old/microphone/microphone69.htm

至於卓韻芝認為既然皮草都做了, 不穿白不穿的"環保精神" 實為不智. 我想要是她面前有一鍋貓肉, 她大概不會為了丟掉浪費而吃了吧?