Comprehensive coverage

How did we miss one of the most important lessons from the Holocaust?

With the help of psychological experiments, it is possible to try and answer the disturbing question, how could it be that the Holocaust happened? How could it be that so many people knew about what was happening in the extermination camps and remained silent? Why did only a few try to help and save Jews?

Anne Frank Memorial Center used for tolerance education in Berlin, March 2013. Photo: Avi Blizovsky
Anne Frank Memorial Center used for tolerance education in Berlin, March 2013. Photo: Avi Blizovsky

Again on the eve of Holocaust Day and again I feel that we have missed one of the most important lessons from the Holocaust. Many lessons can be learned from the Holocaust that happened to the Jewish people, but one of the most important lessons has not been assimilated enough in my opinion and is not taught at all in school. This lesson is related to four important experiments in social psychology that were conducted following the Holocaust. Experiments whose results amazed even the researchers themselves. Later you can try one of the experiments, ready to go through the experiment yourself?

With the help of the results of the experiments, it is possible to try and answer the disturbing question, how could the Holocaust have happened? How could it be that so many people knew about what was happening in the extermination camps and remained silent? Why did only a few try to help and save Jews? Or in other words, how could such extreme evil happen? Are humans that bad? Is there something particularly bad about the German people? And it is possible to try and answer the equally important question, how do you prevent a horrific evil like the Holocaust from happening again in the future? Is it even possible to prevent something like this?

The first experiment does not initially seem related to these questions, but it is very related. Here are drawings of lines, of the three options on the right, which line is the same length as the line on the left?

Ash's experiment

There is no optical illusion here, the correct answer is A
There is no optical illusion here, the correct answer is A

Obviously, the answer is A. This is the experiment conducted by a researcher named Solomon Ash in 1951, about six years after the end of World War II. Only thing, there is one small twist in his experiment, the subject does not do this experiment alone, but there are six other subjects in the room with him. You do the experiment several times, at first everything is fine, but at a certain point each time the five people who were in front of you claim for some reason that B is the correct answer. Now it's your turn, what will you do? Say the correct answer or the stupid answer that is obviously wrong but for some reason everyone else chose it? In the fire experiment, Ash tried to test how true we remain to ourselves and how much we accept the opinion of the majority, even when it is clear that the majority is wrong. What do you think the results were? How conformist are we?

It turns out that on average only a quarter of the subjects managed to remain non-conformist and always continued to choose the correct answer even though everyone else chose a different answer. Half of the subjects answered the wrong answer that everyone else chose, at least half of the time. When they were asked after the experiment why they chose the wrong majority answer, the common answers were that they were afraid of being different and some even convinced themselves that the majority was actually right!

From similar experiments they have done, it appears that if there is a general agreement about something, a consensus, we will be very afraid not to be part of this consensus. Most of us will choose to go with the consensus of the majority and not stand alone, even if it is clear that the majority is wrong.

Worrying, isn't it? Don't worry this is just the beginning, wait for the next experiment. He will really shock you.

1961, ten years after this experiment, following the Eichmann trial and Eichmann's claim that he was only doing his job and was a small cog in the system, another American researcher decided to test the degree of obedience of the Germans. He believed there was something about German culture and education that made them so docile. Like any good researcher, apart from doing the experiment on the Germans themselves, he also planned a "control group" - a group unrelated to the Germans to compare with the German subjects. Because he is from the USA, he first started running the experiment on the control group - on the Americans. After completing the American part of the experiment, he was so shocked by his results that he gave up on the German part and turned to delve into his results.

The researcher was called Stanley Milgram and his experiment is one of the best known experiments in psychology. There were three people in the experiment, the researcher, the subject and another actor who the subject thought was being tested just like him. The researcher explained to the subject and the player that this is an experiment in learning and memory and every time the player makes a mistake in a memory question, the subject has to electrocute him, not just electrocute him but also raise the electric voltage that the player will receive with each mistake. The experiment started and as soon as the player made a mistake the subject electrocuted him and raised the voltage. As the experiment continued and the electrical voltage increased, the actor, who did not actually receive electric shocks, acted as if he was in pain and asked to stop the experiment. But the researcher would answer the subject to continue the experiment and not to worry, if something happens the responsibility is on the researcher. As the subject increased the voltage of the electric shock, the player would moan more, shout and even fear for his life. The idea was to see how long the subjects would continue to raise the electrical voltage and hurt the player. Will the subject stop at a certain point or continue to torture the man in front of him according to the orders he received?

As you can understand, the results shocked Milgram. Despite the screams of pain and pleas, about 65% of the subjects continued to increase the voltage of the electric shock and reached the maximum voltage. Although many of them did not feel comfortable doing so, they nevertheless did the task and did not object.

Milgram's experiment

Excerpt from the BBC's reconstruction of the Stanford Prison Experiment
Excerpt from the BBC's reconstruction of the Stanford Prison Experiment

An image taken from the Wikipedia site and clarifies what Milgram's experiment looked like. In one room sat the researcher and the subject and in the second room sat the actor. The subject could hear the player and his screams of pain. At the beginning of the experiment, both of them received the initial electric shock so that they could feel what it was all about. The subject thought that the actor was another subject just like him and that he was really receiving electric shocks.

This experiment was repeated countless times in many places in the world and always a similar result was obtained. Most of us seem to have an extreme willingness to follow almost any order, as long as it comes from an authority figure, especially if he takes responsibility. They also showed that when the player is in the same room as the subject the percentage of blind compliance decreases, but still 30% obeyed even when they had to forcefully pin the player's hand to the electrified metal plate!

If we summarize these two experiments, it seems that on average we are very obedient as humans, and not just the German people. We will obey and even hurt and obey the other when the order comes from an authoritative source. We also really hate being in the minority when there is a consensus. Even if we know the majority is wrong, we will probably go with the majority opinion. And on the other hand, two more experiments showed that it is very easy for us to enter the authoritative role and lose our human image when the power is in our hands. Or maybe that's when we show exactly who the human being is?

Another decade passed, the year 1971. An American researcher named Philip Zimbardo manages to innovate in the field and do another experiment that sheds light on human behavior. He builds a kind of prison in the basements of Stanford University and randomly divides the subjects into two groups, the group of prisoners and the group of guards. The prison experiment was planned to continue for two weeks, but the experiment got out of control and was stopped six days later. In order for the experiment to be more real, after the groups were drawn, the "guards" came to the houses of the "prisoners" dressed in prison uniforms with batons and sunglasses to create "distance", and took the "prisoners" handcuffed and blindfolded to "prison". In the prison, the prisoners were not called by names, but were given numbers.

The behavior became extreme

Zimbardo wanted to see how the prisoners and guards would react to this hallucinatory situation. It turns out that as the experiment went on, each group entered their assigned role and their behavior became more and more extreme. The guards became more and more sadistic, especially at night when they thought they weren't being photographed, and the prisoners felt greater and greater mental pressures that erased their identities. The mental state of one of the prisoners kept getting worse, he became unstable and felt like he was forgetting who he was in real life. He asked to leave the experiment, but the researchers themselves also assumed the role of the prison administrators and did not immediately release the subject but only after a few days, and generally blamed the "prisoners" for the things that went wrong. On the second day of the experiment, the prisoners tried to revolt, in response the guards stripped them and took the beds out of the cells of the organizers of the revolt and put them in a sort of dungeon. Following this selective punishment against the organizers of the rebellion, the prisoners became obedient and even cooperated with the guards and went out on their own against prisoners who expressed a desire to protest against the guards. Only after the experiment was over did the researchers understand what happened during the experiment.

It turns out that the person very easily enters the social role assigned to him, especially when there is a "costume" - clothing and accessories suitable for his role. The guards, the prisoners and even the researchers themselves took on a role in the game and exaggerated their behavior according to the role. Those who had a position that gave them power, did not hesitate to take advantage of that power and hurt those who did not have that power. And the prisoners who felt how the force was trampling them, tried to survive at any cost. Most of them did not have enough inner strength to stand up and resist and they chose the strategy of following the rulers' ideology in order to survive. It seems that when a person feels that there is an ideology, an environment and an institution that supports him, he will obey this ideology and his role without regard at all for what he does to others. And the injured party will also obey out of fear and trying to survive. This experiment is reminiscent of the book and the movie "The Surge" which is based on a case that happened years after this experiment. The expression "power corrupts" here receives the full terrible meaning it can have.

A night in Zimbardo's prison experiment. The guards put cardboard boxes on the prisoners' heads and prevented them from sleeping.

In general, it seems that once you have labeled someone for a certain social role, it will be very difficult for him to free himself from this labeling. In an experiment done by David Rosenhan in 1972, he showed this in the case of labeling people as mentally ill. He hospitalized himself and other volunteers in psychiatric hospitals claiming that they were hearing voices, but in the hospital they behaved normally and claimed that everything had passed. He wanted to see if the doctors would find out that they were pretending. No doctor discovered this and they were hospitalized for 19 days until they were discharged with relapsing schizophrenia (one that is currently inactive). In other experiments, when doctors heard from the researchers that a patient was supposed to suffer from schizophrenia, they suddenly diagnosed him with schizophrenia, even though he had none. The labeling of the normal subjects as "crazy" put them in a defined role and even the doctors found it difficult to free themselves from this false labeling.

Dismal conclusions about the social tendencies of humans

From all these experiments it is possible to draw rather gloomy conclusions about the social tendencies of man. I think these experiments are convincing that there is nothing special and unusual about the German people. They are a nation like all nations. The more shocking thing is that it comes out of these experiments that each of us can turn and become a monster, and in general, under suitable conditions any group or people can become radical and can degenerate into extreme evil. How do we keep something like this from happening to us too? as individuals or as a nation. Would I have behaved differently in these experiments? Would I have risked and saved Jews during the Holocaust? How do we keep ourselves from degenerating into extreme evil?

According to the results of the experiments, if we have enough power in our hands and feel that we have the support of an authoritative body (such as the government or society) we will probably abuse the power and mercilessly harm those who are labeled as weak and different. Moreover, it seems that to be evil, you don't need many bad people, you need obedient ones. Small-headed people who are afraid to take risks and only follow instructions. It is enough for the person to feel that there is broad social acceptance of a dangerous ideology and he will probably cooperate with it in blind obedience. And for that there is the well-known and so true sentence -

"For evil to win all it takes is good people who do nothing"

A good example of this can be seen in the movie and the book Reading Boy in which we see the character of an ordinary and simple woman who does not know how to read and write (Kate Winslet) and it turns out that she was a guard in the Auschwitz camp. On the one hand, you follow her life after the Holocaust and see that she is not a monster, she is a woman like all women with normal character traits. Some are better and some less. And on the other hand, it turns out that following the instructions given to her, she locked up Jewish women prisoners in the church and did not let them out even when the church caught fire and they were all burned. She wasn't particularly evil, she was just too obedient.

Philosopher Hannah Arendt called it a beautiful name - the banality of evil. Even before Milgram's experiments, she covered the Eichmann trial and heard his claims and realized that he saw himself as an office worker who only followed orders. Even if in the case of Eichmann it seems that he was not really just an office worker but more like the prison guards in Zimbardo's experiment who took advantage of their great power, Hannah Arendt still came up with an important insight. Evil can be a banal and everyday thing, and it is committed by masses of "ordinary" citizens who are just doing their job.

Now the question is, what do we do next? According to the experiments, it seems that these tendencies are deeply embedded in man. So is it even possible to prevent phenomena like the Holocaust from happening again in the future? Is it possible to change these human tendencies to blind obedience, to racism and the banality of evil?

These experiments teach us a lot of insight into what it is to be human and how such a great evil like the holocaust could have happened.

I think so.

The answer lies in the culture

There will be those who will say that the conclusion from these experiments is that man was created evil from his youth and there is nothing to be done. In my opinion this is not true, the answer lies in the education and culture we pass on to our children. This time too we will rely on two experiments, both related to television, but they are later. We saw that a person has a tendency to label and generalize and once he has done so it is difficult to free himself from the labeling. The generalization becomes the truth, even though it does not represent reality. So it is not worth making this mistake again and generalizing the entire human race and labeling man as a creature with bad qualities that are so deeply embedded that there is no chance of changing them. Despite the Holocaust and despite the bad feeling that remains after reading the results of these experiments, one should not give up, not fall into a pessimistic label, but learn from experience and experiments how to improve.

It should be remembered that the results of the experiments show a tendency towards behavior, and a tendency can be changed. If we do nothing, then most people will follow the inclinations, as we have seen in the experiments. But with the help of education, habits and behaviors can be changed. It is enough to remember how with the help of education in a certain culture we managed to overcome our tendency to eat with our hands and today the absolute majority of people eat meals with a knife and fork (or chopsticks). In the western world there is no such thing as eating with your hands, it is dirty and socially inappropriate. The person who does this will immediately be considered primitive and rejected. Look how much power education has, and this is a marginal example on a not particularly important subject. We need to harness this power to change the destructive tendencies we saw earlier.

Let's start with another experiment, this time on the right. In the past, I mentioned the excellent BBC television program "A Child of Our Time" (in a post discussing heredity vs. environment - is passion born?), in the program they follow the development of children born in the year 2000 in different places and from different economic strata in Britain. The program is supposed to continue until 2018 when the children will be 18 years old. In one of the programs there was an interesting experiment related to prejudice and racism towards "dark-skinned" Africans (note my political correctness..). 3-4 year olds were asked to choose from the pictures of their kindergarten friends who they want to be friends with. It turns out that none of the children chose a dark-skinned child as a friend, and what is even more surprising, even the dark-skinned children themselves did not choose other dark-skinned children as their friends! How can these results be explained?

It seems that already at the age of 3-4 children internalize social norms. Even the dark-skinned children internalized that being dark-skinned is not good and stay away from other dark-skinned children. It seems that already at a very young age we learn from the environment values ​​and norms, what is good and what is not good, what is acceptable and what is rejected. I am sure that not all the parents of all these children are racists and that not all the parents explicitly told their children that being dark-skinned is less good. The conclusion from this is that the children picked up these norms from the environment, and not necessarily from the parents. Apparently as a society we unconsciously transmit racist values ​​and norms without meaning to at all (at least most of us). There is an even more surprising result to this experiment, but we will return to it later.

So how do we educate and build a culture with values ​​and norms where the chance of evil like the Holocaust will be very low?

From an experiment done by Albert Bandura in 1961 regarding the effect of television violence on children, they saw that when children see a doll being beaten on television and then they saw the same doll in the next room, they became significantly more violent against the doll compared to children who did not see the program. They also saw that the children behaved in the most violent way when they saw in the program that the person who hit the doll was reinforced for it, and the children behaved in the least violent way when the person in the program was punished for his behavior. They were less violent than even children who had not seen the show at all.

Does television make us violent? child of our time

A segment from the program "Yald Ben Zemanno" in which they reproduce the Bandora experiment on 3-4 year old children. It is interesting to see that the fish that learned from watching television was captivated by the background, just as small children are captivated by the background. Is this a sign that they learn from television how to behave? The segment beautifully demonstrates the power of education and television as an educational tool.

This experiment shows the importance of education and to what extent a tendency to violence is a trait that can be influenced for better or for worse, especially in children. Once again we see how quickly children (and adults) pick up and learn behaviors from the environment, even when we think it has no effect. It is interesting that methods of reinforcement and punishment have a huge effect, so it is worth using these methods. Punishment is also a form of violence, the punisher forces the punished to do something that hurts him (for example not eating dinner), hence it is better to use as little violence and punishment as possible, because it is impossible to educate non-violence with the help of violence. We are left with an education that tries to use as many methods of reinforcement as possible and as little as possible methods of punishment.

Reinforcement of two types of values ​​- humanistic values ​​and individualistic values. Humanistic values ​​mean that as a result of education we realize that there is no fundamental difference between people, we are all equal, and we will reach openness and acceptance of the different even if it is weaker than you. This is education for empathy and education in recognizing the importance of trying and understanding the other.

Individualistic values ​​mean that every person has not only the right to live but also the right to realize himself, the freedom to choose the path of your life. In order to strengthen these values, you need to teach and reinforce the importance of casting doubt and testing the path yourself and strengthen the person's self-confidence and the courage to follow the path he has chosen for himself. Only if we manage to give a person tools on how to strengthen his security, he will have enough courage to doubt, choose his path and not follow the easy path, the conformist and obedient path.

With the help of education it is possible to create the experience and understanding that life is a long and personal journey that should lead to personal development. Everyone has the right to this personal development journey in which everyone builds their own path. In order for us to continue the journey, we must give everyone a place and try and learn from them what the way they are doing. That way we can open up to new ways that we hadn't thought of and that way we can continue to develop. In this way we unite all these values ​​into one framework and show the importance of the relationship between the different individual people so that we can continue to develop.

Think Different

In this advertisement, the Apple company celebrates the values ​​of individualism and the safe halacha on your way

In my opinion, only by strengthening and encouraging such behaviors can we change our tendency to be small-minded and conformist and we can strengthen courageous behavior that goes its own way and does not submit to the dictates of authority. In such a situation, maybe the compliance percentages in Ash's and Milgram's experiments decreased. When we add to this the strengthening of the values ​​of humanism, we will perhaps arrive at a more sane society that is not in a hurry to regard labeling people and generalizations as absolute truth, but knows how to put the generalizations in their proper place. A society where people have more confidence in themselves and therefore can accept more those who are different from them and do not have to use the power given to them to humiliate those who are weaker. We humiliate someone else to feel better about ourselves, to feel strong compared to the one we humiliated. But as soon as we have confidence in ourselves and know that we are strong, the need to humiliate the weaker decreases wonders. That way we might get more positive results from experiments like Zimbardo's prison experiment and we won't see abuse of authority and abuse of the weak.

No need for fake meaning

Another positive thing that can grow from a society where people have more confidence in themselves is that then we will not have to find a false meaning for ourselves in belonging to a group that distinguishes itself from other groups. Think for a moment about sports teams or an entire country, we really like to differentiate ourselves from the rest and thus feel special, better than the other foreign teams. It is very nice to like a certain group, but there is always the danger that this differentiation will lead to racism, the rejection of difference and hatred. That's why you should be careful and reduce this need to a minimum. Once the culture reinforces behaviors that lead man to feel confident in himself, he will hardly need a larger group that differentiates itself. His security will not come from the group from the outside, but from within himself, from the way he does and his actions. That way, not only will we accept the other, the different and the weak without fearing them, but we will also feel strong enough to help the weak.

In order to succeed in educating these values, today's conventional education is not enough. We need active education that pushes society to these values. It is not enough, for example, not to educate about racism, but we need to educate about equality. Otherwise we will fall back to tendencies like we saw in the experiments. Here I want to tell about the most interesting result of the experiment conducted by the BBC on kindergarten children. The researchers saw that no child wanted to be friends with a dark-skinned person, not even dark-skinned themselves, with one exception. There was one boy, dark-skinned, who chose dark-skinned friends. The researchers were stunned, what is so special about this child? Why is he different?

They checked and found. It turns out that his mother was afraid that he would grow up with feelings of inferiority because of the color of his skin, so when he was a baby she started active education so that he would be proud of himself and his origin. For example, even before he could speak, she would take him on guided tours of Martin Luther King's home (the black leader of the XNUMXs who was assassinated). ZA that with the help of goal-oriented active education, she was able to give him confidence in his skin color so that he did not adapt racist norms to himself, like the other children.

The situation today is of course not this situation. Today there is no active education and almost no education for the values ​​of humanism and individuality. On the contrary, I feel that the school is here to teach the children obedience, order and walking in the groove. We have to decide what is more important to us. If we want a more developed society where the chance of evil like the Holocaust is low, we must educate and push the next generations to the values ​​of human love and the values ​​of doubting and disobedience. We must give them tools on how to live with confidence in themselves and in their own way in light of these values. Thus, as the generations pass, we will reach a better society. That's why I'm turning to you, right now everything depends on you, there's no one to trust except your education. I do give lectures on these topics, but this is only a drop in the ocean.

We need education at home and in schools that will be against our tendency to obedience, against our tendency to racism and against our tendency to oppress those who are weaker than us. We need to start examining ourselves, according to what norms do we live and educate? Are these oppressive norms or egalitarian norms? Norms that encourage obedience and conformity or norms that encourage freedom of thought and action of the individual? Then behave and educate according to the norms we have chosen.

That way we might have a chance to change, that way maybe evil like the holocaust will not return in the future and that way we will develop and become better people.

The other episodes of the series:

More of the topic in Hayadan:

83 תגובות

  1. After all these experiments I am still satisfied if the natural tendency to obedience and conformity is capable of bringing ordinary (non-German) human beings to such a level of monstrous and unimaginable cruelty. It is also possible - but that is not the point I came to highlight.
    It should be remembered that behind all the actions of the Germans was an orderly ideology [against the Jews and the moral charge of their faith, and which claims that the Germans belong to the superior human race that the rest of mankind - the "middle race" - should serve, and the rest should be burned]. Those interested are invited to look at "Mein Kampf".
    In the same way, all the oppressors and murderers throughout history built for themselves theories and ideologies that justified the atrocities they committed.
    At the moment of truth, the moment people are convinced of the truth of a certain belief or ideology, it is difficult to see how all the methods of education proposed above will stand up to fiery ideological fervor.
    It sometimes seems that education for equality and tolerance itself becomes a stick and a whip (legal, media, social, economic, etc.) in the hands of liberals against those who are seen as not liberal enough.
    In my opinion, the only form of education that is able to protect against moral degradation of the type described is one that is based on belief in a higher power and is guided in a clear and detailed manner by it, and that has proven itself consistently and over time as one that grows people with a high moral standard, both as individuals and as a collective.
    I think that the only method that meets these requirements is traditional Judaism. It passed the test of experience with impressive success (judging by the last three thousand or so years) and in practice it includes a long and detailed list of lifestyles and behavior, both in relation to a person when he is to himself and between a person to his friend, all of which are anchored in the basic belief that "an eye sees and an ear hears and everything Your deeds are written in the book." Judaism even includes instructions on how to treat the enemy during war, thousands of years before anyone else started thinking about the concept of war ethics.
    In short, the concern raised in this article is not something that can be ignored or dismissed out of hand, and the only solution that I think can be faced is accepting the Jewish faith and leading a lifestyle strictly guided by it.

  2. ל
    In your response to Eran.

    In your response to Eran, you are right. I wrote a response in the same spirit on April 11 and according to the message in English directed to me at the top of the message – – – this message is still blocked.

    If this message is indeed blocked, it is censorship of legitimate opinions.


  3. to Eran,
    The holocaust was not a one-time event in history, there was also the holocaust of the Armenians, there were the "comfort women" on behalf of Japan in World War II, multitudes participated in their abuse and thousands of them were murdered or died due to the conditions and violence .
    In addition, before the Holocaust, the Germans "trained" in Africa:

    There is no shortage of cases of national cruelty throughout history.

  4. Israeli society's attitude towards Holocaust survivors - everyone sighs hypocritically and no one does anything real to change the situation

  5. Hello Eran
    thank you for your response!
    An explanation for the phenomenon does not mean an exemption from responsibility and guilt. The Germans and everyone else who collaborated (or knew what was going on and kept quiet) are responsible and guilty. These experiments only show that the human being has certain tendencies to be conformist, obedient, etc. But these are just tendencies and you can overcome them. A person has the ability to choose and therefore has the responsibility for his choices. The Germans chose to follow these tendencies and are therefore responsible and guilty. Now we, who know about these tendencies, should think how to prevent these tendencies from causing such great evil in the future. This is our responsibility.
    By the way, throughout history we witness many terrible acts of evil that can be attributed to obedience, conformity and the like. For example, the behavior of the guards in the concentration camps that are currently operating in the very north calls out against the opponents of the regime there.

  6. For some reason, most of the comments here have moved on to another topic, but I will still not hold back and refer to the article itself.

    The article is interesting and brings up for discussion a number of very interesting points for thought.

    "Under the right conditions any group or people can become radical and can degenerate into extreme evil."
    I think this is a problematic claim for several reasons.
    First, from this claim, and other claims in the article, it is implied that the degree of responsibility and guilt of the Germans for the Holocaust should be reduced. I would like to mention that this is not the case (at least not in my opinion). A similar claim can be made regarding any crime - after all, if the person is pushed to commit it by the environment then he is not responsible, and this is not the case as we all understand, so let's not get confused about the Holocaust either.
    Second, the experiments were on individuals and small groups, which still does not explain how an entire society of millions produces systematic murder like the Holocaust. Also, it is impossible to ignore the anti-Semitic behavior in Europe over the years and even today, meaning that this is not a single incident of obedience, but something else.
    Therefore, in my eyes, German society as a society is not like any other society.
    In the long experiment of history, the systematic murder that was carried out in the Holocaust, was carried out only once, and by the Germans.

  7. Miracles my friend, I read everything you wrote,
    I can go into explanations of why you are wrong in the vast majority of your words,

    But I won't because I don't have time and I have a life
    And not willing to waste my time convincing people why they are wrong

    You can see that you invested in the response because it took you two days to answer and the values
    of cholesterol of course had to be searched and checked in order to bring

    You feel very smart when you use tall words like Inuit
    But in practice zero results, you keep eating the same garbage day after day

    Then says that you hate liars (who eat and live a hundred times healthier than you)
    In short, an inflated ego with zero results.

    Like most people, they like to talk a lot - but in action - zero!

    There is no cholesterol in the plant, note that these oils are highly processed and have been through countless times
    processes until they reached the bottle, so it is possible that there is cholesterol in there

    I don't know, I don't buy, I don't use and I don't eat this garbage.

    Take any cold-pressed oil and you will find that there is not a drop of cholesterol in it - I hope you understood
    This instead of jumping in the head... there is no cholesterol in plants!!!

    I always check several sources and read a lot about nutrition
    It's been a kind of obsession of mine for years, I did my research!

    At least we agree on one thing, children do not hurt wild animals

    But what do you call a mature human being who is aware of the enormous suffering they are facing?
    Behind the "products" of meat, milk and eggs - and still chooses to eat them???

  8. 'For the animals, every day is Treblinka' once said a Holocaust survivor, who probably don't care if Yurofsky exaggerates or lies here and there, they are just like us, even though they can't speak or write.

  9. Yigal
    I wrote "eggs don't come out" from the same hole that urine and poop come out of. Chickens have one opening for eggs and a separate opening for feces and urine (called the bib opening). This is also true for amphibians, reptiles and a small part of mammals"

    This is not true……. You are absolutely right - birds have a single opening. In the other cases I mentioned, I was right. But I was wrong about birds... Sorry.

  10. Yigal
    Let's be precise... and maybe you'll learn something.

    1 - Of course they ate meat in the Torah - Abel would see sheep. I don't think they were pets….
    And in the interpretation it is written which meat to eat and which to eat. Are the kosher laws for meat a joke?

    2 - "You shall not murder" - it is clear that these are human beings. After all, sacrifices are made... don't be ridiculous

    3 - There are many experiments that are not for medical purposes. I agree that it should stop.
    Beyond that - what you said that there is no analogy between animals and humans in drug development is simply not true. It is even possible to implant a pig's valve in humans. Beyond that, we know physiological processes that are true for all mammals. Have you ever heard of swine flu? Bird flu? BSE (crazy cow for you?) cancer? Venom sensitivity? All these are common to us and other animals. You can go on and on.

    4 - The issue of children. I didn't justify myself. Don't twist my words!!! I said Gary Shurofsky was a liar. LEDs do not harm grazing animals. Most people who eat meat also. I don't think aborigines are bad people. You probably do think so.

    5 - Do you also fall for lies? Plant eaters have in their appendix bacteria that synthesize vitamin B-12. We, and other carnivores, have no natural source of this vitamin. There are sources of this vitamin that are not from animals, but they are not in the natural human food basket. Evolutionary - we have always eaten meat. The closest animal to us - also eats meat.

    6 - You write "humans have never (never!!) eaten meat as it is" - I would love to hear the source of this nonsense. I personally eat raw meat, like millions of French, Inuit, Aborigines and many others. Our ancient ancestor must have eaten raw meat. Listen, you live in a movie…..

    7 - Is plant food always healthy? What about coconut? What about potatoes? What about poisonous mushrooms? What about all the poisonous plants? What you want to say is that healthy plant food is always healthy…. What an insight 🙂
    And just so you know - in nature there are no apples, oranges, cauliflower, bananas, peaches, and almost everything else that you eat today. That is - your "evolutionary perfection" is only in your head.

    8 - Are there no cholesterol in plants? Here is some data:
    Palm oil has 20 mg per kg
    Coconut oil has 14 mg per kg
    Cottonseed oil has 45 mg per kg
    Canola oil has 53 mg per kg
    It's not much. But that doesn't match what you claim. I wonder what your source is 🙂

    9 – My good friend's dog died of cancer. In Australia there is an epidemic of contagious cancer in Tasmanian devils. Cancer can also be contagious - and Tasmanian devils are in danger of extinction because of this cancer. One of us is lying, or knows nothing about the world he lives in.

    10 - The issue of calcium loss. I don't know how to explain it. I know that the Maasai, who eat a lot of meat, do not suffer from calcium loss. Native Americans in the past also did not suffer from calcium loss even though they ate a lot of meat. Even the Inuit (Eskimos for those who don't know) do not suffer from calcium loss - and they eat raw meat.
    What are you basing it on? About one Lansett article that just showed there might be a connection?

    11 - I quote you: "A rooster's cycle?! No period?! Maybe yes, maybe not, I don't know, the truth is that they are indeed not violated, so I'm inclined to believe him, but leave it, it came out of their ass, from the same hole that urine and poop come out of, and it seems like something good to eat to you."
    So like this - listen, because you might learn something:
    Fertilized eggs are also eaten, these are still eggs
    Only mammals (and not all mammals) have periods. Birds do not have periods. Do not fish. deal with it
    Eggs do not come out "from the same hole that urine and poop come out of". Chickens have one opening for eggs and a separate opening for feces and urine (called the bib opening). This is also true for amphibians, reptiles and a small part of mammals.

    12 - You write "it can be either vomit or poop". Since when is everything that comes out of a living body vomit or feces (that's what the adults call it)??? What about sperm? cycle? milk? venom? silk? babies? eggs? rock? sweat? urine? Yes - and honey too!!!

    Listen Yigal - I am in favor of vegetarianism. I just don't like fools/liars/cheats. I don't blame you for any of these!!!
    You just don't check all the way through. It happens to a lot of people. They have an opinion and they care about every preacher and every piece of partial information that strengthens their belief.

    And the main thing is to be healthy. You sure eat healthier than me...

  11. Maybe,

    And what about the person who takes a pen from the company where he works every week? This is theft in every way (equivalent to stealing five shekels, let's say, from some cash register on a weekly basis).

    In the case of the carjacker and the bank robber it depends, I guess if the difference between the damage caused by the bank robber to people is much greater than the damage caused by the burglar then maybe the burglar will criticize the robber's behavior. Hackers can have limits too. Now your second comment regarding the fact that the burglar would have robbed a bank if he could have changed everything, and if that is the case then I don't see how it is relevant to us.

    You can also imagine a hired killer who is not willing to kill children. Is it painted? Okay, let's say. Does that mean he can't criticize a person who murders children? Not sure. And what about a person who abuses and kills chimpanzees? Can he criticize someone who murders people? In any case, we are getting away from the main point. What is important here is that everyone is a hypocrite no matter how you look at it, so there is no point in accusing each other of hypocrisy.

  12. Uncle,

    For example, a person who "borrowed" a pen from some office and did not return it. Can't a person like that who earns a few shekels at the expense of the company he works for warn a person who robs a bank?"

    By "thief" I don't mean a theft by mistake or a one-time trip, but one I arranged, you can't compare a "stinger" of lighters or matches to a car burglar and a jewelry thief.
    If it is understood who is a thief, then my question to you is this: Can a car burglar prove a bank robber?
    I'm sure if the carjacker was brave enough or saw a golden opportunity to do so he would have robbed a bank, what do you say? Can the burglar prove the robber?

    Now on the other hand regarding hypocrisy, there is interest in your words, your examples are extreme but there is something in it...
    The truth confused me quite a bit, because on the one hand you're right and on the other hand I can't help but explode with laughter and anger at the same time about a car burglar who preaches to break into safes. (So what do you think?)

    Well, then I'm going to think about the matter of hypocrisy more deeply, about a good steak of course...

  13. Maybe,

    "No person steals just a shekel, I have never heard of a grown man who stole a shekel" - not directly perhaps, but yes indirectly. For example, a person who "borrowed" a pen from some office and did not return it. Can a person like that who earns a few shekels at the expense of the company he works for not warn a person who robs a bank?

    "You can't admonish the meat eaters, you can admonish the subhumans who abuse animals because they think it's amusing" - I'm not exactly admonishing meat eaters, I don't go to McDonald's and shout "meat is murder", I'm just trying to provoke a discussion on the subject because I think it's important.

    Accusing hypocrisy is easy, I can do it too, and say that it is hypocritical on the one hand to oppose the abuse of animals and on the other to eat meat. Or on the one hand to oppose the murder and on the other hand not to donate funds that could save human lives. Or bring your own children into the world when there are already born children who need adoption. But what do I get out of it? is nothing. Accusations of hypocrisy lead to nothing. And although it seems to you and many meat eaters that vegetarianism and veganism are hypocritical and arrogant approaches, the truth is that they are just as hypocritical as any other moral approach. We all (at least me) believe in some moral ideal according to which we should act and if everyone acted according to it then the world would be a better place, and most of us do not succeed or do not want to follow this ideal (the golden rule in my case).

    Let me illustrate my point with an example unrelated to vegetarianism. Suppose a certain person realizes that his consumerist lifestyle is immoral and decides to donate a third of his salary to hungry children in Africa. He believes that the moral thing to do is to donate all the money he earns that he does not need to support himself and his family. But what, half of his salary is enough for that, because he doesn't donate all the money he could have donated. Now according to you, this person cannot warn anyone else, even if he is a billionaire who gives 0 shekels to charity, because that would make him a hypocrite. This conclusion is wrong in my opinion and therefore also the assumption. What is important is that the donating person is more moral than the non-donating person, so he can and even has a moral obligation to encourage others to donate more. This does not mean that he is arrogant, or that he sees himself as superior to others, but that he generally wants to live in a better world, and perhaps he would be happy if someone would warn him when he wasted money on luxuries.

  14. Yes Israel, it's true, there is no such thing as cancer in nature and I don't have it for Nick, you are welcome to search I was exposed to it from several books I read on the subject

    People do not understand that we raise the cancer like a child, nurture it, provide it with a comfortable and pleasant environment, good food and make sure that it grows and develops into the glory of the State of Israel (without our knowledge) for decades...

    When the environment in the blood is constantly acidic, it is a substrate for the growth of viruses, viruses and cancer cells which are actually our healthy cells that did not die in this environment but have mutated

    And as we created him with our own hands we can also kill him!

    The best way to eliminate cancer is to switch to a raw-food diet and create the most unpleasant environment possible for cancer and it will immediately begin to die, without chemotherapy, without radiation, without nonsense, switch all cancer patients to such a diet and you save over 90 percent of them without One conventional treatment

    There are many people who have recovered from stage 4 cancer just by switching to a live diet, research the topic and you will discover amazing things and the results will surprise you

  15. Yigal.

    Anyone who fights for animal rights is my brother and friend.

    Unfortunately, I believe that in our world laws are imposed that are not just or moral and there is almost no way to change them. No matter what we do and how much we fight, in the end we will see that if we improved system A, we damaged system B.

    This includes human systems and certainly systems that include animals.

    But let's not get into another philosophy. Is it true what you wrote about cancer? Animals in the wild don't get it? Do you have a link?

    And regarding the quote from the Bible - re-examine what I wrote and compare it to the source.

    Have you put your heart to the fact that the first war according to the Bible was between a worker of the earth (Cain) whose offering - from the fruits of the earth - was not accepted, while the offering of Abel who sacrificed a sheep was accepted?

  16. Okay Nissim my friend, this is definitely the last comment I leave, because the discussion has exhausted itself. So let's get started:

    1. They did not eat the sacrifices they offered but burned them on the altar to God and did not do it on fire. Do you consider yourself a god? In any case, don't look for morality in laws that were good thousands of years ago, then slaves and handmaids also existed... it's time to make an update.

    2. Write "Do not kill". point. not detailed. It means A-L T-R-C-H!!.

    3. Don't the Inuit know this?! Over 90 percent (real statistics, you are welcome to check) of the experiments performed on animals are not for life-saving purposes, in most cases for the cosmetics industry or for other studies that are once again not for life-saving purposes but just scientific curiosity

    Beyond that, humans and animals (apart from monkeys) have no physical similarity and it is impossible to draw conclusions from experiments performed on them about the effects they had on humans, no more than one inhaler will not do experiments on rabbits to test drugs for horses...

    4. I agree with you that children are often not gentle with animals, but they don't do it out of malice, but out of a lack of understanding that they are hurting them, what is your excuse?

    5. It's funny to me that people think they are carnivores, eating meat is not our food, the human body is a vegetarian, and every study shows this unequivocally, but leave you, bro, from studies, it's all nonsense.. which really convinces me

    It is that I (and neither do you) have the killing instinct. Making chickens on the fire is not called scavenging lol, have you ever stood next to a cow and wanted to sink your teeth into it? Maybe a chicken? No?? Why not?? When a real predator sees an animal it drools, the only thing that makes me drool is watermelon or mango or grapes that look good...

    6. The same, see section above. I would add, man only started eating meat when he discovered fire, humans have never (ever!!) eaten meat as it is. Like real carnivores eat.

    7. Snake venom is natural but unhealthy, plant food is always healthy. point. The problem begins when "smart" scientists begin to change the genetic composition by genetic engineering to something that has reached evolutionary perfection after hundreds of thousands of years

    I can name 15 diseases caused by animal nutrition and also explain how and why. If you can find one disease caused by plant food I will agree with you. But you won't be able to find, because there is no such thing.

    8. There is no cholesterol in the plant!! Because it is something that our body produces, or that of animals. These are the only sources. There is no question about it, it is a scientific fact. You probably mean fat and saturated fat as they exist in plant, and that's fine we need fat.

    9. Absolutely not a lie. I can go into far-reaching explanations of how cancer develops and what the relationship between animal nutrition and it is, but I won't do that. Instead, I will tell you one fact that you may not be aware of (like most people) and that is - cancer only exists in the world of humans!

    There is no such thing as cancer in nature, no lion or elephant or zebra has ever gotten cancer, interesting isn't it?

    Dogs and cats for example do get cancer but that too only because they consume our food and not their natural food.

    Cancer can be caused by three things: either external damage (radiation, heavy metals that penetrate the body, etc.), internal damage (which is the food you eat, the drink you drink and the polluted air you breathe) or genetics.

    Of all these things diet has the biggest impact, by a huge margin.

    10. Do you know what causes calcium loss? Do you know how to explain it? On what exactly are you saying that?

    Calcium is secreted as part of the body's means of balancing the acidity level of the blood, any food with an acidic effect causes a loss of calcium. And the most acidic foods that exist are: milk, meat, eggs, white flour, white sugar, white rice, margarine...

    Any population that eats these foods on a daily basis suffers from calcium leakage.

    11. Period of a rooster?! No period?! Maybe yes, maybe not, I don't know, the truth is that they are indeed not fertilized, so I'm inclined to believe him, but come on, it came out of their ass, from the same hole that urine and poop come out of and does it look like something good to eat to you? It's disgusting to me personally

    12. The fact is that bees drink nectar and masticate and thereby create the honey, what does it matter if it came out of her mouth or her ass, it went through her body? It can be either puke or poo, choose what you're most comfortable living with, but it has to be one of the two.

    Full disclosure - I still eat eggs, but not in a direct way (such as an omelet) but I have not yet removed products that contain eggs completely, such as pasta or cakes, I guess that will come too. And I also eat honey.

    Hear miracles, you can argue with me as much as you want, in the end you are the one who will live with the results.

    For me, the change came after too many of my relatives and people I know died of cancer and I realized that the path everyone is following is wrong and we need to understand what caused it and how to prevent it.

    Anyway, be healthy.

  17. Uncle..

    "And if I only stole a shekel? You have to put everything in proportion,"

    No person steals just a shekel, I have not heard of a grown man who stole a shekel.
    And in any case, the fact that you stole only a shekel, so to speak, is only because it was your option, I guess you didn't have 10 and 1 coins available and you chose the shekel...
    Therefore, in the case of moral proof - "a penny is as good as a hundred", a thief cannot warn the master thief.

    "It's not like I eat meat once every two days and you every day. There's no doubt that I could be much more moral than I am today, but that doesn't mean I can't admonish other people when they do something I think is wrong. If only perfectly moral people were allowed to preach then everyone would be silent."

    I don't think like you, again, I'm not claiming that if you're a thief you shouldn't warn the murderer, otherwise we really wouldn't be solving any crime here.
    I do argue that if you are a thief, you cannot warn another thief - you are harming animals by your very use of objects that come from trees and the use of cars and electricity, therefore you cannot warn the meat eaters, you can warn the subhumans who abuse animals because they think it is amusing.

    "I have a question for you, what is being moral in your eyes, and are you completely moral accordingly? Don't you think that animal abuse and/or air pollution is immoral?"

    Of course I see myself as moral and I also always strive to be more moral even in situations where it is not always convenient to be moral (up to the limit of good taste - for you it's cars and electricity), but I don't prove my neighbors bad for something I'm also convicted of, not even if I'm convicted less of them.
    Of course I'm against abuse and I really hope they stop the way animals are treated and raised in habitats, from here until they stop eating meat... I'm not comfortable, even though I think that nowadays the way meat is raised is immoral - I'm comfortable eating meat.
    I'm just as comfortable as you are comfortable using products that harm animals (directly or indirectly) even though you think it's immoral.
    That's why I think the vegan's moral claims and rebuke are arrogant and hypocritical.

  18. Yigal
    I said, and I say again, that I agree with the whole ecological and moral issue. Too bad you don't listen.
    And yet - Shurofsky's words are full of lies. I stand, again, behind every lie I stated before.
    And on the health side - I don't know what you learned, but the lifespan of meat eaters is longer than that of vegetarians. Don't go to extremes. A modern western person should eat much, much, less animal products. But - the studies in Parosh do not support your firm statement.
    Also on the subject of the studies, Shurofsky lies "for every study you bring, I will bring 2 copies on the other hand". But, for every study of his, I can bring 3 of my own. And that's before I start dismissing his research. For example - the study published in Lancet that eating meat causes calcium to escape in the urine.

    Again - I'm in favor of vegetarianism, I'm against stabbing.

  19. Maybe,

    "You can't steal a million and prove me that I stole 2 million" - and if I only stole a shekel? You have to put everything in proportion, it's not like I eat meat once every two days and you every day. There's no doubt that I could be much more moral than I am today, but that doesn't mean I can't admonish other people when they do something I think is wrong. If only perfectly moral people were allowed to preach then everyone would be silent.

    I have a question for you, what is being moral in your eyes, and are you fully moral accordingly? Don't you think animal abuse and/or air pollution is immoral?

  20. Uncle..

    "In my opinion, it is much easier to give up meat than to give up electricity or the private car. Beyond that, I don't understand what you are trying to say. Let's ignore the fact that the number one polluter is the meat industry (see an article here in the science:, and suppose that some person chose to switch to a vegetarian diet but continues to drive in his private car and use electricity, so what? He is still a more moral person than a person who eats meat, uses a car and a car (assuming they are equal in all other things)."

    What I'm trying to say is that if you (or any other vegan) are trying to be moral (according to your approach, not mine), you are obligated to stop using electricity and cars.
    The question comes to show the hypocrisy, after all there are no vegans who give up the car, why? Because their lust for a life of comfort is too great, maybe they don't lust so much for the flesh, but each one and his deviations are (-:
    Now I have no problem with the fact that a person wants to live comfortably and comfortably, but when a person strives for morality and "proves" the "immoral", he should be moral to the bitter end.
    I do not claim that a person cannot "prove" his environment for the evil it does, but a person cannot prove his friend for an act whose result is similar to the result of an act he himself does.
    The urban vegan commits a crime against the animal as does the urban meat eater, both cause damage to the animal.
    You can't steal a million and prove me that I stole 2 million, it's just not appropriate, if you stop stealing completely (or stop using everything that harms life, whether directly or indirectly) then you can prove me of my sins.

  21. Joseph,
    I do not understand what do you want. Both the prohibitions against eating meat and the avoidance of driving a private car are moral. In my opinion, prohibitions against eating meat are more moral because they both prevent suffering and prevent air pollution (more so than prohibitions against driving a car). In any case, every person, regardless of whether they are vegetarian or not, does not receive an 'air pollution exemption', and it is desirable that they also reduce electricity consumption and car use.

    Look, you can imagine a situation where animals are raised for their meat in very good conditions and slaughtered painlessly, in which case I wouldn't have a big problem eating meat, but if you live in a society where this is not the case, then what is the solution in your eyes? Eat the meat anyway because you "have to"?

  22. Miracles, the way you showed me, it's a waste of time, I won't sleep all night now...

    As for him, you didn't bring up the section and I didn't get angry. really no. The issue hurts me personally because I am personally a person who cannot tolerate injustice caused to others (even if it is animals), go ahead, laugh about it until tomorrow

    I agree with you, we all have to die at some point, but we all have the right to live without someone murdering us as soon as we are born or when we are no longer economical, but beyond that there are some other injustices in this industry that you may not be aware of

    2 billion animals are slaughtered, butchered and killed every week around the world.

    90 percent of the antibiotics produced in the world go to the industrialized economy.

    70 percent of all agricultural areas in the world are intended either directly or indirectly to live in these farms.

    90 of the world's smallest fish are farmed and fed to cows, making vegetarian cows the world's largest marine carnivores

    The air pollution created by industrialized interfaces is greater than what is produced by all the cars, trucks, ships, trains and airplanes in the world - put together.

    There are many children who starve to death every day, but not a single animal on the farm has ever lost a meal
    Because the poor countries sell their crops to the rich countries who use it to feed the animals

    A reduction of only 10 percent in the consumption of animal "products" would be enough to feed 100 million (!!!) hungry people

    And all this so we can eat steak? Every bite a person takes is a spit in the face of a starving girl
    These industries are absolute evil and a crime to humanity as a whole

    Nissim I have a request for you, treat yourself with respect, sorry for that word sociopath earlier, it was out of place. Sorry.
    I'm not here to make you a vegan, I'm giving my opinion and telling the truth as I see it

    I took the trouble to study the subject from the nutritional side as well and after 3 years of intensive study I can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt that animal nutrition is responsible for over 90 percent of people's deaths.

    PS - Please stop quoting sentences from the Bible to me, if we ignore for a moment the fact that they were written some 2000 years ago at a time when the most "wise" people in the world rode donkeys, they are always absolute and something absolute is never right

  23. Yossi the poet - I hope that your poems do not consist of blasphemy, insults, quarrels and arguments and stupidity like your comments.
    And if so, may they be kept in your drawer!
    Have a good night too, nice and poetic man like you.

  24. Miracles.

    We have some jerk in the neighborhood who walks around with a gourmet open shirt and a snakeskin belt.

    Could it be perhaps a rattlesnake?

    (Just, my brothers, insistence of veteran commenters).

  25. to my heart

    Kelabi's name on the birth certificate is Ragazi, from the time he was Gorgoron. Then we called him Calbalbon, which we shortened to Calbalbonun, and for short energetic Calbalbonunino.

    And hence - as my heart.

    It is said: My dog ​​is my dog, the son of a dog, with brown fur and brown eyes.

    Whoop Whoop.

  26. Itai
    Where exactly did you see a "call for violence against an animal" by Danit or any of her like-minded people?
    This is another problem of brainwashed people like you: you have no problem lying.

  27. danish,
    Notice another interesting result of your experiment:
    Two of the commenters praised you for the positions you expressed - which included, among other things, a call for violence against an animal (because harming animals, as you wrote as part of the experiment, is better than harming objects).
    Interesting, no?
    My conclusion is that when a person expresses extreme and violent positions, and even unfounded - there will always be those who will join him.
    Examples of such historical madness: the Crusades, the witch hunt, Stalin's purges, Mao's genocide and repression, and more.

  28. Uncle
    "And let's say that some person chose to switch to a vegetarian diet but continues to drive in his private car and use electricity, so what? He is still a more moral person than a person who eats meat, uses a car and a car (assuming they are equal in all other things)."
    So let's assume "that they are equal in all other things" but one of them rides a bicycle lives in the forest in a log cabin and hunts bears. By your logic he should be more moral than a vegetarian like you.

  29. Yigal
    So let's start.
    1. No religion requires eating meat. A lie - making sacrifices is part of Judaism.
    2. "Thou shalt not kill" is talking about animals. a lie.
    3. The guy gives a death sentence to the Inuit for example. What about drug development? Anti-snake serums? Anti spider mite serums? Smallpox vaccine? According to him, all of these could be waived.
    4. Small children are good to live. it's a lie.
    5. He claims that eating meat is unnatural. it's a lie.
    6. He claims that we are 100% vegetarian in nature. This is a blatant lie. We have never been vegetarian.
    7. He claims that everything that grows is healthy. a lie.
    8. There is no cholesterol in plants. Not accurate. You know what? Let's call the child by his name - that's a lie.
    9. Meat is a major cause of heart disease, cancer and calcium loss. a lie.
    10. He says that without exception, every population that eats meat suffers from calcium leakage. gross lie!!!
    11. Eggs is a "cycle of chickens". Too stupid to call it a lie 🙂
    12. Honey is vomit. Even dumber than the previous section!!!

    Regarding the moral part, cruelty and environmental pollution - he is very right. Just concentrate mainly. And let there be Manesh…….
    5. Hatred is a learned trait. a lie

  30. Uncle.


    And exactly on this topic - the pain - was my previous response that was raised by Legal T-section.

    He claims: "No(!) they should not die, neither cruelly nor without cruelty".

    And I say: we all have to die sometime. The question is how. The holocaust would have looked completely different if they had given the Jewish children hallucinogenic mushrooms that would have killed them painlessly with a smile on their lips.

    So let's conclude: we don't want war, we don't want to kill, but if they come to kill us, we kill back. Just shoot straight.

    And if animals must be slaughtered for meat, then under supervision and with minimal pain to the animals.

    An animal is allowed from a person.

  31. Israel,
    The bacteria, plants, and animals you described do not feel pain, it is more correct to say that they probably do not feel pain.
    If you are interested in discussing things and not just making fun of the other side, then please answer the following questions:
    Do you agree that beyond reasonable doubt mammals, birds and fish feel pain?
    Do you agree that we cannot say the same about most other animals, certainly not about plants, fungi and bacteria?
    If your answer to both questions is positive then why are you comparing slaughtering a cow to picking a tomato?

    And one more thing, there are actually dogs that don't eat meat, but I admit that I have no idea if they are healthy compared to dogs that eat meat...

  32. Yigal.

    The truth is that you convinced me to become a vegan and eat only vegetables, fruits and grains.

    But then I thought of all those poor worms and unfortunate diarrheas that perish in the processing and kilter process, not to mention those innocent "pests" that perish by spraying those vegetables and fruits.

    And why go far? What about the vegetables and fruits themselves? All those upright and proud cucumbers and young tomatoes and tomatoes on which the harvester rises with the blood of their youth. Have you ever listened to an orange picked while still in the fruit? Did you hug a tree today?

    And the bacteria! What did they sin? All they want is to prosper and multiply. Why is it that our ruthless immune system takes care of them, and with the help of the antibiotic drugs we have developed, which are no less than weapons of mass destruction.

    If I were you, I would immediately remove all the medicines from the house, all the soap sprays and toothpastes. Let the cockroaches live!

    And now I'm going to hug my dog, my cute Australian Shepherd, who couldn't go vegan even if he wanted to: he doesn't have the equipment. It is built only for eating meat.

    Sociopathic Israel.

  33. Maybe,
    You are right that eating meat is a "natural" thing, but from this it does not follow that "there is no evil here". You don't seem to be confusing 'natural' with 'moral'.

  34. Maybe,
    In my opinion, it is much easier to give up meat than to give up electricity or the private car. Beyond that, I don't understand what you are trying to say. Let's ignore the fact that the number one polluter is the meat industry (see an article here in the science:, and suppose that some person chose to switch to a vegetarian diet but continues to drive in his private car and use electricity, so what? He is still a more moral person than a person who eats meat, uses a car and a car (assuming they are equal in all other things).

  35. Yigal, all the horrors you describe such as flaying while alive, etc. are not carried out in the Western world, only in the East they do it, mainly in China.
    Secondly, it seems that beyond your opposition to habitats for food purposes, you are against eating animals in general...
    Humans have hunted wild animals since the beginning of history just like lionesses hunt monkeys and doe, this is a completely natural matter and there is no evil here.

    I asked "Ahad" a question, I ask you the same question and add to it:
    Why is there no vegan who opposes the use of electricity (pollution)/vehicles (pollution and destruction of habitats)/paper and furniture (cutting down trees = destroying bird nests)?

    Now to the matter that touches my heart specifically:
    Do not drink Heineken, Heineken is one of the sponsors of dog fights.
    I personally used to drink Heineken and stopped the day I saw a picture of a dog fight with Heineken flags flying in the arena.
    Please, there are enough good beers, don't drink Heineken.

  36. one..
    I completely agree with Yossi the poet, I really wanted to raise this point much earlier but I gave up for some reason...
    The question is, why isn't there even a single vegan/vegetarian who gives up using a car (which pollutes the environment and drives on a road that destroys the animals' natural habitat) and/or the use of electricity (which also pollutes and sometimes destroys habitat)?

  37. 'Yossi the Poet' I understand that this is a topic that evokes a burst of different kinds of emotions, but please, if you have something smart to say, say it patiently. 'The words of the wise are heard with ease' (Ecclesiastes)

  38. Nissim my friend, I happen to have a lot of knowledge about nutrition, I would appreciate it if you could tell me which lies he told in his lecture? If you want me to take your words seriously I will be happy to do so

  39. "one"
    Instead of talking like miracles, we'll see you stop using electricity that comes from polluting stations that kill the habitats of animals

  40. Danish
    Instead of trying to prove evidence, just don't give a hand to the exploitation of the animals in such a horrible way, the issue is not related to 'miracles' like you wrote, I have no doubt that Nisim didn't really mean the nonsense he wrote. The issue is simply absolutely true and stands completely on its own: ignoring the animal suffering industry today is immoral, when you allow yourself to consume products from this industry, you cause suffering. There is unimaginable suffering in these industries, do you disagree? Do you justify the suffering you cause animals when you consume them as a product, by the fact that there are immoral people in the world? Or the fact that there are immoral people towards other people makes you emotionally quiet.
    So don't hate foreigners, be super humane towards other people, and at the same time be moral and empathetic towards animals who are capable of feeling suffering, there are quite a few good people like that, what do you think?

  41. Yigal
    Gary Yurofsky is a liar with credentials. He is a violent and dangerous man. I have no problem with vegetarianism for moral reasons. I have a problem with adding lies to it like Yurofsky does.
    And most of what he says is simply false.

  42. Israel Shapira
    Andy Rooney once said: the average dog is a nicer person than the average person
    So true ……

  43. And what is happening now with the animal industries is exactly this, people are cutting themselves off emotionally and psychologically in order to convince themselves that it is okay to consume meat, milk and eggs even though it is not their natural state (the natural state is the reaction that a person will react if he sees someone approaching an animal with a knife in order to kill her)

    At the moment consuming animal "products" is a norm and consensus but in a few decades people will stop with it because they will understand the unimaginable (!!!) cruelty that thrives behind their steak, omelette and glass of milk

    The consensus will break for the simple reason that these industries are evil incarnate(!) and that this is the right thing to do, just as once slaves were a "normal" situation, just as once racism was a normal and routine thing - this is the end of this evil passing from the world.

    And for all those people who go against the veganism trend, I want to clarify something. It's not a trend. point.
    A trend is a passing fad, it comes to me one way today and another tomorrow, this is about a change in perception.

    And a change of perception is permanent!

    Changing a perception is different, it is deeper, there is a meaning behind it and when a person changes a perception and actually opens his eyes and understands what is happening he will never want or be able to close them back, and rightly so! Why would he?!

    to Israel Shapira, who says "unfortunately they have to die in order to provide us with food"
    No(!) they should not die, neither cruelly nor without cruelty, and by the way there is no such thing at all - humane slaughter.

    It is not clear to me how a moral person (and I am starting from the premise that you are indeed a moral person) is able to say such a thing, in fact it is clear to me that it is because you were taught from the age of zero that the animals are here in order to provide everything we need..

    Another thing is also clear to me.. that you never looked the truth in the eyes, did not see what was happening or did not care to know, because like the vast majority of people, they are not able to see it, hear or know. They are only interested in tasting and it doesn't matter how much suffering is caused in the process.

    Gary Yurofsky compared the meat industry to the holocaust, so I'll tell you something that's more radical than that, what's happening in these industries is worse than what happened in the holocaust. In the Holocaust people died of hunger, were shot in the head or suffocated in the gas chambers.

    No one threw them on a hook that was inserted into their flesh and began to strip their skin while they were still alive, no one slit their throats or cut open their daughter while they were fluttering and other horrors that I cannot describe. No my friend, what happens in the slaughterhouse is difficult and immeasurably worse than what happened in the extermination camps.

    And all this in our backyard, not a million miles from here, it's right here by your house.

    If you are so sure of yourself that this is the purpose of the animals, I suggest you check the truth and then talk about it, and if you have still seen and heard the whole truth and decided that it is fine and legitimate, then I will tell you the only truth that remains - that you are a sociopath.

  44. Perhaps it is important to note that apart from the issue of killing there is also the issue of how to kill.
    Yes, I'm talking about torture.
    which is the great strength of all totalitarians: cruelty. This is not an academic debate about individual rights, with opinions here and there. It's about the fact that if you don't do what we tell you to do well, then after what has been done to you and your children you will beg to do everything we say and tenfold, just let us let you.
    And those who don't believe, should try to hold their breath for two minutes. You will quickly decide how many helpless victims you will agree to push to the crematoria, just don't repeat the experience.

    And this, I believe, is also the point of many animal rights advocates: it is true, unfortunately, they have to die to provide us with food. But from here it's a long way to Marbak calves who are not allowed to move for six months to improve their taste, fattening geese and more.

    Except that most animals are much cuter than most people. And they are always cute - unlike humans who are only cute when they are babies and children.

  45. Danish
    I didn't call for any violence 🙂 What I did was to continue your line of thought.
    You said things that in my opinion are very serious. You put humans above animals. This is true in the sense that it is okay to test drugs on animals, and maybe even eat animals. But the distance between this and saying that the animals are meant to serve us is enormous. You still use the concept of evolution to show this - even though evolution shows exactly the opposite. Danish - the only essential difference between us and animals is language. There is no other difference. Any other difference you see is due to this.

    Danit - you wrote "Obviously, if you slaughter a chicken or hurt a kitten it is better than destroying an important or expensive object - do you know how long it took another person to build it and what enormous value it has? A cat can give birth to a litter of kittens over and over again and so can a hen - that's exactly the whole idea of ​​sustainability and using renewable means!"
    Danish - this is one of the most inhuman sentences I have heard in my life. Maybe I said things in a disrespectful way. I apologize for that. I shouldn't have written what I was thinking.

  46. Vittorio Citro Boutique Official Site | Clothing and Footwear Buy the new collection online on Express Shipping and Free Return.Vittorio Citro Boutique Official Store | Fashion items for men and women Responded:

    Tired of the vegan fans!!!
    Enough to confuse your mind, tired of the trends of the human herd.

  47. Vittorio Citro Boutique Official Site | Clothing and Footwear Buy the new collection online on Express Shipping and Free Return.Vittorio Citro Boutique Official Store | Fashion items for men and women Responded:

    Good and interesting, only that the research knowledge and insights have existed for 40+ years and that's what they say in Hebrew
    Good morning Elijah.

  48. Summary of experiment

    The truth is that I am against animal abuse, although not at the level of "one", but definitely against it.

    What I wanted to prove in two simple posts is how every person, especially the most "enlightened", becomes a man-hater and calls for murder - just like the Germans in the 30's and 40's.

    Notice what happened to the miracles - from a person who wants to care for others and the animals, to someone who considers himself a humanitarian, in a few simple posts, and when "one" melted into self-giving, I became worse than the Nazis and even someone who deserves to be killed - and why? Because my views are different from his!!

    Xenophobia is not only hating Jews, light-skinned people, Asians, etc. - xenophobia begins with hatred for those who do not agree with your opinion - and from there the road to the gas chambers was probably simple (after all, not only Jews, Gypsies and blacks were sent to extermination, but also the opponents of the government).

    Even within an article that warns us of such behaviors there will always be "miracles" that will quickly degenerate the discussion into calls for murder, extermination, removal, etc.
    What is sad is that these people are sure that they are doing it in the name of enlightenment and liberalism!!

    So kudos to "Ahad" who, despite not agreeing with what was written, maintained a culture of discussion and even tried to withstand the breach.
    And thanks to the miracles thanks to his personality he helped us all learn that the article is not just a theory and thanks to exactly such approaches the human race has reached where it has reached - and it's a shame!!

    An important lesson on the eve of Holocaust Day and food for thought!!!

  49. The real question that needs to be asked is:
    Why does the State of Israel not properly care for the remains of the Holocaust?
    Let's not forget: many of the remains lived the rest of their lives here in the State of Israel in conditions of harsh and shameful poverty.

  50. Very interesting and not surprising. Education and social norms have a great weight in shaping consciousness. The psychology of the masses..humanism, individualism and empathy are the pills against herds of blind obedience and the banality of evil.

  51. In the present state of the world, it is evident that the control we have gained of physical energies, heat, light, electricity, etc., without having first secured control of our use of ourselves is a dangerous affair. Without the control of our use of ourselves, our use of other things is blind; it may lead to anything.
    The technique of Mr. Alexander gives to the educator a standard of psycho-physical health-in which what we call morality is included. It also supplies the "means whereby" this standard may be progressively and endlessly achieved, becoming a conscious possession of the educated one. It therefore provides the conditions for the central direction of all special educational processes. It bears the same relationship to education that education itself bears to all other human activities.
    John Dewey (1859-1952)

  52. Avner.
    Regarding why the Jews have been exposed to systematic hatred for thousands of years:
    Every year, at Pesach, we remember "that in every generation our brides stand before us".
    I promise you that if we do an experiment and start a new religion that we will call "Avnerism", and on one of the holidays we will remember that "in every generation our brides rise up against us", forever and ever there will be a man who will rise up and want to assassinate some "Avnerism".
    After all, the "Avneri" is distributed all over the world, it is a foreigner all over the world and because of its foreignness, it is exposed to manipulations and abuses.
    I assure you that in every generation there will be some "Avneri", somewhere in the world, who suffers from an "anti-Avneri" abode.
    Now think about Judaism.
    From Judaism came Christianity and Islam, Judaism constantly threatens the religions it gave birth to and therefore it is likely that from time to time there will be conflicts between it and its descendants, after all, no one likes to hear that it is a "fake" (if Judaism were in control it is possible that from time to time, depending on its rulers, there were manipulations in the other religions ).
    Think about 2000 years which is about 40 generations (according to 50 years for a generation that turns a newborn/child into an adult/elderly).
    Think about the huge fragmentation of that culture between, let's say, a minimum of 3 main geographic locations (say Egypt/Morocco/Yemen Italy/Spain and Iran/Iraq).
    40 generations in 3 different places, let's say once in 7? 5? 8? 10? Dorot, is there any serious offense to a foreigner (who is Jewish) in one of the places?
    So every Jew everywhere at any given time hears about some mishap that took place 130 or 200 years ago while a Jew of his generation living in a different location experiences a temporary mishap.
    So there were days when in Morocco/Russia/Egypt/Rome the Jews had a good time, but then there was some king in Spain/Iraq/Yemen/Syria/Iran who did not like Jews and stood up for them, and vice versa.
    And when the bad days ended in X, bad days began in Y, and meanwhile at T time good days at X told about the exodus from Egypt and mentioned "our pharaoh" who was T time ago (I hope you understand what I mean) and then the wheel turns.
    And today we all meet in the Holy Land and we all talk about the disturbances that our ancestors each went through in their time = everyone persecutes us because we are Jews/"Avnerites"
    So there were days when someone somewhere wanted to unite the people around him and made the claim that Jews killed Jesus, and in another, distant place, the Jews were doing well.
    And today, there may be a situation, in a parallel universe, in which a Christian majority resides in the Land of Israel, and Ahmadinejad and Hamas and Hezbollah want to destroy them because they are "usurping" the Palestinians (or rather - because the Land of Israel was dedicated to Allah by some Muslim, and it was dedicated according to Islam cannot be removed, therefore it is the duty of Muslims to do everything to drive out the invaders, whether they are Jews or Christians or Hindus)

    Hitler in his time, and the Muslims today, use the built-in religious anti-Semitism on which most people (Muslims and Christians) grow up.
    And maybe a day will come (it's hard for me to see) when Judaism will be the majority or a large part of the world and there will be an extreme Jewish leader who will decide to put an end to the infidels.

    From the day of their inception until eternity, the religions Islam and Christianity were and will be against each other, certainly against the Judaism that gave birth to them, it is only a matter of time until an extremist Muslim/Christian revival will try to destroy a religious community that differs in its faith and it will start with the one who threatens the most - the Jew.

    An example of Islam's opposition to Judaism:
    Worth seeing and realizing…

  53. If there is one series that made me understand what really happened in the 30s in Germany, it is the National Geographic series
    Apocalypse - The rise of Hitler
    It is a documentary film that is entirely based on films that were shot at that time and that today have added color to them.
    It really gives the feeling of being there and understanding the spirit of things and all the influences at that time in Germany that led to the Holocaust
    The photographs themselves describe the whole story

    The other part Apocalypse - The second world war (six episodes) is also amazing and done in the same way
    From authentic French, German, Russian, Japanese and American photographs - that simply added color

    This is the kind of information that made me respond with ah-haha now the pieces are coming together for me. All this happened out of nowhere

  54. Unfortunately, I think that the discussion and even the article deviate and even practically contradict the lessons that should be learned from the Holocaust.
    I think that from a moral point of view, anti-Semitism in general and the Holocaust in particular can be distinguished from any human struggle of the strong against the weak. In general, it can be said that there are few cases in the world in which a systematic murder was committed against a people (which the most powerful countries that most claimed to have morals did not try to prevent, and it is possible to link this to the issue of individualism that is widespread in them) that exceeded the limits of a more common phenomenon - ethnic cleansing, the removal of a people from a certain territory by with another The reason for this is that human societies impose social norms, many of which are moral. It is not acceptable in any society that I know to kill for fun, but there is such a phenomenon among individuals. that this is an extreme example but definitely exists beyond a statistical fluctuation in any group, and for it not to manifest itself and cause severe reactions, sometimes education is not enough, but also punishment that will remove the threat from society and try to educate him intensively to prevent it even if he feels that it prevents him from fulfilling and realizing himself .

    Moreover, it can also be said with a very high degree of certainty that Western society is the society in which the cases of private violence are the fewest in history. Let's just think about how many of us remember what it's like to "take a beating", it's very noticeable in the army that for Krav Maga training you have to artificially put yourself in a situation where it's possible that someone will try to punch you in the face and react to it.

    What does exist is a risk factor and at the same time the greatest hope in human societies is the philosophy of meaning or ideology or religion. After all, this factor is the main factor in the acceptance of social norms. And here lies a serious risk because unlike all kinds of innate problematic tendencies such as the fear of strangers or the lust for power that are restrained by society even for utilitarian needs, the ideology can lead to the perception that hurting someone is a good thing. The anti-Semitism of Christianity is a resounding example of this. In the eyes of the Christian world, it is considered just and proper to harm a Jew, which was even more intensified in the perceptions of racial theory. You have to understand along with all the discomfort that the Jewish people is the only people that has been hated for thousands of years by many peoples, most of whose people have never met a Jew. That is, it is a hatred rooted in the moral concepts of large parts of the Christian world.
    Another phenomenon and today no less serious is Jihad, which is the accepted way since Muhammad to spread Islam, which is to murder everyone who is not a monotheist and subjugate everyone else by the force of the sword. This phenomenon is again an ideology that praises murder.

    The lesson for the open question of the Holocaust is why we Jews are always the target of systematic hatred. What is special about us that brings out huge ideologies that are the result of mainly the thing that they hate Judaism and the people who were born to the Jewish people the most.

  55. 'Yossi the Poet' If there is something I didn't understand, it's better if you explain, don't be afraid, the responses are free as far as I've noticed, preferably out of politeness, with a space between the words (without occasionally missing) with less frothing at the mouth, and without repeating the word 'nonsense' too much '.
    good evening.

  56. "One", no one here is having a discussion. It's all you and Nisim writing nonsense. And you have already been warned about Zahatz.
    Every inch of his head sees the nonsense you wrote. And there is no need to reason nonsense either. And regarding the article, you simply did not understand. read again

  57. one
    I have no religious intention in the concept of soul. Call it "consciousness" if it sounds less mystical.
    And you strengthen my argument. Killing a mosquito (mosquito...) is not self-defense.
    I understand that you are a vegetarian, and if it is for moral reasons, I very much respect that. You are a better person than me in this field.

    And I definitely agree with the author of the article...

  58. Miracles
    Regarding the hatred, I have already expressed my opinion.
    To me, 'soul' is an undefined religious concept, I see it as immoral to act violently towards any creature that is capable of suffering, like me, I prefer not to get into the measurement of suffering, I think it is better to quantify suffering as little as possible. To the same extent, it is possible to begin to quantify suffering when it concerns human beings. Just as it seems to me wrong for human beings, it is wrong in my eyes for animals.
    Regarding mosquitoes, I can speak for myself, there is a difference between an act of self-defense and an act of exploitation, but I will try to avoid harming them. There are options to prevent the need from such an injury in the first place.
    I think your approach is better than the approach that completely ignores animal suffering, but still treats animals as objects. An animal to me is not an object, it is capable of feeling and suffering, I do not eat something that is capable of suffering.

    Yossi, when conducting a discussion, in my opinion, it is advisable to reason, and not automatically label as 'nonsense' what everyone else has written, the topic of the article is exactly that people automatically rely on the sense of justice of their peers, instead of thinking for themselves.

  59. Miracles
    I am qouting:
    "Obviously, if you slaughter a chicken or hurt a kitten it's better than destroying an important or expensive object - do you know how long it took another person to build it and what enormous value it has? A cat can give birth to a litter of kittens again and again and so can a hen - this is exactly the whole idea of ​​sustainability and the use of renewable means!

    And I'm speaking in a repulsive language? Imagine Dana's dog peeing on her carpet…..

  60. Danish
    You are right in general, but there is the matter of "intended to serve" and the latter is not accurate.
    Animals are not meant to serve humans. Although the animals serve the humans.
    And in general animals serve each other. If it's a dog that saves another dog, or a human that saves a cat or a dolphin that saves a human, etc....
    Regarding the nonsense written by others and especially the repulsive language used by Nissim - I agree with you.

  61. one
    Dana earned my hate honestly... I hope every sane person who reads her words understands that she is, let's call it, sick.

    I will explain to you how I see it, and you will see that every human being, except Dana, thinks like me.
    I will talk about the concept of "the size of the soul". It is possible to describe the soul of any being. Maybe the right word is "consciousness". Most objects do not have a soul, they have a soul of size 0. There are machines whose soul size is not 0, a thermostat for example, or a machine with a control system like an autopilot let's say. Later on, living beings begin to have a bigger and bigger soul. Bacteria and single cells have a very small soul - they know how to eat, avoid poisons and defend themselves from attackers. Arthropods have an even bigger soul. You can continue like this through the animal kingdom, through fish, reptiles, mammals, monkeys, apes, and up to humans. Even within humans there are different sizes of soul. I won't go into it now (think Mohandas Gandhi vs. Hitler...).

    And what does this have to do with it? Each person puts a limit on the size of the soul. Most of us didn't hurt another person. A subset of this group will not harm apes, but will eat any flesh. I personally will not harm a dog, cat, marine mammal, or even meat eaters. But I do eat a cow, but I will fight for proper breeding conditions and painless slaughter. Vegetarians set the bar much lower. But - they too (in my understanding) will not hesitate to kill mosquitoes.
    "Primitive" people will eat everything that moves, other people will say "cattle, sheep and chicken" instead of "cow, sheep and chicken".

    I cannot place Dana on this scale. She is something special...

  62. Miracles, hatred is not a tool for a solution, acts of violence against other human beings (this is the rhetoric you express) is it moral in your eyes? I guess not really.
    I totally agree with you about objectifying the animals, but what do you expect from Dana when society as a whole treats animals as objects to make shoelaces and food? By the way, is the suffering of your dog more important to you than the suffering of another animal? There are enough meat eaters who can't imagine their dog suffering, and are still generally indifferent to animal suffering.

  63. one
    My reaction is mild compared to how I feel about Dana. Dana says it's better to hurt an animal than an object. So if my dog ​​was on the road do you think she would have stopped?

    Audio. The distance between Dana and the Nazis is much smaller than you think. Once you appropriate rights that arise from evolution, how far is it from there to racism?

    I'm sorry. But Dana, to me, is human scum. And I really censor my words.

  64. Nissim, your reaction is a bit exaggerated (to say the least) but I guess you don't really mean what you write.
    Danit, you missed the analogy. You compare what happens in nature to humans, but there is nothing to compare, because as I gave as an example, you certainly would not justify a human act that is similar to the killing of lion cubs by a lion in nature, (killing and giving birth to humans) and I can assume that you define yourself as a good person, as a human being Good and reasonable, suffering is required and should be prevented wherever it is suffering.

  65. Danish
    If you're in the middle of the road, the only reason I'll hit the brakes is not to get my bumper dirty with the mud that's coming off you.

  66. What nonsense you are talking!!

    What is cruel about a lion devouring the cubs of the previous lion? That's how evolution developed! It's not cruel, it's nature - but dark people like you probably can't grasp it!

    I think that not only am I a good person, but I am a better person than you because I also accept my vocation in evolution (and it's not just the language, it's also the mind and the control over all the animals and the environment!!!).
    It is clear that if you slaughter a chicken or hurt a kitten it is better than destroying an important or expensive object - do you know how long it took another person to build it and what enormous value it has? A cat can give birth to a litter of kittens again and again and so can a hen - that's exactly the whole idea of ​​sustainability and the use of renewable means!

    It's a shame to see how dark and petty people are and want to protect animals before they care about humans!

  67. Danit, in nature the lion kills its predecessor's cubs, is this also recommended behavior in your opinion for the human race?
    Humans have an advantage in that we are intelligent, and in our ability to prevent unnecessary suffering, but suffering is suffering, regardless of how intelligent the creature is.
    "Evolution put us at the top of the pyramid"
    These are talks that remind us of the 'logic' of social Darwinism, after all, this is the title of the article: 'How we missed one of the most important lessons from the Holocaust', how are your talks about the exploitation of other animals who are capable of suffering (!) different from the talks about 'inferior' humans '? What does it mean to be a "good" person if you have no empathy for suffering wherever it is suffering? But it's hard to come at you with claims since you are a product of the society you live in, that's what the article is about.

  68. Danish
    You are not only wrong - you really scare me. There is an evil in you that is hard for me to accept.
    Animals are not meant to serve anyone!!! Who do you think designated them??
    A tiger that eats a doe is cruel. Nature is cruel. Even when we eat meat it is cruel. I eat meat, don't get me wrong. But, I am against causing suffering to animals. Like kosher swimming for example……..

    Do you really think it's better to hurt an animal than an object? You are just a bad person Danish.

    Evolution did not put man at the top of any pyramid. The proof of this…….. we have a fundamental difference from the other animals - and this difference is our sense of language. This difference allows me to call you human garbage... Forgive me, but I don't usually express myself like this, but this is how I think of you.

    You don't understand either what evolution is or what humanity is. You are just bad...

    You are lucky that this is not the place to write a really spicy message!!!

  69. Eli you are wrong!!!!!

    Animals are meant to serve us for our livelihood, our work and our pleasure.
    It is no more cruelty to kill a cow than a tiger that eats a doe - it is simply nature.

    And if someone's pleasure requires causing pain, then it is obviously better for him to do it to an animal (which is a renewable accessory) than to an object (which has value and after it is broken, it cannot be restored or given birth to a new one) or even a person.

    Giving rights to animals is as absurd as giving rights to the air and claiming that because we breathe it we are disturbing it.

    Evolution put us at the top of the pyramid so we can use animals for everything we need and not to do that is to go against our evolutionary role!

    The nonsense you write is the dangerous talk of "animal cruelty" fanatics (have you ever seen a truly sorry animal??) and such attitudes must not be allowed to interfere with evolution

  70. Another aspect not mentioned in the article: systematic damage to the dignity and status of the victim causes increasing cruelty and comes to him as a natural thing. This is what the Nazis did with the Jews and the Gypsies and this is what we do today with the animals. Examples: coldness of dogs, calling a person a donkey or a dog as a derogatory term, using the word training instead of education, pets are animals that are used for the pleasure of their owners and are deprived of the company of other animals, sexual life and even freedom of movement, and many other examples 

  71. The motif of slavery and the Holocaust exists in our behavior with animals. We are so used to it that we don't even think to stop and think about it. For example, it is clear that a dog should walk with a leash around his neck and be attached to his kennel with the leash all day. For example, it is clear that a chicken in the meat industry is kept in a cage where it has no room to move. For example, it is clear that the cow needs to be milked endlessly after calving and it is clear that her calf needs to drink water with powder in order for us to drink the milk intended for it. I eat meat like other animals in the wild that eat meat but there is no room for abuse of the kind mentioned above.

  72. There is also a problem with the proposals that Nir Lahav makes. Is the disobedient person a better person? Sometimes we have a need for obedience.
    I'm sure it will be very difficult for the parents to raise a child who rebels against them - because they raised him to be disobedient. Beyond that, these qualities that are demanded of us and that he suggests we change are the qualities that led to man's survival in nature and man's survival in human society. These are qualities that capture human society.
    I imagine a society where each person will do what is best in his eyes and for himself - in my opinion this is not necessarily a better society (egoism).
    We should think twice before we seek to educate people in a different way. You have to examine it from several aspects and look at the whole picture.

  73. The question is what's worse: a disciplined country like Singapore where everyone obeys authority without question and if you don't get flogged, or a despotic country where everyone does what's on their own mind, why who are you even a policeman to tell me what to do, eh?

  74. What 'one' said (veganism)
    This is my way of applying the lessons of the Holocaust in a country that likes to say
    never again

  75. I decided to become a vegetarian precisely because of this reason, we cause other animals to suffer because everyone else does. There is no difference between the suffering of a rational person and the suffering of a non-rational person, from the point of view of the suffering creature - he suffers, period.

Leave a Reply

Email will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismat to prevent spam messages. Click here to learn how your response data is processed.