Animal cruelty

[Dr Lou Natic]

are you suggesting that we treat the death of a chicken the same as a death of a blue-collar worker?

What class of chicken?
You couldn't really compare a dirty old blue collar worker to one of those fancy show chickens at the fair.
I suppose a battery hen is comparable to a blue collar worker.
But you can't help but wonder what the battery hen might have accomplished had it been given the same opportunities as the blue collar worker.

Anyway, in reality your killing animals every day by just existing in the civilised world. This includes vegans.
Ironically the kind of people who are vegans are also the kind of people opposed to killing people. They'll protest against killing endangered animals in the morning and then go and protest against the war in iraq in the afternoon.
Well they don't seem to realise that's like protesting against flushing the toilet in the morning and then protesting against the state of the bathrooms in the afternoon.

6 billion people on earth is "cruelty to animals", to such an extreme degree that everything else is automatically insignificant in comparison.

I believe people are supposed to kill and eat animals, and that there's nothing wrong with it in the right context.
That is on natural territories which they obtain and maintain by killing rival human beings.
A system where people die before damage is done to the environment.
Prey animals like deer and boar and hare and so on expect us to hunt them. That's something they understand, and an element of their lifestyle they're adapted to dealing with. They wouldn't be used to us not hunting them, that would actually be negative.
What they don't understand, and what they can't deal with, is the way their world is shrinking, and their resources disappearing.
If everyone was vegans we'd still need farms and crops which would take up room, farmers wouldn't allow animals to eat the crops so their habitats would still be shrinking and they'd be starving and going extinct just as they are.
I'm not happy with the current situation, but the direct killing of animals isn't the problem by any stretch of anyone's ignorant imagination.
Animals are getting killed and dieing all the time. It's what all things do, you guys have obviously been alive and bored for too long so that you can't even see that.
People hunting animals, where the shortcomings of the animal's natural attributes in comparison to it's bretheren are the cause of it's demise (as opposed to trapping or baiting or shooting), is a positive thing. Everyone should be doing that.
Every family should have a large territory which can sustain them due to it's thriving wild animal and plant life.
Ofcourse not every family currently in existence today could be sustained by the planet under this system. That's fine, all the left over people and families would naturally perish, at the hands of better people who outcompeted them or the elements of the barren wastelands they're exhiled to by the better people in the prosperous environments. This system would mean the environment can't be dented, once an area lost a touch of it's shine the people relying on that area would die before irreparable damage was done. Animals live under this system now, dieing all the time, but there's always survivors.

We should do away with commercial farming of every kind, including the farming of vegetables. In the big scheme of things there's no difference, each is equally cruel to animals. The minor "knocking cows on the head" factor of meat farming is balanced out by the factor that wild animals can and do often live in cattle country. They can't live in crop country, so they're displaced to die of starvation and thirst in less fertile country.

 

[Roman]

Ironically the kind of people who are vegans are also the kind of people opposed to killing people.

Well, the real, hardcore, environmentalist vegans are pretty militant about it. They'd rather see people hacked up than lobsters.

If everyone was vegans we'd still need farms and crops which would take up room, farmers wouldn't allow animals to eat the crops so their habitats would still be shrinking and they'd be starving and going extinct just as they are.

But if everyone was vegan, we'd only require 1/10th of the agricultural resources we use now.

Ofcourse not every family currently in existence today could be sustained by the planet under this system. That's fine, all the left over people and families would naturally perish, at the hands of better people who outcompeted them or the elements of the barren wastelands they're exhiled to by the better people in the prosperous environments.

You know, that's how it originally was, but it turned out that the better people who outcompeted their neighbors got together and formed agricultural society. Strong individuals will always lose to collectives of weak individuals.

 

[leopold]

with all this genetic research we might not have to worry about it too much longer

 

[James R]

Hapsburg:

Merely because we don't have to doesn't mean we can't. Just because we can surive off vegetables alone doesn't mean we cannot benefit from the protein meat can provide.

You really are a slow learner. I must have made the same point four or five times to you by now, but you still don't get it.

You're 100% right that just because we don't have to eat meat doesn't mean we can't. But equally, just because we can eat meat doesn't mean we should. Get it? Its something called morality, Hapsburg. Think it over.

 

[James R]

Dr Lou Natic:

Anyway, in reality your killing animals every day by just existing in the civilised world. This includes vegans.

You must be thinking of indirect killings. You must agree that vegans cause less direct killing of animals simply by not eating meat. So, if some killing of animals is inevitable, shouldn't a moral person seek to minimize it?

Or are you actually trying to argue that if a few animals are going to die anyway, we might as well give up and kill billions deliberately?

6 billion people on earth is "cruelty to animals", to such an extreme degree that everything else is automatically insignificant in comparison.

This seems to be a continuation of your argument above. Should we not seek to minimize the harm caused? Following your line of argument, one possibility to solve the human population problem and further reduce killing of animals would be to start killing humans and eating their meat instead of animal meat. Would that be an acceptable solution, in your opinion? The animals would benefit twice: once by not being eaten, and again by decreasing the human footprint on the ecosystem. Win win.

I believe people are supposed to kill and eat animals, and that there's nothing wrong with it in the right context.

What's the "right context"? If it makes you happy? The bottom line is: you don't want to give up eating meat because you enjoy it - no other reason. Why not be honest?

Prey animals like deer and boar and hare and so on expect us to hunt them.

Did your God create guns so the "natural order" would be better served?

Actually, while we're talking about this, let's get off food for a minute. Millions of animals are killed by humans for other reasons than food, every year. You talk about hunting. Why do humans hunt? For food? Not primarily. Most of the time these days, it's just for fun. Humans kill animals just for fun, and it's even more obvious in the case of hunting than with food animals.

Animals, in general, don't hunt for fun (except in exceptional circumstances, most often human-related).

If everyone was vegans we'd still need farms and crops which would take up room, farmers wouldn't allow animals to eat the crops so their habitats would still be shrinking and they'd be starving and going extinct just as they are.

Wrong. You haven't read the whole thread, have you?

To produce 1 kg of meat means the animal must eat 10 kg of vegetable crops - crops which could be consumed directly by humans. Eliminate the farming of animals for food, and your regain about 2/3 of the land now used for farming, with no measurable loss of food for humans.

I'm not happy with the current situation, but the direct killing of animals isn't the problem by any stretch of anyone's ignorant imagination.

You contradict yourself. Obviously, you're quite happy with the situation, since you keep saying it's fine to kill animals for your pleasure.

Animals are getting killed and dieing all the time.

Give me one good reason if you can for why should we exacerbate that. In fact, we bring additional animals into existence all the time just so we can kill them, making the problem that much worse.

Every family should have a large territory which can sustain them due to it's thriving wild animal and plant life.

Every family already has that, in effect, disregarding the distribution problems caused primarily by politics. Yet we keep chopping down the forests and killing more and more animals.

Animals live under this system now, dieing all the time, but there's always survivors.

No. The rate of extinction of animal species now is far greater than it would otherwise be without human intervention. It is estimated that a number of species go extinct every single day.

We should do away with commercial farming of every kind, including the farming of vegetables. In the big scheme of things there's no difference, each is equally cruel to animals.

Explain to me how not deliberately raising animals so we can kill them is equally as cruel, exactly.

The minor "knocking cows on the head" factor of meat farming is balanced out by the factor that wild animals can and do often live in cattle country.

Are you seriously trying to argue that biodiversity is the same in farmed fields as it is in rainforests? Wake up.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Each weak I have a death list. My procedures reminds me of Nazi German extermination camps. It even involves gassing.

It makes me realize how easy it is to be a beast. If you can do it with mice you can do it with people. And if I can do it almost anyone can. I guess human attrocities are not an abnormal phenomena. They are just absent under certain conditions.

 

[Hapsburg]

You really are a slow learner. I must have made the same point four or five times to you by now, but you still don't get it.

You're 100% right that just because we don't have to eat meat doesn't mean we can't. But equally, just because we can eat meat doesn't mean we should. Get it? Its something called morality, Hapsburg. Think it over.

And what you haven't gotten through your governmental head, yet, jimmy, is that morals are obsolete. Morality is a pointless endevor to curb human nature. If anything is wrong, it is deny what you are: a human. Homo sapiens. A natural-born killer. A conqueror. A thinker. A creator. A builder. A destroyer. An explorer. All these rolled into one glorious animal: us.
We have the ability to kill eat animals, and we shall for as long as time permits us! What is to stop us, eh?

Menschheit, Vorwärts!

 

[spuriousmonkey]

What is to stop us, eh?

us...

 

[Hapsburg]

Say what?

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Q:Who is going to stop us?
A:Us (or we).

 

[Hapsburg]

Oh, I thought you were asking what I meant by "We".

Damn, that's a good point. I guess my main beef D) is not so much that people refuse to eat meat...it's just when people tell me to not eat meat, and get into my shit, and start mettlin' with my shit, that I get ticked off and go on the offensive.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

You should eat meat. It is good for you.

Animals can be cruel too btw. Chimps can single out an individual and bully and beat it to death.

 

[TheAlphaWolf]

which is irrelevant to what WE should do

 

[spuriousmonkey]

It merely shows that we are animals. That's all.

Ethics boards and such decide on what is allowed for us humans.

 

[James R]

Hapsburg:

And what you haven't gotten through your governmental head, yet, jimmy, is that morals are obsolete. Morality is a pointless endevor to curb human nature.

Then I guess you wouldn't mind somebody invading your house and taking all your stuff, perhaps beating or raping you as well. As long as they enjoyed it, that would be fine with you, right?

Hey, why have laws? Laws are based on moral ideas - especially criminal laws. And moral ideas, according to you, are so last century.

Essentially, you are advocating anarchy.

But something tells me that, deep down inside, you don't believe your own rhetoric. You haven't even started to consider the implications of throwing morality away. In fact, I doubt you've considered morality at all.

We have the ability to kill eat animals, and we shall for as long as time permits us! What is to stop us, eh?

The same thing that stops other people killing you just for fun.

...it's just when people tell me to not eat meat, and get into my shit, and start mettlin' with my shit, that I get ticked off and go on the offensive.

This is marvellously inconsistent, by the way. According to your own espoused philosophy, people should be able to tell you whatever they want, and force you to do what they want, too, as long as it makes them happy. After all, they are all powerful humans. What's to stop them, eh?

 

[Pete]

Morality is a tricky thing. How do we determine whether performing some act for some purpose is moral? Both the sacrifice and the purpose need to be considered.

Purpose first.
In this case I think that the purpose in question isn't necessarily what we may think... I think that the eating of meat isn't necessarily for survival, health, or even taste, but more as an affirmation of a particular way of life. Is the preservation of a person's way of life a moral purpose? I don't know... but I do know that many people think it is.

Now the act.
In this case, the act is raising and killing a sentient being. Questions of suffering on the part of the animal are a distraction to this central point, I think... Am I right, James, that you would consider raising and killing a sentient animal to be immoral, even if that animal never suffered in any way?

Together with the aforementioned purpose, I think that the morality of the act is determined by the value placed on non-human sentience; ie sentience and non-humanity are the key determinants, right? We all agree that raising and killing plants for food is moral, because plants aren't sentient. We also agree that killing sentient humans is generally immoral.

So perhaps it comes down to a values debate... what value sentience? What value humanity? What value way of life?

 

[Pete]

Is setting a mousetrap in a grain barn a moral act? What about laying poison baits?

 

[spuriousmonkey]

I breed mice for scientific experiments. It is all done with the ethics standards in mind and approved by the ethics commity. That doesn't make it less cruel.

 

[Hapsburg]

Then I guess you wouldn't mind somebody invading your house and taking all your stuff, perhaps beating or raping you as well. As long as they enjoyed it, that would be fine with you, right?

No, I don't condone conflict within our species.

Hey, why have laws? Laws are based on moral ideas - especially criminal laws. And moral ideas, according to you, are so last century.

No, most of those are simply logical conclusions: "hey, don't kill me and I won't take your shit, okay?". I think laws should be decided by what is good or not for human society. Interperet that as you will, whether it be with the word morals or whatever. It's just that "morality" carries such a religious tone to it, and I do not condone religion.

Essentially, you are advocating anarchy.

Far from it. I am advocating human supremacy.

But something tells me that, deep down inside, you don't believe your own rhetoric. You haven't even started to consider the implications of throwing morality away. In fact, I doubt you've considered morality at all.

Again, I think rules should be decided upon by what is good or not good for human society. Morality is a religious thing, to me. The common good, that is something logical.

 

[James R]

Hapsburg:

So, essentially, you are speciesist. You say that humans are special and fundamentally different from other animals, and so should be treated specially and differently. Yet, you point to no particular reasons why this is the case.

Essentially, you are no different from a racist. A racist says that, for example, white people are "higher" and fundamentally different from black people in important ways, and so should be given more privileges and treated as special. Moreover, white people are entitled to treat black people as "lower", and less worthy of moral consideration. Basically, they only exist to serve white people's interests.

The extreme of racism is, of course, slavery, in which black people were treated as the property of whites, to do with as they wished.

Your speciesism is no different. You condone the treatment of non-human animals as the property of humans, to do with as they wish. You accord animals no (or few) basic rights, in exactly the same way that slave owners accorded their slaves no (or few) basic rights.

What is your ethical argument for human supremacy? I can only assume it is as valid as supposed arguments for white supremacy. That is, not valid at all.