Animal cruelty

[James R]

TW Scott:

James R. from the beginning you have tried to take the moral high ground by demonizing everyone who dares to oppose your views.

No. I simply point out the truth. You just think you're being demonised because you've gone all defensive.

You answer question in rhetoric.

On the contrary, in the post you chose to ignore, I gave you a list of 6 specific reasons for why eating meat is unethical. They are not rhetoric, but a straight answer to a specific question you asked.

On the other hand, I am yet to get a straight answer from you on just about anything.

You answer criticism by questioning their ethics.

What criticism? So far, you have made no criticisms of my position. All you have done, essentially, is to whinge about how I am not being fair to you because you don't need any justification for your actions - you should be allowed to do what you want, without some annoying person like me questioning your morals.

You read the wrong meaning inot ever sentence.

Then point out where I am wrong. I have asked you many questions on points which I would like you to clarify. Instead of answering my questions, as I answer yours, you dismiss them as "rhetoric".

Here is a news flash for you. In a purely vegetarian society there is soon only room for humans and plants. All other animals wiped out to make room for our farms. Is that really the moral choice?

That is false. I'm sure I've explained this point to you before. Currently, our meat-eating society uses about 3 times the amount of farm land we would need if we all became vegetarian.

It is a very simple equation, which you obviously refuse to hear. To produce 1 kg of meat requires that we grow about 10 kg of crops for the meat animals. If we just grew crops, we could directly eat all 10 kg. So, contrary to your assertion, meat production is not in any way an efficient use of land.

I don't expect you will respond to this argument, any more than you have responded to any of the other arguments I have put to you.

You really are losing all respect.

 

[TW Scott]

Really and in a vegetarian society where we no longer need animals what will be mankinds response when we need the land they are on? We have never been good at sharing. Ever. So in a few hundred years you perfect world will have just humans, bacteria, molds, fungi, and plants. You see cattle ranching as wasted land I see it as preserving some of nature as it is. Who's right? Well to be quite honest I don't know but it sure as hell is not you.

 

[Communist Hamster]

To produce 1 kg of meat requires that we grow about 10 kg of crops for the meat animals. If we just grew crops, we could directly eat all 10 kg. So, contrary to your assertion, meat production is not in any way an efficient use of land.

But those 10kg of crops for cattle are not suitable for human consumption

 

[Hapsburg]

That's exactly what it means. A sense of right and wrong is what morality is.

Morals are far more broad, supposedly transcending mere human understanding, which would imply something beyond the physical, which is utter bullcrap. However, right and wrong differ from person to person, and I have my own sense of right and wrong.

Why is killing something which is capable of abstract thought worse than killing something which can feel pain, but may not be able to think abstractly? Why do you draw the line at abstract thought?

If I feel pain, who gives a shit? If a rabbit feels pain, who gives a shit? Same principle. Just because it feels pain, it's fucking special? A lot of things feel pain. Pain is simply a fucking part of life. Better they don't feel that pain and become someone's meal than they endure pain and misery thier entire lives and end up a corpse too old and damaged by disease to safely consume.

But not dogs? And not cows, or sheep, or goats, or presumably any of the animals you like to eat. How convenient it is for you that it is exactly the animals you love to eat the most that are also incapable of abstract thought.

I said canines are capable of that. Most animals, unlike some intelligent animals, are merely instinctual, habitual, and don't think of things beyond "eat, drink, defecate, urinate, survive, reproduce."
And you assume that I eat lots of meat frequently, which I do not.

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

Really? In the US, we're allowed to defend ourselves against Police injustice. We just have to prepeared for the consequences of our actions. Apparently, the British government treats its citizens like children...

yeah,

here we can just about get away with beating somebody up with our fists in self defence,


loo at our laws they are stupid, i cant even have a gun in my home to protect my family,

cant even carry a knife or baton or CS gas or mace on the street to defend yourself, even if your a little girl,

they brought out some slimey gel spray that you could purchase from police station, but it dosent effect the attackers vision in a blinding way atall, its just sticky goo and is not effective, i have tested it, and even that is bieng banned now, and it has only been out 2-3 months,

you can have a serrated blade under 2-3 inches, but if the police find it on people under 18 they get it taken away from them,

peace.

 

[Zappa]

Zappa:



Actually, I'd prefer not to say. I'd rather maintain my mystique in the Religion forum. Once you say you have a particular religious belief system, people start making all kinds of snap judgements about you.

On the other hand, you can probably get some idea about my religious beliefs from my posts on the topic of religion...



This is an interesting question. Some religious people say ethics are handed down by God. Take God out of the picture and there's no reason to act morally.

Suppose you are religious. Why do you believe cold-blooded murder is bad? Because God (the bible, the Koran, whatever) says it is evil, you say. Now, consider why God says it is evil. Is murder evil just because God says it is? If so, then there's no reason why God couldn't change His mind tomorrow and declare that, from now on, murder is to be considered good, and everybody should commit murder.

On the other hand, maybe God says murder is evil because God is all-knowing and can see the consequences of murder. He knows it is bad, so He tells people not to murder. If that is true, though, then the wrongness of murder does not come from God, but from something separate from God. Murder would still be evil, even if God declared it to be good.

My view is that ethics is not just the whim of God. There are sound reasons to act ethically which are quite independent of what any holy book might say about the matter, or whatever laws are handed down by the fiat of a deity. You touched on one possible set of reasons: social repercussions. It makes good sense to treat others as you would wish yourself to be treated. But morality extends beyond personal consequences. One should not act morally just because you're afraid of possible negative consequences on the personal level. There is also an element of respect for life, the environment, the world in which you live, in my opinion.

Morality is not just a matter of what you can get away with, as so many of the participants in this thread seem to think.

If there is no purpose or meaning to life, why respect? For what reasons? Why not just do whatever the hell you want, and not feel guilty about it? Why care about others' pain? It's YOUR life, after all.

You may feel your "conscience" deep down, but this is a result of certain evolutionary mental developments..right? If you realize this, and it will make your life more pleasurable to ignore them, why not?

If there is no purpose, I do not see any reason why you should not do what is pleasurable and beneficial to you personally. Life is futile anyway.

 

[Avatar]

cant even carry a knife or baton or CS gas or mace on the street to defend yourself, even if your a little girl,

And you call yourself a martial artist? :bugeye:
There is no need for a knife when you can have a screwdriver, and just carry a small bottle of toilet cleaning acid with you that you bought for erm.... those household purposes.

A screwdriver in able hands is just as dangerous as a knife and in the USSR days lots of convits who were on police probation carried these around - totally legal and very effective, and police can't say anything.

Or just carry a gillete in a small case, take it in hand in dangerous places, one unsuspected slice on attackers forehead and it's blood all over his/her face. The cut damages no organs, but is very traumatic, because there's lots of blood before eyes.
If police asks - just were lucky to have just bought these for your shaver.

You've studied martial arts history, right? Many of the now traditional martial arts weapons have direct origins in household and farming tools of the far east, because weapons were forbiden by local rulers. Same applies for today - a hammer, heavy umbrella, electric drill on batteries, three nails for each fist, a colour spray to blind, etc. ad infinitum, be creative.

 

[James R]

TW Scott:

You still haven't responded to the post you ignored above. Do you intend to?

Really and in a vegetarian society where we no longer need animals what will be mankinds response when we need the land they are on? We have never been good at sharing. Ever. So in a few hundred years you perfect world will have just humans, bacteria, molds, fungi, and plants.

Your reasoning to reach this conclusion is impenetrable. You will need to make yourself clearer.

Are you claiming that if humans all became vegetarian, animals would somehow suffer? In what way? And why does it bother you? You've never worried about animal suffering before...

You see cattle ranching as wasted land I see it as preserving some of nature as it is.

Well, start a thread on cattle ranching and we can discuss this. What has it got to do with eating meat?

You could have cattle ranches and still be vegetarian. You don't have to kill your cattle and eat them. Do you?

 

[James R]

Communist Hamster:

But those 10kg of crops for cattle are not suitable for human consumption

I'm sure I've covered this point before.

You are correct that, at present, some of the agricultural land we use to grow feed for meat animals is not used for human consumption. So, right now, we have three kinds of fields - one kind to grow food for human consumption, one to grow food for animals, and one to house animals. If we all became vegetarian, we could convert the animal fields into fields for growing human crops. So, overall, our land use would be greatly reduced, quite apart from the 10 to 1 ratio I mentioned earlier.

 

[James R]

Hapsburg

Morals are far more broad, supposedly transcending mere human understanding, which would imply something beyond the physical, which is utter bullcrap.

No. Ethics is a purely human pursuit. Religious people claim their ethical values come from religion, but I'm not so sure. And for atheists, ethics need not come from any "higher" or supernatural source.

However, right and wrong differ from person to person, and I have my own sense of right and wrong.

Yes, such as the fact that you think it is "right" to eat meat, while I think it is "wrong". The point is: some ethical systems are more defensible than others. You think meat-eating is right because you like the taste of meat. I think it is wrong because your pleasure is not the most important thing to consider here.

If I feel pain, who gives a shit? If a rabbit feels pain, who gives a shit? Same principle. Just because it feels pain, it's fucking special? A lot of things feel pain. Pain is simply a fucking part of life. Better they don't feel that pain and become someone's meal than they endure pain and misery thier entire lives and end up a corpse too old and damaged by disease to safely consume.

But you say you would give a shit if somebody tortured your family. Who cares if they experience a little pain? What is pain? Nothing, according to you. So, why do you care?

And you assume that I eat lots of meat frequently, which I do not.

Interesting. Why not?

 

[James R]

Zappa:

If there is no purpose or meaning to life, why respect? For what reasons? Why not just do whatever the hell you want, and not feel guilty about it? Why care about others' pain? It's YOUR life, after all.

Why do you assume that, without religion, there is no purpose or meaning to life?

I think we give meaning to our lives by how we live them. How we treat our world and other people matters. It is not just my life. Unless I live in a cave, what I do affects other people, and I also have indirect impacts on the world. Since I have to live in the world and interact with people, doesn't it make sense that I should care about how I act?

You may feel your "conscience" deep down, but this is a result of certain evolutionary mental developments..right? If you realize this, and it will make your life more pleasurable to ignore them, why not?

Many people spend a lot of their lives pursuing their own pleasure and not caring about any consequences to other people, to their environment or whatever. All I can say is that I care about other people and I care about the planet I live on. Part of that is self-interest for myself and my descendants.

As for the evolutionary point: If my conscience is the result of evolution, then it seems that having a conscience must have been an advantage for my ancestors in the evolutionary race. Most people today have some kind of conscience, so it seems to me that from an evolutionary point of view, acting morally has an evolutionary advantage over acting immorally. But, even if I am wrong, it does not follow that what is natural is good, as I have already pointed out several times in this thread...

 

[Zappa]

Zappa:



Why do you assume that, without religion, there is no purpose or meaning to life?

Because you die at the end of your short time in existence. There is no ultimate meaning - you perish and may not have existed at all, since you can't be aware of anything you've done. Most people of ages past aren't even remembered, and very few will be in ages to come. If there is no ultimate purpose to life, why should you care whether you are righteous or wicked?

I think we give meaning to our lives by how we live them. How we treat our world and other people matters.

Yeah, so it's all our lives are all about personal preference. Most people aren't as naturally righteous as you, James, as you may have noticed -- I certainly have.

It is not just my life. Unless I live in a cave, what I do affects other people,
and I also have indirect impacts on the world. Since I have to live in the world and interact with people, doesn't it make sense that I should care about how I act?

Basically what you're saying is that it pleases you to help other people, and your world. This is fine, in your individual case, but many others have other personal preferences on how to live their lives. As an atheist, you have more of an excuse to be pleasure-seeking, and selfish. It's your time to live, you will soon not exist, you will not know you have existed or anything you have done. Of course this will be much more of an incentive for people to act according to their own desires. And given the idea that we will soon be NOTHING, I don't see that there is much wrong with acting according to your own pleasures(this could incorporate making sure your family is happy, but a self-seeking nature will almost always get in the way of the interests of others)

Many people spend a lot of their lives pursuing their own pleasure and not caring about any consequences to other people, to their environment or whatever. All I can say is that I care about other people and I care about the planet I live on. Part of that is self-interest for myself and my descendants.

As for the evolutionary point: If my conscience is the result of evolution, then it seems that having a conscience must have been an advantage for my ancestors in the evolutionary race.

Of course; feeling it's wrong to kill your fellow humans and treating them with some kind of respect(among a multitude of other inclinations) makes for a more productive and peaceful society. But it won't matter to you what you have done when you don't exist! I can understand your personal reasoning for wanting to better your earth, it makes you happy. But as I've stated before, most people suck and helping out does not interest them. Most people have more fun being selfish than helping people, so they will act in whatever way they please.

Most people today have some kind of conscience,

From what I've observed, self-absorbtion and selfishness are much more abundant.

so it seems to me that from an evolutionary point of view, acting morally has an evolutionary advantage over acting immorally. But, even if I am wrong, it does not follow that what is natural is good, as I have already pointed out several times in this thread...

I agree.

 

[TW Scott]

TW Scott:

You still haven't responded to the post you ignored above. Do you intend to?

When you type something that actually has substance and meaning I will do so. When you understand you are the one on the prosecuting side and have to be the one to prove you point inescapably true, then I will do so. Until then shut up.

Your reasoning to reach this conclusion is impenetrable. You will need to make yourself clearer.

Are you claiming that if humans all became vegetarian, animals would somehow suffer? In what way? And why does it bother you? You've never worried about animal suffering before...

Well if they were suffering I would worry, but they aren't so I'm not.

Okay you need a simplification of what will happen as we abandon meat? Alright here we go simple so I am sure you can get it:

Abandon meat = eventual abandoning of all animal by products = total veganism = end of interdependency = loss of respect for animals = eventual lack of concern = destruction of animals to expand farmland for expanding human population = deforestion and destruction of all other animal species.

Simple enough. Of course everyone else got it the firs time, but hey.

You could have cattle ranches and still be vegetarian. You don't have to kill your cattle and eat them. Do you?

Actually yes and sell them too if you want to be able to pay your mortgage, bills, and workers. But then again I live in the real world.

 

[Hapsburg]

No. Ethics is a purely human pursuit. Religious people claim their ethical values come from religion, but I'm not so sure. And for atheists, ethics need not come from any "higher" or supernatural source.
Yes, such as the fact that you think it is "right" to eat meat, while I think it is "wrong". The point is: some ethical systems are more defensible than others. You think meat-eating is right because you like the taste of meat. I think it is wrong because your pleasure is not the most important thing to consider here.

Ah, but you see morals and ethics as one thing, while I see it as a two-tiered system, and in my interperetation, the top tier (morals, which religious people think come from a "god") if utter crap thought up by religious people in order to control them. The lower tier, simple ethics, differs from person to person, and I have my own views on that.
As for you reasons: To me, my ownself is very important.

But you say you would give a shit if somebody tortured your family. Who cares if they experience a little pain? What is pain? Nothing, according to you. So, why do you care?

Because that's my family. The real question is: why would b]you[/b] give a shit, if you are so compassionate about every animal, why not about every human?

Interesting. Why not?

Because not all meat tastes good. Pizza, pasta, fries, those taste better to me, though the occasional chinese orange chicken or hot dog is just as good.

 

[Roman]

I have a very hard time believing animals hurt as much as I do. In fact, I don't believe it at all. First, they're not me, and second, they're not human.

 

[Zappa]

I know buffalos and antelopes and such feel PLEASURE when they die. Their brain releases endorphins as their being strangulated by the lioness or other predator.

 

[TW Scott]

So we should start strangling our cattle, pigs, sheep, calves, and chickens? I love it it is brilliant. They can't complian about that can they?

 

[Roman]

I know buffalos and antelopes and such feel PLEASURE when they die. Their brain releases endorphins as their being strangulated by the lioness or other predator.

How do you know this? Care to substantiate it?

 

[TW Scott]

All living creature release endorphins when they are strangled. Just a little known fact.

 

[James R]

TW Scott:

When you understand you are the one on the prosecuting side and have to be the one to prove you point inescapably true, then I will do so. Until then shut up.

I understand quite clearly that I am fighting for truth and justice here.

Do you feel persecuted? Poor old TW...

Okay you need a simplification of what will happen as we abandon meat? Alright here we go simple so I am sure you can get it:

Abandon meat = eventual abandoning of all animal by products

No. There are many animals products we get which do not involve harming animals. In fact, in some cases, they actually help animals. For example, take the shearing of sheep.

eventual abandoning of all animal by products = total veganism

Well, obviously, if we decided to abandon all animal products (which I do not advocate).

= end of interdependency = loss of respect for animals

... like we respect them so much now! Hehe, you do make me laugh.

How are you respecting animals by killing them for your own pleasure?

= eventual lack of concern = destruction of animals to expand farmland for expanding human population

We're already doing that. Or haven't you noticed?

= deforestion and destruction of all other animal species.

We've already made a good start at that too, but we're still eating meat!

You could have cattle ranches and still be vegetarian. You don't have to kill your cattle and eat them. Do you?

Actually yes and sell them too if you want to be able to pay your mortgage, bills, and workers. But then again I live in the real world.

Do you think people have to be meat farmers? Is there no other employment available?