leopold99 said:
Is that a humane way?
Animal cruelty
- Thread starter razz
- Start date
Is that a humane way?
leopold99 said:
Doubt I'll barf. I also kill animals for a living.
Yummy, marmoset
spuriousmonkey said:
Kill the animal as quickly as possible. I've seen video where they will hang cows upside-down on conveyors by their hind-legs and than slit their throat. That is the very definition of animal cruelty, and that kind of slaughter is not necessary.
TheAlphaWolf
Registered Senior Member
Personally i'm not as much against as the way they kill the animals, although it SHOULD be humane, but I'm against how they treat them before. I mean, having them in small dirty cages all crowded together, not being able to do anything but stand there and eat, being fed all this crap from hormones to grounded up animals of their same species, etc is just cruel.
At least killing them only takes a couple of minutes at the most, but they are in horrible inhumane situations since they are born. That is what makes me sick.
At least killing them only takes a couple of minutes at the most, but they are in horrible inhumane situations since they are born. That is what makes me sick.
Yeah, feeding herbivores ground up animal parts and blood is not inly inhumane toward the animal, but is also not very healthy to us. That's why I stick with organic meat and dairy products. Organic farmers should be supported more, the farmers that feed their animals blood-meal should be jailed.
QuarkMoon:
There's probably little point in continuing with this, since your moral development has obviously stalled at some point, and you won't understand any arguments I'm likely to make on that front. I can only hope that at some stage you'll grow up. There's hope, because you're still very young. If certain forms of basic morality aren't self-evident in a person's makeup, talking along will not change them. As with serial killers, so it is with you.
That's a weak rationalisation, Quarkmoon, and you know it.
You avoided my question. Clearly, from your later comments, you choose not to act morally, as a deliberate, cold-blooded decision.
If you really saw nothing wrong with eating meat, you wouldn't be in such a rush to defend your selfish, immoral actions. Yet, you felt the need to jump into this discussion, and to continue with your weak rationalisations.
This will probably go over your head, but the fact that you like the taste of meat is useless as an attempt at an ethical justification. I have already made the point that any nutritional benefits you obtain from meat are obtainable from other sources, which do not require the kind of animal cruelty you so unthinkingly advocate.
No. I make the deduction that your sense of morality is badly stunted.
There's that safety in numbers thing again. Because you are one of many immoral people, your immoral actions are somehow justified? Sorry, Quarkmoon, but that argument, too, is worthless.
I know you think nothing of it. That's entirely my point. You've never started to actually consider the ethical impact of your actions, or probably any other impact, beyond immediate self-gratification. Really, you are low.
Do you really think that because animals are not the same as humans, you have no moral responsibility towards them? And yet you claim to feel a moral responsibility to a human embryo, which is also "not equal" to you, an adult human being.
Do you feel no duty at all to protect the weak and helpless? It seems not. I actually feel sorry for you that you are so emotionally stunted. What caused that?
Didn't you get the point the first time? Pointing out the hypocrisy of others doesn't absolve you of whatever ethical duties you have as a person. If others are hypocritical, then it is up to you to set an example and be better than them. Can't you even agree to this simple argument?
A telling comment indeed. Why do you consider only the benefits and detriments to "the Human race"? Answer: because you're human, and you're special, and therefore all humans are special. Once again, you show how underdeveloped your ethical sense is.
Do you think any animals have any interests worth protecting at all? At first, it seems not, but below you contradict yourself. Can you not even be consistent with your own beliefs?
That would be zero meat, by the way.
Did you forget that you can get B12 and B6 from eggs and other dairy products, rather than by killing animals? How convenient for you.
Face it: all your talk about "nutrition" is just a front. The bottom line for you is "their suffering doesn't concern me" and "there is no guilty conscience or some imaginary moral responsibility granted to animals". For you, that is. Because you're actually amoral.
You did not need to kill the cow to make shoes. Most toothbrushes, by the way, are made from polymers, except maybe yours. All nutrients from the meat are available from alternative sources. You did not need to kill the cow to get milk or cheese.
The "very good cause" is, of course, your selfish, momentary pleasure. Heh? It's you. You're the most important thing, right? Me me me! How noble of you.
You've also obviously never met a cow, or you wouldn't say cows aren't intelligent. I bet you live in a big city, and have never lived on a farm. Really, you're making an embarassment of yourself with these repeated displays of ignorance.
Name them.
"Convenience" is your bottom line, isn't it? Me me me.
Clearly, I am on a higher moral plane than you. I can justify, on ethical grounds, not eating meat. But you cannot come up with a single ethical argument which stands up to the smallest scrutiny.
This is just a front. Be honest. How does this statement mesh with "their suffering doesn't concern me" and "there is no guilty conscience or some imaginary moral responsibility granted to animals".
You're inconsistent. Tell us what you really think. Do you feel guilty, or don't you? Does suffering concern you, or doesn't it?
I already know the real answers. You don't feel guilty, and the above is just talk for you. And unnecessary suffering of non-humans is of no concern to you, as long as you are comfortable and well fed. Right? (Because killing animals just to feed you indisputably causes unnecessary suffering, though I am sure you will soon attempt to deny this with some new rationalisation.)
Are you religious? You sound like you've been indoctrinated into the common belief that humans are at the top of some kind of ladder of creation, with all the other animals having no function except to serve the pleasure of human beings such as yourself. It is fabulously ironic that you regard yourself as above the animals, on a higher moral plane, when everything you've written on this subject shows that you have no moral plane to speak of.
Really, the reason you don't grant animals moral consideration is because that might inconvenience you. Me me me! That's all that really matters.
Killing animals for food is cruel and unnecessary.
Do you own any pets? (Probably not, I'm guessing.) Let's suppose you own a dog. Would you kill it and eat it? Would you be happy for me to come to your house, kill and eat your dog, if I killed it "humanely"? If not, why not?
Guess what the most common slaughter method for cows is. Or, better, look it up. Ever been to an abatoir? Of course you haven't. You have no idea what happens to a cow before it reaches your plate, and you don't care. Caring would be "inconvenient".
There's probably little point in continuing with this, since your moral development has obviously stalled at some point, and you won't understand any arguments I'm likely to make on that front. I can only hope that at some stage you'll grow up. There's hope, because you're still very young. If certain forms of basic morality aren't self-evident in a person's makeup, talking along will not change them. As with serial killers, so it is with you.
That's a weak rationalisation, Quarkmoon, and you know it.
You avoided my question. Clearly, from your later comments, you choose not to act morally, as a deliberate, cold-blooded decision.
If you really saw nothing wrong with eating meat, you wouldn't be in such a rush to defend your selfish, immoral actions. Yet, you felt the need to jump into this discussion, and to continue with your weak rationalisations.
This will probably go over your head, but the fact that you like the taste of meat is useless as an attempt at an ethical justification. I have already made the point that any nutritional benefits you obtain from meat are obtainable from other sources, which do not require the kind of animal cruelty you so unthinkingly advocate.
No. I make the deduction that your sense of morality is badly stunted.
There's that safety in numbers thing again. Because you are one of many immoral people, your immoral actions are somehow justified? Sorry, Quarkmoon, but that argument, too, is worthless.
I know you think nothing of it. That's entirely my point. You've never started to actually consider the ethical impact of your actions, or probably any other impact, beyond immediate self-gratification. Really, you are low.
Do you really think that because animals are not the same as humans, you have no moral responsibility towards them? And yet you claim to feel a moral responsibility to a human embryo, which is also "not equal" to you, an adult human being.
Do you feel no duty at all to protect the weak and helpless? It seems not. I actually feel sorry for you that you are so emotionally stunted. What caused that?
Didn't you get the point the first time? Pointing out the hypocrisy of others doesn't absolve you of whatever ethical duties you have as a person. If others are hypocritical, then it is up to you to set an example and be better than them. Can't you even agree to this simple argument?
A telling comment indeed. Why do you consider only the benefits and detriments to "the Human race"? Answer: because you're human, and you're special, and therefore all humans are special. Once again, you show how underdeveloped your ethical sense is.
Do you think any animals have any interests worth protecting at all? At first, it seems not, but below you contradict yourself. Can you not even be consistent with your own beliefs?
That would be zero meat, by the way.
Did you forget that you can get B12 and B6 from eggs and other dairy products, rather than by killing animals? How convenient for you.
Face it: all your talk about "nutrition" is just a front. The bottom line for you is "their suffering doesn't concern me" and "there is no guilty conscience or some imaginary moral responsibility granted to animals". For you, that is. Because you're actually amoral.
You did not need to kill the cow to make shoes. Most toothbrushes, by the way, are made from polymers, except maybe yours. All nutrients from the meat are available from alternative sources. You did not need to kill the cow to get milk or cheese.
The "very good cause" is, of course, your selfish, momentary pleasure. Heh? It's you. You're the most important thing, right? Me me me! How noble of you.
You've also obviously never met a cow, or you wouldn't say cows aren't intelligent. I bet you live in a big city, and have never lived on a farm. Really, you're making an embarassment of yourself with these repeated displays of ignorance.
Name them.
"Convenience" is your bottom line, isn't it? Me me me.
Clearly, I am on a higher moral plane than you. I can justify, on ethical grounds, not eating meat. But you cannot come up with a single ethical argument which stands up to the smallest scrutiny.
This is just a front. Be honest. How does this statement mesh with "their suffering doesn't concern me" and "there is no guilty conscience or some imaginary moral responsibility granted to animals".
You're inconsistent. Tell us what you really think. Do you feel guilty, or don't you? Does suffering concern you, or doesn't it?
I already know the real answers. You don't feel guilty, and the above is just talk for you. And unnecessary suffering of non-humans is of no concern to you, as long as you are comfortable and well fed. Right? (Because killing animals just to feed you indisputably causes unnecessary suffering, though I am sure you will soon attempt to deny this with some new rationalisation.)
Are you religious? You sound like you've been indoctrinated into the common belief that humans are at the top of some kind of ladder of creation, with all the other animals having no function except to serve the pleasure of human beings such as yourself. It is fabulously ironic that you regard yourself as above the animals, on a higher moral plane, when everything you've written on this subject shows that you have no moral plane to speak of.
Really, the reason you don't grant animals moral consideration is because that might inconvenience you. Me me me! That's all that really matters.
Killing animals for food is cruel and unnecessary.
Do you own any pets? (Probably not, I'm guessing.) Let's suppose you own a dog. Would you kill it and eat it? Would you be happy for me to come to your house, kill and eat your dog, if I killed it "humanely"? If not, why not?
Guess what the most common slaughter method for cows is. Or, better, look it up. Ever been to an abatoir? Of course you haven't. You have no idea what happens to a cow before it reaches your plate, and you don't care. Caring would be "inconvenient".
Hapsburg:
What is it that fascinates you? Killing? Violence? Why?
Have you ever visited an abattoir? Maybe you should. Especially if you think you like killing.
In your opinion, would a more civilised society give more or fewer rights to sentient animals than our society does now?
What is it that fascinates you? Killing? Violence? Why?
Have you ever visited an abattoir? Maybe you should. Especially if you think you like killing.
In your opinion, would a more civilised society give more or fewer rights to sentient animals than our society does now?
i worked at a "chicken farm" where they raised nothing but chickensTheAlphaWolf said:
the cages they were kept in was clean
the cages were arranged in such a way that the feces fell into a pit
the eggs would roll out onto a conveyor belt
a pretty effecient operation. and relatively clean
as for cows, hogs and other animals, i don't know
TheAlphaWolf
Registered Senior Member
How many chickens in what space?
Define "clean"
That's my point.
and of course, each place is different. Sure, some places are clean and humane and everything, but many others are so inhumane and dirty that it makes you sick.... the real question is, what's the norm?
I'm thinking most of them don't meet my standards of being clean and humane.
James R said:
This reminds me of something, I know I've read something like that before. Oh yeah, the abortion thread:
James R said:
I'm no psychology major but you seem to have a severe superiority complex. And it seems to be your only claim to a discussion. My advice? Seek help.
Moving onto your ad-hominem and hypocritical "points"...
The key word when you say "human embryo" is the word Human. In my opinion, it is just another developmental stage of a Human being, therefore it is granted the basic rights of a Human being.
There is no valid point to "get". You are a hypocrite, you claim it is immoral and yet you partake in the same immoral actions but in different ways. So, admit that your argument lends itself to hypocrisy and than maybe we can continue the discussion. My argument is that animals contain nutrients and provide many products that both you and I use on a daily basis, they are quite necessary for our well-being, therefore it is not immoral to farm animals, no more immoral than farming plants.
P.S. As for B12 and B6, B12 is only found in animal products, and the active form of B6 is only found in animal products. Also, the amount of nutrients I get from a single steak would equal an entire bucket of alternative means of obtaining the same nutrients. So, not only does it give me many different nutrients in a single portion, it also helps me regulate my food portions allowing me to stay at a healthy weight.
Oh, and if you research the health effects of vegetarianism vs non-vegetarianism, on average vegetarians have more health problems than everyone else.
G'day! :m:
Quarkmoon:
Your response is more interesting for the parts you didn't respond to than for the parts you did respond to. I asked you many, probing questions, but you chose to ignore them - I guess because they are "inconvenient" points you'd rather not face. So, you pretend they weren't made.
You're still not being true to your own purported moral code. The first step to being moral is recognising what you believe, and why. Avoiding the issues won't work.
As I pointed out before, I am superior to you in a moral sense. I also explained why. If my claim is true, then it is not a "superiority complex", but a simple fact of life. Deal with it.
Another attempt to dodge the issue. Why won't you face the first question here? "Do you really think that because animals are not the same as humans, you have no moral responsibility towards them?"
Or are you happy to stand by your previous response of "[animal] suffering doesn't concern me" and "there is no guilty conscience or some imaginary moral responsibility granted to animals"?
Why don't you at least attempt to mount an ethical argument for these statements? Is it because you know there isn't one? Or is it because you'd rather try to distract from the issues by making silly ad hominem attacks on me?
I did that a couple of posts back. Didn't you bother reading? I asked you why my potential hypocrisy stops you from acting ethically.
You had no answer, of course. Instead, you chose to ignore the question.
Taking your last point first: plants are not sentient creatures; animals are. It is a simple distinction that most humans can make, but apparently you can't. Why not? Maybe you've just had no contact with non-human animals in your life. I'm betting I'm right about you never having seen a cow up close. I notice you carefully avoided responding to that point before.
Secondly, what do you think the animals you consume eat? Answer: plants. If you think farming plants is immoral, then farming food animals is approximately 11 times as immoral, because for every kilogram of meat produced by a cow, for example, the cow must eat 10 kilograms of plants. So, by eating meat, not only are you killing defenseless, sentient creaures, but you are also contributing to the cutting down of forests for the farmland necessary to raise the animals you eat, and effectively wasting nine tenths of the plant food you could have eaten directly.
B12 is found in dairy foods, eggs, breakfast cereals and soy milk, among other things.
B6 is found in brewer's yeast, eggs, carrots, peas, wheat germ, and walnuts, among other things. (What is this "active form" you refer to?)
Note that the production of none of the foods on these lists requires the killing of sentient beings.
Laziness is not a good ethical argument either, Quarkmoon. (Not to mention that your claim is greatly exagerated.)
Come now, Quarkmoon. Now you're just telling lies. You don't really expect me to believe you've spent any time researching the health effects of vegetarianism vs. meat consumption, do you?
Your response is more interesting for the parts you didn't respond to than for the parts you did respond to. I asked you many, probing questions, but you chose to ignore them - I guess because they are "inconvenient" points you'd rather not face. So, you pretend they weren't made.
You're still not being true to your own purported moral code. The first step to being moral is recognising what you believe, and why. Avoiding the issues won't work.
As I pointed out before, I am superior to you in a moral sense. I also explained why. If my claim is true, then it is not a "superiority complex", but a simple fact of life. Deal with it.
Quarkmoon said:
Another attempt to dodge the issue. Why won't you face the first question here? "Do you really think that because animals are not the same as humans, you have no moral responsibility towards them?"
Or are you happy to stand by your previous response of "[animal] suffering doesn't concern me" and "there is no guilty conscience or some imaginary moral responsibility granted to animals"?
Why don't you at least attempt to mount an ethical argument for these statements? Is it because you know there isn't one? Or is it because you'd rather try to distract from the issues by making silly ad hominem attacks on me?
I did that a couple of posts back. Didn't you bother reading? I asked you why my potential hypocrisy stops you from acting ethically.
You had no answer, of course. Instead, you chose to ignore the question.
Taking your last point first: plants are not sentient creatures; animals are. It is a simple distinction that most humans can make, but apparently you can't. Why not? Maybe you've just had no contact with non-human animals in your life. I'm betting I'm right about you never having seen a cow up close. I notice you carefully avoided responding to that point before.
Secondly, what do you think the animals you consume eat? Answer: plants. If you think farming plants is immoral, then farming food animals is approximately 11 times as immoral, because for every kilogram of meat produced by a cow, for example, the cow must eat 10 kilograms of plants. So, by eating meat, not only are you killing defenseless, sentient creaures, but you are also contributing to the cutting down of forests for the farmland necessary to raise the animals you eat, and effectively wasting nine tenths of the plant food you could have eaten directly.
B12 is found in dairy foods, eggs, breakfast cereals and soy milk, among other things.
B6 is found in brewer's yeast, eggs, carrots, peas, wheat germ, and walnuts, among other things. (What is this "active form" you refer to?)
Note that the production of none of the foods on these lists requires the killing of sentient beings.
Laziness is not a good ethical argument either, Quarkmoon. (Not to mention that your claim is greatly exagerated.)
Come now, Quarkmoon. Now you're just telling lies. You don't really expect me to believe you've spent any time researching the health effects of vegetarianism vs. meat consumption, do you?