How do you feel about people who kill animals for the sheer fun of it?

[Enmos]

Enmos:
You only have vegie burgers then, do you?

No, but I am pretty sure that I've eaten less meat in my life than you have, even though you are now a vegetarian.

There's obviously something horribly wrong with me. Please explain it for me. Keep in mind that it is not necessary to your survival that you kill animals for food.

So you are saying that eating a little meat every now and then is just as bad as going out to find a cow to stab for fun? Come on :bugeye:

:facepalm: It is obviously more ethical to eat plants than to eat meat, and to survive you must eat something.

Huh? How is it more ethical to eat plants?
Just saying that it's obvious isn't going to cut it. It's not so obvious to me.

Not nearly as many as the production of animals for meat.

I have some very serious doubts about that. Source?

 

[Grim_Reaper]

Point out precisely where I invoked deity.

Your photo in the SF member's album is very inspirational, BTW:

Well I would love too but like the back peddling fool you appear to be sir you want and edited that statement out. it would appear and you speak of proof that you need for me to back my point well were is this proof to back your statement that I am wrong in saying all serial killers and or spree killers harm animals as the first stage of their actions. And yes my SCI Forum picture is indeed inspirational at least it shows me winning at something. And I am with enmos you are not worth the time to converse with so I will not waste any more of my time or the other readers of this forum defending my point as you do not want to so proof of yours to this point.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

...It is obviously more ethical to eat plants than to eat meat, and to survive you must eat something.

Hmmm... 1 is mor ethical than the other...so both are unethical... but 1 mus do 1 or the other to survive... so... to survive is unethical.!!!

 

[swarm]

Not nearly as many as the production of animals for meat.

Actually far, far more animals are killed and displaced by producing crops than raising live stock.

Range land is an intact ecosystem with only the top herbivore and carnivore altered.

Cropland kills or displaces everything but the crop. All the normal animal life is destroyed along with competing plants.

If you go by total # of animals killed and ecological disruption, crop production is far less ethical.

Of course you only care about big dowey eyed cows and gladly slaughter mice, voles, possums, raccoons, skunks, deer, and anything else you don't see in a store.

 

[James R]

So you are saying that eating a little meat every now and then is just as bad as going out to find a cow to stab for fun?

How long do you think it will take your "little meat now and then" to add up to a whole cow? Perhaps it's at that point that you cross the line and start to wonder which is "just as bad".

Huh? How is it more ethical to eat plants?

*sigh*

[enc]Equal consideration[/enc]

Hmmm... 1 is mor ethical than the other...so both are unethical... but 1 mus do 1 or the other to survive... so... to survive is unethical.!!!

The Buddhist mantra is "First do no harm." If you can't achieve that, then harm minimisation is the ethical thing to do.

Actually far, far more animals are killed and displaced by producing crops than raising live stock.

Nonsense. Livestock must be fed, which requires crops to feed the livestock. Remove the livestock and you'd reduce the land use for human food by approximately two thirds.

Range land is an intact ecosystem with only the top herbivore and carnivore altered.

It doesn't sound like you have any appreciation of the term "ecosystem". Maybe some research is in order.

Cropland kills or displaces everything but the crop. All the normal animal life is destroyed along with competing plants.

Yes.

Of course you only care about big dowey eyed cows and gladly slaughter mice, voles, possums, raccoons, skunks, deer, and anything else you don't see in a store.

Wrong. See above for justification.

 

[Enmos]

How long do you think it will take your "little meat now and then" to add up to a whole cow? Perhaps it's at that point that you cross the line and start to wonder which is "just as bad".

It's not just as bad.
In principle I have no problem with hunting for food either. The problem is our numbers. Would we still have been hunter-gatherers, hunting for food would be fine. Not because we wouldn't have any other means but because there would be near zero impact on the environment.
Not that I like the idea that animals are killed for my nourishment, but I have far less problems with livestock being killed for food than I have with wild animals being killed for food. Livestock has no place in nature anyway. Of course I want them not to suffer.
Killing an animal does not necessarily mean that they will suffer.

I think I eat, on average, about 300 grams of meat a week.
The meat that comes off a cow weighs approx 250 kg (http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/208697.html).
So it would take me 833.33 weeks to finish a whole cow, or roughly 16 years.
That would mean that I have eaten two whole cows in my life. Make it three, I still find that completely acceptable.

*sigh*

[enc]Equal consideration[/enc]

I have a problem with that. Bringing up sentience seems arbitrary. What about insects? Are they sentient? And if they aren't what would that mean?
I think I'm doing good eating as little meat as I do and, frankly, I find it a bit insulting that you would criticize that. I think you should look at people that finish off a whole cow in a month or so, there are more of those than you may think.

As for your reply to Swarm:
Over here cows mostly just eat grass. And you seem to be forgetting pesticides, insecticides and herbicides used in agriculture.

 

[John99]

So it would take me 833.33 weeks to finish a whole cow, or roughly 16 years.

i cant see it taking 16yrs to finish a whole cow. considering you only eat certain parts. strip all the bones and you re left with meat wight. the hoofs etc. maybe we can grow something that REALLY does taste better...i cant see that happening though.

i only occasionally eat steak when i get it for free at parties.

 

[swarm]

The Buddhist mantra is "First do no harm." If you can't achieve that, then harm minimisation is the ethical thing to do.

The Buddha specifically did not require vegetarianism and his monks were required to eat meat if it was offered to them as long as it wasn't originally prepared with them in mind. He is noted to have eaten meat on a number of occasions.

Livestock must be fed, which requires crops to feed the livestock.

You've heard of this thing called "grass?"

Dodge away but you aren't reducing your body count. Your carrots drip with the blood of thousands.

 

[James R]

Enmos:

In principle I have no problem with hunting for food either. The problem is our numbers. Would we still have been hunter-gatherers, hunting for food would be fine.

In other words, you may have a few reservations about human impacts on the environment, but you completely fail to appreciate the moral dimension of the issue with regards to individual animals. Probably you regard all non-human animals as fungible. (Look it up.)

Not that I like the idea that animals are killed for my nourishment, but I have far less problems with livestock being killed for food than I have with wild animals being killed for food. Livestock has no place in nature anyway. Of course I want them not to suffer.
Killing an animal does not necessarily mean that they will suffer.

Following your reasoning, the best thing to do would be to kill human beings for food. Don't you agree? The human population is large, and a few people won't be missed by anybody who matters. We could have a regular lottery or something, just to make it fair. We'd make sure the people were killed humanely, of course, because we wouldn't want them to suffer.

Good idea?

Bringing up sentience seems arbitrary. What about insects? Are they sentient? And if they aren't what would that mean?

If you think it's arbitrary, then I can't see you having any problem with my human-meat idea.

Over here cows mostly just eat grass. And you seem to be forgetting pesticides, insecticides and herbicides used in agriculture.

Clearing forests for grassland to graze livestock is a major source of deforestration. And herbicides etc. are also used on grassland.


swarm:

The Buddha specifically did not require vegetarianism and his monks were required to eat meat if it was offered to them as long as it wasn't originally prepared with them in mind.

Why the exception, I wonder? What did you find out about that in your researches?

You've heard of this thing called "grass?"

See above.

Dodge away but you aren't reducing your body count. Your carrots drip with the blood of thousands.

You obviously can't follow my simple argument.

 

[Randwolf]

I believe all "drop bears" should be killed for pure fun, along with all "snipes"!

 

[Lori_7]

There are people who hunt animals to provide food and clothing for their family, such as eskimos.

But then there are those people who engage in hunting and shooting down defenseless animals for sports. People who hunt for the thrill of the kill. They kill for fun and recreation, and are proud of their killings.

What's your opinion on these type of people?

i think they probably need to get laid.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Originally Posted by Saven
...there are those people who engage in hunting and shooting down defenseless animals for sports. People who hunt for the thrill of the kill. They kill for fun and recreation, and are proud of their killings.

What's your opinion on these type of people?

I thank those people are simply doin what they was taut to do... an in ther relm... what ther doin ant emoral :shrug:

 

[Randwolf]

what ther doin ant emoral :shrug:

So "emoral" is strictly in the eye of the beholder, eh, clueluss?

What is the point in even discussing this issue if we can't agree on what "moral" means in the first place?

Don't we need to define "sheer fun of it"?

Versus pure survival - is anyone going to contend that there has never been an incidence in human history in which it was "either kill the animal to eat, or die?"

If you grant that this occasion occurred, was that person "kill[ing] animals for the sheer fun of it?"

If not, then we have approached a slippery slope, no?

Again - define "sheer fun of it", and I will discuss this topic further...

 

[cluelusshusbund]

So "emoral" is strictly in the eye of the beholder, eh, clueluss?

As far as i know.!!!

What is the point in even discussing this issue if we can't agree on what "moral" means in the first place?

oK... so what do you thank "moral" is.???

Don't we need to define "sheer fun of it"?

How bout... concerned wit our own plessure wit-out reguard for the feelins of the animal bein killed.!!!

Versus pure survival - is anyone going to contend that there has never been an incidence in human history in which it was "either kill the animal to eat, or die?"

Nobody contends that that i know of.???

If you grant that this occasion occurred, was that person "kill[ing] animals for the sheer fun of it?"

I thank somone whos starvin woud realy enjoy eatin a dead animal... an i dont thank a starvin person woud care if they killed the animal or it got struck by a car... ther fun/enjoyment woud be from how the food itself makes 'em feel as they eat it an ther fun/enjoyment woud have nuthin to do wit whether they took part in the animals death.!!!

 

[Enmos]

In other words, you may have a few reservations about human impacts on the environment, but you completely fail to appreciate the moral dimension of the issue with regards to individual animals. Probably you regard all non-human animals as fungible. (Look it up.)

A few reservations?? I thought you knew me better than that..
I indeed had to look up 'fungible' You couldn't be more wrong.

Following your reasoning, the best thing to do would be to kill human beings for food. Don't you agree? The human population is large, and a few people won't be missed by anybody who matters. We could have a regular lottery or something, just to make it fair. We'd make sure the people were killed humanely, of course, because we wouldn't want them to suffer.

Good idea?

Logically, I have no objection to that other than the fact that I, or any of my loved ones, could be one of them.
On the other hand, that's not how it works. You just don't kill and/or eat members of your own group unless you're a dysfunctional individual and that's not beneficial to your own survival.

If you think it's arbitrary, then I can't see you having any problem with my human-meat idea.

See above.
Also, how is it not arbitrary? It's just a matter of drawing the line.
I guess it's technologically possible to process reasonably environment-friendly synthetic food and solely live on that :shrug:

Clearing forests for grassland to graze livestock is a major source of deforestration. And herbicides etc. are also used on grassland.

Uh.. they clear forests to make place for crop fields as well.

 

[James R]

Enmos:

Following your reasoning, the best thing to do would be to kill human beings for food. Don't you agree?

Logically, I have no objection to that other than the fact that I, or any of my loved ones, could be one of them.
On the other hand, that's not how it works. You just don't kill and/or eat members of your own group unless you're a dysfunctional individual and that's not beneficial to your own survival.

The problem you face, then, is deciding who is part of "your own group". Would "your own group" include people outside your family? From the next town? From a different country? How about non-human animals, then? Why do you draw this particular line where you draw it? Explain.

Also, how is it not arbitrary? It's just a matter of drawing the line.

There's no reason not to draw the line arbitrarily at, say, people who live more than two streets away from you, then. Further away than that and they're fair game to be eaten by you. Good idea?

Uh.. they clear forests to make place for crop fields as well.

Yes.

Roughly speaking, at present 1/3 of land currently used for food production is for food for human consumption. 1/3 is for food for animals. 1/3 is land used to house animals for human consumption. Eliminate meat eating and you replace the 2/3 of land used for producing meat with a lesser area of land that would be used for producing more vegetarian food.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund]
...to survive is unethical.!!!

The Buddhist mantra is "First do no harm." If you can't achieve that, then harm minimisation is the ethical thing to do.

Do Buddists consider it unethical to intentionaly do harm... if that harm is necesary for ther survival.???

 

[James R]

cluelusshusbund:

I'm not a Buddhist. I don't know the details of Buddhist beliefs.

I might mention, however, that it is not necessary to eat meat for survival in the ordinary course of life in a western democracy such as the one you live in.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Origionaly posted by cluelusshusbund
Do Buddists consider it unethical to intentionaly do harm... if that harm is necesary for ther survival.???

I'm not a Buddhist. I don't know the details of Buddhist beliefs.

I thank thers a Buddist beleiver in this thred... maybe he will answr... but i emagine that Buddists "make-up" what they consider to be ethical jus like other individuals an groops of people do :shrug:

I might mention, however, that it is not necessary to eat meat for survival in the ordinary course of life in a western democracy such as the one you live in.

Yes... an i dont eat meat... but its a personal thang... i dont see people who eat meat as bein emoral because they unnecesarly eat meat... do you.???

 

[swarm]

Clearing forests for grassland to graze livestock is a major source of deforestration. And herbicides etc. are also used on grassland.

As is slash and burn agriculture.

Why the exception, I wonder? What did you find out about that in your researches?

There were supposed to be beggars and not be having people prepare feasts for them.

You obviously can't follow my simple argument.

Oh I follow it just fine. You cherry pick what you want and ignore the rest.