The ALF... Villians or Heroes

[wsionynw]

This, of course, is again beautiful irony.

I wouldn't describe the destruction of rain forests beautiful anything.
Once again it's the tiny minority of people making millions of dollars out of the mass production of soya, and where do you think a huge chunk of that soya goes?
To the meat industry.

 

[wsionynw]

The idea that I advanced is that animals do not contribute to society, therefore they deserve no "rights" in the sense that humans know "rights". Lefty is my dog, and I will protect him. This means that if some sicko decides to kill him, he better not stick around.

Another way to say this is that animals do not live in a society and cannot be bound by a moral code. For example, it is perfectly acceptable for a bear to kill a rabbit. Bears are known to eat a range of things, including small mammals, fish, berries, etc. The bear doesn't need to eat a rabbit to survive---it could just as well eat fish or berries. The bear, however, offers no protection to the rabbit. And if we passed a law protecting rabbits, bears wouldn't care.

But the ALF are not demanding human rights be given to non-human animals, where would it all end? It's the basic right to a life without pain and suffering at the hands of a species that should know better (in rather simple terms). It's a militant extension of all animal rights groups, some of which would have humans stop eating animals altogether, some of which would settle for vastly improved farming conditions and animal/environmental protection laws. Realistically I too would probably settle for the latter since it seems to me unrealistic for the majority of humans to sacrifice their desire to eat meat .
BTW, what's the difference (morally) between a 'sicko' shooting a dog for kicks and a hunter shooting a lion for kicks? Humor me

Bears don't have the means to grow their own berries, or the cognitive powers of humans, so as far as bears are concerned they must eat when the opportunity presents itself.

Ben, outside of satire and pop culture as portrayed by the media I have no experience of the redneck way of life. Do you have any experience of the Surrey and Hampshire, UK way of life?

 

[MetaKron]

You know, a good number of animal rights activists wouldn't do one thing for PETA if they knew what PETA was like.

 

[Nickelodeon]

I like the Alf too.

What the hell is that?

 

[Oxygen]

"Alf" is an old 1980's TV show. It stood for "Alien Life Form". Alf ate cats. I forget what planet he was from, but it came out right after everybody went nuts for ET. He was the Anti-ET.

 

[TW Scott]

The planet was Melmac as in the plastic and it wasn't just him who ate cats it was the whole race.

 

[MetaKron]

I disagree, why should it?
If you mean that by reducing the reliance on factory farms to provide meat then it will reduce the number of animals bred for the purposes of killing them. This would also reduce the amount of feed required for farming animals, thus making more food available for humans.
And so on...

Every animal rights groups promotes getting rid of all human-owned animals. The only reason that they ask that people stop breeding them, instead of simply executing the animals, is because that makes people fight less to save their pets.

The argument that there would be more food for everyone if we didn't raise animals for food is utter crap. Intensive agriculture of plants and wheat upsets the ecology tremendously more than the agriculture of beef. It isn't even necessary or particularly useful to feed grain to food animals. Grass works better and requires a lot less tending.

Animal rights activists negotiate in bad faith and the groups often deceive their followers.

 

[James R]

MetaKron:

Every animal rights groups promotes getting rid of all human-owned animals.

More accurately, they tend to promote getting rid of human ownership of animals.

The only reason that they ask that people stop breeding them, instead of simply executing the animals, is because that makes people fight less to save their pets.

I think you'll find that animal rights groups are against cruelty to animals, including killing them. ... Duh!

The argument that there would be more food for everyone if we didn't raise animals for food is utter crap. Intensive agriculture of plants and wheat upsets the ecology tremendously more than the agriculture of beef. It isn't even necessary or particularly useful to feed grain to food animals. Grass works better and requires a lot less tending.

Every kilogram of meat produced takes at least 10 kilograms of feed for the meat animal. Producing that food is much more intensive than producing one kilogram of vegetable food directly for humans.

Your claim is just factually incorrect.

Animal rights activists negotiate in bad faith and the groups often deceive their followers.

Unsupported nonsense.

 

[wsionynw]

The argument that there would be more food for everyone if we didn't raise animals for food is utter crap. Intensive agriculture of plants and wheat upsets the ecology tremendously more than the agriculture of beef. It isn't even necessary or particularly useful to feed grain to food animals. Grass works better and requires a lot less tending.

How much grass grows inside a factory farm?

 

[TW Scott]

More accurately, they tend to promote getting rid of human ownership of animals.

No, more accurately they promote the complete liberation of animals form anything resembling love or affection.

I think you'll find that animal rights groups are against cruelty to animals, including killing them. ... Duh!

But not letting them starve to death or nuetering them for no other purpose than to remove them from the bonds of friendship with humans.

Every kilogram of meat produced takes at least 10 kilograms of feed for the meat animal. Producing that food is much more intensive than producing one kilogram of vegetable food directly for humans.

However the Kilogram of vegetable matter for human consumption has a total negative impact on the environment while meat production has at worst a homeostatic impact.

Unsupported nonsense.

It is an observation supported by the facts as they stand. You happen to be a prime example of this. I am not surprised that you would call it nonsense.

 

[James R]

TW Scott:

No, more accurately they promote the complete liberation of animals form anything resembling love or affection.

I doubt they want the kind of love you give them by shooting them with your enormous gun.

But not letting them starve to death or nuetering them for no other purpose than to remove them from the bonds of friendship with humans.

Animal liberationists do not advocate letting animals starve to death. This is just a blatant lie.

Neutering certain pets is probably something they do advocate, since in the long run this greatly diminishes cruelty to animals.

However the Kilogram of vegetable matter for human consumption has a total negative impact on the environment while meat production has at worst a homeostatic impact.

More unsupported bullshit.

 

[TW Scott]

I doubt they want the kind of love you give them by shooting them with your enormous gun.

What? You think i shoot dogs and cats? That is odd. I'm struck by something my mother lives by. "Nobody ever accuses you of anything vile that they haven't thought of doing themselves."

Animal liberationists do not advocate letting animals starve to death. This is just a blatant lie.

Oh, so Animal liberationists believe that it is acceptable to hunt deer to keep the population low enough so that herds don't starve? See cuaght in your own web of lies again.

Neutering certain pets is probably something they do advocate, since in the long run this greatly diminishes cruelty to animals.

Oh, IU do believe in nuetering pets, but I don't pretend it is to diminish suffering.

More unsupported bullshit.

Actually bull shit is my proof and if you can't think of this one then you should go back to school.

 

[James R]

TW Scott:

What? You think i shoot dogs and cats?

Why wouldn't you? Hunting is all good, isn't it?

Oh, so Animal liberationists believe that it is acceptable to hunt deer to keep the population low enough so that herds don't starve?

You'd have to ask them about that.

Oh, I do believe in nuetering pets, but I don't pretend it is to diminish suffering.

You advocate doing it for fun, then, do you?

It sounds to me like you have no idea why anybody would want their pet neutered. Sounds like you need some education, as usual.

 

[TW Scott]

Why wouldn't you? Hunting is all good, isn't it?

Hunting is part of the natural cycle, but I would think one of you intelligence would realize that only the sadistic hunt domestic cats and dogs without reason (eg Rabies). It frightens me just a little that you would think of such things. I suggest professional help and i hope you feel better soon.

You'd have to ask them about that.

Well weren't you just speaking for them?

You advocate doing it for fun, then, do you?

It sounds to me like you have no idea why anybody would want their pet neutered. Sounds like you need some education, as usual.

No I understand why different people do it. Our Pekenese was quite agressive until he was. Of course he was a rescue adoption from a breeding kennel. Other people just don't want more puppies or kittens. Not very many people would pretend it is to prevent misery. So it seems my education is just fine thank you for your concern.

 

[James R]

TW Scott:

Hunting is part of the natural cycle, but I would think one of you intelligence would realize that only the sadistic hunt domestic cats and dogs without reason (eg Rabies).

But you're quite happy to hunt deer just for the fun of it. What's the difference?

Well weren't you just speaking for them?

Yes, but my expertise doesn't extend to their views on culling to prevent starvation - if that in fact occurs. That is a specific matter you'll need to ask them about, like I said.

If you'd like my opinion, that's another matter.

No I understand why different people do it. Our Pekenese was quite agressive until he was. Of course he was a rescue adoption from a breeding kennel. Other people just don't want more puppies or kittens. Not very many people would pretend it is to prevent misery. So it seems my education is just fine thank you for your concern.

It is clear from this that once again you miss the point. You imagine that the only viable reason to prevent a dog from having puppies, for example, is reasons to do with your own convenience, or the convenience for human beings in the abstract.

As usual, any thought of the animals' convenience or wellbeing is irrelevant for you.

It's like you have a moral blind spot.

 

[TW Scott]

But you're quite happy to hunt deer just for the fun of it. What's the difference?

Excuse me, but it is not just for fun. In Michigan we have to cull the herds to certain numbers or risk starvation and outbreaks. Though I bet you were ignorant of that, much like you are of almost every fact in the universe. Of course that doesn't stop you from preaching.

Yes, but my expertise doesn't extend to their views on culling to prevent starvation - if that in fact occurs. That is a specific matter you'll need to ask them about, like I said.

If you'd like my opinion, that's another matter.

Well then give me your opinion.

It is clear from this that once again you miss the point. You imagine that the only viable reason to prevent a dog from having puppies, for example, is reasons to do with your own convenience, or the convenience for human beings in the abstract.

No, I imagine no such thing. I just don't pretend it is to reduce suffering. I said exactly what I think and hewre is your ignorant self putting words in my mouth as it were.

 

[wsionynw]

Excuse me, but it is not just for fun. In Michigan we have to cull the herds to certain numbers or risk starvation and outbreaks. Though I bet you were ignorant of that, much like you are of almost every fact in the universe. Of course that doesn't stop you from preaching.

TW, don't jump down my throat here, but please tell me why the natural predators (not including humans) of the Deer don't keep their numbers in check?

 

[Baron Max]

TW, don't jump down my throat here, but please tell me why the natural predators (not including humans) of the Deer don't keep their numbers in check?

Well, ...duh?

There's not enough of the natural predators to do the job. And that's due mainly to the influx of humans into their habitat. Predators don't like humans.

Baron Max

 

[TW Scott]

TW, don't jump down my throat here, but please tell me why the natural predators (not including humans) of the Deer don't keep their numbers in check?

Believe it or not in Michigan Man has been deers primary natural predator for longer than Europeans have knows about this continent. The Indian tribes were thick in through here and venison was one of their primary food sources. The other predators moved on or left and importing some of them back is too great a danger. While wolf attacks of humans are rare, cougar and coyote are known for attacking small children in these areas.

By the way, Man is a natural predator and not including him in the group of natural predators for many animals is just lazy ecology. I realize that you were wondering why their weren't OTHER natural predators taking care of the problem so your question was rather intelligent. Thank you for bringing it up wsionyw.

 

[MetaKron]

I've lived in deer-infested areas. When deer have to resort to eating pine needles to survive, you can tell, and then we have sick deer. Predation isn't just for the benefit of the deer. It helps the local ecological balance. Questions of the motives of the people who do it are barely relevant at all and I think that James here places that question ahead of the question of what is needed and the results obtained. Animal rights people have motives that are not only questionable but quite criminal.