Music Banter
Page 2 of 5 1 2 34 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Music Banter (https://www.musicbanter.com/)
-   Current Events, Philosophy, & Religion (https://www.musicbanter.com/current-events-philosophy-religion/)
-   -   Animal Cruelty (https://www.musicbanter.com/current-events-philosophy-religion/52805-animal-cruelty.html)

VEGANGELICA 11-22-2010 11:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vanilla (Post 959063)
I feel like there needs to be discussion about this. So many acts of cruelty are placed amongst animals we know and love like cats, dogs, rabbits and so on. People committing these crimes are not get sufficiently punished! What do you guys think about this?

It's about time people/children learn that actions have consequences and the torture and killing of animals is not any different from the mentality of killing humans.
I just read an excellent, disturbing article about the horrific conditions in puppy mills in the U.S., many of which are in Missouri, one state below me:

Quote:
“Puppy mills”: A dog's life | The Economist

Some breeding places hardly bear inspection. Cori Menkin, senior director of legislative initiatives for the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, has seen “horrific” conditions there, with up to 1,000 breeding bitches under one roof.

The worst of these “puppy mills” are filthy with urine and piled-up faeces. The animals have such matted coats that they cannot defecate properly. Some bitches freeze to death; others spend their whole lives on wire-floored cages, unable to walk on solid ground.

“Whenever you are engaging in an industry that uses live animals and is seeking to make as much profit as possible, less money is put into the business, meaning less care is provided for the animals,” Ms Menkin says.
Animal rights activists made people in Missouri aware of the scope of the problem, and gathered more than 190,000 signatures in support of the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act, which was just passed on November 2nd to improve conditions in the state’s puppy breeding facilities.

So, this is a reminder to people that you CAN make a difference in ending abuse of animals. The first step is recognizing the abuse. So, I'm glad you made this thread, Vanilla!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirty (Post 959314)
I don't support terrible conditions, but at the same time I feel like people confuse animal living conditions with human living conditions. A lot of animals will roll around in their own **** and sniff each others asses. What is gross to us isn't as gross to them. I'm not going to stop eating meat because of it.
Freebase is doing an excellent job arguing my side in this debate and doesn't leave much for me to say ;) , but I'll comment, too!

Dirty, livestock animals are often kept in crowded conditions that are *not* what they would prefer. They suffer infections, extreme boredom, mutilation and worse.

Since humans do *not need to eat meat* but do so for pleasure, keeping animals to kill them for the pleasure of eating meat is not philosophically very different from people killing animals for other pleasures (fur, sadism, power), although I think most people don't *want* their "meat animals" to suffer...just usually not enough to stop eating them.

Vanilla showed the awful conditions of many egg-laying hens. Below is a video showing the conditions in which many pigs are raised...cramped, isolated, unable to lie down, and going crazy (bar biting and repetitive motion show this), with people killing undersized or ill babies by smashing their heads. This is REALITY in many factory farms or "concentrated animal feeding operations."

The reason people treat animals this way is that people like how they taste, people don't really care about the animals' feelings...and people like meat to be cheap.


someonecompletelyrandom 11-22-2010 12:07 PM
Okay, I didn't read the whole thread... but I have noticed it's a bit of a Dirty witch hunt.

As an occasional eater of meat myself, I don't have the same moral objections to the killing of other species for sustenance. As some of you know, however, I am very critical of the big business of food and the meat industry and what it does to this planet. The conditions and "processing" these animals endure are horrible. It's a far cry from the natural hunting that other animals do, and the more humane farming that humans used to do. It's become commercialized, "farm" animals are treated as mere products. Seldom do people think of their McDonalds double as any animal in particular.

But I do eat meat. I have no moral objection to it so long as it comes from a source that isn't a feed lot. (There are some great alternatives to the Big 4 food companies popping up even in chain-grocery stores.)

That being said, I think what Dirty is getting at I agree with. Killing an animal for food is one thing. It at least serves a purpose. Not to mention most of us won't personally kill the animal we eat (unless we're hunters). Killing an animal just to watch it die... is something else entirely. That is sadistic. You simply want to see another living being die. Just to watch it die. Not to mention, animal torture is usually accompanied with this. And yes, as hypocritical as it is, common "pets" like cats and dogs are held with higher esteem than farm animals whom most of us are used to eating since birth. Eating a cat or dog sounds gross to us because we place "people traits" on them and recognize their own distinct personalties. Maybe if we spend some time with cows and chickens, we'd get to know them too? :laughing:

But any way, yeah.

Paedantic Basterd 11-22-2010 12:24 PM
I was just thinking about zippocat this morning and how much I would like to burn that man alive himself.

EDIT: You know, were it not for the lawsuit, I would much prefer to run over a person with my car than an animal.

VEGANGELICA 11-22-2010 03:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conan (Post 959548)
As some of you know, however, I am very critical of the big business of food and the meat industry and what it does to this planet. The conditions and "processing" these animals endure are horrible.

Killing an animal for food is one thing. It at least serves a purpose. Not to mention most of us won't personally kill the animal we eat (unless we're hunters). Killing an animal just to watch it die... is something else entirely. That is sadistic. You simply want to see another living being die. Just to watch it die. Not to mention, animal torture is usually accompanied with this.
I agree with you, Conan, that avoiding eating animals from factory farms is a good way to support healthier, happier lives for the animals. Yet even animals raised with thoughtful care face slaughter. Slaughterhouses are notorious for being places where people torture animals.

Some people, when they get in a position of power, simply like to pick on the weak. We saw this when U.S. personnel tortured humans in Abu Ghraib prison. And we see this when people torture animals and ignore their suffering in slaughterhouses. Even a "good" killing can go awry, leading to animals boiled alive, for example.

Since it is Thanksgiving soon in the U.S., I felt this undercover video of a turkey slaughterhouse would be appropriate:
House of Raeford Slaughterhouse Investigation - Mercy For Animals

The video shows:
•Turkeys with broken wings and legs, bloody open wounds, tumors and other untreated injuries being slaughtered for human consumption
•A worker violently punching live, shackled turkeys for "fun"
•Employees forcefully shoving their hands into the cloacae (vaginal cavities) of live chickens to extract eggs in order to break them for "fun"
•Turkeys and chickens being thrown across the facility and up into the air
•Workers ripping the heads off live turkeys
•Birds being intentionally crushed to death under the wheels of trucks
•Conscious turkeys having their throats slit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian (Post 959554)
I was just thinking about zippocat this morning and how much I would like to burn that man alive himself.
I didn't know who zippocat was; now I do. :(

I knew a boy here who lit a cat on fire in a bag. He said he thought it was funny to see the bag hop around across the yard until the cat died. I wondered what led him to have this callous attitude.

Dirty 11-22-2010 04:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian (Post 959554)
I was just thinking about zippocat this morning and how much I would like to burn that man alive himself.

EDIT: You know, were it not for the lawsuit, I would much prefer to run over a person with my car than an animal.
I live in a wooded, rural area when I am at home, and there's always little animals running out on the road. I don't think it's ever a good idea to try and swerve to avoid an animal. If they are dumb enough to run out in front of a moving car, then I am not gonna be dumb enough to swerve and risk hitting a tree or losing control of my car, or worst of all hitting another car.

Paedantic Basterd 11-22-2010 04:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirty (Post 959673)
I live in a wooded, rural area when I am at home, and there's always little animals running out on the road. I don't think it's ever a good idea to try and swerve to avoid an animal. If they are dumb enough to run out in front of a moving car, then I am not gonna be dumb enough to swerve and risk hitting a tree or losing control of my car, or worst of all hitting another car.
No, swerving is dangerous. You're best off braking, and if it's a moose or a bear, you're ****ed no matter what you do. I'm just saying, that if I could pick between running over a cat and running over a dude, I think I'd rather hit the dude.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VEGANGELICA (Post 959665)
I knew a boy here who lit a cat on fire in a bag. He said he thought it was funny to see the bag hop around across the yard until the cat died. I wondered what led him to have this callous attitude.
When I hear these kinds of stories, I'm overwhelmed with the urge to take a meat tenderizer and bludgeon the offender's face into an unrecognizable, bloody pulp.

Dirty 11-22-2010 04:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freebase Dali (Post 959329)
I'm just trying to understand why you don't think the killing of the animals is the screwed up part. I can sorta relate, because I eat meat myself but I still know that the way that meat dies is equal to torture as well. I can't sit through those videos that people post because, to me, it's animal cruelty whether it's a chicken or a cat. Meat is more of a convenience for me, but I guarantee you if I had to go out and kill it myself, I wouldn't be able to do that unless it was pure survival.

I just think it helps to be honest with yourself about things and look at them in all angles, and not be tied down to a philosophy and way of looking at things simply because you were brought up that way.
The only reason I keep grilling you about this stuff is because it seems apparent that you don't really think past your own opinion on things and that's a sad thing to see.
A lot of bad decisions are made because of that, but to each his own. I know I've been guilty of that before so I'm definitely not preaching.
I understand where others are coming from, I just don't agree. Nothing in this thread is new info to me, I know that animals are sometimes tortured while being killed for the meat that I eat. I am definitely not opposed to killing animals for meat, and I wish it could always be done in the least painful way possible. People kicking and punching animals for no reason isn't something I agree with. But what do you want me to do, just change my opinion on things because you guys want me to? We are all justsaying our opinions here, quit acting like I am any different because I disagree. The killing of animals is not screwed up to me. I feel like people are over sensitive sometimes to killing livestock or something. Animals kill each other for food all the time, there's millions of animals who do this. It's part of life. Nobody seems the least bit upset when an antelope or zebra is attacked and ripped apart by a pack of animals. I feel like people have their own thoughts and way of thinking and sometimes apply that same mentality to animals. As much as I get knocked on this forum for supposedly 'knowing what animals think,' so many of you are doing the same exact thing. We don't know what animals think. And I don't want to lump all animals under the broad label of 'animal' because I think there is a difference between burning a cat and killing a cow for some beef.

skaltezon 11-23-2010 05:33 AM
The outlook's probably based on a person's experience with animals generally. I've tended pets and farm animals, which I think gives me a different slant than someone who's always seen them more remotely.

s_k 11-25-2010 04:51 AM
Big, big animal peron here.
Love almost everything, except spiders I guess.
It's not like they can help it, but they just creep me out. Poor misunderstood creatures, I guess :)

I'm glad there's threads about animals here, they are often taken 'for granted' on Forums that are about something totally different.
But I must say, I was pretty shocked seeing this:
http://www.musicbanter.com/lounge/84...tml#post960449
Hope this images and stories like this pass on a regular bases?

Guybrush 11-25-2010 08:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by s_k (Post 960693)
But I must say, I was pretty shocked seeing this:
http://www.musicbanter.com/lounge/84...tml#post960449
Hope this images and stories like this pass on a regular bases?
From the point of view of an animal who is going to be killed by humans for meat, then hunting is likely preferable to industrial farming. I'd rather be a deer living a natural life up until the point I get killed than be a pig born and raised in the average meat farm.

We meat eaters today are generally so removed from the realities of where our meat comes from. I think every meat eater who's prepared to defend their diet should kill a pig and slaughter it, preferably under the guidance of professionals. Not because I want people to kill pigs or because I think we should be vegetarians, but because I think they would then be faced somewhat with the fact that a carnivore diet has lethal consequences. I believe that having to kill your own pig or chicken, at least once, would teach a lot of people to respect more the animals that are forced to give up everything to feed us.

Hunters do this of course and generally, I think of hunting as one of the most ethical ways you can get meat on your plate (although it's not the best way to feed the hungry masses). The only other way I can think of that could morally compete would be to raise and slaughter the animals yourself and make sure they have happy lives while they last.

s_k 11-25-2010 10:02 AM
Well I agree with you that I rather eat meat from an animal who had a happy life (in fact, I do only eat that sort of meat, which is really expensive, but for me it's worth it ;)).

But in the posting I linked to I can't seem to find anything about killing to eat.
And then there's another problem, if you shoot an animal and it manages to get away, it has to live the rest of it's life crippled. No good for me.

I'd like to add: I'm not against eating meat, but I am against cruelty to animals. So I don't just eat any meat and I'm very much against recreational hunting.

Guybrush 11-25-2010 10:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by s_k (Post 960740)
And then there's another problem, if you shoot an animal and it manages to get away, it has to live the rest of it's life crippled. No good for me.
True, it's hard to avoid cruelty when you kill animals. In Norway, messing up your shot like that is actually illegal and your fellows in your hunting team have a responsibility to report such incidences. A mess up like that can cost you your hunting license, making you have to go through shooting training again with the relevant exams before you can hunt again. I'm not sure how it is in the US, but I hope they have a similar system - or a better one.

Of course this system relies on fellow hunters actually reporting eachother when they mess up which I guess only happens on occasion, but at least it's something. I know quite a few hunters and they generally take pride in their shooting skills and making killing shots.

I slaughtered reindeers as part of a biology course in the arctic and then I remember one of the animals had been shot in the stomach first and then killed afterwards, so I guess misses are not that uncommon. Some of it's guts had exploded and were leaking, so it was quite messy on the inside too .. another reason to aim true. ;)

s_k 11-25-2010 10:29 AM
I once heard this story about Norway that tourists were allowed to shoot at animals for their enjoyment. Reading what you say here, I get the idea that this story isn't true.
Please tell me it isn't :).

I understand hunting because of overpopulation or research for ilnesses and such.
I just think it should only be done by professionals and in no way to have 'fun'.

Guybrush 11-25-2010 11:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by s_k (Post 960746)
I once heard this story about Norway that tourists were allowed to shoot at animals for their enjoyment. Reading what you say here, I get the idea that this story isn't true.
Please tell me it isn't :).

I understand hunting because of overpopulation or research for ilnesses and such.
I just think it should only be done by professionals and in no way to have 'fun'.
Any tourist wanting to hunt here have to be able to show documented proof that they've had training equivalent to or better than the training required to get a hunting license here. Then they have to pay a fee and if they want to hunt on private property, they also need a permit from the land owner. That's a funny story though :D

Paedantic Basterd 11-25-2010 11:34 AM
...Assuming the deer was killed for meat, and not just for sport. I didn't read, was it?

s_k 11-25-2010 06:26 PM
I'm not sure. It's not mentioned in that posting...

Quote:
Originally Posted by tore (Post 960752)
Any tourist wanting to hunt here have to be able to show documented proof that they've had training equivalent to or better than the training required to get a hunting license here. Then they have to pay a fee and if they want to hunt on private property, they also need a permit from the land owner. That's a funny story though :D
Altough I think recreational hunting should be banned alltogether, It's good to hear that. You get to hear strange stories abroad, as you see.
I'm really attracted by scandinavia. Really wanting to go to Sweden or Norway some time. I was thinking about boycotting Norway because of their strange ideas of tourism. I'm glad to hear that I was misinformed :)

Scarlett O'Hara 12-01-2010 10:57 AM
It's a great start for Pigs in New Zealand, farmers are banning Sow Stalls! Prices of meat will be pushed up but I think most agree it will be worth it.

Pig farmers hope ban on sow stalls will buy loyalty - National - NZ Herald News

midnight rain 12-01-2010 11:17 AM
It's stupid to not eat animals because it's "cruel". Spend a year out in the Alaskan wilderness and tell me how beautiful nature is after that. It makes no sense considering other animals eat each other anyways. We're doing what we were biologically programmed to do. If we were any lower on the food chain, then the higher up animals would eat us and not think twice. Why should we? We're just lucky where we are in the ecosystem.

s_k 12-01-2010 07:06 PM
The biggest Supermarket Chain "Albert Heijn" has decided it will only sell what we call "Bio meat" when it comes to pork. I just did a little big of googling and found out that it means something entirely different in english.
So bio meat (biological meat) is mainly meat from animals that have had space to live, were treated right, were not genetically manipulated, not castrated etcetera.
What's the proper english word for that?

Dirty 12-01-2010 07:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuna (Post 963243)
It's stupid to not eat animals because it's "cruel". Spend a year out in the Alaskan wilderness and tell me how beautiful nature is after that. It makes no sense considering other animals eat each other anyways. We're doing what we were biologically programmed to do. If we were any lower on the food chain, then the higher up animals would eat us and not think twice. Why should we? We're just lucky where we are in the ecosystem.
:beer:

Like I've said... people are confusing their own feelings with animals feelings. millions of animals are killed by other animals all the time. It's how the food chain works. I don't really understand why people are so sensitive towards killing and eating animals. The most powerful use their power. If somehow bears could lead an uprising and start attacking and killing tons of people, then they would.

And before someone jumps in with comparisons, pets are a different story. Some animals are treated differently than others. Dogs are not the saw as cows. That's just the way it is

Paedantic Basterd 12-01-2010 10:19 PM
It's not the actual eating of the animals that I think is a problem, it's the treatment of them up until and including the manner in which they are slaughtered. We can do better.

EDIT: Actually, in some cultures, dogs are food. Similarly, cows are sacred. It's all relative.

Guybrush 12-02-2010 01:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirty (Post 963513)
:beer:

Like I've said... people are confusing their own feelings with animals feelings. millions of animals are killed by other animals all the time. It's how the food chain works. I don't really understand why people are so sensitive towards killing and eating animals. The most powerful use their power. If somehow bears could lead an uprising and start attacking and killing tons of people, then they would.

And before someone jumps in with comparisons, pets are a different story. Some animals are treated differently than others. Dogs are not the saw as cows. That's just the way it is
In a very general sense, I agree. Life supports other life and even autotrophs that don't rely directly on other organisms for sustenance can be fairly "nasty" to each other, for example a vine slowly killing a tree.

We're heterotrophs and our lives are part of the great cycles and our lives must be supported by other lives. Being a vegan or vegetarian doesn't change that. Although there are solid arguments why we should eat more from the lowest trophic levels (f.ex you can feed more people on plants), to infer morality of the kind "killing is wrong" and feel bad about a situation which is natural and inescapable just makes no sense to me. The only way to not "kill" seems to be to die so that your life can support other life rather than be supported by it.

I'm generally against animal cruelty, but I'm not a fan of the basic assumption that killing animals is simply wrong.

Scarlett O'Hara 12-02-2010 11:31 AM
Yes animals are used for meat, I'm not deny it, infact I eat meat. But the fact is, these animals DO NOT get killed humanely.

GeddyBass2112 12-02-2010 02:31 PM
I find it very odd that a society which treats some animals almost as equal with humans can also do such terrible things to them as well.


Although my hands aren't exactly clean:I DID try and cut off my cat's tail with a pair of scissors once (I was 7 and wanted one of those tailless cats).

s_k 12-02-2010 06:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian (Post 963637)
It's not the actual eating of the animals that I think is a problem, it's the treatment of them up until and including the manner in which they are slaughtered. We can do better.
That's exactly the way I think about it :)

Zaqarbal 12-16-2010 08:40 PM
To eat or not to eat. That seems to be a good rational criterion. If you're not gonna eat them, don't kill them. And of course, causing unnecessary suffering and sadism are morally unacceptable. Those are signs of an immoral character, and not only regarding treatment to animals, but also regarding ethics in general terms. As the great Arthur Schopenhauer said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schopenhauer
Compassion for animals is intimately connected with goodness of character; and it may be confidently asserted that he who is cruel to animals cannot be a good man.
However, if we look at their mere existence, there are also certain logical inconsistencies in our attitude towards the animals. Sometimes we accept killing animals as inviduals whereas we think that saving the endangered species of the planet is a moral duty. To be or not be. Or, being more precise: to be "as an individual" or to be "as a species". That question isn't clear. Perhaps we must conclude that we humans aren't 100% rational beings. Sometimes it looks as if the will to "save a species" was a kind of "metaphysical concern" to certain people. Why to save a species, if then we kill specimens (perhaps belonging to that species)?

Sometimes those two aspects (individuals and species) are related. One example has come to mind right now: rabbits and lynxes. Myxomatosis was intentionally introduced in some countries, to reduce rabbit overpopulation. But the disease spread throughout the world, so there've been "collateral damages" in the trophic chain. For example, the Iberian Lynx is critically endangered, mainly because of lack of prey (rabbits). About to become extinct (only circa 150 individuals in 2005). Fortunately, lynxes are being bred in captivity by biologists now.

http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/4...rianlynx02.jpg http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/2259/iberianlynx03.jpg

OK, I guess now we (almost) all humans want to save this species of beautiful wildcats (only a few hundreds of specimens for the moment), but we didn't mind killing hundreds of millions of rabbits with myxomatosis before.


Conclusion: It seems it's impossible for us (I mean at a global scale) to establish a 100%-logical criterion on this matter.

Guybrush 12-17-2010 01:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaqarbal (Post 971202)
Conclusion: It seems it's impossible for us (I mean at a global scale) to establish a 100%-logical criterion on this matter.
Your argument seems to be based on a few assumptions which might be wrong, though. You kind of treat the lynx and the rabbit as the same, both are animals and so should recieve the same kind of moralistic consideration. But that's a moral argument, not a rational one and failure to follow it does not necessarily equal irrationality.

There are some differences between rabbits and lynxes and you could say in those differences lie the rational basis for treating them differently. F.ex, the lynx is a threatened species, the rabbit is not and number in the millions. The rabbit is causing ecological problems and may be a competitor with us for resources (nibble in your vegetable garden) while the lynx is generally not.

So, killing lynxes hardly seems rational. They're not around to bother us and there are few of them. However, rabbits are often considered a pest and so they get killed. Is that really so irrational?

Scarlett O'Hara 12-17-2010 03:47 AM
Rabbits are a damn pest. Just like Possums. However, I would prefer they were killed instantly rather than tortured, which is the point of my discussion. There is a difference between killing and mutilating, I think some people here are forgetting this.

Zaqarbal 12-17-2010 06:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tore (Post 971311)
Your argument seems to be based on a few assumptions which might be wrong, though. You kind of treat the lynx and the rabbit as the same, both are animals and so should recieve the same kind of moralistic consideration. But that's a moral argument, not a rational one and failure to follow it does not necessarily equal irrationality.

There are some differences between rabbits and lynxes and you could say in those differences lie the rational basis for treating them differently. F.ex, the lynx is a threatened species, the rabbit is not and number in the millions. The rabbit is causing ecological problems and may be a competitor with us for resources (nibble in your vegetable garden) while the lynx is generally not.

So, killing lynxes hardly seems rational. They're not around to bother us and there are few of them. However, rabbits are often considered a pest and so they get killed. Is that really so irrational?
No, I didn't mean that. On the contrary, I was trying to refute the carnophobic "essentialist" argument. I say that I agree with this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by tore (Post 963678)
I'm generally against animal cruelty, but I'm not a fan of the basic assumption that killing animals is simply wrong.
And also with this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian (Post 963637)
Actually, in some cultures, dogs are food. Similarly, cows are sacred. It's all relative.
It's all relative. That's what I'm saying. I reject the idea that we can solve the "to kill or not to kill" dilemma by bearing in mind only the animals' INTRINSIC characteristics. Or in other words, I disagree with the following (from other thread):

Quote:
Originally Posted by VEGANGELICA (Post 958018)
I feel most meat-eaters are very arbitrary (wishy-washy) in making decisions about whom to eat. Most meat-eaters don't seem to even develop a rational reason for the line they draw. They will concoct some excuse to feel good about eating pigs but bad about eating dogs, even though dogs and pigs have very similar intelligence levels, playfulness, and other attributes (including tastiness).

For example, consider your reason for valuing human lives the most. I have never read any modern science study proving that only humans think about thinking. Also, I'd be very surprised if babies and young children think about thinking. So it isn't even clear that people always think about thinking. And why should the ability to think about thinking be more important than an animal's ability to love, feel friendship, feel playfulness and pleasure?

You wrote that you feel insects, "on a psychologically evolutionary scale," are "on the same playing field as the aforementioned meats" (cows, pigs, chickens), but I don't agree with that at all.

I see humans and other animals as often being on a continuum according to mental abilities, rather than there being sharp divides between species. If an animal appears to have a greater mental capacity to enjoy and appreciate being alive, then I feel a stronger need to avoid killing that animal. A pig has a much more developed emotional life and intellectual interaction with its environment than an invertebrate like an ant does, so I feel more concern about the pig's life than the ant's life.

But I try to give animals the benefit of the doubt. If I know the animal has a brain, I know it is thinking or experiencing *something* and so I try to avoid killing it, even if it is an invertebrate animal whose life I value much less than the life of a pig because the pig is so much more mentally aware and capable. I rarely go out of my way to kill creepy-crawlies. Even as a little child I'd rescue worms from sidewalks so they wouldn't get stepped on.

If, to save time for myself, I vacuum up a spider rather than do catch-and-release, I feel bad about that because I know I'm valuing a minute of my time more than that spider's little life. And yes, the spider's life may be little, and the spider may be only dimly aware of the experience of life, but it is still probably aware so I feel selfish to have killed it.

So, how *do* you decide the value of someone else's life? I feel it is best to try to figure out what the life experience is like for that being, and then make ethical decisions about how to treat that animal from there. Simply saying "only humans matter" isn't a convincing argument to me, because it ignores or trivializes the ability of many other animals to have a wide range or emotions and thoughts.

When I know that animals have strong emotional attachments to their family and friends, and they like to play, and they enjoy basking in the sun...I don't want to end that for an animal.
For instance....millions of rabbits with strong emotional attachments to their family and friends... approaching to crops.

As I said, humans don't make the decision (to kill the animals or not) according to a perfect logical method of discrimination. No. It's impossible. It's the CIRCUMSTANCES that determine the decission. Both rabbits and insects may cause devastating damages to agriculture. Very different species, but farmers have to kill them anyway.

It's all relative. Killing lynxes "hardly seems rational"? IT DEPENDS. When? 100 years ago they were considered to be vermin by farmers.

Are rabbits "a damn pest"? It depends. Where? Here, it's the opposite thing. Scientists are trying to save them from death, and they've developed a vaccine against myxomatosis.

Rabbits... more resistant? :yikes:

http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/1...ryrabbit31.jpg

noise 12-17-2010 06:33 AM
an appeal to the nastiness of animal cruelty is a terrible excuse to be a vegetarian. i don't think any living thing that dies in the jaws and claws of a predator experiences a particularly pleasant death.

i understand that kids bashing cats with bats is an intentional act of malice, and is therefore very different than a chimp knocking a monkey out of a tree with its fist then picking its broken body off of the forest floor and eating it alive. but that's my very point. animals eat other animals, and there's really no polite way to do it...

Arya Stark 12-17-2010 09:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by noise (Post 971347)
an appeal to the nastiness of animal cruelty is a terrible excuse to be a vegetarian. i don't think any living thing that dies in the jaws and claws of a predator experiences a particularly pleasant death.

i understand that kids bashing cats with bats is an intentional act of malice, and is therefore very different than a chimp knocking a monkey out of a tree with its fist then picking its broken body off of the forest floor and eating it alive. but that's my very point. animals eat other animals, and there's really no polite way to do it...
Your argument doesn't even make sense.
So when a vegetarian becomes one because of morals, it's bad because no animal dies a good death? The whole point is not to eat the animal at all. So that I know that I don't have to deal with the feeling of guilt for eating something that went through suffering or pain.
Of course there's no polite way to do it, that's why vegetarians don't eat animals at all.

noise 12-17-2010 10:12 AM
i was trying to highlight the distinction between killing for food and killing for fun, and to suggest that killing for food does not count as "animal cruelty" since there is no malice involved.

perhaps i was wrong in assuming that nobody could possibly consider the act of killing for food to be "cruel" or "immoral". but if you ask me, it's not our place to judge all the trillions upon trillions of carnivores that have ever existed.

Zaqarbal 12-17-2010 10:50 AM

Arya Stark 12-17-2010 11:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by noise (Post 971373)
i was trying to highlight the distinction between killing for food and killing for fun, and to suggest that killing for food does not count as "animal cruelty" since there is no malice involved.

perhaps i was wrong in assuming that nobody could possibly consider the act of killing for food to be "cruel" or "immoral". but if you ask me, it's not our place to judge all the trillions upon trillions of carnivores that have ever existed.
Sometimes it's not even ABOUT the killing, it's about the way the animals were treated beforehand. Have you never seen the videos of chickens in houses with no windows, genetically created to be TOO BIG for their legs to handle, so they can't even walk? Have you never seen those videos?
Killing is such a small fraction of the animal cruelty that occurs, you obviously don't understand.

VEGANGELICA 12-17-2010 11:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tore (Post 971311)
There are some differences between rabbits and lynxes and you could say in those differences lie the rational basis for treating them differently. F.ex, the lynx is a threatened species, the rabbit is not and number in the millions. The rabbit is causing ecological problems and may be a competitor with us for resources (nibble in your vegetable garden) while the lynx is generally not.

So, killing lynxes hardly seems rational. They're not around to bother us and there are few of them. However, rabbits are often considered a pest and so they get killed. Is that really so irrational?
All your reasons for accepting the killing of rabbits, Tore, seem also to be the perfect rationale for killing people. We are not a threatened species, we number 6.5 BILLION (!), we cause ecological problems, and we compete with each other for resources! :p:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaqarbal (Post 971202)
There are also certain logical inconsistencies in our attitude towards the animals.

Perhaps we must conclude that we humans aren't 100% rational beings.
Yes and yes, Zaqarbal. I agree. And I'm flattered you quoted my long post! Thank you for reading it. :)

Quote:
Originally Posted by AwwSugar (Post 971363)
Your argument doesn't even make sense.
So when a vegetarian becomes one because of morals, it's bad because no animal dies a good death? The whole point is not to eat the animal at all. So that I know that I don't have to deal with the feeling of guilt for eating something that went through suffering or pain.
Of course there's no polite way to do it, that's why vegetarians don't eat animals at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AwwSugar (Post 971379)
Sometimes it's not even ABOUT the killing, it's about the way the animals were treated beforehand. Have you never seen the videos of chickens in houses with no windows, genetically created to be TOO BIG for their legs to handle, so they can't even walk? Have you never seen those videos?

Killing is such a small fraction of the animal cruelty that occurs, you obviously don't understand.
Amandria, I am cheered to see you defending our views!

I haven't been feeling much like being a champion of vegetarianism recently (don't worry...I'll be back!!), so it is nice to take a break and see that you are putting forward some of the arguments for vegetarianism. I appreciate this especially since I know you've said you prefer not to argue and would rather just keep to yourself, following your own conscience rather than trying to change other people's. :)

noise 12-17-2010 11:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AwwSugar (Post 971379)
Sometimes it's not even ABOUT the killing, it's about the way the animals were treated beforehand. Have you never seen the videos of chickens in houses with no windows, genetically created to be TOO BIG for their legs to handle, so they can't even walk? Have you never seen those videos?
Killing is such a small fraction of the animal cruelty that occurs, you obviously don't understand.
i have seen the videos, and i do understand. i simply don't care. i like to keep my world small. i have my own little local problems, and i don't want to spend time worrying about everyone else's.

don't get me wrong, i went through a vegetarian phase too. 7 years of abstinence, including 1 year of full-on veganism. but i got over myself.

it's all about perspective. just imagine trying to be a whiny vegetarian in medieval france (fetchez la vache!), or having the audacity to decline a morsel of warm, bloody liver from a just-killed auroch in paleolithic portugal. it just wouldn't happen. people gotta eat, and for much of human history, meat has been on the menu.

yes, we have other options today. yes, you can survive without eating flesh. but do you honestly think that your actions make a difference? nobody will remember your stout heart and your bully-for-the-beasts attitude. a thousand years from now, every living thing on this planet will be dead and forgotten, and the universe will move right along in its unflinching quest towards chaos. such is our fate. best embrace it.

Paedantic Basterd 12-17-2010 12:48 PM
I think it's awfully lame to discourage vegetarianism in others who are willing to make the commitment.

I'm the kind of hypocrite who sits on the fence on the matter and says "I'd make the change if I knew it would make a difference", and also acknowledges that it takes those individual sacrifices, knowingly made without gain, to make the big impact in the end.

Sansa Stark 12-17-2010 12:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by noise (Post 971386)

don't get me wrong, i went through a vegetarian phase too. 7 years of abstinence, including 1 year of full-on veganism. but i got over myself.
What is this supposed to mean? As if choosing not to eat meat is some kind of teenage phase like wearing a mohawk or sticking pins in your face?

noise 12-17-2010 01:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian (Post 971404)
I think it's awfully lame to discourage vegetarianism in others who are willing to make the commitment.
a commitment to what, personal sacrifice? the well-being of god's children? chicken rights?

i've never known a vegetarian who wasn't evangelical about their diet. their DIET mind you. not their beliefs about the meaning of life and death, or the right of a woman to abort her own blastula, or even the banality of stem cell research. no, they have issue with the origin of my lunch.

my cousin was visiting me about this time last year. she was going on about the poor chicks and piglets, telling me how they suffer so. i asked her about the working conditions in the factory that produced her designer clothes. she pleaded ignorance.

we choose our own battles. some people joust for tofu. i wrangle for hedonism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo Tolstoy
You are an accidentally united little lump of something. That little lump ferments. The little lump calls that fermenting its 'life'. The lump will disintegrate and there will be an end of the fermenting and of all the questions.

Sansa Stark 12-17-2010 01:26 PM
Don't hold ******* vegetarians against the rest of us, I don't give a **** what you eat


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:56 PM.
Page 2 of 5 1 2 34 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page


© 2003-2024 Advameg, Inc.