Recently I was witness to an act of severe animal cruelty, i came home and found my neigbour beating his dog to death with a shovel, i jumped the fence and went nutts.

I stopped him hitting the dog,
The dog had apparently been digging holes under the fence and barking all the time and ruining his sleep.
He raved on about the dog just being a dumb mutt etc and that I should get a life and mind my own business.

The dog (a Boxer Cross) lay on the ground, completely masacred yet still alive, my neigbour finaly told me to mind my own business and went to hit the animal again, so I stopped him and a fight broke out after he tried to club me with his shovel aswell.

Now I'm no small guy and I kicked the living Poop outta this idiot then as carefully as I could picked the dog up and took it to the vetenarian clinic up the road,

The dog was immediately put down, due to its injuries etc,
I paid for the injection and the vets time out of my own pocket.

When I returned home I found my neigbour chatting with police,
Can you believe it, he was attempting to have me charged with assult and tresspass.

A long story short..... he got away with only a warning for his cruelty after committing this disgusting crime because the police couldnt be bothered following it all up properly with the vet and other witnesses.
.................................................. .................................................. .
I want to know how many of you feel this idiot was within his rights to treat his dog how he did?

If this had been a persons life, how serious would it have been treated?

what values do you place on an animals life?

what rights does an animal have ?
.................................................. .................................................. ...
I see and hear people every day treating animals so cruely that it almost makes me cry.

Animals feel every emotion you and i feel, they have all our senses and in the case of my own dog, i know he needs lots of love and cuddles, id never beat him or starve him or abuse him in anyway.

I see my dog as my child, he loves me nomatter what.

So it annoys me to think people can have attitudes like,
"it doesnt matter, its just a dumb animal."


Id like to see major penalties applied to offenders caught abusing animals.
Id like to see these pathetic fines that most countries apply to these subhuman monsters abolished and real punishments like those imposed on people who commit crimes against human

Id like to hear what others think about my opinions.

Technically, you did commit trespass and possibly assault. Instead of 'can you
believe it' you should be thankful that the Police realized he was an arsehole
and didn't go along with it.

The bummer part was the by not calling '911' and letting the Police handle it
you prevented them from charging him without bringing charges against you.

Sorry, no 'hero's medal' as well meaning as your actions were. Think about
that before taking personal action if you are ever faced with a similar situation.

Take care (and consider becoming a Police Officer) ;)

Chagur,
Remind me NOT to jump your fence and help you if you are ever getting beaten to death, technically I'd be breaking the law to and I wouldnt wanna do that in an attempt to save a life. lmao


And you missed the point of the post, but hey thats ok.
Im sure other wont make the same mistake

Ps: showing a lill humanity has nothing to do with being a hero,
Doing the right thing should just be part of your morality.

Cheers

It makes me wonder why this guy had a dog in the first place.

People need to realise that an animal is not just for Christmas. It's for life. A pet is totally reliant on its owner to feed it, look after it and treat it as the sentient creature it is.

The other thing to realise is that humans are just one more animal. We're not special.

This guy should be prosecuted. Did you report him to the SPCA, or whatever equivalent you have where you are?

I think you're a little confused. You didn't jump the dog's fence to help the
dog who was being attacked - You jumped the neighbor's fence who was
attacking the dog.

And, I think you missed my point completely. I take back the suggestion that
you consider becoming a Police Officer - You're too irrational IMHO.

Take care.

Hey James

Yes mate i reported it to a few RSPCA, unfortunately, they are understaffed, under resourced and undermanaged, they told me there wasnt much they could do at the present time.

cheers


PS: Chagur, please check your humour in at the door to Sciforums next time.... because its just not funny mate.

have a lovely sunshiney day. :D

No humor intended. Don't know what the laws are in your neck of the woods,
I imagine Australia or England, but I was trying to point out that, difficult though
it might seem, your chosen course of action was not the best m8.

Suggest that if you get the chance, discuss the situation with one of the Officers
who responded and find out what the law is where you're at.

Take care.

Dearest Chagur

Tis not that I do not understand the laws on tresspass,
I fully understand them , and the point you are trying to make.

However I would have broken the law a million times over to do the right thing.
To end up in trouble with the law for saving a life or decreasing suffering is a small price to pay in my books.
I was of the thinking that the life of the poor animal, wich could have just as easily been a child, was of more worth than my own personal welfare at the time.

If i had waited for police, the animal would have suffered for no good reason while waiting for them to turn up.

I believe its attitudes like yours that see countless crimes committed against humanity and its entirety.

If a woman was being raped, next door to you on the attackers Property , I can just imagine you being the kind of guy to do nothing except call police and wait for them to turn up!

After all trespass is a crime.

Cheers

OK on this subject as a animal trainer and a breeder, personally chagur ya have ya morals back to front or maybe ya just too much of a whimp and would prefer to have someone else do the right thing whether it causes death or not. I would kill another person for hurting a animal or child
:eek: OOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHH no chagur i just broke the law but hey least i would sleep at night knowing i am a good person and did the right thing damn the laws Laws are meant to be broken, I get the feeling ya one of these do gooders that obeys every law thinks ya right and never wrong let me in on a secret ya just made a huge wanker of yaself,IMHO u being a corrections officer would have a more balls but hey i have been mistaken before Have a lovely day and life :)

Well Chagur:D,

aren't you the role model for the morality and human decency brigade. Anyone with an ounce of human decency and morality would have jumped that fence. Anyone who mistreats an animal is probably the type of person to mistreat a child or anyone else who is in a weaker position than he or she is.

What is sadder is when you have someone who would be willing to stand there and do nothing in case they themselves got into trouble. The laws state that you may enter someone's property if you feel that you have reasonable grounds to do so. I think that knowing that someone was killing an animal would classify as reasonable grounds. But in a case like this or in any case of abuse, most people wouldn't care about what the law stated.

Tell me Chagur, if you see a child getting raped inside a house, would you stop and think of what could happen to you if you helped the child out or would you just go in there and help that child? I think your answer to that question says a lot about yourself. Unfortunately, your answer would probably differ to the rest of us. Hmmmmm I wonder who sleeps better at night, the rest of us or you?

I can appreciate the concern expressed but aren't you all going a little overboard equating the situation to one of protecting a human life? Every example given as a 'wouldn't you' had to do with protecting a human who was in danger - which is not what razz attempted to do.

The ironic part is that by interferring, the suffering of the animal was possibly extended ... and, it had to be put down anyway. Can't really believe any purpose was served by the action taken other than to satisfy an individuals sense of what's 'right' even if it includes trespass and assault.

Also, having been in Corrections for some thirty-eight years and not doubt having been in more altercations than anyone of you will possibly experience in your lifetime, I still have a respect for the law. The comment "... damn the laws Laws are meant to be broken ..." is exactly the mind-set of many, if not most, of the people I've had to deal with during my career and I do not appreciate it.

And I do find it rather ironic that the outpouring of sentiment no doubt comes from people who have no problem enjoying a decent steak or wouldn't think of beating the hell out of a kid who was blowing up anthills with firecrackers.

Come off of it! Get real!

And have a g'day m8s. :rolleyes:

And welcome to Sciforums where diversity of opinion is respected.

Take care ;)

Thankyou for finally answering my question by focusing on my original post, its muchly appreciated.

Your latest reply finaly gives a clear understanding of exactly what i wanted to know.

It is clear that by your opening statement, you do not value animals as having the same rights or value as that of a human life.

I believe a life is a life, and life demands respect nomatter what the species.

This being so you made it clear that I should have stood by and watched the animal be beaten violently with a shovel, while i waited for the police to turn up.
My what great humanity skills you have. ;)

However...I did not know to what extent the animal was injured until i committed as you put it "TECHNICAL TRESSPASS".

I could have just as easily saved the dogs life, this certainly would not have happened if I waited for police assistance.

What if My neigbour had just left the dog lieing there in his back yard, seriously injured and mutilated for hours in agony before it died? But hey its only a dog right?

Once again i did not know the extent of the injury, i will not apologise for trying to save this animals life.
.................................................. .................................................. .
You say :
" I do find it rather ironic that the outpouring of sentiment no doubt comes from people who have no problem enjoying a decent steak"
..................................................
I say:
" The cows i eat, arent beaten to death by my neigbour with a shovel ..while i watch.
.................................................. .................................................
After being a Screw for so many years, you cant honestly tell me that my crime of "TECHNICAL TRESPASS" while trying to save a life of any species, puts me in the same catagory as these thugs you so graciously devoted your life to for 38 years.


Oh and as for your statement that the posts were a :

"little overboard equating the situation to one of protecting a human life?"

Ill give you a new situation....
You come home to find your daughters much loved pet doggy... "fluffy" ...being savagely beaten to death with a shovel by your neigbour because it dug a whole under the fence and wrecked his prize roses, .......do you:

A) Pull up a chair, share a "Budwieser" and maybe take turns?

B) Call the police then wait 30 mins for them to arrive?
Meanwhile your neigbour is exhausted from a hard day of animal cruelty, and fluffy ....well fluffy has been recycled as rose compost.

OR.......

C) Jump the fence, committing "TECHNICAL TRESSPASS "and stop the beating, then rush the dog to a vetinary clinic, thus, giving the dog a fighting chance and putting someone or something else ahead of yourself for two seconds?
.................................................. .................................................. .

"welcome to Sciforums where diversity of opinion is respected."
You may pick any option you like, Im an open minded kinda fella.

Have a lovely day,
(and concider becoming real human being)

You apparently do not comprehend that I have been trying to get across to you the seriousness of what you did, regardless of your motives.

The fact of the matter is: The law does not place equal value on the life of an animal.

Okay, I'll get into the 'what if' game also: What if the guy you assaulted would have fallen, hit his head on something and died? Or even had a heart attack and died? Do you really think you'd be walking around scot free with a pat on your back because your motives were so noble?

Again, get real!

'Screw' 'graciously devoted' etc. makes me wonder what your run-ins with the law have already been. Why don't you get yourself a little 'Fluffy' and go play with it.

Cheers m8 :rolleyes:

It's true, and as much as I hate to admit it (and nothing personal, Chagur, it's just that I side with the dog, of sorts).

Specifically, he has you on the point of decency, Razz. Decency is not a guarantee of the law. On the one hand, no, I'm not going to ask you to apologize for defending the dog; in fact, next time you're in Seattle, we'll hoist a couple Guinnesses to the dog and to decency.

However, decency is too expensive to be practical, and to impractical to be the law. It's a shame, of a sort, but it's what people want. I'd love for decency to be the law, but even before I get to my concerns about how badly that would f--k up the way we look at each other, I'm frightened by the possibilities of what codified decency could become.

Just as a for-instance ....

* What if someone unfamiliar to you is entering your neighbor's car--in the driveway--with a screwdriver?

* Incidentally, our neighbors once called the police because someone was "breaking and entering"our house. It isn't just the "simple mistake", since she later admitted she recognized the car my father arrived in before realizing he had left the house keys inside. She honestly projected that some thug had hurt my father and had stolen his car and driven it from the airport and tried to break into our house.

* A trucker once pulled to the side of the road in Pennsylvania, thinking there was an accident to attend to: the gathered crowd of rubberneckers was alarming, to say the least, along this section of highway. When he worked his way to the center of the crowd, he found a man raping a three year-old in the backseat of a car. Nobody had a cel-phone (rural PA in 1994), so nobody called the police. Fearing for the repercussions of the law (assault and battery, perhaps? by whatever interpretation?) none chose to intervene until the trucker arrived. The trucker didn't wait for the police. He smashed through the window, hauled the guy out, and restrained himself from killing anyone at the scene until the police got there and sent him on his way. None of the bystanders were charged for their complicity.

I would daresay that Decency is too pinko for most: it requires them to consider other people and ideas. The law can only hold you responsible for your own actions.

That it's a dog? Hey, nobody charged my college girlfriend's mother for beating her husband. One of the cats pissed in his toolbox, so he hauled to the garage, tightened its head in a vise grip, returned to the living room, retrieved a 30.06, and then put a round through the cat's skull. The woman waited until her husband came in and put the gun away, and then proceeded to beat him senseless with several objects, mostly from the kitchen and the nearby toolbench. (Frying pans, wrenches ... she even did the shattered-bottle trick. It was impressive, from what I hear.)

The police could only write the guy a ticket for animal cruelty. The wife was not charged for her domestic assault because she was responding to a crime.

This was in Oregon, and only seven years ago. Life hasn't changed that much ....

Razz, take heart. Decency is a noble cause, but unfortunately the problem we encounter is that we sometimes have to let the evil win a round. Two steps forward, one step back ... the cha-cha is the best working efficiency you'll find among human decency. Personally? I wouldn't have jumped the fence; I would have videotaped the incident and mailed it to his employer, his mother, and his pastor. That as well as calling the police. Remember that you can hurt someone far worse without ever firing a shot, striking a blow, or swinging that big stick.

Of course, if I thought I could save the dog .... okay, it's a tough call.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

The bummer is that I side with the dog too.

Oh well, the madness of it all.

Take care. ;)

My take on animal cruelty is this....

There are many organizations out there that will respond to animal cruelty, you just have to find them, (like ASPC or Humane Society, etc.).

As far as stepping in to save the animals life, hurray for you Razz, not enough people stick up for the animals rights, just know you have to face the consequences of your actions when you things like that (i.e. being ticketed for tresspassing).

Animal abuse is only a catalyst for a much deeper issue, if someone can kill an animal with a shovel, there is a hugh possibilty the can do it to other people, so keep up the fight, I am right there with you!

On the subject of cruelty to animals, it seems to be left mostly up to us how we each choose to define "cruelty". Laws exist for the most grievous cases, such as the madman with his shovel. But the law (along with patriotism) is indeed the last refuge of scoundrels.

I've never given much thought to laws. By the time a man gets to the point where he is worrying about the law, he can forget about his own personal honor. Look down on the law! A politician or a lawyer stands on the level of the law. A criminal looks up at the law. If society hauls you into court anyway, at least you can argue your own case from a moral high ground. Laws do not exist to protect good and honest men from each other.

"The wise man need not submit to the law, because he is already just and charitable: reason and love make him so." Andre` Comte-Sponville

And in the words of Thomas Hobbes,
"Auctoritas, non veritas, facit legem."
"Authority, not truth, makes the law."

By the way, I think Razz and Chagur are on the same side. Chagur was simply reminding us (drawing from his experience in law enforcement) that situations have a way of getting complicated. But I think if they were both sitting over coffee instead of over a keyboard, they would find an easy agreement. Even using those little emoticons, we miss so much by not having the person across from us in our conversations. By reading a good many of Chagur's posts, I'm of the opinion that he is a true gentleman (of course we don't always agree). Judging from what Razz wrote about his jumping over the fence, I'd also say his heart is in exactly the right place.

Once in Boston's Chinatown, I waded into a gang of Asians kids who were beating the snot out of one of their own. Luckily for me, they didn't seem to want the blood of a Vermonter on their hands that afternoon. I walked with the bleeding kid up the block a bit. Only afterwards did I realize how stupid my actions were, both for me and for the kid. They probably caught up with him later and finished the job. Who knows? But I do think Razz would have been there along side me.

I'm a vegetarian because I can live very well without meat. The meat industry produces suffering which I don't have to be a part of. If I had to eat meat to survive, I'd do it even if it caused animals to suffer. If I were a rugby player stranded on a mountain in South America, I'd also have ten tasty ways to cook a dead rugby player. I just want to get through this life producing as little suffering to others as possible.

I don't keep pets for the same reason. We are guilty of loving our pets to death. We incinerate them by the millions each year. Many more millions reproduce unwanted and die of starvation. The entire pet business is very nasty in my eyes. I'm sociable enough that I fulfil my needs for companionship with other humans. Everything you look for in a pet may be found many times over in a human: friendship, loyalty, trust, etc. The catch is that we must be loyal and trustworthy ourselves to find it in other humans. A pet doesn't care if you are Jack-The-Ripper, as long as you are not ripping on them. Sure, I think a puppy is cute. But I believe I can best love it by not needing to own it. I realize that I'm much in the minority with this view. I don't criticize my friends that own pets. I just live in a way that allows me to live with myself. It's worked well thus far.

Michael

I'm stepping in a little late here, but my feelings are this:

All lives are equal, be they human or not. I would act to save the life of an animal as surely as I would act to save the life of another human being. I have beaten the crap out of people who were being cruel to animals. I have beaten the crap out of animals who were being cruel to people. I have beaten the crap out of animals who were being cruel to animals. I have beaten the crap out of people who were being cruel to people.

I don't even try to justify it, morally or otherwise. I just don't like bullies. I've dealt with my share of them when I was younger. I know what it's like to be on the receiving end. I know what it's like when someone feels they have the right to take the life of another being for some minor trespass. If the dog was keeping him awake, why not sell the dog? Why did it merit the death sentence? If that b*st*rd was worth a sh*t, he would have found a less violent way to deal with the issue. Since violence was apparently the only language he could speak, I say bravo, razz. I trust you are "bilingual" enough to speak non-violence as well.

Except for the taking or attempted taking of another life or lives, I can't think of anything worth killing another being over. Not even digging in a garden or barking all night. You own a dog, it comes with the territory. Try training, not murder.

I don't think razz was trying to assault this creep, nor was razz trying to kill him. Razz was just trying to stop the viciousness of the initial attack. If it took superior firepower, then it took superior firepower.

I salute you, razz. The world needs more people like you who do more than gape on in horror when something bad is happening.

ok back to the original topic LOL chagur ya a wanker and ya know it so stop wasting ppl's time.


Razz ya a legend and we all salute u keep up the good work in the same situation we all do the same thing ohhh with the exception of our superior wanker LOL but he dun count so there ya go the Law still sucks and we will and always be right with out current way of thinking:cool:

Tiassa, i applaud the trucker in your example and condemn the rest to hell for their actions as for the perp in this situation he should be castrated and left to die but such is life and the law these days , makes ya wonder where humanity will be when our children grow up.
Just to plz the anti human in the above situation i would not have controlled myself i would have killed the bastard there and the poor child will always carry scars. Again the laws sucks.

Take care all ohhhhhhhh been fun chagur next time actually get a point of view


Byeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee :)

Staffy


makes ya wonder where humanity will be when our children grow up.

I guess that all depends on what we allow it to become. It's in our hands to either clean it up or blow it up. What's it gonna be? Do we raise our children to believe that things happen and there's nothing you can do about it but bend over and hope someone grabs the vaseline? Or do we teach them that there is a right and wrong, and how to tell the difference. I feel that nobody did that for my generation, that the only good in the world was mindless consumerism and being hip and fashionable, but I don't see a need to pass that legacy on to our children. Let's try to point 'em in the right direction this time. Maybe we can get it right.

This type of behaviour should not be allowed to happen,any one who steps in to help should be rewarded,but are not, as i know,i work on a farm and have seen a fox riped apart by dogs, i think there where about seven, and the owners where just laughing,but it did not happep a second time,i was working in on of the fields,and saw two dogs running after a young female fox, so i got a potato and threw it it hit one of the dog on the head,did not kill it mores the pity, and i threw a stone at the other one which hit in on the side,it distracted them doth and the fox got away, another time we where all in a field harvesting corn, when shooters came shooting phesents, one chap got a shoot off and killed a bird, it fell into the near by lake, the dog would not go in after it, he tried and tried to get the dog in to get the bird, but it would not go, so in the end he said he was going to shoot the dog,to say the least that it was not the dog that was shoot or throwen into the lake but it was him, and i would do it again, his dog was taken off him and he was not allowed a gun again, as i also reported him the the game keeper,as he was a very good friend of mine, justice for one dog.:)

Razz---good for you. Only I hope you are around the next time this guy decides to use deadly force, because you can bet your @ss this isn't some isolated behavioral pattern.

Will it be a child that brings home an F on their report card and receives a lashing with a broken-off broom handle? Or a wife that talks back and ends up with a blow to the head?

Will he be on the freeway and become enraged by another driver, force him off the road, smash up the car and beat the driver with a baseball bat he has been keeping in his trunk for just an occasion? Or will his boss make an untoward comment to him, and he return the next day with a few guns and blow his bosses head off???

No, hopefully it won't go that far, right? The sad part is that most likely it will be some other defenseless creature living in secret agony because people who choose violence---choose violence as a way of life.

***

On a side note, you might want to do some research into violence and brutality amongst law enforcement officials. Maybe the people involved were apathetic and desensitized from their own experiences. It seems to be rampant in the US. :)

you know i love to see how that guy would feel if someone beat HIM death with a shovel. that makes me sick man. ithink you did the right thing and youre a good person for doing it. to answer you question, i put a LOT of value on an animals life. they feel everything you and i do, like you said...and yeah shit man im just so sorry that happened. it really sadens me.

A long story short..... he got away with only a warning for his cruelty after committing this disgusting crime because the police couldnt be bothered following it all up properly with the vet and other witnesses.


Now I don't know for certain because I was not there when it happened, but with that said, I think the guy got off with a warning because the police had no way of proving that HE actually did the beating. There is no denying that the dog was beat, but there's no proving that HE did the beating.

You failed to mention if there was anyone else who saw this or not. If there were other people who would admit to seeing this guy beat his dog, then there might have been some more avenues that one could have pursued. But if it was just you and him, it's your word against his.

As far as prosecution goes, there are a few things that you could have done differently which may have helped your cause. However, I don't think many people are going to fault you for interveing immediately like you did.

But afterall, this is just one mans thoughts on things.

-Kooter

Major thread bump by the guy above me, but I'd like to state that I ate parts of 6 different animals yesterday.

Recently I was witness to an act of severe animal cruelty, i came home and found my neigbour beating his dog to death with a shovel, i jumped the fence and went nutts.

I stopped him hitting the dog,
The dog had apparently been digging holes under the fence and barking all the time and ruining his sleep.
He raved on about the dog just being a dumb mutt etc and that I should get a life and mind my own business.

The dog (a Boxer Cross) lay on the ground, completely masacred yet still alive, my neigbour finaly told me to mind my own business and went to hit the animal again, so I stopped him and a fight broke out after he tried to club me with his shovel aswell.

Now I'm no small guy and I kicked the living Poop outta this idiot then as carefully as I could picked the dog up and took it to the vetenarian clinic up the road,

The dog was immediately put down, due to its injuries etc,
I paid for the injection and the vets time out of my own pocket.

When I returned home I found my neigbour chatting with police,
Can you believe it, he was attempting to have me charged with assult and tresspass.

A long story short..... he got away with only a warning for his cruelty after committing this disgusting crime because the police couldnt be bothered following it all up properly with the vet and other witnesses.
.................................................. .................................................. .
I want to know how many of you feel this idiot was within his rights to treat his dog how he did?

If this had been a persons life, how serious would it have been treated?

what values do you place on an animals life?

what rights does an animal have ?
.................................................. .................................................. ...
I see and hear people every day treating animals so cruely that it almost makes me cry.

Animals feel every emotion you and i feel, they have all our senses and in the case of my own dog, i know he needs lots of love and cuddles, id never beat him or starve him or abuse him in anyway.

I see my dog as my child, he loves me nomatter what.

So it annoys me to think people can have attitudes like,
"it doesnt matter, its just a dumb animal."


Id like to see major penalties applied to offenders caught abusing animals.
Id like to see these pathetic fines that most countries apply to these subhuman monsters abolished and real punishments like those imposed on people who commit crimes against human

Id like to hear what others think about my opinions.
RAZZ, I think you're a hero!

Major thread bump by the guy above me, but I'd like to state that I ate parts of 6 different animals yesterday.

And that is important because ...

Because I wanted to annoy vegetarians.

SOD the law i have been there done the same thing and got the same treatment only i spent the night in the cells, it was worth it the shit got the kicking he deserved, the animal was not put down but went to a better home, mine, well done.

Communist Hamster:


Because I wanted to annoy vegetarians.

So, you're proud of being immoral. Interesting.

Communist Hamster:



So, you're proud of being immoral. Interesting.

I don't know about him, but whenever I eat meat, I am proud I just gained a ton of nutrients. Meat is quite healthy, and it tastes good. *drool*

Anyone up for some steak? Perhaps some chicken breasts? Wow, now I'm hungry. :m:

James,

Do you really feel it is immoral for humans to eat non-human animals? I raised this issue a long while back. Never actually got anywhere with it though.

Communist Hamster:


I don't know about him, but whenever I eat meat, I am proud I just gained a ton of nutrients. Meat is quite healthy, and it tastes good. *drool*

Did you know you can get all the same nutrients from vegetarian foods? Probably not.

What it comes down to is that you're proud you can kill sentient creatures on a whim, just because you like the taste of their flesh. You have no moral qualms about that. It says a lot about you.


superluminal


Do you really feel it is immoral for humans to eat non-human animals? I raised this issue a long while back. Never actually got anywhere with it though.

Can you give me ANY ethical argument which justifies killing sentient non-human animals for food, in the ordinary course of life?

Did you know you can get all the same nutrients from vegetarian foods? Probably not.


False.

"There are only animal, but no vegetarian sources of Vitamin B12, which is why herbivores (i.e. rabbits) meet their Vitamin B12 requirements by eating plants that are infested with insects, or by eating their own feces."
"It may also be advisable to supplement a very small amount (DRI/RDA) of the active form of Vitamin B6 (pyridoxal-5-phosphate), since vegetarian sources of Vit B6 only supply the inactive form (pyridoxine), which will have to be converted to the active form by the liver, however the efficiency of the liver to do so may be compromised with certain types of liver diseases."

And get off your moral high ground, I'll stop eating meat when you stop wearing leather shoes. I'll stop eating meat when you no longer eat or use any of the products on this list: http://www.vnv.org.au/AnimalProducts.htm

Oh, and there is another reason why I eat meat, it tastes good! :m:

Can you give me ANY ethical argument which justifies killing sentient non-human animals for food, in the ordinary course of life?

I just wanted to know for sure your position on this. Now I do.

So, ethical arguments? I have difficulty supporting my meat-eating habit ethically. No argument.

Having said that, predation is just as much a fundamental part of nature as is grazing and browsing. At this level I find it morally and ethically neutral. For humans who now (only recently) largely recognize the sentience of other creatures, it becomes a problem, dosen't it?

I have a question. Do other creatures value life? I don't mean "do they care for their young and other family members". Do they value life on it's merits alone? As some humans do? I would argue that it is unlikely. Advanced ethics are probably a human invention with little survival value in the wild.

So, it appears that humans have a natural desire (requirement?) to eat meat as do many other omnivores. In a natural condition (i.e. sans grocery stores) it is probably essential given the energy needs of our naturally evolved style of existence. We are not ruminants. We are not bears. We are high-energy social animals. In that condition, could anyone argue against the moral neutrality of eating meat?

Ok, so what. It seems then that the ethics of eating meat are a function of an advanced society with the means to provide concentrated, nutritionally varied, high-energy vegetable matter to eat. The morals of vegetarianism then seem to be relative and at odds with normal human existence. I would conclude this: I can't fault a human for eating meat. I also can't argue for it on a ethical basis. Ethically, we should all now start eating Boca burgers and Morningstar soy "chicken" patties. Why don't we? I've tried, and failed. Am I a bad person? Damned if I know.

Quarkmoon:


"There are only animal, but no vegetarian sources of Vitamin B12, which is why herbivores (i.e. rabbits) meet their Vitamin B12 requirements by eating plants that are infested with insects, or by eating their own feces."

No, you're confused, Quarky. Vegetarians eat eggs and dairy products, which contain abundant Vitamin B12. So vegetarians can obtain abudant Vit. B12 from their diet.

Vegan's don't eat eggs or dairy products, but the food they eat has Vit. B12 supplements.



And get off your moral high ground, I'll stop eating meat when you stop wearing leather shoes. I'll stop eating meat when you no longer eat or use any of the products on this list:

I thought that it would be a cold day in hell when I would rush to the defense of James, but I seriously doubt that he would knowingly wear leather shoes. And most of the products on that list come from eggs and dairy products.

You may scream 'AHA, hypocrite!', but you are just demonstrating your ignorance of the beliefs of most vegetarians. Vegetarians don't aim to 'abolish' suffering. Almost everything we do to survive hurts animals (and humans) in some way. Vegetarians aim to minimize UNNECESSARY animal suffering as much as possible. Bread and other such products made from eggs are needed to survive. Meat is not. You can survive quite well without consuming meat, and cause no harm to your health, so why make animals suffer unnecessarily? Because you enjoy eating meat? What happens if someone enjoys watching dog or cock fights... should we allow that too? Hell, let's bring back the gladiators, I'd enjoy watching a fight or two to the death.


I know that Razz's post is very old, but I find the entire incident nauseating. How can anyone claim that what Razz did was wrong, or 'against the law'. Aren't you justified in using a proportional amount of violence in self-defence, the defence of another, or to prevent a crime from being committed? If I ever saw a grown man abusing a dog (or any sentient animal, such as a cat, bird, rat, etc) in such a way, I would bash the bastard to a pulp, no questions asked. If the cops ever asked questions, I'd just claim that he came at me first, and that I was defending myself. No witnesses. What can the cops do?

Quarkmoon:

No, you're confused, Quarky. Vegetarians eat eggs and dairy products, which contain abundant Vitamin B12. So vegetarians can obtain abudant Vit. B12 from their diet.

What are eggs? James R's position is that killing sentient beings is wrong. That belief lends itself to many hypocritical scenarios, including wearing leather shoes, using any product that contains animal parts, and especially eating eggs and dairy products.


but I seriously doubt that he would knowingly wear leather shoes. And most of the products on that list come from eggs and dairy products.

How can you accidently wear leather shoes? Are you not able to recognize leather when you see it?


You may scream 'AHA, hypocrite!', but you are just demonstrating your ignorance of the beliefs of most vegetarians. Vegetarians don't aim to 'abolish' suffering. Almost everything we do to survive hurts animals (and humans) in some way. Vegetarians aim to minimize UNNECESSARY animal suffering as much as possible.

Again, that is not James R's position. If that were the case, I wouldn't give two shits if he doesn't want to eat meat. But when he castigates people for eating meat because he feels he is on a higher moral plane, I'll continue to point out his hypocrisy.

Quarkmoon:


What are eggs?

Not sentient beings. James R's entire contention is that we should not kill/torture animals unnecessarily because they are SENTIENT BEINGS. The last time I checked, the yolk inside an egg doesn't have a brain, or a CNS.



That belief lends itself to many hypocritical scenarios,

Ahh, the hypocrite statement so commonly used by meat-loving fanatics. 'You eat eggs, so that gives us the right to slaughter sentient beings!'

'You kill animals, so don't condemn us when we murder human beings, hypocrite!'

My my, the 'you're a hypocrite' statement is just soooo effective at justifying immoral behaviour. Boy, is that the best anti-vegetarian ilk can conjure up?



including wearing leather shoes,

Vegetarians generally don't wear leather shoes, because it involves the unnecessary killing of sentient beings.



using any product that contains animal parts,

If it involves the unnecessary killing and/or torture of sentient beings, then vegetarians won't support it.

An example of necessary killing is obtaining anti-venom from a horse in order to save a human life.



and especially eating eggs and dairy products.

1. Eggs and dairy products aren't sentient beings, nor do sentient beings need to be killed/tortured to obtain them.

2. Eggs and dairy products are necessary in order to obtain B-12, and remain healthy. Once again, vegetarians do not seek to eliminate ALL suffering, but only unnecessary suffering. Just because you hit a person unintentionally with a car, does not give you the right to engage in vehicular homicide.



How can you accidently wear leather shoes? Are you not able to recognize leather when you see it?

Have you heard of imitation leather?



But when he castigates people for eating meat because he feels he is on a higher moral plane, I'll continue to point out his hypocrisy.

And while you continue to eat meat and gloat, vegetarians on here will point out that you are condoning the unnecessary torture and murder of sentient beings. I'm sorry that you don't like such facts pointed out to you, but that's the way it is. People who are engaging in immoral acts often don't like to be challenged.

I see and hear people every day treating animals so cruely that it almost makes me cry.

Animals feel every emotion you and i feel, they have all our senses and in the case of my own dog, i know he needs lots of love and cuddles, id never beat him or starve him or abuse him in anyway.

I see my dog as my child, he loves me nomatter what.

So it annoys me to think people can have attitudes like,
"it doesnt matter, its just a dumb animal."


Id like to see major penalties applied to offenders caught abusing animals.
Id like to see these pathetic fines that most countries apply to these subhuman monsters abolished and real punishments like those imposed on people who commit crimes against human

Id like to hear what others think about my opinions.
I agree 100%
I'm glad you "beat the poop" out of that guy.
... idiots... i wish they would all suddenly die.

Quarkmoon:

People often brand PETA as 'nutcases' and 'extremists'. I find this to be absolute bullshit. Their FAQ gives a very calm, rational and logical overview of why they support animal rights.

http://www.peta.org/about/faq.asp

Please read this before attempting to attack the position of vegetarians.

The last time I checked, the yolk inside an egg doesn't have a brain, or a CNS.


Check again:

http://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/OtherEmb/Images/Chick56h.gif


disclaimer: only if the egg is fertilized of course.

Not sentient beings. James R's entire contention is that we should not kill/torture animals unnecessarily because they are SENTIENT BEINGS. The last time I checked, the yolk inside an egg doesn't have a brain, or a CNS.

Eggs are future chickens that are stored in refrigerators in order to prevent it from developing into a chick. Technically, it is not a sentient being. And technically a human fetus isn't a sentient being, so I guess it's okay to eat an aborted fetus? To bring animals to the same level as humans lends itself to disgusting conclusions, vegetarians who chastise people for eating meat are exactly the same as people who chastise others for not believing in their messiah. They pick and choose what to oppose and what to support, ignoring the consequences of it.


'You kill animals, so don't condemn us when we murder human beings, hypocrite!'

That argument only works in your mind, because you raise an animals worth to the same level of humans. There is a difference between animal cruelty and realizing that animals are not equal. Again, it lends itself to bizarre conclusions when you do that.


Vegetarians generally don't wear leather shoes, because it involves the unnecessary killing of sentient beings.

All sneakers and boots contain leather. If he wears either kind of shoe, he has worn leather, and that goes against his "moral standards". Hypocrite.


If it involves the unnecessary killing and/or torture of sentient beings, then vegetarians won't support it.

And how do you define necessary and unnecessary? You are picking and choosing what you want to argue because you realize your position lends itself to hypocrisy in every sense of the word.

I call the nutrients I recieve from eating meat (ever heard of the Food Pyramid?) as necessary, but than it all becomes arbitrary which leaves your position on incredibly weak grounds.


1. Eggs and dairy products aren't sentient beings, nor do sentient beings need to be killed/tortured to obtain them.

Do you know how eggs are harvested? Do you know why chickens even lay eggs? Most of the eggs we eat (at least here in U.S.) are harvested by chickens who have done nothing but lay eggs since maturity, many have never even set foot on the ground.


2. Eggs and dairy products are necessary in order to obtain B-12, and remain healthy. Once again, vegetarians do not seek to eliminate ALL suffering, but only unnecessary suffering. Just because you hit a person unintentionally with a car, does not give you the right to engage in vehicular homicide.

Again, picking and choosing parts of your position. I can do the same, I find it necessary to eat meat for many nutrients, who are you to tell me it isn't? As you can see, it is necessary to consume animal products in order to get a suffecient amount of Vitamin B12.

Oh, and you missed this part of my post: "It may also be advisable to supplement a very small amount (DRI/RDA) of the active form of Vitamin B6 (pyridoxal-5-phosphate), since vegetarian sources of Vit B6 only supply the inactive form (pyridoxine), which will have to be converted to the active form by the liver, however the efficiency of the liver to do so may be compromised with certain types of liver diseases."



And while you continue to eat meat and gloat, vegetarians on here will point out that you are condoning the unnecessary torture and murder of sentient beings. I'm sorry that you don't like such facts pointed out to you, but that's the way it is. People who are engaging in immoral acts often don't like to be challenged.

"Necessary", "unnecessary", "immoral", who are you to say your interpretation of such things is the right way while everyone else is wrong? Animals are not equal to Humans, animal products are a part of many things in our lives including tooth brushes, and their meat provides and abundant amount of nutrients. Sorry, but your views aren't very solid.

Quarkmoon:

People often brand PETA as 'nutcases' and 'extremists'. I find this to be absolute bullshit. Their FAQ gives a very calm, rational and logical overview of why they support animal rights.

http://www.peta.org/about/faq.asp

Please read this before attempting to attack the position of vegetarians.


I have no problems with PETA, mainly because I choose not to acknowledge their existence. But as soon as they try to invade my personal life like the religious "nutcases" out there, that's when I will oppose them.

Eggs are future chickens that are stored in refrigerators in order to prevent it from developing into a chick.

The eggs we eat aren't fertilized. They will never develop into a chicken.

Quarkmoon:


Eggs are future chickens that are stored in refrigerators in order to prevent it from developing into a chick. Technically, it is not a sentient being.

Congratulations. You just strengthed James and my arguments.



And technically a human fetus isn't a sentient being,

While the human fetus doesn't have a brain, no. However, once a human fetus develops a brain, then whether it is a sentient being becomes questionable. I prefer to err on the side of caution, and say 'Yes, it probably does, hence we shouldn't kill it.'



so I guess it's okay to eat an aborted fetus?

If it doesn't have a brain, then there would be nothing morally reprehensible about it. Although I find it physically disgusting. You would be much better off using its stem cells for research.



To bring animals to the same level as humans lends itself to disgusting conclusions,

Which is funny, since I don't bring animals up to the same level as humans. I clearly stated in my previous post that if the death of an animal is required to save the life of a human, then it is morally justified. If two humans are trapped on a deserted island with no food, then cannibalism is morally justified. If you need to kill an animal or human in order to survive, then that act of killing is justified.



vegetarians who chastise people for eating meat are exactly the same as people who chastise others for not believing in their messiah.

People who chastise people for eating meat are exactly the same as people who used to chastise others for keeping slaves.



They pick and choose what to oppose and what to support,

Yes, that's called 'forming an opinion', Quarkmoon. Morality is a little more complex then people like you would have us believe. I 'pick and choose' because I realize that there is a huge difference between 'sentient beings' and 'non-sentient beings'. Sentient beings can experience pain and discomfort, and experience basic emotions. Non-sentient beings cannot. So it would be absurd for me to defend the rights of a non-sentient being.



And how do you define necessary and unnecessary?

A necessary animal death is one which is required to rectify serious physical or mental ailments in a human being, IF no other 'less cruel' alternatives are available.



You are picking and choosing what you want to argue

Once again, it's called 'realizing that the world is complex.', and 'realizing that there is a huge difference between sentience and non-sentience'. And it's interesting to note that you 'pick and choose' when you condone the murder of animals for human consumption, but not of human beings for human consumption. Why?



because you realize your position lends itself to hypocrisy in every sense of the word.

1. There is no hypocrisy in a vegetarian's position. I made my position quite clear. Please demonstrate where I am engaging in hypocrisy. I never claimed that I defended ALL life, but merely SENTIENT life.

2. Even if I am being hypocritical, that does not immediately make your immoral actions moral. If a paedophile priest claims that the rape of an innocent woman is immoral, is his claim of immorality immediately nullified? Is rape suddenly moral, because the priest is engaging in hypocrisy?

Your claim that I am 'hypocritical' is nothing more than a whopping red herring.



Do you know how eggs are harvested? Do you know why chickens even lay eggs? Most of the eggs we eat (at least here in U.S.) are harvested by chickens who have done nothing but lay eggs since maturity, many have never even set foot on the ground.

Factory farming is deplorable, which is why I buy eggs from free range chickens.



As you can see, it is necessary to consume animal products in order to get a suffecient amount of Vitamin B12.

And as I have explained, eggs and milk aren't sentient beings. You can't give a 'right to not suffer' to a 'being' which cannot suffer, can you now?



Necessary", "unnecessary", "immoral", who are you to say your interpretation of such things is the right way while everyone else is wrong?

Who are you to say that the murder of another human being is wrong? The value of an opinion is judged by the merit of the arguments in its favour. So far, you have failed to provide any arguments to justify your unnecessary murder of sentient beings. Instead, you resort to ad hominem attacks, red herrings and strawmen, while screaming 'HYPOCRITE!'

spurious:


The last time I checked, the yolk inside an egg doesn't have a brain, or a CNS.

I was talking about the chicken eggs that we eat. I guess I was a little vague, although I thought it was obvious that I was talking about supermarket chicken eggs, given the context of the debate.

I know there are humans that are truly animals inside and there are animals that are more sentient inside. The animalistic humans degrade the real sentient humans and try to 'dehumanize' them, their focus is not on animals since they are not seen as a 'threat' or competition though they are not above the abuse of animals if need be. These vicious beings use their brutality and projection of their lower nature and immoral violence to justify their actions and may believe they are sentient and you are not through a type of transference, a manipulation to dump on or scapegoat another, an identity theft. A refusal to take responsibility for who and what they are based upon their personal values and actions. This is a very grave, sick and horrific situation when it occurs. It is done in a most devious, soul-wrenching and heinous way. These humans are not sentient. I've had pets more sentient than them. Life here is not fair but insane as well.

what values do you place on an animals life?
Depends. On cats, and other predators, quite a bit. One everything else, not as much.


what rights does an animal have ?
When they evolve the ability to use thier vocal cords to articulate speech, then we'll talk.

While the human fetus doesn't have a brain, no. However, once a human fetus develops a brain, then whether it is a sentient being becomes questionable. I prefer to err on the side of caution, and say 'Yes, it probably does, hence we shouldn't kill it.'

You would have no problems eating an aborted Human fetus as long as it "doesn't have a brain"? That's a great example of the mindset of a lot of vegetarians.


Which is funny, since I don't bring animals up to the same level as humans.

You don't? Than explain why you constantly compare acts against Humans with acts against animals:
'You kill animals, so don't condemn us when we murder human beings, hypocrite!'
Just because you hit a person unintentionally with a car, does not give you the right to engage in vehicular homicide.
People who chastise people for eating meat are exactly the same as people who used to chastise others for keeping slaves.
If a paedophile priest claims that the rape of an innocent woman is immoral, is his claim of immorality immediately nullified? Is rape suddenly moral, because the priest is engaging in hypocrisy?
Who are you to say that the murder of another human being is wrong?
Hmmm...sounds like you are putting animals on the same pedestal as Humans. But that's just me using my reading comprehension abilities, perhaps I shouldn't when dealing with irrational arguments.


Once again, it's called 'realizing that the world is complex.', and 'realizing that there is a huge difference between sentience and non-sentience'. And it's interesting to note that you 'pick and choose' when you condone the murder of animals for human consumption, but not of human beings for human consumption. Why?

Very simple, I don't place animals on the same level as Humans. You claim the samething, and yet you felt it necessary to ask that question while continuosly comparing Human on Human acts with Human on animal acts.

And again, how are you to say eating meat is not necessary? Tell me, why is it that vegetarians on average have more health problems than non-vegitarians? Why is it that doctors reccommend a balanced diet of both meat and vegetables? Why is it that the Food Pyramid we grew up with contains a "meats" section if it was totally unnecessary to eat meat?

And as for picking and choosing, you are using technicalities to justify the consumption of egg and dairy products. They are both animal products, eggs are the result of chickens laying eggs thinking it will result in a chick but instead we take it and make sure it will never develop. But since it isn't technically a sentient being, it's okay to eat it. Like I said, I can do the samething in regards to morality. Animals are not on the same level as us, so technically there is nothing immoral about it, plus it provides important nutrients for me. I can play the technicality game too. :cool:

I have nothing against vegetarians, I just think they are depriving themselves of delicious food by not eating meat. I am against such animal cruelty as was in the first post.

Exactly, I really don't care about vegetarians. The only reason I'm even responding is because they have the nerve to chastise others for eating meat. If you want to deprive yourself of highly nutritional and just plain delicious foods, you're the one missing out, not me. :cool:

Quarkmoon:

(It is interesting that you dropped out of our abortion discussion. I wonder how long it will take you to run away from this new animal rights discussion...)


"There are only animal, but no vegetarian sources of Vitamin B12, which is why herbivores (i.e. rabbits) meet their Vitamin B12 requirements by eating plants that are infested with insects, or by eating their own feces."

This has already been addressed by others.


And get off your moral high ground, I'll stop eating meat when you stop wearing leather shoes. I'll stop eating meat when you no longer eat or use any of the products on this list: http://www.vnv.org.au/AnimalProducts.htm

Interesting. You refuse to act morally until I am a paragon of virtue. How does what I do affect your actions? Should you not take responsibility for yourself, to act in an ethically blameless fashion?

You're quite transparent. You obviously know that what you are doing is wrong, at some deep level, but you're clutching at any straw to try to absolve yourself of acting on your moral responsibility.

Even your enthuiasm to trumpet your own immorality is a dead give away. You hope that if you shout loudly enough, others will come to your rallying cry. There is safety in numbers, and if you gather enough meat eaters in one place you can all enjoy the solidarity of being equally blameworthy. Then you will be better able to ignore that niggling conscience inside.


Oh, and there is another reason why I eat meat, it tastes good!

Rapists probably enjoy raping, too. Do you really think the fact that you enjoy your depravity makes it better, on ethical grounds?


What are eggs? James R's position is that killing sentient beings is wrong. That belief lends itself to many hypocritical scenarios, including wearing leather shoes, using any product that contains animal parts, and especially eating eggs and dairy products.

I know mountainhare has already commented on this, so I won't repeat what he said.

But I will point out that you are actually making an argument here that everybody ought to be vegan. So, who is the bigger hypocrit, Quarkmoon? You, who says people should be vegan, yet eats meat and uses animal products, or the vegetarians who at least have gone part-way to the level of morality you say you advocate?


But when [James] castigates people for eating meat because he feels he is on a higher moral plane, I'll continue to point out his hypocrisy.

I may well be hypocritical, Quarkmoon. Let's assume I am. Are you then willing to concede that my argument that it is morally right to be vegetarian is correct? That is, leaving my personal actions out of the equation, do you agree with the inevitability of my ethical argument? And if not, why not?


That argument only works in your mind, because you raise an animals worth to the same level of humans.

Is it necessary to say that animals are equal to humans to recognise that animals suffer unnecessarily when used for food?

Or, perhaps you're so naive as to believe that the steak you ate last night did not involve any animal suffering. Fact: an innocent animal was bred, raised and killed just because you love the taste of steak. No other reason. I doubt you know much about the details of how the cow that died for your pleasure was raised or killed, or much about the conditions and treatment it had to endure in its brief life. If I'm right, then maybe you should stop trying to justify yourself so loudly and get an education.


I call the nutrients I recieve from eating meat (ever heard of the Food Pyramid?) as necessary, but than it all becomes arbitrary which leaves your position on incredibly weak grounds.

As has been pointed out, there are vegetable and other sources available for all the nutrients you get from meat.

But why so defensive all of a sudden, Quarkmoon? I thought you were proud that you eat meat just because you like the taste. Why not just say "To hell with morality! I eat meat and I don't care that I'm evil!" Be honest with yourself.

Or, is your conscience niggling just a little? Maybe you're flailing around and trying to find another reason for eating meat which sounds more righteous. If so, we can discuss nutrition in more depth, if you like.

Or, do you want to try some other supposed justification? Or just change the subject?


o you know how eggs are harvested? Do you know why chickens even lay eggs? Most of the eggs we eat (at least here in U.S.) are harvested by chickens who have done nothing but lay eggs since maturity, many have never even set foot on the ground.

Correct. So, do you eat eggs as well as meat? If so, why? Do you condone battery farming? Do you think it is a good thing? Do you want to defend it?

Before you start, let me make it clear that I am totally against battery farming of chickens. And I'm against the cattle feedlots which produce your steaks. And the killing of lambs because you won't eat mutton (ever thought about why it's called "lamb"? Yes, you eat baby animals, whose lives are cut tragically short because you like the taste of their flesh).


I can do the same, I find it necessary to eat meat for many nutrients, who are you to tell me it isn't? As you can see, it is necessary to consume animal products in order to get a suffecient amount of Vitamin B12.

For a start, let's assume you're right here. Do you then agree that eating of adult animals and baby animals (as opposed to unborn animals) is unnecessary? Or do you think you need to eat your lamb, too?


"Necessary", "unnecessary", "immoral", who are you to say your interpretation of such things is the right way while everyone else is wrong?

Ah, the moral relativism argument. What's right for you is good enough for you, and nobody can be "more moral" than you, because everybody has their "own morality".

I'm sure rapists think rape is fun, or at least justifiable, by their own standards. Do you have any problem with indiscriminate rape, on ethical grounds? I assume not, if you want to be consistent with your moral relativism argument. Please clarify your position for me.


Animals are not equal to Humans...

I'm not sure what you mean by "equal". Do you mean just "not the same species"? That's obvious, but provides no grounds for arbitrary cruelty, as far as I can see.

Or maybe you really mean "not worthy of moral consideration"; but you've given no reason for anyone to adopt that position, yet. Please tell me if you actually believe this.

Maybe you mean "animals are not sentient". All the obvious evidence says they are, but let me know if you want to argue that point.

Or maybe you mean "animals are just property, not worth of rights such as the right not to be eaten, so humans are morally justified in treating them as consumables". If that's the case, I want to hear your moral argument.

So, you have some explaining to do.


...animal products are a part of many things in our lives including tooth brushes, and their meat provides and abundant amount of nutrients.

Are you arguing that we should maintain the status quo just for reasons of "tradition" here? Humans have always eaten meat, so that makes it ok? Please clarify. Or is this just a repeat of your "nutrition" argument?

I must say, your views on abortion seem to be morally inconsistent with your views on vegetarianism, Quarkmoon. On the one hand, you say a human foetus is entitled to all the rights of a human child, while on the other hand you say animals have essentially no rights at all. (Note: a "right to be killed humanely for food" is not the kind of right I'm talking about.)

Hapsburg:



what values do you place on an animals life?

Depends. On cats, and other predators, quite a bit. One everything else, not as much.

Why?



what rights does an animal have ?

When they evolve the ability to use thier vocal cords to articulate speech, then we'll talk.

Why is speech relevant?

Communist Hamster:


I have nothing against vegetarians, I just think they are depriving themselves of delicious food by not eating meat. I am against such animal cruelty as was in the first post.

Now, you just have to progress to the ethical stage where you start to recognise that killing animals just because you like the taste of their flesh is "animal cruelty".

The animals you eat are bred and live out their (usually) short and miserably lives solely so you can chow down on their tasty flesh. And yet you claim to be against animal cruelty. How do you reconcile those two facts?

(It is interesting that you dropped out of our abortion discussion. I wonder how long it will take you to run away from this new animal rights discussion...)

Were you actually following that discussion, or just responding to the new posts and ignoring everything that came before it? The discussion was going in circles, argument points being repeated on numerous occasions only to have them ignored and repeated again. I wouldn't even call it a discussion, just pointless post count multipliers and a huge waste of time.


Interesting. You refuse to act morally until I am a paragon of virtue. How does what I do affect your actions? Should you not take responsibility for yourself, to act in an ethically blameless fashion?

It has nothing to do with my acting immorally or not. It has everything to do with the hypocrisy of calling other people immoral for partaking in acts you do yourself but in different ways. Hypocrisy is the only thing I was arguing.


You're quite transparent. You obviously know that what you are doing is wrong, at some deep level, but you're clutching at any straw to try to absolve yourself of acting on your moral responsibility.

Huh? How did you come to this conclusion? I see nothing wrong with eating meat, all I see is nutritional benefits and hunger satisfaction (not to mention it tastes good!). I enjoy eating meat any chance I get, and I savor every bite of a juicy steak. Damn it, now I'm hungry again.


Even your enthuiasm to trumpet your own immorality is a dead give away. You hope that if you shout loudly enough, others will come to your rallying cry. There is safety in numbers, and if you gather enough meat eaters in one place you can all enjoy the solidarity of being equally blameworthy. Then you will be better able to ignore that niggling conscience inside.

Again, you make the fatal assumption that everyone is a crackpot. No one except vegetarians such as yourself care about eating meat, we do it because it makes us healthy and we are omnivores by nature. We think nothing of it, there is no guilty conscience or some imaginary moral responsibility granted to animals.


Rapists probably enjoy raping, too. Do you really think the fact that you enjoy your depravity makes it better, on ethical grounds?

Again, comparisons to Human on Human acts. Like I've said many times, I do not consider animals equal to Humans, your comparisons are moot.


But I will point out that you are actually making an argument here that everybody ought to be vegan. So, who is the bigger hypocrit, Quarkmoon? You, who says people should be vegan, yet eats meat and uses animal products, or the vegetarians who at least have gone part-way to the level of morality you say you advocate?

No, I am making the argument that your position is highly hypocritical, and that to alleviate that hypocrisy you would have to be a vegan, or just a person who abstains from the use of any animal products. If you continue to preach morality about consuming or using animal products, than you continue to be a hypocrite.


I may well be hypocritical, Quarkmoon. Let's assume I am. Are you then willing to concede that my argument that it is morally right to be vegetarian is correct? That is, leaving my personal actions out of the equation, do you agree with the inevitability of my ethical argument? And if not, why not?

I concede nothing, because eating and using animal products is not immoral. I see nothing but benefits to the Human race. The leather on my shoes protects me, the bristles on my tooth brush clean my teeth, the meat, dairy products and eggs provide nutrients as well as satisfaction of hunger. On the contrary, I believe everyone should be eating meat, and plan to feed my children as much meat as required for proper health and growth.


Is it necessary to say that animals are equal to humans to recognise that animals suffer unnecessarily when used for food?

No, because they do not suffer unnecessarily, and their "suffering" doesn't concern me. I need to get my B12 and B6 somehow. :cool:


Or, perhaps you're so naive as to believe that the steak you ate last night did not involve any animal suffering. Fact: an innocent animal was bred, raised and killed just because you love the taste of steak. No other reason. I doubt you know much about the details of how the cow that died for your pleasure was raised or killed, or much about the conditions and treatment it had to endure in its brief life. If I'm right, then maybe you should stop trying to justify yourself so loudly and get an education.

No, that cow also provided more leather to make shoes, it's hairs provided more bristles for tooth brushes, it's meat provided valuable nutrients, it's milk provided me calcium, same with the cheese made from it's milk. That cow helped a great many ways, not just for the steak. I would say that cow died for a very good cause, and if it were intelligent in anyway, it would be proud of itself (which it is not so who cares).


As has been pointed out, there are vegetable and other sources available for all the nutrients you get from meat.

Again, there are some nutrients only found in meat. And the nutrients that are present in meat are more abundant within meat than a jar of nuts, and products made from the parts of animals make my life more convinient, safe and healthy. I love animals!:D


But why so defensive all of a sudden, Quarkmoon? I thought you were proud that you eat meat just because you like the taste. Why not just say "To hell with morality! I eat meat and I don't care that I'm evil!" Be honest with yourself.

Not just because of the taste, read my comments above.

And about getting defensive, you misunderstand. I am just annoyed at the casitgation toward meat eaters because you feel you are on a higher moral plane. The castigation and insuing hypocrisy is my only contention.


Do you condone battery farming? Do you think it is a good thing? Do you want to defend it?

Now who said that? If there is a better way to farm animals, than I'm all for it. I have nothing against animals dieing to make me healthy, safe, and to satisfy my hunger, but I do sometimes have a problem with how they are killed. A more humane way is certainly a good thing.


I'm not sure what you mean by "equal". Do you mean just "not the same species"? That's obvious, but provides no grounds for arbitrary cruelty, as far as I can see.

Or maybe you really mean "not worthy of moral consideration"; but you've given no reason for anyone to adopt that position, yet. Please tell me if you actually believe this.

Not equal, as in not worthy of the same moral consideration I would give toward a Human. That's why the Human on Human acts you guys like to use don't work here, unless animals were on our moral plane. They are not, they are beneath us, therefore they are not granted the same moral consideration.

However, that does not exclude animal cruelty. Cruelty of any life is wrong, however eating meat is not cruel, it's quite necessary for our health and well-being.


I must say, your views on abortion seem to be morally inconsistent with your views on vegetarianism, Quarkmoon.

Nope, because animals are not equal. That's where your argument falls through the floor.

but I do sometimes have a problem with how they are killed. A more humane way is certainly a good thing.

What is a humane way to kill an animal?

well the way the do it in slaughter houses they guide the animal
into a stall and a mechanical device lifts their head
then a knife cuts their throat
the above applies to cattle

Now, you just have to progress to the ethical stage where you start to recognise that killing animals just because you like the taste of their flesh is "animal cruelty".

The animals you eat are bred and live out their (usually) short and miserably lives solely so you can chow down on their tasty flesh. And yet you claim to be against animal cruelty. How do you reconcile those two facts?

Maybe I don't want to reconcile those two facts. Maybe I'd rather keep eating lesser lifeforms.

we could just hit them in the head with a hammer

well the way the do it in slaughter houses they guide the animal
into a stall and a mechanical device lifts their head
then a knife cuts their throat
the above applies to cattle

Is that a humane way?

if you ever venture into a slaughter house you'll barf and never eat meat again
you will come out saying thats the most disgusting thing i ever saw

factories dedicated to the wholesale slaughter of animals
mechanized and ruthlessly efficient

See your problem was that you beat the man AFTER you got him to stop hitting the dog. If you had just used a baseball bat upside the head once while he was in mid swing you'd have been golden.

if you ever venture into a slaughter house you'll barf and never eat meat again
you will come out saying thats the most disgusting thing i ever saw

factories dedicated to the wholesale slaughter of animals
mechanized and ruthlessly efficient

Doubt I'll barf. I also kill animals for a living.

you . . .you . . you bambi killer !

aw don't feel bad spurious
there is nothing tastier than bald eagle stew
served up with spotted owl breasts !

Why?
Because I like cats and I like things that kill other things. Fascinates me. Herbivores are the prison bitches of nature.


Why is speech relevant?
Because that is what led to civilization. Speech and the written word.

Yummy, marmoset

or octopus testicles (funny how one letter changes the whole meaning)

What is a humane way to kill an animal?

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.

the cows moving on a conveyor with their heads cut off, skinned, and still twitching
cows in one end, nice little slabs out the other

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.

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.



(It is interesting that you dropped out of our abortion discussion. I wonder how long it will take you to run away from this new animal rights discussion...)

The discussion was going in circles, argument points being repeated on numerous occasions only to have them ignored and repeated again.

That's a weak rationalisation, Quarkmoon, and you know it.



Should you not take responsibility for yourself, to act in an ethically blameless fashion?

It has nothing to do with my acting immorally or not. It has everything to do with the hypocrisy of calling other people immoral for partaking in acts you do yourself but in different ways. Hypocrisy is the only thing I was arguing.

You avoided my question. Clearly, from your later comments, you choose not to act morally, as a deliberate, cold-blooded decision.


I see nothing wrong with eating meat, all I see is nutritional benefits and hunger satisfaction (not to mention it tastes good!). I enjoy eating meat any chance I get, and I savor every bite of a juicy steak.

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.


Again, you make the fatal assumption that everyone is a crackpot.

No. I make the deduction that your sense of morality is badly stunted.


No one except vegetarians such as yourself care about eating meat, we do it because it makes us healthy and we are omnivores by nature.

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.


We think nothing of it, there is no guilty conscience or some imaginary moral responsibility granted to animals.

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.


Like I've said many times, I do not consider animals equal to Humans, your comparisons are moot.

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?


No, I am making the argument that your position is highly hypocritical, and that to alleviate that hypocrisy you would have to be a vegan, or just a person who abstains from the use of any animal products. If you continue to preach morality about consuming or using animal products, than you continue to be a hypocrite.

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?


I concede nothing, because eating and using animal products is not immoral. I see nothing but benefits to the Human race.

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?


On the contrary, I believe everyone should be eating meat, and plan to feed my children as much meat as required for proper health and growth.

That would be zero meat, by the way.



Is it necessary to say that animals are equal to humans to recognise that animals suffer unnecessarily when used for food?

No, because they do not suffer unnecessarily, and their "suffering" doesn't concern me. I need to get my B12 and B6 somehow.

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.


No, that cow also provided more leather to make shoes, it's hairs provided more bristles for tooth brushes, it's meat provided valuable nutrients, it's milk provided me calcium, same with the cheese made from it's milk.

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.


I would say that cow died for a very good cause, and if it were intelligent in anyway, it would be proud of itself (which it is not so who cares).

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.


Again, there are some nutrients only found in meat.

Name them.


And the nutrients that are present in meat are more abundant within meat than a jar of nuts, and products made from the parts of animals make my life more convinient, safe and healthy. I love animals!

"Convenience" is your bottom line, isn't it? Me me me.


I am just annoyed at the casitgation toward meat eaters because you feel you are on a higher moral plane.

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.


Now who said that? If there is a better way to farm animals, than I'm all for it. I have nothing against animals dieing to make me healthy, safe, and to satisfy my hunger, but I do sometimes have a problem with how they are killed. A more humane way is certainly a good thing.

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.)


Not equal, as in not worthy of the same moral consideration I would give toward a Human. That's why the Human on Human acts you guys like to use don't work here, unless animals were on our moral plane. They are not, they are beneath us, therefore they are not granted the same moral consideration.

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.


However, that does not exclude animal cruelty. Cruelty of any life is wrong, however eating meat is not cruel, it's quite necessary for our health and well-being.

Killing animals for food is cruel and unnecessary.



What is a humane way to kill an animal?

Kill the animal as quickly as possible.

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?


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.

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:


Because I like cats and I like things that kill other things. Fascinates me. Herbivores are the prison bitches of nature.

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.



Why is speech relevant?

Because that is what led to civilization. Speech and the written word.

In your opinion, would a more civilised society give more or fewer rights to sentient animals than our society does now?

or octopus testicles (funny how one letter changes the whole meaning)
According to Robin Williams, they have 8 legs so that means 4 sets of balls.
At least you won't go hungry.

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 worked at a "chicken farm" where they raised nothing but chickens
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

worked at a "chicken farm" where they raised nothing but chickens
the cages they were kept in was clean

How many chickens in what space?
Define "clean"

and relatively 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.

How many chickens in what space?

the cages themselves were like two foot cubes of chicken wire
there was nothing to get dirty
there were between 2 and 3 birds per cage

as a rough guess there were about 600 cages per row
there were 4 rows in each building

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.

This reminds me of something, I know I've read something like that before. Oh yeah, the abortion thread:
Chances are you'll come round to my way of thinking once you've grown up a bit. I don't expect to convince you now, but at least I can plant some seeds.

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"...
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.

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.


Didn't you get the point the first time?

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.


I'm no psychology major but you seem to have a severe superiority complex.

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.



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.

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.

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?


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.

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.


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.

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.


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.

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.


Also, the amount of nutrients I get from a single steak would equal an entire bucket of alternative means of obtaining the same nutrients.

Laziness is not a good ethical argument either, Quarkmoon. (Not to mention that your claim is greatly exagerated.)


Oh, and if you research the health effects of vegetarianism vs non-vegetarianism, on average vegetarians have more health problems than everyone else.

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?

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.

Oh, by the way, you can take this one back to the abortion thread. Essentially, your argument is just speciesism. At least you're consistent in not applying any valid moral framework to your arguments.

As I pointed out before, I am superior to you in a moral sense.

I agree with Nietzsche: morality is for the weak to revenge themselves on the strong. Not saying whatshisname is "the strong," but as a general principle, morality does nothing for society.

I agree with Nietzsche: morality is for the weak to revenge themselves on the strong. Not saying whatshisname is "the strong," but as a general principle, morality does nothing for society.

You are dumb and so was Nietzche. Weakness or strength has nothing to do with it. Its also universal laws. In another universe, things could play out differently. Its not that simple. The strong(weak) can come out sitting pretty here but its delusional if you think its just by strength alone, its also circumstantial and how the cookie crumbles. It takes more work to build up than to tear down. A brute that steals ideas or work is not strong, just strong in one aspect. The jerk boss who steals his employees ideas and presents them as his own is obviously not strong. There are different strengths. That is one type of strength. If the 'strong' you were talking of were truly strong, then the weak would need no reason for revenge. I CANNOT BELIEVE THIS. THIS WORLD IS GOING TO HELL IN A HANDBASKET. LISTEN VERY CLOSELY. IT IS BECAUSE OF THE SO-LABELED WEAK(STRONG) THAT LIFE GOES ON. THE STRONG(WEAK) HERE ARE THE TRUE LOSERS. THAT IS WHY THEY *PAY ATTENTION* RESORT TO BULLYING, CONNIVING, PRIMITIVE TACTICS. IT IS THE THIEVERY OF WHAT ANOTHER HAS. THE WEAK ARE LACKING. TO MAKE UP FOR THIS, THEY LEARN TO OVERPOWER THAT WHICH THEY CANNOT COMPETE AGAINST DIRECTLY. THATS STRENGTH OF ONE KIND AND WEAKNESS OF ANOTHER. IS THE GLASS HALF EMPTY OR HALF FULL? I GUESS ITS HOW ONE DECIDES TO PERCIEVE IT. LIFE IS DECEPTIVE.

IF HYPOTHETICALLY, ONE COULD DRAW UP TWO SEPARATED WORLDS. ONE IN WHICH ARE THROWN IN RAPISTS, MURDERERS, LIARS, THIEVES, AND ALL THOSE WHICH OVERPOWER THE *WEAKER* AND THEN PUT THOSE THAT WERE NOT OF THIS STOCK INTO THE OTHER. I CAN GUARANTEE YOU WHO WOULD BE SHOWN TO TRULY BE THE STRONG AND WHERE ONE WOULD CHOOSE TO LIVE. THE FIRST GROUP ARE THAT WAY BECAUSE THEY ARE *INCAPABLE* OF PRODUCING, OF COMING UP WITH IDEAS, ETC,...THAT IS WHY THEY STEAL AND DEPEND, IN ORDER TO COMPENSATE AND MEET THIS COMPETITION IT DEVELOPS MORE AGGRESSIVE PREDATORIAL BEHAVIOR. THE OTHER REALLY DO NOT NEED THEM. PUT THEM TOGETHER. THE BALANCE SHEET IS READ THIS WAY, AT LEAST IN THIS UNIVERSE. THOSE WHO ARE THE MOST LACKING, GET THE MOST. THOSE WHO HAVE THE MOST MUST GIVE THE MOST. WHO IS STRONG AND WHO IS WEAK? HOW CAN ONE TRULY TELL?

I always wonder why people are unable to see what real strength is, that the results are not always an indicator. Just because something has power DOES NOT NECESSARILY means its truly strong. Let me give a few mindteases.

Is an adult who overpowers a child strong or a coward?
Is an adult who molests a child in favor of adult women because then he would be challenged strong or a coward?
Is someone who takes his anger out on a defenseless but more importantly an animal that trusts you weak or strong? WEAK!
If I'm armed and you're unarmed and I pulverize you, What have I proven? I've proven I've pulverized you thats all, STRENGTH HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!!!!! GET IT!!!! I JUST HAPPENED TO HAVE AN ADVANTAGE NOT IN MY CONTROL, THIS WAS NOT A TRUE TEST OF MY STRENGTH!! GEEZ

DO I HAVE TO TEACH EVERYTHING????

I agree that that is cruel. Just don't try and stop me eating meat.

the cages themselves were like two foot cubes of chicken wire
there was nothing to get dirty
there were between 2 and 3 birds per cage
I'd say that's very small and crowded for a chicken. I mean, chickens are "big" birds. having 2-3 of those big birds in that space is inhumane if you ask me.

I agree that that is cruel. Just don't try and stop me eating meat.

Why are you happy to continue being cruel?

Is it just a matter of laziness and your personal convenience, like in Quarkmoon's case?

I mean, chickens are "big" birds. having 2-3 of those big birds in that space is inhumane if you ask me.

Not to mention the fact that those chickens probably don't have enough room to even turn around in their cages. Or the fact that they never get to walk around, in their whole lives. Or that they never see the outside of a shed, or are exposed to natural light.

I'd say that's very small and crowded for a chicken. I mean, chickens are "big" birds. having 2-3 of those big birds in that space is inhumane if you ask me.
you might be thinking about roosters, the male chicken
the hen is smaller

you are correct though, these birds live their entire life in a cage
lay their eggs then when they are too old they are shipped off to campbells soup

as far as clean goes, the place didn't reek of chicken shit
and the birds were taken care of

i only worked in the layer house
so i really don't know how the birds were treated before they got there
i assume that they are raised from chicks

as far as humane
i remember seeing some video of rough treatment by workers
if anything like that happened where i worked you would be fired for it

Not to mention the fact that those chickens probably don't have enough room to even turn around in their cages. Or the fact that they never get to walk around, in their whole lives. Or that they never see the outside of a shed, or are exposed to natural light.
this is true
there were millions of these birds at the farm i worked at
and they were kept in cages the whole time

you might be thinking about roosters, the male chicken
the hen is smaller
Oh no, I know what hens look like and they are relatively big.

as far as humane
i remember seeing some video of rough treatment by workers
if anything like that happened where i worked you would be fired for it
Yeah, it drives me crazy when I see people grab them by the feet and treat them like they're boxes.

this is true
there were millions of these birds at the farm i worked at
and they were kept in cages the whole time
You think that's humane?
Like I said, some factories are better than others, but I think most of them are inhumane.
Maybe they were clean where you worked, but they were crowded, didn't get to exercise, etc.
What were they fed anyway?

Has anyone mentioned the fact that this is conditional "morality" based on the availability of mass-produced non-meat products? That for a human to survive in the wild on vegetable matter alone would probably occupy his entire waking life, if possible at all???

oh, and speaking of roosters... do you know what they do with male chicks?
They hatch, and the vast majority of them are immediately killed... according to some people (I can't say I know for sure this), they're either put in dumpsters and just let suffocate, or they're ground up alive into animal feed or fertilizer, etc.
Keep in mind that one half of all eggs are male.
Why do they kill them? because one, roosters are aggressive, and two, roosters don't lay eggs. The only reason they let a very small percentage of those born live is to keep making hens.
and speaking of aggressiveness, since chickens are so crowded and stuff, they also cut (half of) their beaks off (I think this is for meat chickens). They do this because crowded conditions make them stab each other with their beaks, which is of course bad for business.
And that's supposed to hurt... also, I think they use a hot thing to cut their beaks off, so that they don't bleed too much... does anyone know more about beaks? hmm... I'll make a new thread.

What were they fed anyway?
i am not sure
the feed ran on a conveyor belt

edit
the entire purpose of the farm was to produce eggs
and of course the chicken for kfc and campbells

You think that's humane?
Like I said, some factories are better than others, but I think most of them are inhumane.
The base word of "humane" is "human".
Last time I checked, chickens aren't humans.

It has nothing to do with what is being treated, it's how they're being treated.
You really should look up the definition, you obviously don't know it.

the place i used to work has a website:
http://www.roseacre.com/

It has nothing to do with what is being treated, it's how they're being treated.
You really should look up the definition, you obviously don't know it.
Point is, they're chickens. They're bred to die. Die and breed. That's it. I don't care how they do it. Just get the damn thing to lay eggs and die so's I can eat 'em.

superluminal:


Has anyone mentioned the fact that this is conditional "morality" based on the availability of mass-produced non-meat products? That for a human to survive in the wild on vegetable matter alone would probably occupy his entire waking life, if possible at all???

We already produce more than enough non-meat food to support the world if everybody turned vegetarian tomorrow.

Hapsburg:


Point is, they're chickens. They're bred to die. Die and breed. That's it.

Yes. They are bred, live and die entirely for your pleasure, and the pleasure of people like you.


I don't care how they do it. Just get the damn thing to lay eggs and die so's I can eat 'em.

Do you care about anything other than yourself, Hapsburg?

Point is, they're chickens. They're bred to die. Die and breed. That's it. I don't care how they do it. Just get the damn thing to lay eggs and die so's I can eat 'em.
Pull the pole out of your ass. Nothing should be bred to die. Chickens feel just as much as any other animal, so why should we be able to victimize them just because they 'taste good'?

so why should we be able to victimize them just because they 'taste good'?
Because they taste good. :D

You didn't answer the questions, Hapsburg.

If you have nothing intelligent to say, please go somewhere else to play.

That was an answer. HE asked why we should be able victimize chickens.
I said, "Because they taste good". And guess what? They do taste good. It's not like it's my fault that chicken tastes good, so don't fuckin' harp at me, govvie boy.

Leopold, are you sure?
"We are proud to offer Free-Roaming eggs which come from chickens that are kept in a open, cage-free hen house. These eggs are unique also in that the feed is completely all-natural, with no added hormones, animal fats or animal by-products. The chickens are free to run loose around the hen house. We offer these eggs to the consumer in a 100% recycled paper egg carton."
So either they're outright lying about their housing conditions, they've changed (which I doubt), or you're mistaken/lying.
if they really do that, it sounds like a humane place.
The pictures are outdated and some do look like they're crowded... but I guess you really can't expect them to give them 50 feet a chicken now can you? :P

Leopold, are you sure?
"We are proud to offer Free-Roaming eggs which come from chickens that are kept in a open, cage-free hen house. These eggs are unique also in that the feed is completely all-natural, with no added hormones, animal fats or animal by-products. The chickens are free to run loose around the hen house. We offer these eggs to the consumer in a 100% recycled paper egg carton."
So either they're outright lying about their housing conditions, they've changed (which I doubt), or you're mistaken/lying.
if they really do that, it sounds like a humane place.
The pictures are outdated and some do look like they're crowded... but I guess you really can't expect them to give them 50 feet a chicken now can you? :P
i worked there about 10 to 15 years ago
when i worked there the conditions were as i described
rose acres is the parent company
i worked at jen-acres
they also have farms in jackson county, one of them being cort acres

jen acres is about 10 minutes from where i live
it wouldn't be too much trouble to get an update

i seriously doubt if they let millions of birds run loose in the houses

if you are unfamiliar with the size of the operation it's hard to understand
why they would not let the birds "free roam"
we are not talking about a small time operation
rose acre farms provides eggs for the entire united states

i will go and check at jen acres about the "free roaming" chickens

That was an answer. HE asked why we should be able victimize chickens.
It's SHE, bitchboy. And it was a pathetic answer.

I said, "Because they taste good". And guess what? They do taste good. It's not like it's my fault that chicken tastes good, so don't fuckin' harp at me, govvie boy.
Your dog probably tastes good too, should we start breeding dogs in factories so that we can gorge on them too? More flesh on a dog, afterall.

alpha
http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/food/rose.htm

To original post:
I believe he has the right to do whatever he wants. Consequences are left up to everyone else. I veleive that he has the right to kill you too and me.

Im no christian, but in the words of Jeebus: Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.

Personally, Id beat the guy with the shovel

alpha
here is some more info on rose acres
http://www.daytondailynews.com/project/content/project/farm/1201followingfood.html

Rose Acre Farms has 16 million laying hens — second-most in the country — but its business goes well beyond production.
At the company's Cort Acres farm in southern Indiana, 2.2 million chickens in 34 hen houses lay about 1.5 million eggs a day.
The eggs are processed — cleaned, sorted by size and put in cartons — before leaving the farm in semi-trailers. Each trailer is capable of hauling up to 314,000 eggs to distributors or directly to warehouses of supermarket chains such as Kroger and Aldi.
Cort Acres' newest egg separating machine alone can process more than 1.5 million eggs during a 9 1/2-hour shift.

remember, the above applies to cort acres
rose acres also has 3 other chicken farms in the area

so as you can see the claim that chickens "free roam"
is really hard for me to beleive

like i said i'll check it out tomorrow.

if we take the above figures we can see that cort acres alone
ships approx. 12 semi loads of eggs a day

how many people here can live without the aid of factory mass production of food?, could most of you live happily int he wild and hunt your own animals all of the time and be happy doing it yourself, be honest?


and about animal cruelty i dont like mass farming and i dont support it, but i dont complain about it that much because its going to be there regardless of what i say,

but the real question here im asking is this i guess, i wont hide my motives, how many people complain about animal cruelty and say its wrong to farm like that, and still eat fast food like Mc donalds burger king KFC etc, or still purchase meat from supermarkets or butchers, or still participate in the upkeep of the industry?,


peace.

superluminal:

We already produce more than enough non-meat food to support the world if everybody turned vegetarian tomorrow.

Ummm, yeah... I'd like to see the official statistics on that. Anyway, I agree that the 'living' conditions of our food animals are generally inexcusable. Eating meat is, however, not. Animals eating other animals is as 'natural' as mating, sleeping, and breathing. The only arguments against it are inventions of humans with advanced technology who like to anthropomorphize bunnies, mice, and bears, etc. Our food animals should have free range until the day of their culling. And in addition, the population of the world should be reduced by a factor of 10 or more so that the burden on other species would be reduced drastically.

You seem very militant about it James. Interesting.

...but the real question here im asking is this i guess, i wont hide my motives, how many people complain about animal cruelty and say its wrong to farm like that, and still eat fast food like Mc donalds burger king KFC etc, or still purchase meat from supermarkets or butchers, or still participate in the upkeep of the industry?,


peace.

Me, unfortunately.

BTW, Empty. You're very pretty (I assume you avatar is you?).

Me, unfortunately.

BTW, Empty. You're very pretty (I assume you avatar is you?).



no,

im a guy, and the avatar/picture is of my wife, but im prettyer, well buddha might think so anyways, (joking buddha keep your bra on)



peace.

Sorry about that fella! And I seriously doubt that you're prettier...

so as you can see the claim that chickens "free roam"
is really hard for me to beleive

like i said i'll check it out tomorrow.

damn, that's a lot of chickens.
It's hard for me to believe too!

and about animal cruelty i dont like mass farming and i dont support it, but i dont complain about it that much because its going to be there regardless of what i say,
Well, you never know. Getting other people informed CAN make a difference. First a small one, then a big one. That's how things change. People don't just suddenly realize things are bad, people around them have to point it out and stuff...

but the real question here im asking is this i guess, i wont hide my motives, how many people complain about animal cruelty and say its wrong to farm like that, and still eat fast food like Mc donalds burger king KFC etc, or still purchase meat from supermarkets or butchers, or still participate in the upkeep of the industry?,
Well, I don't buy my own groceries.. so that's part of why I do eat mostly chicken, but I don't eat chicken very often either. I'm planning on becoming a vegetarian once I buy my own groceries :P

We already produce more than enough non-meat food to support the world if everybody turned vegetarian tomorrow.

Ummm, yeah... I'd like to see the official statistics on that.
I don't know about that, but if everyone turned vegetarian tomorrow, we could definately end world hunger. Farming plants is much more efficient than farming animals. It takes up less space, less resources, etc. Think about it... to keep animas you need a lot of space. You need the actual housing, the waste management stuff, AND you also need the space for growing the food the animals eat.

I agree that the 'living' conditions of our food animals are generally inexcusable. Eating meat is, however, not.
I DID mention it before didn't I? well, if I didn't, I agree... I'm not so much against EATING meat, it's how it's treated before that I hate.

Sorry about that fella! And I seriously doubt that you're prettier...



its no problem,

and i dont know it depends who is looking, beauty is in the eye of the beholder,

i personally think she is better looking, but she thinks i am better looking, so its all subjective,


peace,

Hapsburg:


That was an answer. HE asked why we should be able victimize chickens.
I said, "Because they taste good".

So, you think it is ok to kill chickens just for your personal pleasure.

You've put yourself into the same moral category as serial killers.

I don't see that any more interaction with you on this topic could be productive.

superluminal:



We already produce more than enough non-meat food to support the world if everybody turned vegetarian tomorrow.

Ummm, yeah... I'd like to see the official statistics on that.

No need, but check for yourself if you like. Here's enough to get you started.

1. All meat animals need to be fed.
2. To produce 1 kilogram of meat requires that the animal eat 10 kilograms of grain or other vegetarian food which humans could eat directly.
3. In fact, humans do not eat that food directly. Grains for human consumption are grown separately from grains for animal consumption.

Therefore, to produce meat from, say, cows, you need three fields on your farm. One field where the cows live. One to grow the cow food. And one to grow vegetable food for humans. Eliminate the cows and you could use all three fields for growing vegetarian food for humans.


Anyway, I agree that the 'living' conditions of our food animals are generally inexcusable.

That's a start. You need to realise that by eating meat you perpetuate those living conditions, however. Animals are bred solely for food. The great majority of those animals simply would not exist if people stopped eating meat.


Eating meat is, however, not. Animals eating other animals is as 'natural' as mating, sleeping, and breathing.

The "natural = good = right" argument doesn't work. Many things are arguably "natural", but we do not allow them because we are enlightened human beings who try to act ethically. "Every man for himself" may be natural, but we have laws restricting violence. Sex with minors may be "natural", but we restrict it. Breeding until all the available resources are used up may be "natural", but we are starting to recognise the environment as worthy of protection from ourselves in many ways.

In any case, humans these days eat far more meat than they would have "naturally" as hunter-gatherers. So, if you're arguing for naturalism, you should be arguing for reduced consumption of meat, at the very least.


The only arguments against it are inventions of humans with advanced technology who like to anthropomorphize bunnies, mice, and bears, etc.

On the contrary, anthropomorphic arguments do not come into the equation at all. It is not necessary that animals be "the same" as humans to be worthy of protection - see my posts to Quarkmoon. It doesn't matter if they are "not as smart" as us. We ought to act ethically regardless. The very fact that we have power over them ought to lead us to carefully consider their rights, rather than simply abusing that power because we can.

Apply the same arguments to slavery, and see where that gets you. Slavery is "right" because slaves aren't "proper" humans, like the rest of us. They are "lower", and therefore we can do what we like with them.


Our food animals should have free range until the day of their culling.

This is a statement of animal welfare as opposed to animal rights. Your position is "The bottom line is we can do what we like with animals, because they are property, but we should try to treat them 'humanely' up until when we slaughter them for our enjoyment."

That's better than nothing, but why not go all the way?

Why cull at all if it is unnecessary?


And in addition, the population of the world should be reduced by a factor of 10 or more so that the burden on other species would be reduced drastically.

I think the carrying capacity of our planet is probably ok for our current population, if we did things right, but I admit I'm not certain about that.


You seem very militant about it James. Interesting.

Only as militant as I am on a number of moral issues.

It annoys me when people try to defend the indefensible, and do so just because it backs up their own selfish interests or desires. I hope that a little education can make a difference.

People are very apathetic. Many just don't bother looking into the moral implications of their own behaviour. But others, after becoming aware of the issues, instead of confronting them, they instead try to rationalise their behaviour. Deep down, they know what they are doing is wrong, by they never confront that in any real sense.

Look at this debate. People keep raising the same rationalisations over and over again. Then, when they run out of arguments they attempt to start a personal argument in order to distract from the issue. In the end, they simply disappear, and pretend to themselves that the discussion never happened. Some even come back 6 months later, having apparently forgotten all previous discussion. And you know what? I think they even believe their own propaganda.

People seldom change their minds when backed into a corner. But a few might, perhaps several months or years down the track, when they forget the heat of the moment and actually think rationally. That is what I hope for in threads like this.

With regard to this particular debate, ask yourself: if the meat-eaters here really think eating meat is necessary and/or good, why do they feel they must defend their practices? Why so defensive and irrational in their arguments?

EmptyForceofChi:


how many people here can live without the aid of factory mass production of food?, could most of you live happily int he wild and hunt your own animals all of the time and be happy doing it yourself, be honest?

Probably not many people. But we're talking about whether factory farming of animals is necessary. For example, I have very few problems with the large-scale farming of wheat.


and about animal cruelty i dont like mass farming and i dont support it, but i dont complain about it that much because its going to be there regardless of what i say

That's not true. The meat industry relies completely on meat consumers. No demand would mean no supply.


but the real question here im asking is this i guess, i wont hide my motives, how many people complain about animal cruelty and say its wrong to farm like that, and still eat fast food like Mc donalds burger king KFC etc, or still purchase meat from supermarkets or butchers, or still participate in the upkeep of the industry?

Well, obviously vegetarians don't eat McDonald's burgers, KFC etc. If they did, they wouldn't be vegetarians.

My partner often complains about people who say "I'm vegetarian... but I eat chicken and fish!" Chicken and fish are animals, and are meat. If you eat chicken but not beef, maybe you're figure-conscious, or on a health kick or something, but you're not vegetarian - and you shouldn't claim to be one.

There is no great cruelty to animals than depriving them of their habitats through human overpopulation.

Kill an extra - stupid, retarded, ugly, delusional - human today.

Well, James, as I've said before, I can't make an ethical argument for the eating of other creatures. And in fact, I agree with most of what you are saying. I have never smoked cigarettes but find myself in (what I imagine to be) the position of a smoker who knows how bad it is for him, but can't muster the self disclipline/moral fortitude to stop.

I may just give the vegetarianism another try.

superluminal,

I sympathise with you completely. At least you admit that there are no ethical arguments for eating meat. That's an excellent start.

At least you admit that there are no ethical arguments for eating meat.

If you include cannibalism in that scope, there are excellent ethical arguments for eating meat.

James R:


Look at this debate. People keep raising the same rationalisations over and over again. Then, when they run out of arguments they attempt to start a personal argument in order to distract from the issue. In the end, they simply disappear, and pretend to themselves that the discussion never happened. Some even come back 6 months later, having apparently forgotten all previous discussion. And you know what? I think they even believe their own propaganda.

It sounds like you're describing Jan Ardena, or any Creationist on this forum!

Android: Cannibalism was usually performed on a recently dead loved one or a great and honorable enemy. In either case the individual either died of unrelated causes or would have been slain anyway. And why waste meat?

Only a bare few groups, such as the Aztecs, slain their kin without provocation. In most cases even then, the slain individuals believed that they were being sent to be favored servants of their gods.

So, you think it is ok to kill chickens just for your personal pleasure.

You've put yourself into the same moral category as serial killers.
So you're comparing killing chickens, a stupid fucking bird, to the killing of humans, an intelligent primate.
:bugeye:
Ach, mein gott in himmel!
There's a vast difference between the two. The most notable is: humans are better evolved. We're at the top of the food chain. Not them.

"bBt chickens are cute!"

I agree, but they are also delicious.

lol, I like chicken...especially with roast potatoes and gravy

Hapsburg:

So you're comparing killing chickens, a stupid fucking bird, to the killing of humans, an intelligent primate.

Both are sentient beings.
Both are intelligent. Both can experience pain, discomfort, distress, and basic emotions. Both can enjoy life.

Merely because chickens aren't exactly the same as humans doesn't automatically mean that they don't have basic rights.



The most notable is: humans are better evolved.

No. Just no. In evolution, there is no such thing as 'better evolved'.



We're at the top of the food chain. Not them.

And your point is...? Rape is prevalent in nature. Are you going to argue that rape is morally correct as well?

No. Just no. In evolution, there is no such thing as 'better evolved'.

Better evolved for certain situation. Being delicious and defenseless, they are quite certainly not very well evolved for the situation they are in.

That's not really an argument. The chinese eat everything. ;)

Communist Hamster:


Being delicious and defenseless, they are quite certainly not very well evolved for the situation they are in.

Let me get this right. Your argument is that because you can exert power over these innocent and defenseless creatures, that makes it right?

You could probably rape young children, too, and argue that they weren't were "well evolved" in terms of protecting themselves against you. Would that make your actions ok, in your eyes?

No. Just no. In evolution, there is no such thing as 'better evolved'.
Let's see...
Humans: Live in towns, cities, etc. Have the ability to articulate complex speech. Have the written word. Can think philosophically, etc. Have complex weapon and toolmaking abilities.

Chickens: Buk-buk-buk-buk-buk-buk-ah!

:rolleyes:

Let's see...

Let's see... nope, you've missed the point yet again. Human are no more 'better evolved' than chickens. They are, however, well adapted to urban environments. Intelligence is not necessary for survival... just look at how successful bacterium are.



Chickens: Buk-buk-buk-buk-buk-buk-ah!

How many chickens exist in the world today? They are far from becoming extinct, aren't they? So I wouldn't call them 'failures'. They are adept at surviving in their current environment.

Let me get this right. Your argument is that because you can exert power over these innocent and defenseless creatures, that makes it right?

You could probably rape young children, too, and argue that they weren't were "well evolved" in terms of protecting themselves against you. Would that make your actions ok, in your eyes?

There we are, comparing chickens to humans again. It doesn't work like that.

Self-control and especially morality are traits of higher beings, not lower ones. This is the price of evolution. For a human to discount the reality of morality, I would use the term "sin" because it is the refusal to take responsibility for that which we knowingly have within our power. To be at the top of the food chain and compare yourself to animals for the sake of excusing behavior is total bs. Animals are not subject to this level of judgement because they are more innocent and are not as aware. They do not have the ability to curtail evil, we do. We can recognize it within ourselves and make decisions regarding it. With any and all knowledge comes responsibility and obligation. We must deal with this realization, morality. Nature gives us the information, how we deal with it is up to us. Our sentience is at a much greater degree than any lifeform on this planet. Because of this we must honor and respect LIFE because we are *sentient* and have been given this awareness and power. We are not only responsible to eachother but to all lifeforms on this planet and the environment. Though we enjoy the seat and priviledge at the top, does not give us the right to abuse it. This abuse does not have a one-sided repercussion but it is also at the expense of our own further evolution. Unfortunately, the majority of humans do not deserve to be at the top of the food chain. They do not want to take responsibility for their actions which is what humanity and this planet depend. Those who would be corrupt would find them easy followers. More evolved animals also possess an innate sense of morality. Just look at your pet, how it comes from a place of sincerity and how it loves you. How it does not mistreat you, and does not want to be mistreated. How it wants to be treated fairly and to treat others fairly. This is the truth.

James R, do you support the animal rights protestors who dug up that womans grave, because her children bred guinea pigs for animal testing? Do you support those who terrorised the workers who tried to build an animal testing facility?

James R, do you support the animal rights protestors who dug up that womans grave, because her children bred guinea pigs for animal testing?
jesus christ, you have to be kidding.
they actually dug up a grave?
talk about your average numbnut.

bullshit like that is the reason the patriot act was passed

Do you support those who terrorised the workers who tried to build an animal testing facility?
this is what i don't understand about PETA
they are against animal testing
but yet they don't mind taking advantage of the results of it.

animal testing, sure it's disgusting
but our lives have been improved 100% because of it.

Communist Hamster:


There we are, comparing chickens to humans again. It doesn't work like that.

Obviously not for you. I guess you're one of those people who believe that, just because you are human, that makes human beings special, which gives them the right to treat all other creatures as nothing more than objects for their own pleasure.

It is a pity there's no ethically valid argument for your view.


James R, do you support the animal rights protestors who dug up that womans grave, because her children bred guinea pigs for animal testing?

No.


Do you support those who terrorised the workers who tried to build an animal testing facility?

Depends.

Anyway, stick to the point. How is this relevant to whether or not eating meat is cruel or justifiable?

Why are you trying to divert attention?

CH:


James R, do you support the animal rights protestors who dug up that womans grave, because her children bred guinea pigs for animal testing?

Why is it that whenever someone mentions that they support animal rights, people immediately ask if they support terrorism committed by a tiny minority of extremists?

Oh Communist Hamster, you are communist. Do you support the Stalin regime, who murdered millions?

alpha
i never went to jen acres like i said i would
but i also didn't want to leave you hanging
here is something i found online which corroberates my description of jen acres

As the eggs are laid, they roll away from the hens and onto a conveyor-belt system that carries them to the front of the laying house. The eggs are then transferred to a main belting system that carries them from the houses to the egg-processing line, where they are organized into rows, 12-eggs-wide, by an orienter and conveyor system
http://www.packagingdigest.com/articles/200510/30.php

the above fits well with what i know of jen acres
it also seems to prove that the hens do not "free roam"

LOL... packagingdigest.com... there are websites for just about everything.

Interesting that they don't have any pictures of the hens though.

Do you support the Stalin regime, who murdered millions?

Stalin wasn't a communist. I support animal rights.

With regard to this particular debate, ask yourself: if the meat-eaters here really think eating meat is necessary and/or good, why do they feel they must defend their practices? Why so defensive and irrational in their arguments?
This line grated with me.

A little over a year ago I'd stopped eating meat because I'd started to feel disgusted with myself for eating animals. Having suffered from anaemia for a long time (having had many blood transfusions in the past), I increased my iron and vitamin supplements and was happy with my decision and my bloodcount was within a normal range for me. Then I found out that I was pregnant and was advised again to increase the iron tablets to the point where I was not only on iron tablets, but also on iron water as well, since my red blood count had again dropped dangerously low (due to complications that arose early on in my pregnancy). I was told to again increase my iron supplement intake, along with vitamin C and calcium because of the fear that my health and that of my child's would be at risk. By this point, I found myself consuming green vegetables and vitamin C rich foods and iron to such an extent that I had started to feel ill.

The risk of another blood transfusion was too great and I was told that I had to go back to eating red meat in particular. Iron injections were rejected as they'd failed in the past and the chance of permanent scarring was too great. I had been suffering from other complications during my pregnancy at this time and tests revealed that my low blood count was a contributing factor. So I re-started to introduce meat products back in my diet during my pregnancy. However I found that I could not even tolerate beef in any way, shape or form. Lamb was barely tolerable, but at least it did not make me throw up like beef did. My red blood count did not increase but at least stabilised and I was told to keep taking the iron supplements and keep eating iron rich foods everyday, especially red meat. I was given two blood transfusions in the week after the birth, but they did not take.

After I gave birth, I thought that all would be fine and I could go back to not eating meat again and just stick to the supplements and slowly build my red blood count back up. However that did not take and I then discovered that breastfeeding took so much out of me as well that a balanced diet including meat and iron supplements was the only way that would not result in another hospital stay. I was then told by my specialist (herself a vegetarian) that if I wanted to remain a vegetarian, I'd have to stop breastfeeding as I barely had enough for myself, let alone my son and within 3 weeks after his birth, he'd re-lost the weight he'd managed to put on after we left the hospital.

So as of today, I'm still a meat eater and I am still taking iron supplements and having blood tests twice a week, and my child is now thriving better on my milk than he did before. So now at the present time, I'm finally not falling asleep at all hours of the day because of anaemia and I'm able to breath freely as the anaemia had gotten so bad at one point that breathing had become painful. For me it was not an irrational decision but the only rational decision I had left to make and the result has been that I am now getting better. Many vegetarians will say that I took the easy way out and maybe I did. But I'm feeling better at the moment and my son is thriving and that is all that matters and that tells me that I made the right decision in re-introducing meat into my diet. I found that after the birth, I was able to tolerate beef and I now eat a balanced diet that includes meat and fish. Vegetarianism is not for everyone and I discovered that the choice I made to become a vegetarian was the wrong one for my health at that time. You may think me defensive, but I'm just letting you know that my choice to not eat meat was not the right one for me and I suffered for it as the supplements just did not work.

Bells,

Your case would be unusual, I think.

If it comes to a choice of "eat meat or die", then I think eating meat is ok. Ethics is always a balancing game, of one set of interests against another.

I have recently been reading a book on animal rights which poses the following scenario:

"You arrive home to find your house on fire. Inside is your (only) child and your pet dog. Which one do you save?"

There's little doubt that almost everybody would save their child. And I don't think even the most strident vegetarian would have a problem with that. Nobody is saying animals must have equal rights to human beings in all situations. The argument for vegetarianism, as with other ethical arguments, involves the situation most people find themselves in: i.e. they can live a perfectly healthy life without having to kill animals.

As an aside, consider the following alternative scenarios:

1. Your house is burning. Inside is your pet dog, and (for whatever reason) a child who is a total stranger to you. Which do you save?
2. Your house is burning. Inside is your child, and 5 other children who are strangers to you. You can only save either your own child, or all 5 of the other children, but not both. Which do you save?

How many chickens exist in the world today? They are far from becoming extinct, aren't they? So I wouldn't call them 'failures'. They are adept at surviving in their current environment.
Precisely. There's a lot more where that came from, so why not kill a few hundred and eat 'em?

How many chickens exist in the world today? They are far from becoming extinct, aren't they?


Precisely. There's a lot more where that came from, so why not kill a few hundred and eat 'em?

There are 6 billion human beings in the world. Why not kill a few hundred and eat them?

well duh, because they fight back!
lol...
PS: correction: 6.5 billion.

Why not kill a few hundred and eat them?
ever see the movie "soylent green"?

There are 6 billion human beings in the world. Why not kill a few hundred and eat them?
Because people meat is probably not as tasty, and is probably not as easily digested as chicken and other nonhuman meats.
Then again, I wouldn't know, I'm just speculating. Why don't you go and find out, eh? :D

Hapsburg:


Because people meat is probably not as tasty, and is probably not as easily digested as chicken and other nonhuman meats.

Cannibals say otherwise. In fact, many cannibals have testified that humans taste a lot like pork.

Chicken tastes better than pork, even if pork is better in sandwiches. Also it is a oot easier to ctah diseases of pork than chicken, so I would imagine that cathcing disease of human meat would be very common.

Because people meat is probably not as tasty, and is probably not as easily digested as chicken and other nonhuman meats.
Then again, I wouldn't know, I'm just speculating. Why don't you go and find out, eh? :D

Apparently it tastes like pork.

In Bucharest Romania they have stray dogs roaming freely all over the streets. Its been that way for 20 years. 20 years ago the people moved from the subs to better housing communities and left their pets behind. Today in Bucharest there are dogs on every corner of the street. Recently a Japanese businessman was muged to death by a stray dog and now the authorities are obviously claling on the E.U to help solve this problem.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060204/od_uk_nm/oukoe_uk_romania_dogs

How should this problem be solved in the most humane way?

mmmmmmmm meat, did this thread not start out with something about animal cruelty

Also it is a oot easier to ctah diseases of pork than chicken, so I would imagine that cathcing disease of human meat would be very common.
Tasting like pork doesn't mean having the same properties as pork.
You CAN get diseases from human meat, just like with any kind of meat though. Like those people in africa and the prions... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_(disease)

Hapsburg:


Because people meat is probably not as tasty, and is probably not as easily digested as chicken and other nonhuman meats.

I don't think either of those things is true.

Communist Hamster:


Chicken tastes better than pork, even if pork is better in sandwiches. Also it is a oot easier to ctah diseases of pork than chicken, so I would imagine that cathcing disease of human meat would be very common.

Yes. And it's easier to catch diseases from chicken or pork than from vegetables, too. So, by that argument, we should all be vegetarian.

How should this problem be solved in the most humane way?
i would suggest a bounty for each one
when one is brought in it would be tagged then neutered
that way they could be released and in say 7 to 10 years the problem will be none existant

Facial:


Stalin wasn't a communist.

From what I understand, Soviet Russia was in the phase of the 'rule of the proletariat'. Pretty much an authoritarian communistic society.

Hail Communism! Glory to the Reds! :D

http://www.golivewire.com/images/ib/53677_b.jpg

No, as a mattar of fact I do not support stalins purges or murder of those innocents, and i apologise for the compairson of James R to animal rights terrorists.

Apparently it tastes like pork.
Huh. Well, that's interesting. Then, why isn't it eaten commonly? There are too many people, and it could partially solve the world hunger problems.

By the age of 70, the average American will have eaten 14 cattle, 23 pigs, and 12 sheep.
http://www.dumbfacts.com/facts/directory-of-facts/pop-culture/page/6/

Huh. Well, that's interesting. Then, why isn't it eaten commonly? There are too many people, and it could partially solve the world hunger problems.

There is enough food for everybody. It is merely a matter of distribution.

Then some motherfucker needs to distributize properly, else our species gets fucked up.

And now a 5th method of politics: Democracy, Communism, Fascism, Dictatorship and...Distributisationalism

Then some motherfucker needs to distributize properly, else our species gets fucked up.

Why would they want to do that?

and...Distributisationalism
i think you would spell it Distributionalism

Hapsburg:


Apparently it tastes like pork.


Huh. Well, that's interesting. Then, why isn't it eaten commonly? There are too many people, and it could partially solve the world hunger problems.

The reason is that most people, like you, regard human beings as "special" and different from other animals. Just read this thread for examples of people who say they think all human life is "sacred", but that other animals are basically not worthy of any moral consideration at all. If them makes humans happy, that's all that matters to those people.

But surely James, animals are lower than humans, if only by a little? If not, are you suggesting that we treat the death of a chicken the same as a death of a blue-collar worker?

In times of crisis you will indeed see that the life of the average person is worth less than that of a chicken.

The reason is that most people, like you, regard human beings as "special" and different from other animals. Just read this thread for examples of people who say they think all human life is "sacred", but that other animals are basically not worthy of any moral consideration at all. If them makes humans happy, that's all that matters to those people.
Sacred? What makes you think I have any religious beliefs?
The point is, I am a human, and I am damn proud of that fact! Our species must endure, we must survive, and if that means that other animals become our food, the so-fucking-be it.
http://www.battle.net/images/star/pix/FIGHT.jpg

Communist Hamster:


But surely James, animals are lower than humans, if only by a little?

"Lower" in what sense? You're setting a scale by which you automatically place humans at the top and animals at the bottom, probably by singling out things that humans are good at. What makes animals "lower" according to you? Our ability to control them? Our supposed "high intelligence"? The fact that the bible tells us that we can use animals as we wish?


If not, are you suggesting that we treat the death of a chicken the same as a death of a blue-collar worker?

No. I am suggesting that we do not eat the chicken if we do not need to, and if to do so would be to deprive the chicken of its life for no reason other than our momentary pleasure.

Do you still not understand the simple point that we do not have to say that chickens are equal to human beings in order to recognise that it is cruel to kill and eat them?

Hapsburg:


Sacred? What makes you think I have any religious beliefs?

You seem religious in your beliefs that you ought to be able to do anything you please without regard for morality, as long as you enjoy yourself.


The point is, I am a human, and I am damn proud of that fact! Our species must endure, we must survive, and if that means that other animals become our food, the so-fucking-be it.

You missed the point again. Humans do not need to eat animals to survive! Simple.

You seem religious in your beliefs that you ought to be able to do anything you please without regard for morality, as long as you enjoy yourself.
Oh, no, I'm just a terran nationalist.


You missed the point again. Humans do not need to eat animals to survive! Simple.
We may not need it to survive, but the protein certainly helps. Ever seen a vegan person? They're bone-thin, pale, and sickly.

Besides, other animals kill and eat to survive, to feed. Why should we not? If you are so animal-rights and whatever, why don't you go tell that tiger to stop eating sheep because "it's wrong"? I'm sure he'll get a kick outta that and bite outta yer leg. :D

We may not need it to survive, but the protein certainly helps. Ever seen a vegan person? They're bone-thin, pale, and sickly.

Wrong. I know many vegans, and they are all healthy.


Besides, other animals kill and eat to survive, to feed. Why should we not?

Because we don't need to, and because we have the moral reasoning skills to recognise cruelty when we see it. Some of us do, anyway.


If you are so animal-rights and whatever, why don't you go tell that tiger to stop eating sheep because "it's wrong"?

Tigers are carnivorous. I don't think they can survive on a vegetarian diet. Humans can.

Wrong. I know many vegans, and they are all healthy.
None that I know are healthy-lookin'.


Because we don't need to, and because we have the moral reasoning skills to recognise cruelty when we see it. Some of us do, anyway.
Tigers are carnivorous. I don't think they can survive on a vegetarian diet. Humans can.
Merely because we don't have to doesn't mean we can't. Just because we can surive off vegetables alone doesn't mean we cannot benefit from the protein meat can provide.

Because we don't need to, and because we have the moral reasoning skills to recognise cruelty when we see it. Some of us do, anyway.

Why do you need a moral reason to eat meat, slaugthering animals for food and animal cruelty is not the same.

Hapsburg:


None that I know are healthy-lookin'.

I know a lot of meat-eaters which aren't healthy looking.
My point? Well, I have none, because what I've just provided is anecdotal evidence.

Now, can you provide actual conclusive research that vegetarians/vegans aren't healthier than meat-eaters?

are you suggesting that we treat the death of a chicken the same as a death of a blue-collar worker?
What class of chicken?
You couldn't really compare a dirty old blue collar worker to one of those fancy show chickens at the fair.
I suppose a battery hen is comparable to a blue collar worker.
But you can't help but wonder what the battery hen might have accomplished had it been given the same opportunities as the blue collar worker.

Anyway, in reality your killing animals every day by just existing in the civilised world. This includes vegans.
Ironically the kind of people who are vegans are also the kind of people opposed to killing people. They'll protest against killing endangered animals in the morning and then go and protest against the war in iraq in the afternoon.
Well they don't seem to realise that's like protesting against flushing the toilet in the morning and then protesting against the state of the bathrooms in the afternoon.

6 billion people on earth is "cruelty to animals", to such an extreme degree that everything else is automatically insignificant in comparison.

I believe people are supposed to kill and eat animals, and that there's nothing wrong with it in the right context.
That is on natural territories which they obtain and maintain by killing rival human beings.
A system where people die before damage is done to the environment.
Prey animals like deer and boar and hare and so on expect us to hunt them. That's something they understand, and an element of their lifestyle they're adapted to dealing with. They wouldn't be used to us not hunting them, that would actually be negative.
What they don't understand, and what they can't deal with, is the way their world is shrinking, and their resources disappearing.
If everyone was vegans we'd still need farms and crops which would take up room, farmers wouldn't allow animals to eat the crops so their habitats would still be shrinking and they'd be starving and going extinct just as they are.
I'm not happy with the current situation, but the direct killing of animals isn't the problem by any stretch of anyone's ignorant imagination.
Animals are getting killed and dieing all the time. It's what all things do, you guys have obviously been alive and bored for too long so that you can't even see that.
People hunting animals, where the shortcomings of the animal's natural attributes in comparison to it's bretheren are the cause of it's demise (as opposed to trapping or baiting or shooting), is a positive thing. Everyone should be doing that.
Every family should have a large territory which can sustain them due to it's thriving wild animal and plant life.
Ofcourse not every family currently in existence today could be sustained by the planet under this system. That's fine, all the left over people and families would naturally perish, at the hands of better people who outcompeted them or the elements of the barren wastelands they're exhiled to by the better people in the prosperous environments. This system would mean the environment can't be dented, once an area lost a touch of it's shine the people relying on that area would die before irreparable damage was done. Animals live under this system now, dieing all the time, but there's always survivors.

We should do away with commercial farming of every kind, including the farming of vegetables. In the big scheme of things there's no difference, each is equally cruel to animals. The minor "knocking cows on the head" factor of meat farming is balanced out by the factor that wild animals can and do often live in cattle country. They can't live in crop country, so they're displaced to die of starvation and thirst in less fertile country.

Ironically the kind of people who are vegans are also the kind of people opposed to killing people.

Well, the real, hardcore, environmentalist vegans are pretty militant about it. They'd rather see people hacked up than lobsters.


If everyone was vegans we'd still need farms and crops which would take up room, farmers wouldn't allow animals to eat the crops so their habitats would still be shrinking and they'd be starving and going extinct just as they are.
But if everyone was vegan, we'd only require 1/10th of the agricultural resources we use now.


Ofcourse not every family currently in existence today could be sustained by the planet under this system. That's fine, all the left over people and families would naturally perish, at the hands of better people who outcompeted them or the elements of the barren wastelands they're exhiled to by the better people in the prosperous environments.

You know, that's how it originally was, but it turned out that the better people who outcompeted their neighbors got together and formed agricultural society. Strong individuals will always lose to collectives of weak individuals.

with all this genetic research we might not have to worry about it too much longer

Hapsburg:


Merely because we don't have to doesn't mean we can't. Just because we can surive off vegetables alone doesn't mean we cannot benefit from the protein meat can provide.

You really are a slow learner. I must have made the same point four or five times to you by now, but you still don't get it.

You're 100% right that just because we don't have to eat meat doesn't mean we can't. But equally, just because we can eat meat doesn't mean we should. Get it? Its something called morality, Hapsburg. Think it over.

Dr Lou Natic:


Anyway, in reality your killing animals every day by just existing in the civilised world. This includes vegans.

You must be thinking of indirect killings. You must agree that vegans cause less direct killing of animals simply by not eating meat. So, if some killing of animals is inevitable, shouldn't a moral person seek to minimize it?

Or are you actually trying to argue that if a few animals are going to die anyway, we might as well give up and kill billions deliberately?


6 billion people on earth is "cruelty to animals", to such an extreme degree that everything else is automatically insignificant in comparison.

This seems to be a continuation of your argument above. Should we not seek to minimize the harm caused? Following your line of argument, one possibility to solve the human population problem and further reduce killing of animals would be to start killing humans and eating their meat instead of animal meat. Would that be an acceptable solution, in your opinion? The animals would benefit twice: once by not being eaten, and again by decreasing the human footprint on the ecosystem. Win win.


I believe people are supposed to kill and eat animals, and that there's nothing wrong with it in the right context.

What's the "right context"? If it makes you happy? The bottom line is: you don't want to give up eating meat because you enjoy it - no other reason. Why not be honest?


Prey animals like deer and boar and hare and so on expect us to hunt them.

Did your God create guns so the "natural order" would be better served?

Actually, while we're talking about this, let's get off food for a minute. Millions of animals are killed by humans for other reasons than food, every year. You talk about hunting. Why do humans hunt? For food? Not primarily. Most of the time these days, it's just for fun. Humans kill animals just for fun, and it's even more obvious in the case of hunting than with food animals.

Animals, in general, don't hunt for fun (except in exceptional circumstances, most often human-related).


If everyone was vegans we'd still need farms and crops which would take up room, farmers wouldn't allow animals to eat the crops so their habitats would still be shrinking and they'd be starving and going extinct just as they are.

Wrong. You haven't read the whole thread, have you?

To produce 1 kg of meat means the animal must eat 10 kg of vegetable crops - crops which could be consumed directly by humans. Eliminate the farming of animals for food, and your regain about 2/3 of the land now used for farming, with no measurable loss of food for humans.


I'm not happy with the current situation, but the direct killing of animals isn't the problem by any stretch of anyone's ignorant imagination.

You contradict yourself. Obviously, you're quite happy with the situation, since you keep saying it's fine to kill animals for your pleasure.


Animals are getting killed and dieing all the time.

Give me one good reason if you can for why should we exacerbate that. In fact, we bring additional animals into existence all the time just so we can kill them, making the problem that much worse.


Every family should have a large territory which can sustain them due to it's thriving wild animal and plant life.

Every family already has that, in effect, disregarding the distribution problems caused primarily by politics. Yet we keep chopping down the forests and killing more and more animals.


Animals live under this system now, dieing all the time, but there's always survivors.

No. The rate of extinction of animal species now is far greater than it would otherwise be without human intervention. It is estimated that a number of species go extinct every single day.


We should do away with commercial farming of every kind, including the farming of vegetables. In the big scheme of things there's no difference, each is equally cruel to animals.

Explain to me how not deliberately raising animals so we can kill them is equally as cruel, exactly.


The minor "knocking cows on the head" factor of meat farming is balanced out by the factor that wild animals can and do often live in cattle country.

Are you seriously trying to argue that biodiversity is the same in farmed fields as it is in rainforests? Wake up.

Each weak I have a death list. My procedures reminds me of Nazi German extermination camps. It even involves gassing.

It makes me realize how easy it is to be a beast. If you can do it with mice you can do it with people. And if I can do it almost anyone can. I guess human attrocities are not an abnormal phenomena. They are just absent under certain conditions.

You really are a slow learner. I must have made the same point four or five times to you by now, but you still don't get it.

You're 100% right that just because we don't have to eat meat doesn't mean we can't. But equally, just because we can eat meat doesn't mean we should. Get it? Its something called morality, Hapsburg. Think it over.
And what you haven't gotten through your governmental head, yet, jimmy, is that morals are obsolete. Morality is a pointless endevor to curb human nature. If anything is wrong, it is deny what you are: a human. Homo sapiens. A natural-born killer. A conqueror. A thinker. A creator. A builder. A destroyer. An explorer. All these rolled into one glorious animal: us.
We have the ability to kill eat animals, and we shall for as long as time permits us! What is to stop us, eh? :D

Menschheit, Vorwärts!

What is to stop us, eh?

us...

Say what?

Q:Who is going to stop us?
A:Us (or we).

Oh, I thought you were asking what I meant by "We".

Damn, that's a good point. I guess my main beef (:D) is not so much that people refuse to eat meat...it's just when people tell me to not eat meat, and get into my shit, and start mettlin' with my shit, that I get ticked off and go on the offensive.

You should eat meat. It is good for you.

Animals can be cruel too btw. Chimps can single out an individual and bully and beat it to death.

which is irrelevant to what WE should do

It merely shows that we are animals. That's all.

Ethics boards and such decide on what is allowed for us humans.

Hapsburg:


And what you haven't gotten through your governmental head, yet, jimmy, is that morals are obsolete. Morality is a pointless endevor to curb human nature.

Then I guess you wouldn't mind somebody invading your house and taking all your stuff, perhaps beating or raping you as well. As long as they enjoyed it, that would be fine with you, right?

Hey, why have laws? Laws are based on moral ideas - especially criminal laws. And moral ideas, according to you, are so last century.

Essentially, you are advocating anarchy.

But something tells me that, deep down inside, you don't believe your own rhetoric. You haven't even started to consider the implications of throwing morality away. In fact, I doubt you've considered morality at all.


We have the ability to kill eat animals, and we shall for as long as time permits us! What is to stop us, eh?

The same thing that stops other people killing you just for fun.


...it's just when people tell me to not eat meat, and get into my shit, and start mettlin' with my shit, that I get ticked off and go on the offensive.

This is marvellously inconsistent, by the way. According to your own espoused philosophy, people should be able to tell you whatever they want, and force you to do what they want, too, as long as it makes them happy. After all, they are all powerful humans. What's to stop them, eh?

Morality is a tricky thing. How do we determine whether performing some act for some purpose is moral? Both the sacrifice and the purpose need to be considered.

Purpose first.
In this case I think that the purpose in question isn't necessarily what we may think... I think that the eating of meat isn't necessarily for survival, health, or even taste, but more as an affirmation of a particular way of life. Is the preservation of a person's way of life a moral purpose? I don't know... but I do know that many people think it is.

Now the act.
In this case, the act is raising and killing a sentient being. Questions of suffering on the part of the animal are a distraction to this central point, I think... Am I right, James, that you would consider raising and killing a sentient animal to be immoral, even if that animal never suffered in any way?

Together with the aforementioned purpose, I think that the morality of the act is determined by the value placed on non-human sentience; ie sentience and non-humanity are the key determinants, right? We all agree that raising and killing plants for food is moral, because plants aren't sentient. We also agree that killing sentient humans is generally immoral.

So perhaps it comes down to a values debate... what value sentience? What value humanity? What value way of life?

Is setting a mousetrap in a grain barn a moral act? What about laying poison baits?

I breed mice for scientific experiments. It is all done with the ethics standards in mind and approved by the ethics commity. That doesn't make it less cruel.

Then I guess you wouldn't mind somebody invading your house and taking all your stuff, perhaps beating or raping you as well. As long as they enjoyed it, that would be fine with you, right?
No, I don't condone conflict within our species.


Hey, why have laws? Laws are based on moral ideas - especially criminal laws. And moral ideas, according to you, are so last century.
No, most of those are simply logical conclusions: "hey, don't kill me and I won't take your shit, okay?". I think laws should be decided by what is good or not for human society. Interperet that as you will, whether it be with the word morals or whatever. It's just that "morality" carries such a religious tone to it, and I do not condone religion.


Essentially, you are advocating anarchy.
Far from it. I am advocating human supremacy.


But something tells me that, deep down inside, you don't believe your own rhetoric. You haven't even started to consider the implications of throwing morality away. In fact, I doubt you've considered morality at all.
Again, I think rules should be decided upon by what is good or not good for human society. Morality is a religious thing, to me. The common good, that is something logical.

Hapsburg:

So, essentially, you are speciesist. You say that humans are special and fundamentally different from other animals, and so should be treated specially and differently. Yet, you point to no particular reasons why this is the case.

Essentially, you are no different from a racist. A racist says that, for example, white people are "higher" and fundamentally different from black people in important ways, and so should be given more privileges and treated as special. Moreover, white people are entitled to treat black people as "lower", and less worthy of moral consideration. Basically, they only exist to serve white people's interests.

The extreme of racism is, of course, slavery, in which black people were treated as the property of whites, to do with as they wished.

Your speciesism is no different. You condone the treatment of non-human animals as the property of humans, to do with as they wish. You accord animals no (or few) basic rights, in exactly the same way that slave owners accorded their slaves no (or few) basic rights.

What is your ethical argument for human supremacy? I can only assume it is as valid as supposed arguments for white supremacy. That is, not valid at all.

Pete:


In this case I think that the purpose in question isn't necessarily what we may think... I think that the eating of meat isn't necessarily for survival, health, or even taste, but more as an affirmation of a particular way of life. Is the preservation of a person's way of life a moral purpose? I don't know... but I do know that many people think it is.

But most people also say they believe that the killing of innocent beings without just cause is not permissible. Is preservation of a way of life sufficient cause to kill other human beings who are not threatening you? Few would say it is, I think. And yet, non-human animals are treated differently. Why? What justifies that?


Am I right, James, that you would consider raising and killing a sentient animal to be immoral, even if that animal never suffered in any way?

My argument is that raising a sentient animal simply in order to kill it for your own pleasure is immoral. The animal suffers by having its life ended.

Would it be permissible for me to "farm" human babies, raising them in such a way that all their needs were provided for, but with the proviso that I could kill them when they were, say, 15 years old? Suppose they led happy and healthy lives until the age of 15.

(It's worth mentioning here that the great majority of food animals are NOT raised in such comfort, but are raised in conditions that most people, if they knew about them, would deem as cruel and akin to torture.)


Together with the aforementioned purpose, I think that the morality of the act is determined by the value placed on non-human sentience; ie sentience and non-humanity are the key determinants, right?

I am arguing that the line between human and non-human is ethically insignificant. At least, it ought to be. If no good reason can be given for treating different species differently in regard to a particular act, then they should not be treated differently.


We all agree that raising and killing plants for food is moral, because plants aren't sentient. We also agree that killing sentient humans is generally immoral.

Correct.


Is setting a mousetrap in a grain barn a moral act? What about laying poison baits?

It depends. Are the mice competing directly with humans, so as potentially to deprive humans of needed food? If so, it may be permissible, or even necessary, to kill them. If, on the other hand, they are harming nobody, then there would seem to be no justification for poisoning them.

In a book I'm reading right now by Arthur C. Clarke, called Childhood's End, an extremely advanced race of aliens comes to earth and turns earth into an almost paradise for a while. One of the few rules they impose on Earth men and women, under their enlightened rule, is that no man or woman is allowed to be cruel to any beast. No bull fights. No hunting, unless in self-defense or to provide sustenance for humans. No cruelty to animals. And they enforce this law. They are less adamant about human-on-human cruelty.

This, to me, is an interesting insight into the mind of one my favorite authors. I wonder if he was thinking that it is more detestable to be cruel to a less intelligent creature than it is to be to one of equal intelligence. "What you do unto the least of mine, so you do unto me." --paraphrasing some verse of the bible that I hardly remember. Is that even close? Anyway, I like Clarke's opinion, even though I have a checkered past in this area.

So, essentially, you are speciesist.
Kinda.


Essentially, you are no different from a racist. A racist says that, for example, white people are "higher" and fundamentally different from black people in important ways, and so should be given more privileges and treated as special. Moreover, white people are entitled to treat black people as "lower", and less worthy of moral consideration. Basically, they only exist to serve white people's interests.
Ah, but black people are not chickens. They are people. Humans. Big difference.


The extreme of racism is, of course, slavery, in which black people were treated as the property of whites, to do with as they wished.

Your speciesism is no different. You condone the treatment of non-human animals as the property of humans, to do with as they wish. You accord animals no (or few) basic rights, in exactly the same way that slave owners accorded their slaves no (or few) basic rights.
Again, there is a difference. Racism is a form intraspecies conflict, which I do not condone. Also, I am not condoning the extremes of speciesism. Now, just because I say we can kill and eat animals doesn't mean we should wipe them out. That goes into genocide, which is wrong on any level of taxonomy. I don't we should make animals of various species go extinct. We can treat them horribly, but we don't have to. Other species are deserving of a type of respect, and in that way, I do agree with you. However, there are some animals that taste good, and eating them can be to our benefit, just as how a bear (which is, like us, an omnivore) can benefit from deer, salmon, or other prey.

Racism is a form interspecies conflict
intra

Oh. Thanks.
BTW, what would be an interspecies conflict?

one between two different species.

Huh. Then why does the word "internal" mean "inside"?

beats me, but intersexual selection is between males and females, while intrasexual selection is between the same sex. I'm following the same logic for saying interspecies conflict would be between two different species :P
also "Intra-species recognition is recognition by a member of a species of another member of the same species. "
although wiki also says inter is a prefix meaning "within", "between"...
*shrugs*

Hapsburg:

I was drawing a parallel between racism and speciesism for you, but obviously it went over your head. The point is this: racists think (for example) black people are "lower" than white people for exactly comparable reasons that you think animals are "lower" than human beings. The attempt to justify ill-treatment on the grounds of illusory differences is useless, from an ethical point of view.


Now, just because I say we can kill and eat animals doesn't mean we should wipe them out. That goes into genocide, which is wrong on any level of taxonomy.

So, killing a billion chickens a year in the US alone is fine, because there are billions more?


Other species are deserving of a type of respect, and in that way, I do agree with you.

You say that, but you don't mean it. What you actually mean is: "I won't hurt an animal unless it gives me pleasure to do so. If I enjoy the end result from hurting or killing an animal (for food, entertainment or whatever), then I have no problem with it."

Your just self-centred.

Yeah...no. I never said that we should make chickens extinct. Nor did I say that I take pleasure in killing animals. Truth is, I'd never have the stomach to do it. I've never been hunting, I've killed an animal bigger than a bug in my life.
The simple fact of the matter is, ethics take a backseat to health. Protein is a vital part of the human diet, and meat can provide that protein moreso than other things can.

For the 100000000th time, you don't need to eat meat to be perfectly healthy. Ultimately, the ONLY reason why people eat animals (in the modern world) is out of convenience and pleasure. People do not NEED to eat animals, therefore those two are the only other reasons they do it.
I agree ethics take a backseat to health. I'd probably be one of the first ones to want to eat another human if we were stranded out in the middle of some mountain range or something with no food. But the point of the matter is, when there is no health issue to worry about, ethics DOES take the... front seat...!!!! (lol)
OK, you want links? here:

According to the American Dietetic Association (ADA), American Heart Association, National Institutes of Health, British Medical Association and the Mayo Clinic, vegetarian diets offer a number of health benefits compared to non-vegetarian diets.
As an example, vegetarians tend to have lower body mass indices, lower levels of cholesterol, lower blood pressure, and less incidence of heart disease, hypertension, some forms of cancer, type 2 diabetes, renal disease, osteoporosis, dementias such as Alzheimer’s Disease and other disorders that may be diet-related.

The typical vegetarian and vegan gets adequate protein if caloric intake is adequate and a variety of foods are eaten. However, a typical vegetarian gets less protein than the typical non-vegetarian. This is generally considered a benefit for two main reasons:

Due to excess protein intake, people in affluent societies commonly lose about 30 percent of their kidney function by the time they reach their 80s (J Gerentol 31:155, 1976). The amount of protein typically consumed in the American diet, 12% to 15% protein, is probably a partial cause of this (New Eng Jrnl Med 307:652, 1982); by contrast, some high-protein diets, such as the Atkins diet recommend a 30% intake.
Excessive protein intake — particularly sulfurous amino acids which predominate in animal proteins — causes systemic acidity. To counter this acidity the body then leaches calcium from bones, potentially causing osteoporosis.
Sources: Feskanich D, Willett WC, Stampfer MJ, Colditz GA. Milk, Dietary calcium, and bone fractures in women: a 12-year prospective study. Amer Jrnl Public Health 1997;87:992-7. See also follow-up in February, 2003 issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (Vol. 77, No. 2, 504-511), which includes 72,000+ people and 18 years of data. Cumming RG, Klineberg RJ. Case-control study of risk factors for hip fractures in the elderly. Amer Jrnl Epidemiology 1994;139:493-503. Studies suggest that the Rural Chinese Diet - low-protein, no milk, and nearly vegan - results in less osteoporosis than the average Westerner's diet, as well as other health benefits similar to vegetarianism [1].

Protein is essential to both the structure and function of all living cells. Some soy-based meat analogues contain more protein per pound than beef (eg soy concentrate, which is similar to TVP). Sea vegetables also can provide even more protein per pound than beef. Wheat, rice, beans and nuts are also recommended sources of protein.


Sources suggest that even vegans who do not eat foods such as soy do not need to plan for 'complementary proteins' so long as their diet remains diverse [2]. It is recommended that all diets, from veganism to meat-eating, should contain such diversity.

Dr Per-Olaf Astrand conducted an informal study of diet and endurance using nine highly-trained athletes, changing their diet every three days. At the end of every diet change, each athlete would pedal a bicycle until exhaustion.

Those with a high protein and high fat meat (carnivore) diet averaged 57 minutes. Those that consumed a mixed (omnivore) diet, lower in meat, fat and protein averaged 1 hour 54 minutes, twice the endurance of the meat and fat eaters.

The vegetarian, high carbohydrate diet athletes lasted 2 hours and 47 minutes, triple the endurance of the high-protein group (source: Astrand, Per-Olaf, Nutrition Today 3:no2, 9-11, 1968 [6])

Ok, I don't want to post the whole damn article here. I figured i'd only post the best stuff about it, but surprise surprise! wikipedia amazes me again and pretty much everything is important and something i'd want you to see. So here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarian_nutrition

your health point- DEBUNKED!!!! Vegetarianism and even vaganism is healthier than eating meat.

Okay...What about the point that chicken, pork, shrimp, etc. tastes good?

Then you're admitting that you DO condone killing purely for your own pleasure.
We never said they didn't taste good, we're saying that ethics should come before our own selfishness and therefore we should not condone pain and suffering of other organisms purely for 15 minutes of pleasure (or however long it takes you to eat).

Hmmm...and what if I am selfish?

Everyone is selfish. It's human nature. Some more than others, though.

Then you're selfish and that's that.
There's no reason for you to keep arguing FOR eating animals, since all your coverup points have been blown away. We all know the only reason you eat meat is because you like the taste.
I don't know why you were arguing.

just nuke the whales and be done with it

I don't know why you were arguing.
Because I think it's stupid for people to tell me what the fuck I can and what the fuck I cannot eat. My food.

just nuke the whales and be done with it
No, because that would be genocidal, and I think that all endangered species should be protected and able to flourish, to an extent.

No, because that would be genocidal, and I think that all endangered species should be protected and able to flourish, to an extent.

What about malaria?

can malaria be classified as an animal?

no, but it is a species. (not endangered though)

what about amebas? they are animal wannabe's aren't they?

Amoeba belong to the same group as malaria: protozoa.

i think...

Because I think it's stupid for people to tell me what the fuck I can and what the fuck I cannot eat. My food.
I don't think anyone was telling you NOT to eat meat, we're just telling you why you shouldn't.
And you were talking about all that health stuff, so you're in the same boat.

What about malaria?
Malaria is actively out to kill us (well, it's not TRYING to kill us, it's just trying to survive, but you know what I mean). That's a different story. I've never heard of killer chickens :P

Amoeba belong to the same group as malaria: protozoa.

i think...
yeah, neither of which are animals. They're protists.
amoeba are cool. I dunno why but I like 'em.

I don't think anyone was telling you NOT to eat meat, we're just telling you why you shouldn't.

Which reverts back to you trying to force your moral/etical problems on to others, or teach if force is to strong a word for you.

Malaria is actively out to kill us (well, it's not TRYING to kill us, it's just trying to survive, but you know what I mean). That's a different story. I've never heard of killer chickens :P

Bird flu.

You never been chased by an angry rooster? Oh, they get real mean, real fast, and they can seriously wound or kill children.

Which reverts back to you trying to force your moral/etical problems on to others, or teach if force is to strong a word for you.
Huh? ok, when you have an issue with others' ethics, don't you tell them? and wasn't this whole thread MEANT to discuss ethics? I mean, don't go crying to your mommy for willingly coming into a thread meant to discuss the ethics of how to treat animals.

Bird flu.
What point are you trying to make?
Bird flu isn't even alive. It's a virus.

You never been chased by an angry rooster? Oh, they get real mean, real fast, and they can seriously wound or kill children.
No, can't say I have. And the rooster is angry for a reason. comparing malaria that has to kill to survive, and roosters who only get mad if you make them mad is pointless. I've been around roosters (I admit I haven't been all that much around them, but I have a few times) and from what i've seen they don't get mad very easily. And I've seen plenty of little kids running in the middle of chickens/roosters. ... which really isn't the point... the point is that I'd feel no guilt if malaria was exterminated (without any side-effects of course) since it existing means death/pain/suffering, especially since it's just a microscopic protozoan that doesn't think or feel or anything.
Chickens are a completely different story.

What point are you trying to make?
Bird flu isn't even alive. It's a virus.

That chickens can kill you.

A virus is life.

That chickens can kill you.
oh, you mean the chicken with bird flu?
Well, that IS a case of survival, therefore it's ok to kill the chicken. I'm not asking people to sacrifie their lives for chickens.

A virus is life.
not according to most biologists, and I agree. It can't even reproduce itself.

Don't be silly. I am a biologist. A virus is life. Just not cellular.

What do you think makes something alive?
and I said most biologists, not all. There are rumors that one or two biologists in the universe are creationists, it's no surprise there are some that think viruses are alive.
(lol, I know, I shouldn't be comparing the two. the classification of viruses is very controversial)

Is a virus dead?

i am not a biologist but i consider a virus alive
the fact that it needs a host means it's a parasite
i think most biologists will agree that parasites are a bonafide lifeform

Good point. The virus is very much a reduced lifeform dependent on others. And at the same time it is an independent entity from its host.

some nice points can be found here:
http://serc.carleton.edu/microbelife/yellowstone/viruslive.html

Is a virus dead?
For something to be dead it must have been alive at some point. Was that some kind of trap you were trying to set? lol.

i am not a biologist but i consider a virus alive
the fact that it needs a host means it's a parasite
i think most biologists will agree that parasites are a bonafide lifeform
So you consider prions, viroids, and others alive too? same goes for you suprious.
about your site (spurious):

There is no precise definition of what separates the living from the non-living. One definition might be the point at which an entity becomes self-aware. In this sense, someone who has had severe head trauma may be classified as brain dead.
oh c'mon. I don't think ANYONE defines life like that! Well, I guess them weirdos who say matter is self aware or something may do that...
Your site doesn't really answer anything.
Generally biologists have agreed on these requirements for life (and that's what I was taught):
Organization - Living things are comprised of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
Metabolism - Metabolism produces energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (synthesis) and decomposing organic matter (catalysis). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
Growth - Growth results from a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
Adaptation - Adaptation is the accommodation of a living organism to its environment. It is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the individual's heredity.
Response to stimuli - A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. Plants also respond to stimuli, but usually in ways very different from animals. A response is often expressed by motion: the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.
Reproduction - The division of one cell to form two new cells is reproduction. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.
(from wikipedia, life)

If you consider viruses life forms, then why isn't fire a life form? I mean, you could think of fire as a form of energy that reproduces itself, responds to stimuli, that "metabolizes", adapts, and grows. The only thing it doesn't have is organization.

Aren't we a selective quoter. That will then be the end of the discussion for me.

O_o... ok... isn't that the purpose of quotes? to select what you want to talk about?
I wasn't really quoting out of context or anything.

Well, I guess them weirdos who say matter is self aware or something may do that...

but this is exactly what abiogenesis and evolution says
that matter becomes self aware
which is the subject of another thread

but this is exactly what abiogenesis and evolution says
that matter becomes self aware
which is the subject of another thread
No, it doesn't.
I meant matter as in single atoms or tiny particles or something. I meant matter by itself, not matter aranged in a highly organized form capable of reproducing, blah blah blah.
And just like matter itself can't reproduce/make more of itself, matter itself can't have self awareness.
It's an emergent property. Just like life, reproduction, emotions, awareness, consciousnesss, etc.
here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergent_properties article on emergent properties. A single atom, chemical, or neuron can't think. Only a whole bunch of atoms, chemicals, neurons working together in perfect unison can be capable of thought.
It's really not that hard to understand. The bigger whole is greater than the component parts.

What do you think makes something alive?
When it lives. I'd a say a virus does that.

.................................................. .................................................. .
I want to know how many of you feel this idiot was within his rights to treat his dog how he did?

If this had been a persons life, how serious would it have been treated?

what values do you place on an animals life?

what rights does an animal have ?
.................................................. .................................................. ...
.

Well done first of all!

What people don't realise about humans that mistreat animals (in our culture anyway...important to make that distinction!) is that they treat their kids the same way. Here in the UK we have the RSPCA and they say that when they go to the home of a mistreated animal they often see cases of neglect/abuse with regards to the kids. When people have this disregard for sufferring it applies across the board. This is the greatest sadness!

Also, having been in Corrections for some thirty-eight years and not doubt having been in more altercations than anyone of you will possibly experience in your lifetime, I still have a respect for the law. anthills with firecrackers.


:

I myself have been on receiving end of lots of unprovoked violence and standing at 5'4 weighing 8 stone and being female, I'd have still jumped that fence, and indeed have come to the aid of many I thought to be in peril. Helping those in need help is instinctive not based on logic, if that is your nature that is, some are made of weaker stuff, hence the case of me being kicked in the head by four people while a crowd looked on and no one helped, hence me being kicked with ice hockey blades while a crowd looked on and no one helped, hence me being used a jump rope while someone held my ankles and others jumped over my head, and the corwd looked on, do I take this lack of care into my future dealings with those that need help no I don't!

I've spun my car (nearly risking my life-stupid I agree at this point) at a junction when I saw a girl in my rear mirror being followed and harrassed by a group of men. I pulled up aside and made sure she was ok (stupid boyfriend and his mates so no harm truely intended on that occassion) but I was there if she had been in danger. I've been with mates and rescued a prostitutue from a pimp who was about to beat her up and got my friends to walk her home! The list goes on,

u walk on by, you get no credit here.

razz
Personally i think animal should be protected, but as i always say: you only have rights or freedom when you fight for your rights and freedom.
I believe the situation your are in is called a feeling sympathy situation. you have to understand that animal and human beings are not equal, that's why we eat fish pigs beef and manny animals every day, what is that then? Well i think you might say that it is an exception, but if you still think a human's life is the same as animal then if a tiger want to kill you can you talk to it and rationalize with it? i don't think so i guess!
I understand how you feel about people beating animals and i would do the same thing if i saw someone torture their dog, but still the reason the police will take a human beings life more serious is because human beings are more important. if i killed a dog let's say, is it's family memebers gonna have concern about his death? well if it is a human being then his or her family memeber will find the killer and punish it. So if you love animal then protect them, but just remember that animals are not the same level as us and only if more people fight for the animals rights will they get their rights but clearly we don't have the majority of people in our society want to do it that badly.

JJ I think you've missed the point of the original post, this man saw a dog being beaten to death with a shovel, its a highly emotive situation and the poster reacted on instinct (his instincts are not to tolerate this level of cruelty-not everyone as I have described has this gut reaction)

Maybe he over stepped the mark beating that chap up, but thats just because of laws and the law is an ass. Yes humans are more improtant but as I also said the jackass beating his dog no doubt also beats his kids.

re eating animals that has nothing to do with being against animal cruelty. I am a meat eater by design and I eat food that has been humanely kept and slaughtered as is natures way! It's natural for us to eat meat. It's not natural to torture or be uneccessarily cruel for the sake of it and animals themeselves don't behave like this.

So when we torture and are cruel, we are at that point less than animals.

So you could say at the point the man was beating his dog with a shovel, he was worth less than the dog. Not all humans have value, some are positively not worth the air they breath, they are cruel and intolerable, hence the USA's death penalty to destroy them in the same way we in the UK destroy dangerous dogs.

'Kay, purposely hurting the thing like that, hitting it with a shovel, is cruel. Killing animals for little or no reason, that is mean.
Killing a chicken or a cow for food is a different matter though, because that's, uh...food.

did i say that i would let that guy beat up the dog? um..... no
I'm just saying and making a point that animals are different than human beings. And it's funny how we make exceptions that we are more important than animals by eating them..
It is funny how we protect a dog being beaten but we kill cows LOL
are dog more important than cows? why is it considered torture? can you beat your dog? no matter what? well i know alot of parents beat their children to teach them a lesson. Another question are you considering pet are more important than those food animals like chicken and cow?

are dog more important than cows?
Yes, actually. They're smarter, thus better and more useful. A cow can't defend you if your house is broken into. A dog can. Thus, it's useful while still alive.


Another question are you considering pet are more important than those food animals like chicken and cow?
Yes. Like I said, a pet can serve a purpose while still alive. Cows and chickens, can't really do that, besides breeding more cows and chickens. Thus, they are eaten. Also, they probably taste better than most 'pet' species.

What about a chihuaua?

Eh, some people they're cute, thus they could be useful. As a...companion or something. I dunno.