| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Sniper_Zegai
Gaien Magic Men
Joined: 08 Mar 2007
Post Count: 1169
Location: England, UK
659144 Potch
850 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
 Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 3:58 pm Post subject: |
  |
|
I guess what people mean by nature (and by people I mean me lol) is that the animals have a food chain that includes eating other animals but hunting them down and tearing them limb from limb. Birds each fish and snakes eat mice, lions eat widlerbeast (lol I think) and so on and so forth and even though livestock is a major source of nutrition for a majority of the world for hundreds of thousands of years (unless you can prove cave men had farms) some vegatarians are still hellbent on trying to get everyone to stop.
Thats the main thing I dont like about activist vegi's. Its not that they dont like meat, or that they dont like me eating meat or even the fact that they stop animal cruelty and things that are simular (becuase I dont think animals should be treated cruelly) its that they try and force me to be a vegatarian by saying we should'nt eat meat at all.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Eden
Private Godwin Army
Joined: 17 Feb 2006
Post Count: 6220
Location: Doraat
558571 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
This is a difficult question for me. I think that I am only some kind of animal that eats meat like any other carnivore. I believe that our body needs proteines from animals and that it is natural to eat them.
My problem with it is how they are treated, those animals. I can't stand to see how they "live" on a space that isn't even enough to set my feet on it, but has to be enough for half a dozen chicken. I hate it how pigs or other animals are pumped up with drugs to make them more delicious for us or make them become so huge they can't even walk... if they was any space to walk at first.
I also decided that, although I never tortured animals, I will stop any actions against animals that aren't necessary to survive, either for the need of food or protection. Since I decided this I killed no single fly or spider intentionally, only because they annoy me. At first it was rough, because everybody around me was annoyed so easily and I was it, too, but later it wasn't hard anymore. Now I can accept that they deserve to live as much as I do.
_________________
The Fool |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sniper_Zegai
Gaien Magic Men
Joined: 08 Mar 2007
Post Count: 1169
Location: England, UK
659144 Potch
850 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 7:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
lol I think Eden here put it better than I did. I think its natural to eat animals but I would prefer animals to be reared and treated naturally.
Although the slaughter process has become more modern I still think sheeps, cows, pigs and chickens should be raised in their natural settings. Not just be panned into warehouses until they are ready to be killed.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Camus the Noble
Les Renés
Joined: 24 Sep 2005
Post Count: 1881
Location: Vinay Del Zexay
1056014 Potch
224 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 9:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Luceit wrote: |
| Sure there's a possibility, but it's highly unlikely to happen in our lifetime. |
I never said anything about "our lifetime," as far as I can recall. But again, just a few centuries ago the idea that women would have equal rights as men one day was thought of by many people as beyond absurd. And those people were wrong. Will we one day see global vegetarianism? I don't know. But to take a lesson from history, we shouldn't write it off as absurd, especially if in vitro meat becomes available. Most reasonable people feel that animal suffering is something to be prevented, even if it's low on their list of priorities; should people find that a concern for animal suffering no longer interferes with one's ability to eat meat, the moral arguments against butchering animals for food will seem more and more persuasive.
| Sniper_Zegai wrote: |
| But there is a clear difference between human beings and animals. And the slaves were'nt being treated relativly well and then qiuckly killed or gassed. They were made to suffer for years and people could relate to them becuase they were human they could think, feel and love and I know animals can do this as well but I doubt enough people will be convinced that animals are close enough to humans to not be killed at all. |
This is a legitimate problem for animal welfare activists, to a certain extent. But we need to be clear about what that extent is. First, animals aren't really treated that well. I assume that your perception is based on United Kingdom or European Union animal welfare laws, but keep in mind that here in America, for instance, animals are put through far worse. And don't forget that social darwinists and slave-owners justified their racism by arguing that different races were fundamentally different in biology and brain power. Ultimately, however, people simply stopped buying that line of argument.
In Animal Liberation, Peter Singer quotes the moral philosopher Jeremy Bentham as saying:
| Jeremy Bentham wrote: |
| The day may come when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been witholden from them but by the hand of tyranny. The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor. It may one day come to be recognized that the number of the legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum, are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or perhaps the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day, or a week, or even a month, old. But suppose they were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer? |
I am not certain that society is moving toward Bentham's opinion. But given the progress we have made in repudiating racism and sexism, I think there's hope that speciesism may be simply awaiting its turn to fall. As I said to Luceit above, it's not as though most people even today believe that animal suffering is totally unimportant. It's just that they don't think it's important enough. In the distant or perhaps not-so-distant future, I would not rule out the human community expanding its circle of empathy to include other animals.
| Amyral wrote: |
| The organic food and environmental movements have been trying to say otherwise since their inception, and if it works for them, I have no problem using it myself. |
Fine, but that doesn't make the argument any less fallacious. When the organic food movement or environmentalist groups say "We shouldn't mess with nature," they're just being unreasonable. A good argument for organic food or environmentalism would have to be something to the effect of "Organic food is healthier than regular food" or "Air pollution causes health problems" or "Carbon emissions are accelerating climate change and pose a threat to civilization." If valid, those would be good arguments. Any argument that depends on an appeal to nature, like "We shouldn't mess with Mother Nature's way," on the other hand, is not a good argument.
| Quote: |
| I doubt there is any argument anyone could make that would convince you or most other moral vegetarians /vegans. |
I realize that you obviously don't care, Amyral, but there are certainly conceivable arguments that could convince me. If it were shown that animals can't feel pain, or that the meat industry causes them no pain, my moral objections to meat production would drop. I don't think there's the slightest chance of either of those things being demonstrated, if course.
| Eden wrote: |
| I think that I am only some kind of animal that eats meat like any other carnivore. I believe that our body needs proteines from animals and that it is natural to eat them. |
The difference is that, unlike other animals, you actually have the ability to reflect on whether your meat-eating is good or bad. We certainly don't need meat's proteins; vegetarians and even vegans can be easily healthy. If you think it's wrong to kill animals unless absolutely necessary, then you should not eat meat. As for the argument from nature: see above. And besides, it's no more "natural" to care about the animals you eat than it is to care about them so much that you don't eat them in the first place. Or, for that matter, to care about the bacteria on the meat enough to stick it in the oven.
| Sniper_Zegai wrote: |
| Thats the main thing I dont like about activist vegi's. Its not that they dont like meat, or that they dont like me eating meat or even the fact that they stop animal cruelty and things that are simular (becuase I dont think animals should be treated cruelly) its that they try and force me to be a vegatarian by saying we should'nt eat meat at all. |
Personally, I'm skeptical of any argument to the effect that there's a right way and a wrong way to run a movement; I think that any successful movement needs multiple wings to play different roles. In some circumstances the best way to advance animal welfare may be using the "Meat-eating is fundamentally immoral" argument of Singer and PETA, while other times more moderate voices, like the Humane Society, might be more useful. Radicalism can help to move the center, as well; simply by being perceived as a fringe group, PETA makes the Humane Society look more respectable. Likewise, the ALF does the same for PETA. And of course, it's kind of simplistic to pigeonhole any individual or group as using only one tactic. Singer, although he believes all animals should be protected, supports the much more limited Great Ape Project, which seeks to give basic legal rights to gorillas, chimpanzees, etc.; and PETA (along with the Humane Society) recently helped persuade Burger King to buy more humanely produced eggs, pork, and chicken. Even though PETA would much rather prefer Burger King stop buying all eggs, pork, and chicken, period, they realize that this modest measure will make a real difference.
Last edited by Camus the Noble on Thu Mar 29, 2007 4:50 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Luceit
Defender of Highland
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Post Count: 1002
Location: Blight's Bay
371188 Potch
2170 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 12:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
I never said anything about "our lifetime," as far as I can recall. But again, just a few centuries ago the idea that women would have equal rights as men one day was thought of by many people as beyond absurd. And those people were wrong. Will we one day see global vegetarianism? I don't know. But to take a lesson from history, we shouldn't write it off as absurd, especially if in vitro meat becomes available. Most reasonable people feel that animal suffering is something to be prevented, even if it's low on their list of priorities; should people find that a concern for animal suffering no longer interferes with one's ability to eat meat, the moral arguments against butchering animals for food will seem more and more persuasive.
|
I can agree on that.
| Quote: |
This is a legitimate problem for animal welfare activists, to a certain extent. But we need to be clear about what that extent is. First, animals aren't really treated that well. I assume that your perception is based on United Kingdom or European Union animal welfare laws, but keep in mind that here in America, for instance, animals are put through far worse. And don't forget that social darwinists and slave-owners justified their racism by arguing that different races were fundamentally different in biology and brain power. Ultimately, however, people simply stopped buying that line of argument.
|
Aren't really treated that well? I think you underestimate. I think I recall reading that animals in Britain are also also treated quite cruelly. I'm not sure to what extent can eating animals be justified because animals are rather different than us, but you do have a point; it is a form of discrimination. Unfortunately, it's not like animals could defend themselves.
| Quote: |
I am not certain that society is moving toward Bentham's opinion. But given the progress we have made in repudiating racism and sexism, I think there's hope that speciesism may be simply awaiting its turn to fall. As I said to Luceit above, it's not as though most people even today believe that animal suffering is totally unimportant. It's just that they don't think it's important enough. In the distant or perhaps not-so-distant future, I would not rule out the human community expanding its circle of empathy to include other animals.
|
What with all the racism and sexisma that people seem to percieve, the last thing most people are thinking of is how their food is doing.
| Quote: |
Fine, but that doesn't make the argument any less fallacious. When the organic food movement or environmentalist groups say "We shouldn't mess with nature," they're just being unreasonable. A good argument for organic food or environmentalism would have to be something to the effect of "Organic food is healthier than regular food" or "Air pollution causes health problems" or "Carbon emissions are accelerating climate change and pose a threat to civilization." If valid, those are be good arguments. Any argument that depends on an appeal to nature, like "We shouldn't mess with Mother Nature's way," on the other hand, is not a good argument.
|
'We shouldn't mess with nature but you see we're wearing clothes and we have purified water!' /sarcasm
The two other arguments you posted are much more valid and have more weight due to its factual nature, and I think they're almost facts anyway.
| Quote: |
The difference is that, unlike other animals, you actually have the ability to reflect on whether your meat-eating is good or bad. We certainly don't need meat's proteins; vegetarians and even vegans can be easily healthy. If you think it's wrong to kill animals unless absolutely necessary, then you should not eat meat. As for the argument from nature: see above. And besides, it's no more "natural" to care about the animals you eat than it is to care about them so much that you don't eat them in the first place. Or, for that matter, to care about the bacteria on the meat enough to stick it in the oven.
|
Sometimes, I find myself to be a hypocrite due to that; I like animals a lot, yet I eat them. When vegetarians and vegans get sick, it's because their diet is improper; lack of nutrition can happen if you don't get enough proteins because fruits and vegetables are mostly secondary proteins, which do not contain all the required amino acids.
| Quote: |
Personally, I'm skeptical of any argument to the effect that there's a right way and a wrong way to run a movement; I think that any successful movement needs multiple wings to play different roles. In some circumstances the best way to advance animal welfare may be using the "Meat-eating is fundamentally immoral" argument of Singer and PETA, while other times more moderate voices, like the Humane Society, might be more useful. Radicalism can help to move the center, as well; simply by being perceived as a fringe group, PETA makes the Humane Society look more respectable. Likewise, the ALF does the same for PETA. And of course, it's kind of simplistic to pigeonhole any individual or group as using only one tactic. Singer, although he believes all animals should be protected, supports the much more limited Great Ape Project, which seeks to give basic legal rights to gorillas, chimpanzees, etc.; and PETA (along with the Humane Society) recently helped persuade Burger King to buy more humanely produced eggs, pork, and chicken. Even though PETA would much rather prefer Burger King stop buying all eggs, pork, and chicken, period, they realize that this modest measure will make a real difference.
|
Strike in every way you can, and you shall find a path. Evidently, not everyone in the meat industry feels the same way about animals so using different approaches is more effective and appealing.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LordKratos
Seraphim Of Kooluk
Joined: 10 Mar 2007
Post Count: 269
Location: Graska
0 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 2:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
I believe that if your going to eat the meat you should know where it came from and also how the animal was treated before it was slaughtered and delivered to your local supermarket, Now afterall you can never truly know what goes on with the meat that gets delivered to the supermarket.(Imean the only true way to know is to get your own meat,or live on the farm or something like that.)
I personally eat meat and I like meat... And I will most likely keep eating meat until I die.
As long as the animal was treated humane before I came to my dinner table I don't mind eating it.
_________________
IN AMERICA! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sniper_Zegai
Gaien Magic Men
Joined: 08 Mar 2007
Post Count: 1169
Location: England, UK
659144 Potch
850 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 5:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
OK lets just get one thing straight because Im confused?
Camus, Luceit. Are you against animal slaughter? Or Cruelty towards animals before they are killed?
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kuwaizair
blauuurgggh!
Joined: 22 May 2004
Post Count: 3427
Location: Plaats
174392 Potch
0 Soldiers
1291 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'd like to just chime in again about more natural rasied meats. its hard to do that. It is expensive and requires (i guess) more and then less is produced, because of such meat will be expensive. Markets sell food from a place called (bear with me in spelling) dhartaninan farms(like the musketear guy) a chicken from them is like, 15 dollars or somthing because its apparently free range and feed natrual food.
also for chickens apparenty there is a somehwat humane way to dispose of them wich requires you hold a chicken and slowly rotate it clockwise then go faster and faster for some time then abruptly turn it the other way, allegledy the bird's neck will snap as it looks the other way or somthing. I don't know if its true, or if other methods are better.
_________________
few runes short of a set of 27
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Luceit
Defender of Highland
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Post Count: 1002
Location: Blight's Bay
371188 Potch
2170 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 11:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm against both whereever possible, and also the trapping of protected species. Today, there was a report of rare turtles caught on our shores, and all but twenty died.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sniper_Zegai
Gaien Magic Men
Joined: 08 Mar 2007
Post Count: 1169
Location: England, UK
659144 Potch
850 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 12:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If meat has to be more expensive so that animals can be treated well then so be it, as a meat eater that is something I can live with. In Britian, they dont have laws against raising animals in packed warehouse type setting but they are not allowed to be harmed in any way, and there are plenty of local farms that raise animals naturally in feilds and cost even less than the supermarket if you buy them at a butcher.
I know America is'nt as strict as Britian when it comes to animal cruelty and niether is europe for that matter. And an earlier poster mentioned that England still has animal mis-treatment. Yes that is true, some are bound to slip through the net but if the location is simply reported then those offenders will be dealt with.
Ok now I see where you are coming from Luceit. Im with you on all but one point........people should be allowed to eat meat. I think animals should be treated fairly and kindly until their slaughter date and I also think endangered species should be protected as well. But banning meat is ridiculous. I may have this view becuase I come from Yorkshire a very big farming community and rearing and selling livestick for all and any means is a big part of our history and culture.
I just cant agree with banning meat completly.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Malvagio
Liberatori di Inferno
Joined: 01 Mar 2006
Post Count: 1382
Location: Merseto
26524 Potch
63 Soldiers
123938 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 2:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
1. Are you a meat eater, vegitarian or vegan and if so why? Tell us the story of what made you do so?
I am a mild meat eater, mostly within the Chicken, Fish and Lamb category since I don't usually touch Beef. I just prefer those tastes and they are lighter for the body to eat then a big succulunt nice hearty steak....* okay so I maybe craving that too*
2. What do you think about animal slaughter in your country?
In all honesty I ain't going to lie to you all......I don't care much and feel there are more important problems to deal with. Unless its some sort of apocolypic epidemic of animals being massacred and some going extinct, then it should be front line news. Otherwise I feel our government already has laws that protect animal cruelty.
3. Do you care about how the animals you eat are reared and raised? Do you really care or do you even want to know where your food comes from?
No I don't really care about how they're raised......just don't pump them up with chemicals/drugs like KFC has been accused with doing, having bigger pieces of chicken to serve artificially. I want to eat the animal not the chemicals.
_________________
"Devoted Protector of Lord Logg and Lady Valeria" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Camus the Noble
Les Renés
Joined: 24 Sep 2005
Post Count: 1881
Location: Vinay Del Zexay
1056014 Potch
224 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 5:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Luceit wrote: |
| Aren't really treated that well? I think you underestimate. I think I recall reading that animals in Britain are also also treated quite cruelly. I'm not sure to what extent can eating animals be justified because animals are rather different than us, but you do have a point; it is a form of discrimination. Unfortunately, it's not like animals could defend themselves. |
The "that well" was in reference to Sniper_Zegai's rather rosy appraisal of animal treatment which, as I perceived it, said that animals are "treated relatively well and then quickly killed or gassed." That is the that I was talking about. I certainly did not mean to underestimate the gravity of the problem. With regards to British laws, I'm pretty sure that European animal welfare standards are considerably higher than those here in the United States. I don't have the specific details ready at hand, but regardless, I certainly didn't mean to imply that Britain was anything like an animal paradise. No doubt standards there are far from optimal.
As for whether harming animals is justifiable based on their differences to humans, I believe that the Bentham quote above deals with that question excellently.
| Quote: |
| What with all the racism and sexisma that people seem to percieve, the last thing most people are thinking of is how their food is doing. |
Very true. Most people believe there are bigger problems to deal with, and therefore write this one off. Malvagio here is a good example (more on this later).
| Quote: |
| Strike in every way you can, and you shall find a path. Evidently, not everyone in the meat industry feels the same way about animals so using different approaches is more effective and appealing. |
Exactly right. Again, different tactics are useful in different situations. Generally, when I see people within the same movement and with the same basic goals quibbling over tactical differences, I think it's a waste of time. Most people are really not interested in reading Singer's relatively abstract, philosophical arguments for vegetarianism, but they're what persuaded me. The idea that any one tactic should be used to the permanent exclusion of all others strikes me as very odd. An exception would be when the tactical differences in question are very large (an example: peaceful measures versus Animal Rights Militia-style terrorism), the situation is in fact such that only one choice can be made (like which piece to move in a given turn in chess).
| Sniper_Zegai wrote: |
| Camus, Luceit. Are you against animal slaughter? Or Cruelty towards animals before they are killed? |
The basic premise of my vegetarianism is that animal suffering should be avoided whenever possible. The factory farm system most animals go through before their deaths strikes me as very unethical. On the other hand, if an animal lives a basically happy life on a small farm and is killed with a minimum of pain, I see that as much less morally objectionable. I wouldn't say I don't have any problems with it, just that it's a much more ambiguous and uncertain situation to me. I don't really have any opinion one way or the other on the issue of humane animal slaughter. So to answer your question, I definitely care more about preventing cruelty to animals that are killed for meat, than preventing all animal slaughter. But of course the best way to ensure I don't eat any animal that was cruelly treated is not to eat any meat at all, so that's what I do.
Right now, by the way, I'm speaking purely with regard to the welfare of the animals. Taking a view toward the environment and resources, total elimination of the meat industry would be preferable. Humane slaughter might not be cruel, but it is certainly inefficient.
| kuwaizair wrote: |
| I'd like to just chime in again about more natural rasied meats. its hard to do that. It is expensive and requires (i guess) more and then less is produced, because of such meat will be expensive. Markets sell food from a place called (bear with me in spelling) dhartaninan farms(like the musketear guy) a chicken from them is like, 15 dollars or somthing because its apparently free range and feed natrual food. |
You mean D'Artagnan? :)
About the issue at hand, my response obviously would be that people just don't need to eat that much meat anyway, and the meat industry consequently does not need to be as large as it is. It's perfectly possible to be healthy, and even to have a delicious diet, without eating meat (in fact, most vegetarians are healthier than average), and again, so many resources are poured into the industry that could be put to far better uses. The vast majority of energy fails to transfer as it travels up the trophic levels (the food chain), so eating plants is more efficient than eating meat.
And as Sniper points out, the welfare of a vast number of sentient beings really should come before the mere convenience of a smaller number of sentient beings.
| Sniper_Zegai wrote: |
| I just cant agree with banning meat completly. |
It depends on what you mean by "ban." I certainly don't believe that an immediate legislative ban on producing meat should be enacted, for the simple reason that it would not work. I'm not one of those daft vegetarians that says "All killing is wrong." If that were true, washing one's hands would be an act of genocidal immorality. What I am concerned with is the prevention of animal suffering. The best way to further that goal is to not eat meat (or, honestly, any other animal products), and to do one's best to persuade others to do so. Or at the very least, buy meat, eggs, milk, and so on, from humane sources.
| Malvagio wrote: |
| In all honesty I ain't going to lie to you all......I don't care much and feel there are more important problems to deal with. Unless its some sort of apocolypic epidemic of animals being massacred and some going extinct, then it should be front line news. |
No one is denying that there are other problems in the world, many of which are probably greater than this one. But I'm not convinced by this, and my reasons why can be summed up in the question: Why should we ignore one big problem just because there are other big problems? I think the world's collective attention span is probably big enough to deal with more than one threat. There's a reason the US government has an Environmental Protection Agency as well as a Department of Defense.
By the way, I think you might be underestimating the extent of this particular problem. Your "epidemic of animals being massacred" isn't too far off the mark. We're talking about literally billions of sensitive animals who oftentimes live wholly miserable lives up to the moment of their less-than-ideal death (now see, Luceit, that was an example of underestimating the situation). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Amyral
Windriders
Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Post Count: 1355
Location: Sawgrass Landing
544907 Potch
4066 Soldiers
620 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 9:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Camus the Noble wrote: |
Fine, but that doesn't make the argument any less fallacious. When the organic food movement or environmentalist groups say "We shouldn't mess with nature," they're just being unreasonable. A good argument for organic food or environmentalism would have to be something to the effect of "Organic food is healthier than regular food" or "Air pollution causes health problems" or "Carbon emissions are accelerating climate change and pose a threat to civilization." If valid, those would be good arguments. Any argument that depends on an appeal to nature, like "We shouldn't mess with Mother Nature's way," on the other hand, is not a good argument. |
Funny thing about logical fallacies (and morals, for that matter), they don't mean anything to people who don't buy in to your reasoning. I don't find the idea that argument any less faulty than the idea that argument that animals should be afforded the same rights as humans. Perhaps it's because I don't find the opinions of philosophers any more valid than any other person, namely because I don't find the thoughts of philosophers to be evidence of anything. I just don't buy into your assumptions, so your claims that it's immoral, well, just don't mean anything to me.
| Camus the Noble wrote: |
| I realize that you obviously don't care, Amyral, but there are certainly conceivable arguments that could convince me. If it were shown that animals can't feel pain, or that the meat industry causes them no pain, my moral objections to meat production would drop. I don't think there's the slightest chance of either of those things being demonstrated, if course. |
Which, again, does nothing to go against my claim that there is nothing I can say that will persuade you. You admit it yourself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sniper_Zegai
Gaien Magic Men
Joined: 08 Mar 2007
Post Count: 1169
Location: England, UK
659144 Potch
850 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 5:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
But animals dont feel pain during slaughter, ITS LAW IN BRITIAN! TO STUN ANIMALS OR RENDER THEM UNCONSCIOUS BEFORE SLAUGHTER. Inproper slaughter and those who practice it can be sent to jail and at the very least have their license revoked. Animal cruelty is banned! its the law. You may be refering to the way animals and livestock are treated in America but in england if you know its going on there are many organizations that you can report cruelty to. Animal treatment is a big issue over here and britian is pushing law in europe for animal stunning before slaughter.
And I also agree with Amyral, when do we draw the line at animal 'rights', I dont think animals should be treated cruelly, but animal rights groups seem to be pushing the boundaries more and more. As far as I'm concerned if humans are'nt allowed to eat meat, then neither should animals. People say the "its nature" arguement is weak but it is nature and part of the natural world to eat meat and other animals. There are animals that CANT eat meat, and they dont. Thats part of nature and Im convinced that humans can eat meat and should due to the simple fact they can.
You wanna ban animal cruelty? Im cool with that. Wanna stun all animals in all countries before slaughter? Why not. Stop meat production costing thousands of jobs, putting hundreds out of business and make everyone eat Qourn? I just cant get behind that.
And also the "its OK to be extreme becuase it makes other animal groups look better" is a stupid arguement. Are you saying its ok, nay important that we have animal rights groups that attack people and their homes becuase it improves the image of other groups. hell lets just say its OK terrorists blow people up becuase it makes the groups that just talk about destroying America more credible.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sailor Sexy
Mikan weeps for Brady
Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Post Count: 2150
Location: Blight's Bay
246380 Potch
175 Soldiers
50 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 5:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| 1. Are you a meat eater, vegitarian or vegan and if so why? Tell us the story of what made you do so? |
I'm not strictly a meat eater, but I do eat meat. I eat meat because it's natural for humans to do so. Hence why we have the teeth that we do. So, there's really no story behind it other than it's human nature.
| Quote: |
| 2. What do you think about animal slaughter in your country? |
The slaughter is perfectly fine. Heck, in a way since I'm a hunter you could say that I participate in the slaughter, and while I don't care, that brings more suffering to the animals than these big production places do. Unless you get incredibly lucky and manage to shoot an animal in the head, not a likely outcome, then even hitting the kill zone on them they are still going to live for a little while. With the slaughterhouses, they get them in the heads right off the bat, since instant kill is the desired outcome due to the meat tasting better when the animal doesn't suffer. The storage of the live animals in some cases isn't the best, but they are killed quite humanely.
| Quote: |
| 3. Do you care about how the animals you eat are reared and raised? Do you really care or do you even want to know where your food comes from? |
As long as the facilities are clean, I don't really care. And that has nothing to do with the animals and everything to do with me not wishing them to get diseased since that's a bad thing. Such a waste of perfectly good steak or pork chops just because they couldn't keep the stalls cleaned and had to throw all that out, or even worse me getting sick from tainted meat.
Overall, my opinion is that as long as the animal is to be used for food, I have no problems with it being killed. We're not talking about killing animals just for fun, or sport hunting or what have you. They are being killed so we can eat them, and that's a good thing. Certainly not as cruel as all the poor animals that are killed harvesting vegetables and grains every year!
_________________
~Uguu!~ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
