Animal cruelty

Post Reply New Topic

I am not vegetarian, but I DO pay attention to how what I buy has been handled, basically voting with my wallet to support the more humane farming methods. It is a matter of responsibility and respect.

Not everyone has the financial resources to do that, unfortunately, but when possible people should try. Humane handling of the things we consume should trump upgrading to the newest gadget, for example. We can and do make these small choices every day.

You will consume the products of sweet wonderful considerate slaying. Did I get that right?

ruveyn

We'll let statistics answer this one.

You are 120 times more likely to die from a bee sting than a bear attack.

You are 10 times more likely to be killed by a dog attack than a bear attack.

For each person killed by a black bear attack there are 13 people killed by snakes, 17 by spiders, 45 by dogs, 120 by bees, 150 by tornadoes, 374 by lightning, and 60,000 by humans.

There were an estimated 100 human casualties attributed by tigers during the 21st century.

By contrast, tigers have been hunted to near extinction during the 21st century.

I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions.



"If inflicted on a human being." But they aren't being inflicted on a human being, these are a source of food. I favour my own species over that of another animal. There are many reasons to eat animals. That I enjoy the flavour and texture of their flesh is sufficient for me. Compassion is not a logical argument against the killing of animals.



But why should I 'care' for the cow? Does caring for the cow include granting it the right to breed? In a world where land and resources are steadily becoming scarcer, how would you justify feeding the millions of herd animals that we've opted to let live when doing so would lead to a food shortage for human beings? Here is my snappy slogan for a post-cow-emancipation society:

We've freed the cow, what now?

If you wish cows to have the same rights as human beings then they can also have the right to fend for themselves in the wild against predators until they discover fire for themselves. Perhaps we could release them across lands where large predators face extinction, giving them a fair chance to thrive too. Or should we apply the same morality to other animals too? Should we punish carnivorous animals that opt to eat meat? Should we prevent them from doing so?

Cows =/= human beings. We are at the peak of the food chain and this fact is perfectly acceptable to the moral sensitivities to the majority of human beings. How about we exercise that oft-upheld right we humans have and hold a referendum to decide whether animals should or should not be on the menu? Once we've exercised our right to choose will you still be so outspoken about the rights of cows or will you accept that the rights of human beings must be protected over those of the food they eat?

Cute. Doesn't change that in the wild, grizzlies and tigers are the predators, and you would be their prey.



This is essentially the same "argument" used to justify slavery and oppression of women: ie, "different, therefore lesser".




Enjoying the flavor of a creature hardly justifies killing him or her, unless wanton murder and cannibalism are now condoned. Compassion is INDEED a logical argument against killing animals, along with health imperatives and environmental concerns, among others.



Why shouldn't you?


Are you under the impression that the animals you eat are rounded up from some forest somwhere? They are purposefully bred by the millions for human consumption.



This betrays a real astonishing ignorance. It shows how little time you've put into researching your ideas. The argument from scarce resources is one for VEGANISM, not meat-eating. The grain that's recycled through the bodies of animals so that the privileged few may gorge on their flesh could be used to feed impoverished people in the grips of starvation. The average cow eats roughly 30 pounds of food each day. The beef industry raises more than 30 million cows each year. Some of those cows feed themselves by grazing on pasture, but the vast majority are raised in feedlots, where they eat corn and soybeans. The result: American cropland is pushed hard to produce an extraordinary amount of grain which could be used to feed people directly, at far more pounds of food per acre of land.




Natural carnivores must eat meat to survive and thrive. We don't.
Most animals have no sense of morality. We do.



Similar to the way slavery was legislatively supported for hundreds of years? Appealing to legal codification undermines your argument, as does the fallacious implication that there is any sort of "right" to commit violence against sentient creatures.

I was raised an omnivore. It is the way humans have been for their entire existence. I am not going to apologize for enjoying the same food that 90% of all humans do. Nature created the circle of life and who would eat what; it is part of nature's balance. We have a responsibility to show respect within that framework, but we don't have to chuck it out the window. In fact, given all the interesting things that happen when humans get too kind and mess with the balance of nature, you do have to wonder what the law of unintended consequences would do in that situation, if suddenly the entire human population stopped eating meat.

It is that sort of suggestion, that following our natures and eating meat is somehow wrong, that makes it hard for certain animal activists to be taken seriously in the general population. Our world isn't Dinotopia, and it does not have to be. We can show respect for all living things yet sometimes eat them because the food chain tells us to. I do, actually, believe that there IS a slow evolution away from the excess meat consumption of our current society, and maybe someday it will fade out on it's own, but that isn't a moral decision nearly as much as a health one: what should we be eating given the reality of the lives we live? Allowing that to naturally evolve is a good thing, and in tune with nature.

I absolutely do not advocate "man is the master" type thinking, or keeping animals penned up for the entertainment of humans, etc. I get upset at puppy mills, and we adopted a rescued adult cat when my daughter was ready for a pet. But, yes, I still buy meat for dinner. Just, well, I try to buy the free range kind, and so on. Because that sort of thing does make a difference, I've been told, and it is something realistic to ask of me.

Assuming the human was unarmed and/or untrained. Even Neanderthals, who didn't attain human levels of intelligence, knew how to make stone-tipped spears, and used this knowledge to become apex predators.

Any predator, including humans, is made of meat, and in a situation where they have enough disadvantage, might become something else's meal.

The reason people don't hunt tigers for food is that they don't want to, not that they couldn't.


This argument could be used to prove that there is no difference between humans and anything else. "You don't want to give equal rights to that rock over there? What! Don't you know that saying a rock is less than a human is the same sort of argument that was used to justify slavery?"


Compassion is a good reason for humane treatment, but I don't see how that implies not killing.

Health imperatives certainly won't get you far. People smoke and drink themselves to death, and they aren't about to stop either.


Certainly "that's the way the law is written now" is not an argument for anything. But you're wrong to say that animals are sentient. Perhaps some of the extinct primate species, especially Neanderthals, might be considered sentient. Chimps might be close enough for concern. But cows and sheep and pigs?

Similar to the way chickens, cows, and pigs are likewise unarmed, and defenseless against human cruelty.




A laughable analogy. The creatures we eat are not only animals just as we are, we as a kingdom are characterized by similar motivations and responses, and the ability to suffer.




And yet the death penalty for petty theft would be considered "cruel and unusual punishment", whereas we are speaking of creatures whose only crime is to be born under the dominion of man.




Simply absurd. Sentient means the "ability to perceive and feel". If you think animals have no ability to feel pain, I can't help but shake my head at your lack of education, empathy, and experience with animals. Also, why admit "Compassion is a good reason for humane treatment" is you don't believe animals are sentient?

Were I to head into the wild to face lions, tigers and bears I would do so equipped with a rifle. There is a very good reason tiger and bear attacks on humans are so rare - they have learned to avoid a superior predator. Arguing that a tool-using species of our advancement has a disadvantage to a physically stronger opponent that lacks opposable thumbs is fairly spurious.



I have never upheld the concept that 'women' are inferior to men. We are talking about a different species, not gender differences. Had women been on the menu for the reasons you cited you might have a valid point.



'Hardly justfies' according to whom? We're arguing morality here, and morality is a far from universal code. I choose to accept that human beings are the dominant species on planet Earth and that other animals exist as a source of food. This is the natural order of things.



Because I do not.



Which I already stated. To clarify, if you wish to elevate cows by giving them the same rights as humans, does this include allowing them to breed without restriction, thus using up more of the decreasing stock of vegetation.



I refer you to my previous point. You are suggesting that we do not kill cattle. A herd animal that is protected by law from humans will thrive in a country where predators are few and far between. Besides, if you are going to argue for the protection of cows from humans you must take responsibility for the protection of the cows from other predators. Eventually there will be competition between ourselves and the cows for food, as their numbers increase due to their primary predator opting out of the food chain. The food we currently allocate to fattening up animals for slaughter would be nothing compared to the amount of food eaten by freely breeding cows that we're not allowed to kill.



They have no sense of morality because they are inferior species of limited sentience who do not qualify for the same rights as humans.



Once more we are not talking about interhuman morality and ethics, we are addressing the subject of killing animals for food. Comparing cows to slaves or women is undermining your argument. Besides, your strawman rebuttal has neatly sidestepped around the actual point I was making.

We are talking about two issues here, morality and rights. Unless morality is legislated it is ridiculous to demand that a specific set of morals is upheld by those who do not agree with you. I do not campaign against vegetarians or vegans on moral grounds despite disagreeing with them. I support the right of all human beings to make choices that they believe are morally sound. Animal rights activists act as if their morality is somehow superior. It is not, it is merely different.

Killing animals for food is a right that we uphold. The law is not something to hide behind, it is what we turn to when we need to arbitrate between two opposing views that cannot be resolved. We grant cows the right to humane treatment up to the point which we slaughter them for food. We grant humans the right to eat cows as food. It is therefore OK to eat cows. If you wish to change that fact then by all means campaign for legislation to change it, but don't be surprised when you fail to achieve your goal.

Please re-read what I said. I was comparing the arguments used to justify abuse on the grounds of arbitrary difference, not the actualization of specific abusive practices.

Again, if you think you're the first person to ascribe their personal prejudicial morality to some ambiguous "natural order", you're mistaken.

Way to avoid the question.

That "decreasing stock of vegetation" is largely due to the gross waste of farmland and vegetation used to fatten animals to be eaten. An end to farming animals would mean an end to this demand. "Intensive" breeding is called such for a reason. Under natural conditions, the cattle population would be nowhere near what it is now.

Nope. Natural predators must eat meat to survive and thrive. We don't.
Natural predators have no sense of morality. We do.

What does it mean from a scientific viewpoint to say "inferior species", exactly? Or is this another manifestation of your "Might Makes Right" morality?

As far as "limited sentience", you've yet to refute the entirety of scientific knowledge that there is no real separation in the perceptions of animals as far as physical stimuli and pain from our own, except for maybe non-Chordates.

No one said animals qualify for the same rights as humans in a total sense- it is only humans who can participate in human society, after all. But as far as moral personhood, you've presented no justification for our "right" to inflict violence and suffering, and therefore no reason to doubt the moral right of animals to be spared from these things.

It is you who is insisting that species is a relevant criterion for moral personhood, (despite your providing no justification thus far) just as it was once the majority who insisted race and gender were relevant criteria.

Once more, I never compared cows to slaves or women, merely the fallacious arguments used to justify abuse of them.

Libertarian arguments by definition are only applicable when your actions affect yourself and no one else. Funding the torture and death of millions is in direct contrast to the "live and let live" philosophy you're advocating.

Again, the conflation of legal protection and moral righteousness, despite hundreds of years of legalized suffering in the US alone, two examples of which I've provided you with.

And your comparison is flawed. You're basing it on the suggestion that animal rights are as valid as human rights which has not been established as a 'fact'. Feel free to argue that animals should have the same rights as humans, but try to steer away from the suggestion that this is indisputably the case if you want me to take your argument seriously



Another strawman rears its ugly head. At no point have I asserted that my views are original or unique. That they are not is hardly a basis to suggest that they are incorrect.



Hardly. If you wish to alter my beliefs then it is either up to you to provide a compelling reason why I should or it is for you to hope that I do so of my own accord. You can safely assume that there are few arguments against eating meat that I have not already heard, yet I remain quite happy to eat meat. By contrast I have no desire to ask you to change your moral views. You are quite entitled to uphold them, but I do not think that you should feel justified in judging others for seeing things differently.



But there can be no natural solution to 'we will no longer kill cows'. A new man made problem would be created. You have no evidence whatsoever to support the opinion that the cow population would go down if we allowed cows to go about their own business.



Which is precisely why animals are not privy to the same rights that we are. They have not evolved the quantitative abilities that human beings have because they are an inferior species in the natural order of life on earth. If you wish to grant animals the same rights as humans then you must enforce the same restrictions against those same animals. A carnivorous predator could also exist on non-meat alternatives yet you assert that only humans should refrain from eating meat.



By limited sentience I mean sub-sapient sentience. Animals do not have the reasoning abilities that human beings have, thus limiting their ability to perceive.



Moral personhood is a little too black and white for my liking. There are degrees of wrong and right.

Just because you have chosen to disagree with my justifications of eating meat does not mean that I have not provided them. What is your justification for believing you should decry my upholding of my moral principles whilst I agree to uphold yours yet disagree with them personally? The answer is that your personal ethics allow you to do so without believing you are at fault.



Actually no. As I just said, I do not view the world in black and white. What I do insist is that animal rights are not comparable to human rights.



You asserted that advocating the slaughter of cattle is the same as advocating inequality of women or as slavery. This remains ridiculous however you rephrase it.



And the definition is 'no one' else, which implies a human being, not a cow. I advocate the right of people to chose to act within the scope of their own morality, just as I advocate the laws which punish those whose morality allows them to commit crime.






Two examples which highlight your own conceptual conflation. Human rights are not the issue here, animal rights are. That the US has failed human beings in the past due to poor legislation is not proof that animals should be removed from the menu because of similar legislation applied to a different species of beings.

Let's face it, you and I will never agree on this subject, no matter how much we try to pick apart each others arguments. But it is quite satisfying to finally encounter a vegan with the ability to effectively argue their case and cause.

The problem as I see it is defining "cruelty", I don't think anyone would openly come out and endorse causing animals pain unnecessarily, but I don't see many people swearing off meat either. I personally don't take issue with eating meat because humans are predators, that we happen to be uniquely good at it to the point we can raise prey animals solely for our consumption doesn't change the base morality of it. I think every effort should be made to make the process of raising animals for food as humane as possible, and to that end endorse small producers that allow for free ranging, and kosher slaughterhouses because they are required by religious law to make a clean, humane kill. There's nothing wrong with eating meat, but there are ways of doing it that minimize animal suffering.

Yes, there are ovo-lacto, fruitarians, etc. I know the dietary requirements for them, thank you. No, not necessarily dictated by my family any more, except for when my wife and I have to ask for food from my stepdad since we are financially in need right now.

Is it wrong to hunt animals with guns, which you buy for that purpose, though?

You seem to imply the idea that killing animals for food should be considered murder, thus a crime, if I'm correct, And no, no thanks, the idea of forcing the human population to be vegetarians, because otherwise it would be based on criminal activity, is something that doesn't sound reasonable and hardly to really work, which the idea seems somehow utopic because it's ridiculous to be implemented in reality.

Now if the issue is more like idealistic morality thing without wanting to be enforced by law then fine, you be a vegetarian, good for you, and you made your point, however, other people won't be and disagree with your own idea of morality, as evident here, and they exercise their right to make their own choice on the matter. As I am exercising my right to freely choose wether I eat meat or not, and I do it because I enjoy it, because I find it nutritious, because my doctor recommends it and other few reasons. And because I simply disagree with your idealism, no matter how "fallacious" you may or may not find it.

We are assuming first that they hopefully don't have the intellectual capacity to know what is about to happen far enough in advance to obsess over it and second that what is obtained from the kill will be put to viable survival use. And, of course, that the raising and kill is done as humanely as possible. Food is a necessity for the survival of our species. As is clothing, etc. We are driven by instinct to survive as a species. I doubt we could sustain humanity 100% on a crop based economy right now without destroying our earth. That pesky law of unintended consequences has already been seen with the ethanol experiment. I do, however, think - as posted earlier - that we are slowly evolving towards that, or some version there-of. It will happen when our earth is ready for it to happen.

Comparing apples to oranges really isn't an effective way to make an argument. One is about survival; the other about revenge. You played an emotional card, IMHO, not a factual one.

I do think that a lot of good has evolved from the animal activism in my life time. We're thinking harder about the food we buy, and rewarding businesses that come up with more humane methods. Those who are not humane get shut down. Laws about holding and caring for animals are being put on the books. Zoos and parks are adopting more humane practices. Rescue organizations care for animals that have been mistreated. People are learning to seek out rescue pets. Fur coats are no longer the "thing" to wear. ALL of that is progress; we are a society that is able to survive and flourish without needlessly causing suffering and misery to our fellow living creatures, and people are becoming aware of their responsibility to live with respect, and make purchasing choices that reflect that respect.

All those changes happened because an activist opened someone's eyes. I do recognize that, and give credit to it.

Just remember, one can go too far. When that happens, the whole dialogue gets tuned out. Work on the baby steps that society is ready for.

Firstly, I've never hunted in my life, but you're far from the first person here to make that assumption.

Secondly, I buy my guns to shoot paper or people, the latter only if forced to in self defense.

Even if I did hunt, I'd still consider it more "ethical" than buying mass market meat, the animal lives it's life in the wild without interference until it is brought down by a predator, I'd even go so far as to say a rifle bullet is probably quicker and less painful than the teeth and claws of other woodland predators.

Nice try with the red herring though.