If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Are you polluting for pleasure? I guess it depends on what you define your needs to be. I mean what are our 'needs' when it comes to cars? Do that many of us 'need' a car anyway (not in London)? If you come down to the barest bones of it, we don't need a whole lot really, but we are conditioned to think so.
Are we polluting for pleasure? Well a car is not being exploited, the environment is. So I guess you could say that you are exploiting the environment in the pursuit of pleasure.
Is torture, cruelty or killing wrong?
In some people's opinions, it is not morally justifiable, in others it is, some people take a more ultilitarian standpoint ect.
Eating meat is not cruel, its the food cycle. There are other ways of getting all your nutrients but it is no crime nor immoral action to eat meat (which we have done as a species for thousands if not millions of years - not sure how far humans go back, 80,000 years?).
Whilst I don't want to derail the thread its a completely invalid comparison. All food is eaten to fulfill a need, and its not hypocritical to enjoy eating meat but be against animal cruelty.
I think it is hypocritical to be against animal testing, and then happily use any treatments medical science has given us since. The use of medicines is the demand which gives profits to astra zeneca and the like - and if they're making money why change to a more risky, more expensive method of testing?
If there was enough feeling that it was wrong, people would not use medicines tested on animals, and the companies would stop testing on animals to try to get money off those who felt it was wrong. But atm, people are too happy to say how evil it is but then happily hand over money (or let the NHS do it on their behalf) to reap the rewards.
There is the argument that a vegetarian lifestyle is more expensive than a non-veggie lifestyle, which lots of people can't afford. You also have the argument where people are not educated on animal welfare issues and don't see the "errors" of their ways. And of course, there's the fact that humans have evolved to become omnivores, we get our nutrients from meat and it tastes absolutely fucking gorgeous.
People who torture animals have mental problems, they're sociopathic, they lack empathy. They're also more likely to hurt or kill humans as a result of this pathos, I don't know any meat eaters who contemplate eating humans after a nice burger.
You comparison is weak and, tbh, a little bit crazy!
I don't have a problem with medical testing, per say (cosmetic testing is another story, because I see NO reason for it whatsoever, and imo it is entirely unjustified), and I don't necessarily think most of the actual testing carried out comes under the cruelty umbrella. But what I do have a problem with is the way some of the animals are treated in these places. It makes me sick, because there is no reason why they can't treat the animals properly. I know there is an argument that animals are not humans and therefore have no rights, but why not? They feel pain and they suffer just like we do, and just because they can't communicate their thoughts to us doesn't make them lesser beings and it doesn't give us the right to abuse them for our own gain. Like I said, medical testing is a blurrybit, but anyone who defends cosmetic testing needs their head looked at, imo.
RE: Namaste's argument - I can understand where she's coming from, and she does have a point. There ARE ways of finding the necessary nutrients etc from other things. However, like everyone else has said, we have evolved to be omnivorous, and as such it's not immoral to eat meat. You wouldn't condemn another omnivorous animal for doing what comes naturally to it, so why condemn other humans for the same thing?
I'm fairly sure that animal testing for cosmetics (and cosmetics tested on animals) is banned in the EU, or at least soon to be.
Unless its of dual medical use (eg Botox) you won't get a licence for it in the UK.
That said fewer and fewer cosmetic research companies want to use animal testing (its a bit of a product killer) - most are willing to use ingredients which have been tested years ago and known to be safe.
But then, what's to stop them making it in other countries where it IS tested on animals?
I have a strong feeling that it encompasses both the testing and the products, so they cant just make it outside the EU and import it. Though for the life of me I cant actually find a source.
As Flashman says there is no way they'd get a licence for it in the UK.
ETA - OK, well the headline for this story is a lot better than the reality of the legislation, but still its a good step;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2661797.stm
:chin:. See, I would put those two things under "medical", rather than cosmetic, because they aren't used to make you look better, they're there to stop you getting cancer and bad teeth.
and despite the advertising, the content of sunscreen and toothpaste has hardly changed in like 40 years
the only changes thus far are whiteners in the toothpaste ie very weak peroxide and sunscreen that can be sprayed ie slightly different solvent, and sunscreen that can be used on people who are allergic to it, because the sunscreen is inside micro glassbeads
Agreed. I have a problem with testing drugs on animals, because (someone please correct me if I'm wrong) apparantely animals and humans react differently to drugs.
not always, obviously the results won't be 100% the same but it's still very useful information into how they metabolise these things
oh...omg... there's a topic for debate... the amount of media coverage on this i've gone through over the years is staggering!! - but in a simple answer :yes:
No, I eat because I have to, I eat meat because I'm an omnivore and I have no moral objection to doing so.
Very few people will eat something which they don't like but I don't choose meat over any other product - although Roast Marsbar isn't that nice
Interesting. How do you kill an animal without any of that - anaesthetic first? You don't see the difference between deriving please from torture and deriving please food eating something?
Vegetarianism is an ethical choice born of living a luxury lifestyle, not a moral absolute in any way. Look at people starving to death in Africa, and you will never see a sane person clubbing another human being to death to eat, because the act of killing another human being being wrong is a moral absolute (for evolutionary reasons, we have all developed this instinct, which doesn't exist in reference to other species). Starve the strictest vegans on the planet, then offer them a meat product, and not one would turn it down. Put someone in the arctic, and offer them a quilt made by children working 80 hours a week in Bangladesh in a factory where a kid dies every week because of no safety standards, and they'll accept. My point isn't that this makes your arguments invalid, but that it is an ethical decision based on a rational, understanding of the further effects of the decision you make. This is why it is not the moral equivalent of torture, the rejection of torture being the default, instinctive state of mind for every human being on the planet.
I really cannot be bothered repeating myself over and over to intelligent, often university educated people who are not even listening (or appear not to be listening) to what I am saying.
If you don't like my arguement, if it makes you uncomfortable then tough shit. It's a moral arguement that's been used over and over. There are arguements against many lifestyles which make us uncomfortable, but it doesn't mean they hold no validity.
To put this basically...
WE DON'T NEED TO EAT MEAT. Yes, some people in some countries do... But in this country with our resources we don't.
We live in a well of country, there are cheaper alternatives than an omnivorous diet (provided you are domesticated enough to be able to cook and know where your nutrients are from... As with any diet, you gotta know what you're eating)... Hence whether you eat meat or not, it is a choice, there is no default position here. An omnivorous diet, a vegetarian diet, a macrobiotic diet, a vegan diet, a freegan diet ect are all moral choices in themselves.
There is no default position because it is all about being raised. eating meat is as much a moral descision as not eating meat because at the end of the day, we all manage our own diets (with some exceptions).
Now the arguement that somebody harming a puppy for pleasure or entertainment, vs. somebody harming an animal for pleasure of food is no different to me. To because the process is causing harm to an animal (different degrees depending on the meat industry in question... But say your typical battery farm), whatever has happened an animal is put through a process of suffering for our pleasure, whether we are hurting it with our own hands or whether we are paying somebody to do it themeslves. An animal is harmed for our pleasure.
Now it is people's choice what they buy, we all live by our own ethics and if my beliefs make you feel uncomfortable, then maybe you should be looking at where your food comes from, or at least just continuing living whatever lifestyle you live. I am not saying my diet is better than anyone else's... But I am saying that I don't believe an animal should be abused for our enjoyment.
End of story. :rolleyes:
So you think that harming an animal for fun and harming it for food are different?
Don't you get pleasure from both food and from fun?
What is the difference if you can choose not to eat meat?
Do you think bloodsports are morally wrong?
Yes
No - i eat to live. And I prefer food i like
Nothing wrong with being a vegetarian - who says there is?
And what's that got do with eating meat? For the record I don't think fox hunting is wrong (and its kinder than shooting), but think Bull Fighting is
Lots of people aren't, especially poorer people. Doesn't matter to you though, they're just as bad as animal torturers.
No, an animal is harmed so we can eat it to gain the nutrients for our diet. Just because we can get the same nutrients elsehwere, doesn't mean we should. And this is the implication I'm getting from your posts, is that what you think, that everyone should become veggies?
Either way, meat eaters are nothing compared to people who torture animals for a laugh, you know it deep inside too but you just want to get a rise out of us.
What do you suggest we eat instead then?
boots, lush, bodyshop make up range, and superdrug own brand products are not tested on animals...along with original source as i found out today...
It may be no different for you but most people can see a clear difference.
When you eat meat it's not the 'harming aspect' that's giving you pleasure.
Can you not see the difference between me going out shootting a rabbit for consumption and me throwing a firework in a rabbit's cage?
Killing an animal doesn't always equate to animal abuse ffs and I think you have a warped sense of reality to believe otherwise.
Species eat other species, our species happen to be at the top of the food chain, it's not a new concept.