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 ✨
Aged 16-25? Share your experience of using the discussion boards and receive a £25 voucher! Take part via text-chat, video or phone. Click here to find out more and to take part.
Options
Comments
We are listening to what you're saying, it's just we don't think it makes much sense. Comparing killing an animal to eat to torturing an animal for pleasure is ridiculous. Of course by your definition, you must be equally bad morally, because I presume that you live in a house that was built in another animals habitat, go to a university that trees were cut down to build, and use forms of transport that damage the environment, for the single selfish reason of giving yourself a better quality of life. Hell, even right now you're using electricity provided by an environmentally dangerous power station purely to entertain yourself on this website. At least one animal undoubtedly died so that you can do this, so obviously you're placing yourself with the rest of us animal torturers are you? After all, nobody needs a computer, and surely any action which results in the death of an animal purely for the purpose of your enjoyment, is wrong?
Or are you saying that we don't get pleasure out of eating meat?
I would still say that eating meat is worse than any of these in the resources it uses, but of course we cannot llive without killing another living creature (unless you're living a Jain kind of lifestyle, which still isn't free from it). But then by clearing land for a house is different to enslaving animals, putting them through a horrible life, then slaughtering them because they taste oh so yummy, or putting them through a horrible life because we like to see their pain. For the animal, it is near enough the same, for the human the reason of pleasure is different. Also note the use of the internet as an activist's tool... It has done a lot for communication and positive causes, as have building hospitals and other buildings to help people and animals.
Take this scenario for example...
1. A bunch of aliens come to earth and blast an area of land so they can build an alien holiday home for pleasure. People and animals die in the explosion.
2. A bunch of aliens come to earth and kidnaps a grown man, tortures him for three hours then kills him because they find it fun.
3. A bunch of aliens come to earth, kidnap babies, put them in small cages but cut off their fingers so they can't do harm to themselves or other babies (hypothetically). They leave the babies in tiny cramped cages with no sunlight until they are mature enough to eat. Then they kill them and eat human burgers and human dippers because it tastes pleasurable to eat humans.
Which is worse from a human's perspective?
Read a cookery book.
Nope, what I am saying (look at the original post) and what I have been saying from the beginning is that if people like Whowhere are going to slag off people who believe that animals have rights and call them hypocrits, then he should get off his moral high horse and look at his own actions (this must be at least the third time I wrote this). I am talking about the act, not calling meat eaters "evil nasty mean bunny killers".
And (this must be at least the second time I've mentioned this too) I'm also not saying that I think meat eaters are bad people. Yes, I find the act of consuming meat repulsive, but it doesn't mean I find meat eaters repulsive and some of my friends and past lovers have been meat eaters.
Also, (this is at least the eigth time I've mentioned this) you don't have to eat meat to be healthy and people choose to ignore this point. It is a choice because it tastes good, although many people also don't know a lot about health and don't know that to not eat it can be healthy too.
Please read what I have put and repeated over and over. Things you have chosen to ignore and please don't get uppity with me young man. Let's face it, this is a politics forum and if you find my politics uncomfortable then get out because I haven't called anybody's opinion "stupid".
If people find what I say offensive (and this is at least the third time I've written this) then it's entirely their issue, not mine. Deal with it because not everybody agrees on the same thing in life (that isn't personal, but to all people who are offended...).
It's getting bored now, repeating the same thing over to people who are repeating the same (usually irrelevent although not always) arguements over. I don't really have anything else to say which won't be a repeat of what I've put above, so let's leave this thread derailment there and get back on topic
Keeeping animals in horrific conditions or purposely hurting that animal to gain pleasure form it's pain is, but animals we eat don't need to be kept that way an indeed many arn't.
You love your cats don't you? A predatory animal that has a serious impac garden wildlife. They torture garden birds and other gardern critters yet you don't need to have one.
1) A small farmer who looks after his animals well, free range and organic
2) The animal tester, keeps the suffering of the animal to the minimum in hope of discoverying a treatment for cancer
3) A person who tortures animals, burns, kicks and generally enjoys causing them pain
I obviously understand your point that none of these need to happen, but to equate them all as the same removes the motive for the action, which to me at least has a lot to do with the morality.
Hence I said that I don't believe people who eat meat are evil. But for the animal, it is no different really is it. I'm looking at it from a cold philosophical perspective, pleasure derived from pain. A sad fact about our (mainly) anthrocentric society is that we excuse some acts of cruelty and not others. At the end of the day, whatever excuse makes people sleep better at night the actions are the same.
We have different ideas of worth and justice depending on the animal and the act in question. I am sure there are people who foxhunt and consider their actions sound and don't even think about the cruelty involved. At the same time, these people may consider themselves "animal lovers" and say that to have their actions measured against an animal abuser is unfair.
It is the same with eating meat. We eat meat because we enjoy the taste, but we try to seperate ourselves from the cruelty which most meat suppliers (if not all) put their animals through. Just because the pleasure is not the same kind of pleasure as somebody would get for burning a puppy's ears off does not mean that an animal has not suffered for something we enjoy. It is not the same enjoyment, but it is still enjoyment from suffering (as I have said over and over and over).
As I've said, I know people don't like that explaination or the theory (it isn't the reason why I cut out animal products btw... That was originally environmental), but if you're going to slag off animal rights activists and people who believe animals do not deserve to live horrible lives, then you get it back. If you call one group hypocritical then you really should (a) be able to back up your accusation with an intelligent and non cliche reason and (b) expect to be challenged yourself on your own actions.
I have a lot of respect for non violent animal rights protestors because they are fighting for what they believe and for a more compassionate world.
Which is why most of the rest of us recognise the difference between simply killing an animal for food, and subjecting an animal to a life of misery for food. In terms of actual suffering caused, leaving an animal to starve to death because you've built a house on the land where it used to live is a far worse experience for the animal than certain methods of farming, which may eventually result in the killing of the animal.
Turn it in. I thought you were presenting a reasonable enough argument until this egregiously ridiculous statement.
Translation: Most people don't think animals are the same as humans.
So in other words the method of death means nothing?
Torturing an animal for weeks then finally killing it is exactly the same as a short painless death?
We make the distinction in human crime, why do you not make the distinction in animals?
Of course there's a difference in say... Hunting and hurting an animal for weeks, of course. But you have to admit that very few people who eat meat eat entirely what is hunted and that the majority of the meat industry is cruel.
Unless I'm mistaken, wasn't the minimum requirement in the EU for a broiler chicken's cage around the same size as an A4 pice of paper (will double check but books are packed away until I can move in to my new place)? Is that not pretty shit for the chickens? It is good however that in the EU they are trying to phase out said practices for around 2013.
EU regulations are better than US regulations at least. It is still animals suffering for our pleasure and speciesism.
Yes. Most people don't have respect for nature either...
It's a matter of heirarchy isn't it? I read this somewhere, but the heirarchy went:
God
Men
Women
Children
Animals
Nature
Sometimes I wonder if there are links between oppression of certain groups in society and oppression os animals. It would be interesting to read.
I grew up in a farming community and remember the ways a lot of animals were treated. I remember one night hearing cows screaming because their babies were taken away. I've seen carts packed tight with animals being taken to the slaughter, so tight they can barely move... It's a bit disturbing.
Some farms will be worse than others... But it's unfair to point fingers at animal rights activists when they are doing their best to be good.
People do the best they can, but speaking ecologically (which is what your statement is about) if you move in to a house share or a newly built house as say, a vegetarian or vegan you have still killed less animals than as a meat eater. The industry is a major pollutor after all.
But you're right about building new houses. That's destroying the environment too when we could be renovating older houses (there are loads in Wrexham).
No it's not. Intense farming methods might be, but there are certainly a lot of farming methods which are fine. You'd have trouble finding a bit of lamb on the shelf that's been treated badly for instance.
Bassically farming doesn't have to involve crule methods, but you seem to be of the opinion it always is.
So if you admit there are gradations in torture, then your arguement that all meat eaters are just the same as people who torture puppies doesnt hold water.
You say that like its a bad thing... Given the choice between building a dam to allow people access to clean water, electricity etc and some butterflies loosing their habitats, its bye-bye butterflies
I don't understand how that is a counter arguement at all? Of course there are different degrees of torture, just like there are different degrees of sexual assault, of violence... Of happiness, of sadness...
Unfortunately, whether an animal is kept in a cage unable to move in the dark and is extremely distressed, or whether it is being kicked around like a football... I don't think the animal is thinking "well... It could be worse couldn't it!" or "well gee... This doesn't quite amount to torture compared to what happens on Barry's farm!" Animals have a different level of awareness to us completely.
But again, as I've repeated over and over this is my belief. I do believe that the many industries do reflect torture. Take for example the cages and look back at medieval times and the devices they used then...
If you do not believe that there is any cruelty in the way we use our animals, then that is your opinion... But to be honest I'd rather be that puppy tortured for a week, than a hen who has never known freedom.
I know it is idealistic, but I don't believe any living creature should have to suffer for our pleasure. Of course it is impossible, but there are always ways in which we can do our bit if we care.
I know you have repeated is loads of times, I am trying to come at it from a slightly different direction.
Your position as I understand it is that meat eaters are all as bad as people who torture for fun - which assumes that all meat eaters pay no attention at all to animal welfare, and actively wish the animals harm - both false assumptions.
Yes, of course there are parts of the meat industry which should be stopped, and yes of course there should be tight controls on animal testing - but because there are bad parts does not mean that all meat eaters are cruel torturers.
And, if I understand you correctly and just eating the animal (regardless of how its been treated) is enough to group a person with the torturers, then why bother giving them good conditions if its all the same morality in the end?
Read it over (and I can't be bothered repeating this again... Sorry... I'm bored of it now).
Again, read what I wrote.
I was not talking about 'meat eaters' but the act of meat consumption (from most farms) for pleasure in itself.
(Look... All due respect but I'm getting tired of this now... If people aren't going to make an effort to read anything I've written, then there's no real point. I'll try and find the arguement online later as it was from a book and I liked the philosophy and link it to people.)
Many industries but not all? Is that you aknowledging the fact that not all farming is 'torture' and that farming doesn't have to be cruel?
I don't take issue with a statement that some animals are treated badly; i do take issue with the egregious hyperbole which was rife in your reply. Also, your attempt to represent my view with a evidently fallacious argument is a weak diversion from the point in case: You can't possibly make such sweeping statements about farmers and their care of animals while expecting to be taken seriously.
I also haven't pointed fingers at animal rights activists - another straw-man argument.
This is in an interesting debate to have, but only if you have it sensibly.
Appologies, I can see how you thought I was accusing you.
And you're right, I should have been more careful about my wording in the post.
Which is a position I can understand, but seems completely black and white and totally ignores the gradations of pleasure and/or pain for the animal involved.
I assume you can see that for most of us a farmer looking after his animals well isnt the same as someone torturing them for fun, even if thats not a view you can share.
In nature - you know the thing we have no respect for - species kill and eat other species. It's something we have 'naturally' evolved to do.
On one hand you say we're no different than the other critters on this planet and on the other you say we should be making unatural choices because we are different?
That's fine to say given that you have access to clean water and electricity. Its not so easy if you're having to trudge several miles every day to get bacteria infested water from a river...
But the history of civilisation is of man's attempt to control and channel nature for the betterment of mankind. We are in thousands of ways better off than our ancestors who had to live with nature having power over them...