animal rights?

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

animal rights?

Visit the current forum | Forum Rules

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 > Last >>

sitdownstandup 08 Aug 16 11.38pm
Whats your opinion? Man is the most insane species. He worships an invisible God and destroys a visible Nature. Unaware that this Nature he’s destroying is this God he’s worshipping. Hubert Reeves

sitdownstandup

08 Aug 16 11.38pm

Whats your opinion?

Man is the most insane species. He worships an invisible God and destroys a visible Nature. Unaware that this Nature he’s destroying is this God he’s worshipping.

Hubert Reeves

Hrolf The Ganger 09 Aug 16 11.07am
Are you asking if they should have any? My attitude toward animals is the same as toward humans with a couple of caveats. I would treat an animal as I would wish to be treated. I would not want to subject to cruelty and I would not inflict it on an animal. It is in our nature to be cruel but most of us develop a moral code which hopefully includes all creatures. Those that don't, lack empathy and that lack of empathy is at risk of being applied to fellow humans in my opinion. The limitation of equal treatment for animals are fairly obvious. Humans are natural omnivorous and the killing of animals is required to satisfy that need. I would hope for the most humane conditions for the killing of animals for that purpose but I recognise that that is not always the case. That is unacceptable to me. There is also the question of vivisection which benefits human kind. I would approve of animal experimentation as long as it was used to the minimum and only when alternatives were not available. There are of course guidelines and rules that apply to all such procedures and they should be applied rigorously.

Hrolf The Ganger

09 Aug 16 11.07am

Are you asking if they should have any?

My attitude toward animals is the same as toward humans with a couple of caveats.

I would treat an animal as I would wish to be treated. I would not want to subject to cruelty and I would not inflict it on an animal. It is in our nature to be cruel but most of us develop a moral code which hopefully includes all creatures. Those that don't, lack empathy and that lack of empathy is at risk of being applied to fellow humans in my opinion.

The limitation of equal treatment for animals are fairly obvious. Humans are natural omnivorous and the killing of animals is required to satisfy that need. I would hope for the most humane conditions for the killing of animals for that purpose but I recognise that that is not always the case. That is unacceptable to me.
There is also the question of vivisection which benefits human kind. I would approve of animal experimentation as long as it was used to the minimum and only when alternatives were not available. There are of course guidelines and rules that apply to all such procedures and they should be applied rigorously.

sitdownstandup 09 Aug 16 12.08pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger Are you asking if they should have any? My attitude toward animals is the same as toward humans with a couple of caveats. I would treat an animal as I would wish to be treated. I would not want to subject to cruelty and I would not inflict it on an animal. It is in our nature to be cruel but most of us develop a moral code which hopefully includes all creatures. Those that don't, lack empathy and that lack of empathy is at risk of being applied to fellow humans in my opinion. The limitation of equal treatment for animals are fairly obvious. Humans are natural omnivorous and the killing of animals is required to satisfy that need. I would hope for the most humane conditions for the killing of animals for that purpose but I recognise that that is not always the case. That is unacceptable to me. There is also the question of vivisection which benefits human kind. I would approve of animal experimentation as long as it was used to the minimum and only when alternatives were not available. There are of course guidelines and rules that apply to all such procedures and they should be applied rigorously. cheers for the input ganger... yep just to clear up, was just asking what people think about whether animals should have any rights and if so what rights should they have? Really I'm thinking about animals on farms... as animals outside of farms generally do have certain rights and if they are harmed the person committing the crime will be prosecuted... Just wanted to see what people's views were... From what I've seen on the hol before it's a pretty divisive subject but it's good to hear people's opinions. Man is the most insane species. He worships an invisible God and destroys a visible Nature. Unaware that this Nature he’s destroying is this God he’s worshipping. Hubert Reeves

sitdownstandup

09 Aug 16 12.08pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Are you asking if they should have any?

My attitude toward animals is the same as toward humans with a couple of caveats.

cheers for the input ganger... yep just to clear up, was just asking what people think about whether animals should have any rights and if so what rights should they have? Really I'm thinking about animals on farms... as animals outside of farms generally do have certain rights and if they are harmed the person committing the crime will be prosecuted... Just wanted to see what people's views were... From what I've seen on the hol before it's a pretty divisive subject but it's good to hear people's opinions.

Man is the most insane species. He worships an invisible God and destroys a visible Nature. Unaware that this Nature he’s destroying is this God he’s worshipping.

Hubert Reeves

jamiemartin721 Reading 09 Aug 16 1.20pm
Largely I agree with Hrolfs, we should legislate animals rights and protections based upon ensuring standards within industries and uses of animals, as a means of eliminating aspects of cruelty and ensuring the comfort and treatment of animals. Idealistically, I think that humanity has a duty towards all other species on the planet to reduce their exploitation and increase their general well being, rather than exploitation as a resource -including the habitats as a priority (not just for us, and them, but for future generations). We are ultimately the custodians of the planet, and environment, not just for our own benefit, but for those of future generations. The massive boom in human population since the 19th century represents the greatest environmental threat the world has experienced. If we don't control our own population, we'll ravage the world as resources run down, and entire species, possibly including the human race, will disappear. Aburdly as humans, we've always promoted the idea of controlling the reproduction of pets as a means of creating a more stable environment for our pets(who as a species have flourished as a result) but our failure to restrict the global human population will probably end us as a species "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]

jamiemartin721

Reading 09 Aug 16 1.20pm

Largely I agree with Hrolfs, we should legislate animals rights and protections based upon ensuring standards within industries and uses of animals, as a means of eliminating aspects of cruelty and ensuring the comfort and treatment of animals.

Idealistically, I think that humanity has a duty towards all other species on the planet to reduce their exploitation and increase their general well being, rather than exploitation as a resource -including the habitats as a priority (not just for us, and them, but for future generations).

We are ultimately the custodians of the planet, and environment, not just for our own benefit, but for those of future generations. The massive boom in human population since the 19th century represents the greatest environmental threat the world has experienced. If we don't control our own population, we'll ravage the world as resources run down, and entire species, possibly including the human race, will disappear.

Aburdly as humans, we've always promoted the idea of controlling the reproduction of pets as a means of creating a more stable environment for our pets(who as a species have flourished as a result) but our failure to restrict the global human population will probably end us as a species

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Hrolf The Ganger 09 Aug 16 2.39pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 Largely I agree with Hrolfs, we should legislate animals rights and protections based upon ensuring standards within industries and uses of animals, as a means of eliminating aspects of cruelty and ensuring the comfort and treatment of animals. Idealistically, I think that humanity has a duty towards all other species on the planet to reduce their exploitation and increase their general well being, rather than exploitation as a resource -including the habitats as a priority (not just for us, and them, but for future generations). We are ultimately the custodians of the planet, and environment, not just for our own benefit, but for those of future generations. The massive boom in human population since the 19th century represents the greatest environmental threat the world has experienced. If we don't control our own population, we'll ravage the world as resources run down, and entire species, possibly including the human race, will disappear. Aburdly as humans, we've always promoted the idea of controlling the reproduction of pets as a means of creating a more stable environment for our pets(who as a species have flourished as a result) but our failure to restrict the global human population will probably end us as a species Now that has opened a can of worms. In the West, we have effectively restricted our population and the result of that is that we are now importing humans from elsewhere to boost numbers. It could be easily be argued that this policy could ultimately spell the end of the European people if we don't reverse it. It is the developing countries that need to control population and this is starting to happen. Current projections predict a plateau of world population in around 200 years. Let's hope we have some animals and trees left by then. It is virtually inevitable that the larger predators like lions and tigers will become extinct and it will take a massive effort to save the rarer animals prized for ivory etc like Elephants and Rhino. Truthfully their fate was in the balance since the Romans scoured North Africa and took vast numbers of animals for sport. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (09 Aug 2016 2.40pm)

Hrolf The Ganger

09 Aug 16 2.39pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Aburdly as humans, we've always promoted the idea of controlling the reproduction of pets as a means of creating a more stable environment for our pets(who as a species have flourished as a result) but our failure to restrict the global human population will probably end us as a species

Now that has opened a can of worms.

In the West, we have effectively restricted our population and the result of that is that we are now importing humans from elsewhere to boost numbers.
It could be easily be argued that this policy could ultimately spell the end of the European people if we don't reverse it.
It is the developing countries that need to control population and this is starting to happen. Current projections predict a plateau of world population in around 200 years. Let's hope we have some animals and trees left by then.
It is virtually inevitable that the larger predators like lions and tigers will become extinct and it will take a massive effort to save the rarer animals prized for ivory etc like Elephants and Rhino.
Truthfully their fate was in the balance since the Romans scoured North Africa and took vast numbers of animals for sport.

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (09 Aug 2016 2.40pm)

jamiemartin721 Reading 09 Aug 16 3.53pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger Now that has opened a can of worms. In the West, we have effectively restricted our population and the result of that is that we are now importing humans from elsewhere to boost numbers. It could be easily be argued that this policy could ultimately spell the end of the European people if we don't reverse it. It is the developing countries that need to control population and this is starting to happen. Current projections predict a plateau of world population in around 200 years. Let's hope we have some animals and trees left by then. It is virtually inevitable that the larger predators like lions and tigers will become extinct and it will take a massive effort to save the rarer animals prized for ivory etc like Elephants and Rhino. Truthfully their fate was in the balance since the Romans scoured North Africa and took vast numbers of animals for sport. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (09 Aug 2016 2.40pm) The problem is that population reduction outside of the first world, is only going to be viable in the 2nd and 3rd world, if its incentivised by the first world, along with addressing the economic benefits of greater population (or by addressing issues that drive the need for larger families). Whilst European populations are falling, they are still heavily over populated nations, which are productively wasteful in terms of human resources in terms of functionality. The existence of fossil fuels drives this, effectively creating energy reserves that are finite, and the inevitable running down of these resources will, I suspect create 'resource conflicts' which ultimately will bring humanity towards an apocalypse precipice and possibly over it. Its not just the over population its the effect this has on earths finite resources - food production, fuels to maintain society and societies consumption of resources - which the 1st world plays a major factor (the old adage of that the average American consumes 400 times the resources of their African counterpart). Globalisation has only increased this as a problem. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]

jamiemartin721

Reading 09 Aug 16 3.53pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Now that has opened a can of worms.

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (09 Aug 2016 2.40pm)

The problem is that population reduction outside of the first world, is only going to be viable in the 2nd and 3rd world, if its incentivised by the first world, along with addressing the economic benefits of greater population (or by addressing issues that drive the need for larger families).

Whilst European populations are falling, they are still heavily over populated nations, which are productively wasteful in terms of human resources in terms of functionality.

The existence of fossil fuels drives this, effectively creating energy reserves that are finite, and the inevitable running down of these resources will, I suspect create 'resource conflicts' which ultimately will bring humanity towards an apocalypse precipice and possibly over it.

Its not just the over population its the effect this has on earths finite resources - food production, fuels to maintain society and societies consumption of resources - which the 1st world plays a major factor (the old adage of that the average American consumes 400 times the resources of their African counterpart).

Globalisation has only increased this as a problem.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Hrolf The Ganger 09 Aug 16 4.55pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 The problem is that population reduction outside of the first world, is only going to be viable in the 2nd and 3rd world, if its incentivised by the first world, along with addressing the economic benefits of greater population (or by addressing issues that drive the need for larger families). Whilst European populations are falling, they are still heavily over populated nations, which are productively wasteful in terms of human resources in terms of functionality. The existence of fossil fuels drives this, effectively creating energy reserves that are finite, and the inevitable running down of these resources will, I suspect create 'resource conflicts' which ultimately will bring humanity towards an apocalypse precipice and possibly over it. Its not just the over population its the effect this has on earths finite resources - food production, fuels to maintain society and societies consumption of resources - which the 1st world plays a major factor (the old adage of that the average American consumes 400 times the resources of their African counterpart). Globalisation has only increased this as a problem. The West does use far more energy and resources than elsewhere but this unbalance will begin to level as developing nations become more prosperous. That of course will also have a negative impact on world resources. I have always believed that the end game will come about as oil reserves dry up but any new technology that can produce high energy yields could postpone that. Food and water are a different matter. There is every reason to think that we will not be able to provide water for the rapidly increasing population and food production will have to increase in an environment where soil is generally becoming less fertile. There is much waste in the West of course. The obvious conclusion is that population has to drop and this will happen in a couple of centuries if pre3dictions are to be believed. The question is can we cope with a projected population of 20 billion and what will that figure mean to the less populated areas like Europe and North America. This is why I have serious reservations about our policy toward migration. It is just not sustainable if we want the West to remain the relative paradise that it is.

Hrolf The Ganger

09 Aug 16 4.55pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Whilst European populations are falling, they are still heavily over populated nations, which are productively wasteful in terms of human resources in terms of functionality.

Globalisation has only increased this as a problem.

The West does use far more energy and resources than elsewhere but this unbalance will begin to level as developing nations become more prosperous. That of course will also have a negative impact on world resources.
I have always believed that the end game will come about as oil reserves dry up but any new technology that can produce high energy yields could postpone that.
Food and water are a different matter. There is every reason to think that we will not be able to provide water for the rapidly increasing population and food production will have to increase in an environment where soil is generally becoming less fertile. There is much waste in the West of course.

The obvious conclusion is that population has to drop and this will happen in a couple of centuries if pre3dictions are to be believed. The question is can we cope with a projected population of 20 billion and what will that figure mean to the less populated areas like Europe and North America.
This is why I have serious reservations about our policy toward migration. It is just not sustainable if we want the West to remain the relative paradise that it is.

sitdownstandup 12 Aug 16 11.10pm
Oh gawd..... well I thought this this thread would be a bit more divisive than it was ... obvsly I was wrong... animals deserve the right to live free of pain... and that entails not eating them ( in my opinion anyways) ... opposing opinions welcomed... ps I dont like arguing but yep opposing opinions are still welcomed. Man is the most insane species. He worships an invisible God and destroys a visible Nature. Unaware that this Nature he’s destroying is this God he’s worshipping. Hubert Reeves

sitdownstandup

12 Aug 16 11.10pm

Oh gawd..... well I thought this this thread would be a bit more divisive than it was ... obvsly I was wrong... animals deserve the right to live free of pain... and that entails not eating them ( in my opinion anyways) ... opposing opinions welcomed... ps I dont like arguing but yep opposing opinions are still welcomed.

Man is the most insane species. He worships an invisible God and destroys a visible Nature. Unaware that this Nature he’s destroying is this God he’s worshipping.

Hubert Reeves

ASCPFC Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 12 Aug 16 11.14pm
I drink in the pub next to Humanity Dick's house in Galway - you can blame him for animal rights. Red and Blue Army!

ASCPFC

Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 12 Aug 16 11.14pm

I drink in the pub next to Humanity Dick's house in Galway - you can blame him for animal rights.

Red and Blue Army!

sitdownstandup 13 Aug 16 12.30am
Originally posted by ASCPFC I drink in the pub next to Humanity Dick's house in Galway - you can blame him for animal rights. If himanity dick is 4 animal rights hes a good fella...and ill have a drink on him!!!! Man is the most insane species. He worships an invisible God and destroys a visible Nature. Unaware that this Nature he’s destroying is this God he’s worshipping. Hubert Reeves

sitdownstandup

13 Aug 16 12.30am

Originally posted by ASCPFC

I drink in the pub next to Humanity Dick's house in Galway - you can blame him for animal rights.

If himanity dick is 4 animal rights hes a good fella...and ill have a drink on him!!!!

Man is the most insane species. He worships an invisible God and destroys a visible Nature. Unaware that this Nature he’s destroying is this God he’s worshipping.

Hubert Reeves

Hrolf The Ganger 13 Aug 16 9.22am
Originally posted by sitdownstandup Oh gawd..... well I thought this this thread would be a bit more divisive than it was ... obvsly I was wrong... animals deserve the right to live free of pain... and that entails not eating them ( in my opinion anyways) ... opposing opinions welcomed... ps I dont like arguing but yep opposing opinions are still welcomed. Animals eat other animals every second of every day. They do not have morality. As much as I am appalled by human cruelty to animals, I accept that we are also animals and I do not see the consumption of meat as a "sin". It is part of the natural process. I am however, happy for people to choose what they eat on moral grounds, if it makes them feel better. I am also very much in support of improving conditions and treatment of farm animals.

Hrolf The Ganger

13 Aug 16 9.22am

Originally posted by sitdownstandup

Oh gawd..... well I thought this this thread would be a bit more divisive than it was ... obvsly I was wrong... animals deserve the right to live free of pain... and that entails not eating them ( in my opinion anyways) ... opposing opinions welcomed... ps I dont like arguing but yep opposing opinions are still welcomed.

Animals eat other animals every second of every day. They do not have morality. As much as I am appalled by human cruelty to animals, I accept that we are also animals and I do not see the consumption of meat as a "sin". It is part of the natural process. I am however, happy for people to choose what they eat on moral grounds, if it makes them feel better. I am also very much in support of improving conditions and treatment of farm animals.

ASCPFC Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 13 Aug 16 12.46pm
Originally posted by sitdownstandup If himanity dick is 4 animal rights hes a good fella...and ill have a drink on him!!!! Humanity Dick is the man behind the RSPCA. I believe it started with cruelty to donkeys in this area. Early to mid 19th Century. His townhouse is in Galway city next to the oldest pub in Galway - Naughtons. If you're ever here I'll buy you a pint. Red and Blue Army!

ASCPFC

Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 13 Aug 16 12.46pm

Originally posted by sitdownstandup

If himanity dick is 4 animal rights hes a good fella...and ill have a drink on him!!!!

Humanity Dick is the man behind the RSPCA. I believe it started with cruelty to donkeys in this area. Early to mid 19th Century. His townhouse is in Galway city next to the oldest pub in Galway - Naughtons.
If you're ever here I'll buy you a pint.

Red and Blue Army!

ASCPFC Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 13 Aug 16 12.49pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger Animals eat other animals every second of every day. They do not have morality. As much as I am appalled by human cruelty to animals, I accept that we are also animals and I do not see the consumption of meat as a "sin". It is part of the natural process. I am however, happy for people to choose what they eat on moral grounds, if it makes them feel better. I am also very much in support of improving conditions and treatment of farm animals. I think these days a lot more people buy organic and/or free range which should entail better treatment for animals and, frankly, tastes a lot nicer, yummmmmmmm. I've nothing against namby pamby vegetarians or vegans though - fair play to them for sticking to their convictions. I do get annoyed when 'vegetarians' start trying to eat my bacon though. Red and Blue Army!

ASCPFC

Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 13 Aug 16 12.49pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

I think these days a lot more people buy organic and/or free range which should entail better treatment for animals and, frankly, tastes a lot nicer, yummmmmmmm.
I've nothing against namby pamby vegetarians or vegans though - fair play to them for sticking to their convictions. I do get annoyed when 'vegetarians' start trying to eat my bacon though.

Red and Blue Army!

sitdownstandup 22 Aug 16 12.33am
Originally posted by ASCPFC Humanity Dick is the man behind the RSPCA. I believe it started with cruelty to donkeys in this area. Early to mid 19th Century. His townhouse is in Galway city next to the oldest pub in Galway - Naughtons. If you're ever here I'll buy you a pint. Cheers ascpfc... never knew who he was and just googled him... quite an interesting fella, survived shipwrecks, fought in duels and, yep, behind the start of the RSPCA... quite a fella!!!! Man is the most insane species. He worships an invisible God and destroys a visible Nature. Unaware that this Nature he’s destroying is this God he’s worshipping. Hubert Reeves

sitdownstandup

22 Aug 16 12.33am

Originally posted by ASCPFC

Cheers ascpfc... never knew who he was and just googled him... quite an interesting fella, survived shipwrecks, fought in duels and, yep, behind the start of the RSPCA... quite a fella!!!!

Man is the most insane species. He worships an invisible God and destroys a visible Nature. Unaware that this Nature he’s destroying is this God he’s worshipping.

Hubert Reeves

sitdownstandup 22 Aug 16 12.40am
[Link] I posted this ages ago... if only more people thought like this kid... too much politics gets in the way of the food we eat... I talk to christians/ muslims about the treatment of animals but they are the most difficult groups to convince to think about treatment of animals strangely enough. I know a little about both religions too and understand that vegetarianism is compatible with both belief systems regardless of the fact that Mohammed and Jesus both ate meat (which is usually a justification for continuing to do so now). Man is the most insane species. He worships an invisible God and destroys a visible Nature. Unaware that this Nature he’s destroying is this God he’s worshipping. Hubert Reeves

sitdownstandup

22 Aug 16 12.40am

[Link]

I posted this ages ago... if only more people thought like this kid... too much politics gets in the way of the food we eat... I talk to christians/ muslims about the treatment of animals but they are the most difficult groups to convince to think about treatment of animals strangely enough.
I know a little about both religions too and understand that vegetarianism is compatible with both belief systems regardless of the fact that Mohammed and Jesus both ate meat (which is usually a justification for continuing to do so now).

Man is the most insane species. He worships an invisible God and destroys a visible Nature. Unaware that this Nature he’s destroying is this God he’s worshipping.

Hubert Reeves

jamiemartin721 Reading 22 Aug 16 1.29pm
Originally posted by sitdownstandup [Link] I posted this ages ago... if only more people thought like this kid... too much politics gets in the way of the food we eat... I talk to christians/ muslims about the treatment of animals but they are the most difficult groups to convince to think about treatment of animals strangely enough. I know a little about both religions too and understand that vegetarianism is compatible with both belief systems regardless of the fact that Mohammed and Jesus both ate meat (which is usually a justification for continuing to do so now). I know that the Koran is very big on cats, and camels, but especially cats. Mohammed and the Imams definitely seemed to be cat people. Christians tend to be more 'dog' in their preference - Where as hindu's are very pro-cow... Odd as it seems, there is a surprising amount on cruelty to animals (as well as humans) in the Koran. For example, cruel treatment of cats is a damnable offence, and that any food on a plate from which a cat has eaten is considered halal. Animals in general are to be respected within their function (its ok to use a camel as a stead, but beating it is a no-no). "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]

jamiemartin721

Reading 22 Aug 16 1.29pm

Originally posted by sitdownstandup

[Link]

I know that the Koran is very big on cats, and camels, but especially cats. Mohammed and the Imams definitely seemed to be cat people. Christians tend
to be more 'dog' in their preference - Where as hindu's are very pro-cow...

Odd as it seems, there is a surprising amount on cruelty to animals (as well as humans) in the Koran. For example, cruel treatment of cats is a damnable offence, and that any food on a plate from which a cat has eaten is considered halal. Animals in general are to be respected within their function (its ok to use a camel as a stead, but beating it is a no-no).

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

jamiemartin721 Reading 22 Aug 16 1.34pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger Animals eat other animals every second of every day. They do not have morality. As much as I am appalled by human cruelty to animals, I accept that we are also animals and I do not see the consumption of meat as a "sin". It is part of the natural process. I am however, happy for people to choose what they eat on moral grounds, if it makes them feel better. I am also very much in support of improving conditions and treatment of farm animals. I think its unethical to eat animals, but I do it - Which maybe serves as a good example of the difference between morals and ethics. I don't think there are really any philosophical arguments that defend eating meat, unless you have to (except maybe for Pigs who would be extinct without people eating them). Its certainly acceptable to eat animals, but realistically I would suggest that faced with a naked truth moment, of eating only vegetables and eating their pet cat/dog, people would likely turn to the carrots. I suspect we'd also be a lot less willing to eat animals if we had to raise them and slaughter them ourselves. Actually, probably not even the horror of the slaughter but the sheer amount of f**king effort involved would put most people off. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]

jamiemartin721

Reading 22 Aug 16 1.34pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

I think its unethical to eat animals, but I do it - Which maybe serves as a good example of the difference between morals and ethics. I don't think there are really any philosophical arguments that defend eating meat, unless you have to (except maybe for Pigs who would be extinct without people eating them).

Its certainly acceptable to eat animals, but realistically I would suggest that faced with a naked truth moment, of eating only vegetables and eating their pet cat/dog, people would likely turn to the carrots.

I suspect we'd also be a lot less willing to eat animals if we had to raise them and slaughter them ourselves.

Actually, probably not even the horror of the slaughter but the sheer amount of f**king effort involved would put most people off.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Mapletree Croydon 22 Aug 16 1.36pm
Animals don't have rights. They aren't capable of exercising them. Humans have controls over what they can or should do relating to animals.

Mapletree

Croydon 22 Aug 16 1.36pm

Animals don't have rights. They aren't capable of exercising them.

Humans have controls over what they can or should do relating to animals.

Mapletree Croydon 22 Aug 16 1.39pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 I think its unethical to eat animals, but I do it - Which maybe serves as a good example of the difference between morals and ethics. I don't think there are really any philosophical arguments that defend eating meat, unless you have to (except maybe for Pigs who would be extinct without people eating them). Its certainly acceptable to eat animals, but realistically I would suggest that faced with a naked truth moment, of eating only vegetables and eating their pet cat/dog, people would likely turn to the carrots. I suspect we'd also be a lot less willing to eat animals if we had to raise them and slaughter them ourselves. Actually, probably not even the horror of the slaughter but the sheer amount of f**king effort involved would put most people off. Farmers look after their animals well in the main. They also show them genuine affection. They then kill them or have them killed and eat them. What a farmer can do we all can do, it's just we aren't used to doing it.

Mapletree

Croydon 22 Aug 16 1.39pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

I suspect we'd also be a lot less willing to eat animals if we had to raise them and slaughter them ourselves.

Actually, probably not even the horror of the slaughter but the sheer amount of f**king effort involved would put most people off.

Farmers look after their animals well in the main. They also show them genuine affection. They then kill them or have them killed and eat them. What a farmer can do we all can do, it's just we aren't used to doing it.

SurreyEagle16 Next Door 22 Aug 16 1.40pm
One thing that always baffles me regarding animal rights is where individuals draw the line at what makes an "animal" and therefore deserves rights. It seems to me we as a species adopt this approach: Rare and fierce lion = goggle in awe, save them Cute, doe-eyed lamb = save and cuddle them Next doors cat = don't want them in my garden but would not kick it in the head Spider = die by blunt force trauma to the head via either a book or a shoe. For the record, i eat meat and am not a huge lover of pets in general (never had any as a kid). But i never understand when i am shouted at for not buying free range chickens by someone wiping insect guts off their furniture.

SurreyEagle16

Next Door 22 Aug 16 1.40pm

One thing that always baffles me regarding animal rights is where individuals draw the line at what makes an "animal" and therefore deserves rights. It seems to me we as a species adopt this approach:

Rare and fierce lion = goggle in awe, save them
Cute, doe-eyed lamb = save and cuddle them
Next doors cat = don't want them in my garden but would not kick it in the head
Spider = die by blunt force trauma to the head via either a book or a shoe.

For the record, i eat meat and am not a huge lover of pets in general (never had any as a kid). But i never understand when i am shouted at for not buying free range chickens by someone wiping insect guts off their furniture.

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 > Last >>

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

animal rights?

Site Map