You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > animal rights?
August 22 2019 8.52pm

animal rights?

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 3 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5 >

 

jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 22 Aug 16 3.15pm

Originally posted by Mapletree

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.

I've done it, rabbits (hunted rather than raised). I'm not to sure many people I know would be able to. Although I suspect the killing bit isn't so difficult as the rearing. Its an odd commitment, when you think about it, to rear, raise, feed and shelter a pig for a year, then kill it for a few meals.

 


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

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 22 Aug 16 3.27pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

I've done it, rabbits (hunted rather than raised). I'm not to sure many people I know would be able to. Although I suspect the killing bit isn't so difficult as the rearing. Its an odd commitment, when you think about it, to rear, raise, feed and shelter a pig for a year, then kill it for a few meals.

I'm not saying people couldn't or wouldn't, but I think we'd all end up eating a lot less meat products as a result.

I doubt I'd have had that chicken sandwich for lunch given the effort it would entail. Likely I'd still be having a roast dinner though!

 


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

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View Hrolf The Ganger's Profile Hrolf The Ganger Flag 22 Aug 16 4.22pm Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger Add Hrolf The Ganger as a friend

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.

There are very good biological reasons why it is alrtight to eat animals. We are designed to do so.

Ethics, morals and philosophy are a personal thing and nature designed us with the ability to ponder such abstractions while chewing on a nice peice of steak.

Killing animals is only abhorent because we are not conditioned to it. It wouldn't take long for us to get conditioned if the need arose. Fortunately we have Sainsbury's Tesco and Asda to save us the trouble.

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (22 Aug 2016 4.23pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View selhurst jesus's Profile selhurst jesus Flag Wimbledon 22 Aug 16 7.45pm Send a Private Message to selhurst jesus Add selhurst jesus as a friend

This is a topic that I'm pretty interested in, so sorry if I bore on for a second...

Animals have, and have had, tremendous rights in history. Egyptians worshipped cats whilst enslaving huge populations of humans, Hindus worship cows whilst having a caste system. What this shows, to me, is there is no 'natural' hierarchy really, its normally just the perspective we're born with that we take on. Interestingly, very few societies think it appropriate to show kids the killing of animals, particularly in developed countries, and this is a very human thing. Again, does this challenge the idea that its biologically wired in to us to kill other animals? Possibly...

What we do know is that humans don't need meat. The correct levels of protein, zinc, iron, vitamin d, vitamin b12, are available outside meat and dairy. We now eat a s*** load more meat than we ever have, and this is only on the rise as the industrial development of the world increases. People go on about hunter gatherer days, well take a hunter gatherer down Croydon high street and he would probably see more meat than he'd eat in his entire life. Animals are actually b******s to catch if you haven't got a fence and a bolt gun.

And so the real question is, have we got it right now? How do we treat animals, and what effect does it have on us? Well I'd say we're wrong in every way. We eat twice as much meat in this country as we did 50 years ago, and the health impact is there for all to see. Obesity's through the roof, people are getting heart disease in their 40s.

Meanwhile, the environment's going to f*** and animal agriculture's the main cause. It contirbutes more CO2 than all transport combined, then you factor in water usage, nitrous oxide and methane emissions, deforestation, decoralisation and some reckon is as much as half the reason climate change is happening.

For me whats the most f***ed up is the amount of food we give to domesticated animals. About 40% of the grain in the world is given to animals. Meanwhile, half a billion people go to sleep hungry at night. We have countries running outa water yet we produce enough water for billions of domesticated cows, chickens etc etc. Like I say, that's f***ed up whichever way you look at it.

And obviously the animals are getting a worse and worse deal. The demand for meat and dairy is leading to a need for greater supply, so the animals are given shorter lives, higher body protein levels, less and less room to grow, and less freedoms. At the minute, the rights of the average chicken include a tiny bit of sunlight, and that's about it. People don't really know how s*** farm conditions are unfortunately, partly cause most wouldnt wanna know, partly because if they did there would be a huge backlash imo. But there has been some great research done by animal rights charities on the matter.

One last point, to the fella who said about overpopulaton of humans. For me, it aint about trimming down, the whole universe involves expansion and contraction, but what keeps growing is what can keep itself stable, and not blow itself up. We have enough land to grow enough food for a lot more people than we have at the moment, and enough water etc etc. But we're being f***ing stupid by creating societies where some people get it all and others get f*** all, and instead of eating food which is easy quick and cheap to grow, were dinin out on the hardest f***ing food of all to produce, meat.

I'm not really that fussed about preaching a particular agenda here, people are smart enough to make their own minds up, I just wanted to give a different side of the argument you dont normally get because like i say this is a topic close to my heart. Knowledge is power as they say and I think we should all be clued up on what effect our life has on the world around us, and on where what we get is coming from.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 23 Aug 16 9.52am

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

There are very good biological reasons why it is alrtight to eat animals. We are designed to do so.

We're omnivores, I agree, and omnivores in the wild tend to supplement their diet with meat. In fact our closest relatives Chimps do this. What they don't do is eat it two or three times a day, as their primary means. Whilst we're biologically designed to eat meat this doesn't morally or ethically justify the action - especially as the necessity in nutrition seen in the wild, can be overcome with ease.

We eat meat because we like it - It taste good. No other reason. Of course red meat isn't actually particually good for you biologically speaking - and is a major contributory factor in bowel cancer and intestinal problems because it is very difficult to digest.

Its a very dangerous ground to say that something you can do biologically is right /moral or ethical.

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Ethics, morals and philosophy are a personal thing and nature designed us with the ability to ponder such abstractions while chewing on a nice peice of steak.

Of course ethics and morality, and philosophy aren't personal, in order to validate philosophy, ethics and morals, they must stand up to interrogation, that's pretty much the basis of philosophy - the capacity to produce arguments that resist contradiction. There is no real reason why humans eat meat, other than they like it (and also that profitability exists on cheap meat products).

I love a good steak, and will devour it. But I know its unethical and immoral. I still do it.

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
Killing animals is only abhorent because we are not conditioned to it. It wouldn't take long for us to get conditioned if the need arose. Fortunately we have Sainsbury's Tesco and Asda to save us the trouble.

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (22 Aug 2016 4.23pm)

I was thinking about this last night, and one of the things I realised is how few people in society actually are conditioned to slaughter animals. Even most farmers don't slaughter animals often - Slaughter is conducted very much away from human eyes, by an industry in which only a few of the actual employees commit the act.

Obviously we can become conditions to killing animals, but there may very well be consequences for that for human society. Because becoming conditioned to killing, death and slaughter is not really something you want to be common place in society. The act of killing isn't something you generally want people to become 'immune to'.

We eat meat because it tastes good - No other reason - our society has a high rate of vegetarianism and veganism (ironically vegetarianism is correlationally related to lower rates of cancer, and veganism is even lower).

But its a vice, like smoking, drinking, drugs we know a) its not good for us b) that there is no moral or ethical reason to do it but that we enjoy it.

 


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

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 23 Aug 16 9.58am

Originally posted by selhurst jesus

This is a topic that I'm pretty interested in, so sorry if I bore on for a second...

Animals have, and have had, tremendous rights in history. Egyptians worshipped cats whilst enslaving huge populations of humans, Hindus worship cows whilst having a caste system. What this shows, to me, is there is no 'natural' hierarchy really, its normally just the perspective we're born with that we take on. Interestingly, very few societies think it appropriate to show kids the killing of animals, particularly in developed countries, and this is a very human thing. Again, does this challenge the idea that its biologically wired in to us to kill other animals? Possibly...

What we do know is that humans don't need meat. The correct levels of protein, zinc, iron, vitamin d, vitamin b12, are available outside meat and dairy. We now eat a s*** load more meat than we ever have, and this is only on the rise as the industrial development of the world increases. People go on about hunter gatherer days, well take a hunter gatherer down Croydon high street and he would probably see more meat than he'd eat in his entire life. Animals are actually b******s to catch if you haven't got a fence and a bolt gun.

And so the real question is, have we got it right now? How do we treat animals, and what effect does it have on us? Well I'd say we're wrong in every way. We eat twice as much meat in this country as we did 50 years ago, and the health impact is there for all to see. Obesity's through the roof, people are getting heart disease in their 40s.

Meanwhile, the environment's going to f*** and animal agriculture's the main cause. It contirbutes more CO2 than all transport combined, then you factor in water usage, nitrous oxide and methane emissions, deforestation, decoralisation and some reckon is as much as half the reason climate change is happening.

For me whats the most f***ed up is the amount of food we give to domesticated animals. About 40% of the grain in the world is given to animals. Meanwhile, half a billion people go to sleep hungry at night. We have countries running outa water yet we produce enough water for billions of domesticated cows, chickens etc etc. Like I say, that's f***ed up whichever way you look at it.

And obviously the animals are getting a worse and worse deal. The demand for meat and dairy is leading to a need for greater supply, so the animals are given shorter lives, higher body protein levels, less and less room to grow, and less freedoms. At the minute, the rights of the average chicken include a tiny bit of sunlight, and that's about it. People don't really know how s*** farm conditions are unfortunately, partly cause most wouldnt wanna know, partly because if they did there would be a huge backlash imo. But there has been some great research done by animal rights charities on the matter.

One last point, to the fella who said about overpopulaton of humans. For me, it aint about trimming down, the whole universe involves expansion and contraction, but what keeps growing is what can keep itself stable, and not blow itself up. We have enough land to grow enough food for a lot more people than we have at the moment, and enough water etc etc. But we're being f***ing stupid by creating societies where some people get it all and others get f*** all, and instead of eating food which is easy quick and cheap to grow, were dinin out on the hardest f***ing food of all to produce, meat.

I'm not really that fussed about preaching a particular agenda here, people are smart enough to make their own minds up, I just wanted to give a different side of the argument you dont normally get because like i say this is a topic close to my heart. Knowledge is power as they say and I think we should all be clued up on what effect our life has on the world around us, and on where what we get is coming from.

Overpopulation is a species who's expansion outstrips the sustainability. Human expansion on the planet is entirely driven by petro-chemical extraction. Realistically, whilst resource production on the planet is limited, human expansion is outstripping this and the only compensating factor is technology.

Sooner or later that bubble bursts, and the longer it goes unchecked the more devastating the consequences become. The moral and ethical thing to do, is to act to reduce birth rates across the board, as it involves the least amount of suffering.

Because starvation, war and disease aren't particularly nice ways to die, and not being born isn't actually a big deal.

 


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

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View Hrolf The Ganger's Profile Hrolf The Ganger Flag 23 Aug 16 11.07am Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger Add Hrolf The Ganger as a friend

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

I was thinking about this last night, and one of the things I realised is how few people in society actually are conditioned to slaughter animals. Even most farmers don't slaughter animals often - Slaughter is conducted very much away from human eyes, by an industry in which only a few of the actual employees commit the act.

Obviously we can become conditions to killing animals, but there may very well be consequences for that for human society. Because becoming conditioned to killing, death and slaughter is not really something you want to be common place in society. The act of killing isn't something you generally want people to become 'immune to'.

We eat meat because it tastes good - No other reason - our society has a high rate of vegetarianism and veganism (ironically vegetarianism is correlationally related to lower rates of cancer, and veganism is even lower).

But its a vice, like smoking, drinking, drugs we know a) its not good for us b) that there is no moral or ethical reason to do it but that we enjoy it.

This is where psychobabble has no real bearing on reality.
The fact is that we like eating meat because our bodies require it as a high nutrition food source which gives a high calorie intake in one sitting.This could be vital when food is in short supply. Our brains tell us we like it so we eat it.That is part of the survival mechanism. Any moral conflict we might have or consensus about ethics is a luxury afforded us by our organised society. Without that, the question of ethics or morality would be a distant consideration. Of course some cultures have linked meat eating and the killing of animals to some sort of spiritual belief but it generally didn't stop them eating it. There is an argument that we don't actually need meat in our diet as long as we eat other protein sources but the effects of that are not something that can be easily assessed. It is, in the end, a personal choice and not something that should be branded as either unethical,immoral or moral. It is, whether you like it or not, how nature intended us to behave and unless there is a serious societal need control it then it should remain a choice for the individual. That said, the image of the criminal underworld trading in pork chops and steak slices amuses me.
Food is not comparable to recreational pursuits like tobacco or alcohol. Those substances effect the brain in such a way as to make us want more but we don't actually require them for nutrition.
As for bowel cancer. The research on any of these sorts of dietary issues is a bit flimsy at best. To carry out proper science you need certain conditions and you can't have those conditions in the general population.
Personally I try to eat mostly like a "cave man". They probably didn't eat meat every day and if and when they did, I doubt it was red meat. More likely smaller prey.
The people who moan about the risk of meat eating should consider all the other risk factors that they thrust upon themselves and try and put it into a better perspective.
In short, life is generally bad for you and you won't get out of it alive.


Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (23 Aug 2016 11.10am)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 23 Aug 16 1.27pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

This is where psychobabble has no real bearing on reality.
The fact is that we like eating meat because our bodies require it as a high nutrition food source which gives a high calorie intake in one sitting.

Which is maladaptive, given that the need for high calorie in take is unnecessary.

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

This could be vital when food is in short supply. Our brains tell us we like it so we eat it.

The first is correct, that's exactly how all other omnvirores consume meat, as a supplement, rather than a primary source of food. Reducing us to a brain mechanism response is reductive. The same response applies to sugar, but we temper our in take of sugar.

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
That is part of the survival mechanism.

That is no longer evolutionary benefical. In fact, given the reality is the amount of meat we consume is medically unhealthy, its a maladaptive evolutionary development (something that was benefical but no longer is).

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Any moral conflict we might have or consensus about ethics is a luxury afforded us by our organised society. Without that, the question of ethics or morality would be a distant consideration.

Which is irrelivent as we exist in a society, and as far is demonstrated by anthropology, all societies construct ethics. The basis of ethics and morality is the constructive argument, logic and the construction of validity and reliability.

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
There is an argument that we don't actually need meat in our diet as long as we eat other protein sources but the effects of that are not something that can be easily assessed.

Its true. You don't need to eat meat, which means it has no biological imperative (in fact our ancestors and even grand parents ate no where near as much meat as we do now).

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
It is, in the end, a personal choice and not something that should be branded as either unethical,immoral or moral.

Were talking in a topic on Animal Rights. You cannot discuss rights without ethics. I don't think its immoral per se, but as there is no philosophical argument that its ethical to eat animals. It is therefore unethical. Irrespective of biology. Its biologically possible to rape someone, that doesn't make it ethical.

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
It is, whether you like it or not, how nature intended us to behave and unless there is a serious societal need control it then it should remain a choice for the individual.

Setting aside the idea that nature intends anything, I quite agree. Its a personal choice. I make that choice, even though I know its unethical to do so. I see no problem. People are not ethical constructs, we judge ethical issues on a scale of importance, of which this isn't a particularly important issue (although we'd judge it as a crime to kill and eat certain animals).

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
Food is not comparable to recreational pursuits like tobacco or alcohol. Those substances effect the brain in such a way as to make us want more but we don't actually require them for nutrition.

Yes there is, on the basis of your argument. Biologically we are also primed towards pleasure. We don't require meat for nutrition either. We generally prepare and consume it in forms that give us greater pleasure.

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
As for bowel cancer. The research on any of these sorts of dietary issues is a bit flimsy at best. To carry out proper science you need certain conditions and you can't have those conditions in the general population.

I wouldn't say its flimsy. Its correlational, and the correlational point is pretty high. There is a relationship, it may not be causal, but the correlation is interesting given that low red meat populations and vegetarians show a significantly lower incidence of bowel cancers, and vegans even lower.

But then its a correlation between smoking and lung cancer, not a proven fact.

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Personally I try to eat mostly like a "cave man". They probably didn't eat meat every day and if and when they did, I doubt it was red meat. More likely smaller prey.
Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (23 Aug 2016 11.10am)

They would have rarely eaten meat, given the productive requirement of hunting, as opposed to gathering - Most primitive tribes tend to consume small ratios of meat to vegetables/fruit.

 


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

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View sniffer dagenham's Profile sniffer dagenham Flag The narm, Dagennarm 23 Aug 16 1.47pm Send a Private Message to sniffer dagenham Add sniffer dagenham as a friend

If you take offence by what you're about to read then tuff $hit. You need to man up a bit.

Many love eating it and many dont. I've not given up but eat far less meat than I did 12 months ago. Still love a bacon sandwich and a good roast dinner. I'll never been a veggie but do love the food I now cook.

Farmers rear animals for a reason. Because there are millions of people who still eat it!!

Don't care for all the arguments of good or bad so why don't you just simply agree to disagree about it.

Is there really a health issue with eating meat? Don't care we have been eating it for millions of years and we just carry on.

As for the first question is it not about time you started to think about our fellow human beings more than just animals? Especially the elderly. Those who are old and frail cant get around as easy as us. The ones who you hear about on the news.Yes the 87 year old who died and didn't discover the body for 10 weeks. Those are the ones we should be thinking about too. Love my pets and would be lost without them. But there is more to this planet than thinking about eating plants than eating animals.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
bubble wrap Flag Carparks in South East London 23 Aug 16 3.01pm

Only rights animal have are to be on the right of my plate next to my vegetables.
Hate dogs,cats and most animals that are kept as pets. Should all be in the food chain or not exist.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 23 Aug 16 3.26pm

Originally posted by sniffer dagenham

If you take offence by what you're about to read then tuff $hit. You need to man up a bit.

Many love eating it and many dont. I've not given up but eat far less meat than I did 12 months ago. Still love a bacon sandwich and a good roast dinner. I'll never been a veggie but do love the food I now cook.

Farmers rear animals for a reason. Because there are millions of people who still eat it!!

Don't care for all the arguments of good or bad so why don't you just simply agree to disagree about it.

Is there really a health issue with eating meat? Don't care we have been eating it for millions of years and we just carry on.

As for the first question is it not about time you started to think about our fellow human beings more than just animals? Especially the elderly. Those who are old and frail cant get around as easy as us. The ones who you hear about on the news.Yes the 87 year old who died and didn't discover the body for 10 weeks. Those are the ones we should be thinking about too. Love my pets and would be lost without them. But there is more to this planet than thinking about eating plants than eating animals.

Kills time though arguing over points on the internet. Oddly I don't really care too much about my fellow humans, f**k them, they've got a voice and can do something about it. Granted people shouldn't be left alone in society dying and not being found for 10 weeks though.

 


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

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 23 Aug 16 3.27pm

Originally posted by bubble wrap

Only rights animal have are to be on the right of my plate next to my vegetables.
Hate dogs,cats and most animals that are kept as pets. Should all be in the food chain or not exist.

You do realise that humans are not the top of the food chain?

 


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

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 3 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > animal rights?