Social contradiction on how we treat animals

Hitman3000

Eathrin wrote:

This thread is about a social contradiction and is one thing you might think about when considering what is truly just. Many of these contradictions in how we behave versus what we believe should help lead you to your own conclusions.

I answered the question about a precieved contradiction but the mod seems to be on a deletion spree.

gozunda

Eathrin wrote: »

Yes. If we can almost universally agree that things like slavery, rape, murder, child abuse etc etc are wrong then why not this.

There is no blame or hatred of those who don't yet subscribe to these views because we know that most of us were once meat eaters who were brought up believing something that was unjust. It's can be difficult and long drawn out to change a belief that has stuck with you so long. Beliefs that you don't question because they've been with you so long, any alternative view just seems totally alien and uncomfortable.

This thread is about a social contradiction and is one thing you might think about when considering what is truly just. Many of these contradictions in how we behave versus what we believe should help lead you to your own conclusions.

Because that is a much debunked and very tired simplistic vegan argument. I see it trotted out on a regular basis as if it makes some kind of sense. It doesn't.

Because simply "slavery, rape, murder, child abuse" are legaly defined offences against other humans. Now if you are proposing that we arrest and charge all who eat meat with such crimes then your logic does not hold.

Eating meat is not and will never be a universal criminal act. if it was prisons would have to be full of foxes, hyenas and tigers and other meat eaters. Unlike those human based laws - the eating of meat is a part of the law of entrophy or the recycling of nutrients in ecology. You may not like that but those facts don't change no matter what your opinion is on meat eating.

Not everyone does or will ever describe to that particular world view.

There is no social contradiction in the eating of meat except in the mind of those who dont.

standardg60

Op i'll try to answer your original question..for me this whole 'social contradiction' is basically down to one thing, namely that some of us are controlled by emotion and others by logic and that is just human nature. I find that people who are against the killing of animals for food are unable to remove themselves from the 'what if I was in their shoes' thought process.
Animals have no concept of the future, the cow next in line in the slaughterhouse has no concept that the fate of the one in front is about to befall them, it's only us who have this. You're simply projecting how you'd feel.

In relation to why we treat cats and dogs differently, if you think about it they are kept as pets because of how they make us feel, not the other way round. It's only our emotional attachment to them which makes us feel differently. Do you think that the much loved pet about to be euthanized feels differently to the cow?

gozunda

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Seeing the light? So anyone who does not subscribe to your way of life is wrong? Is that the inference here?

Tbh I see that as one of main problems with the whole concept of 'social contradiction'

I agree with you that 'seeing the light' and similar declarations indicate some type of absolute belief. Unfortunately like other belief systems - it suggests that the behaviours and / or beliefs of non believers are somehow 'wrong' even where that does not follow or where such beliefs do not stand up to the scrutiny of others.

Of course everyone is entitled to their beliefs with the provisio - that is so as long as those beliefs do not infringe on the beliefs or legal rights of others.

Tar.Aldarion

gozunda wrote: »

Of course everyone is entitled to their beliefs with the provisio - that is so as long as those beliefs do not infringe on the beliefs or rights of others.

That's probably part of the difference in views and the crux of some of the social contradiction points. An animal such as a dog has certain laws and rights in various countries associated with them so that people can not infringe upon their rights. Then a similar animal does not have the same laws protecting them. Even cats in Britain don't have as good laws protecting them as dogs, let alone traditional western-centric farmed animals. Traditionally because cats were seen as worse than dogs by society. Simply put, you can get charged with animal cruelty or not, depending on what type of animal an animal is. It is not because of morality, attributes or absolute worth, it is because of current or past societal opinion which makes laws and changes over time.

Eathrin

gozunda wrote: »

Because simply "slavery, rape, murder, child abuse" are legaly defined offences against other humans. Now if you are proposing that we arrest and charge all who eat meat with such crimes then your logic does not hold.

Eating meat is not and will never be a universal criminal act. if it was prisons would have to be full of foxes, hyenas and tigers and other meat eaters. Unlike those human based laws - the eating of meat is a part of the law of entrophy or the recycling of nutrients in ecology. You may not like that but those facts don't change no matter what your opinion is on meat eating.

Wild animals rape and murder each other all the time. I wouldn't be putting them in prison for it. I hold myself to higher standards than wild animals though. I'm not suggesting making eating meat illegal either, you do draw out some pretty insane conclusions. Again, I can act morally outside of the law. You don't need to look very far back in history to see where the law was quite obviously morally flawed. The law isn't necessarily just there for human on human offences either. Animal cruelty can carry quite a sentence depending on where you are in the world. However, again due to this "contradiction", the abuse of some animals is perceived to be worthy of greater sentencing than others. I don't support animal abuse at all.

standardg60 wrote: »

Animals have no concept of the future, the cow next in line in the slaughterhouse has no concept that the fate of the one in front is about to befall them, it's only us who have this. You're simply projecting how you'd feel.

Have you ever seen a cow in a slaughterhouse? Because I've seen lots of footage of cows absolutely terrified for their lives in these final moments. How could you not when you hear the screams of those who went before you and smell their blood?

gozunda

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

That's probably part of the difference in views and the crux of some of the social contradiction points. An animal such as a dog has certain laws and rights in various countries associated with them so that people can not infringe upon their rights. Then a similar animal does not have the same laws protecting them. Even cats in Britain don't have as good laws protecting them as dogs, let alone traditional western-centric farmed animals. Traditionally because cats were seen as worse than dogs by society. Simply put, you can get charged with animal cruelty or not, depending on what type of animal an animal is. It is not because of morality or absolute worth, it is because of current or past societal opinion which makes laws and changes over time.

Well let's look at Ireland for example where all animals recieve specific protections. These 'rights' as you describe them as far as I understand are not vested the way human laws are because such animals are under the care of their human minders. The Animal Welfare Act (2013) details that people must provide the "five freedoms" to animals under their care: freedom from hunger and thirst, freedom from discomfort (by providing adequate living conditions), freedom from pain, injury and disease, freedom to express normal behaviour, and freedom from fear and distress. 

These laws do not stop those minders from either euthanising domestic animals or sending farm animals to the factory as again it is recognised that is part of a controlled and regulated processes which provide for health management and food production. Fail to provide any of those five freedoms to any domestic or farmed animal will likley result in a conviction or other penalty.

And yes where they may be differences - it holds that like the 2013 Animal Welfare Act there is always scope for improving animal welfare laws. So no I don't see that that constitutes any social contradiction.

ganmo

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

That's probably part of the difference in views and the crux of some of the social contradiction points. An animal such as a dog has certain laws and rights in various countries associated with them so that people can not infringe upon their rights. Then a similar animal does not have the same laws protecting them. Even cats in Britain don't have as good laws protecting them as dogs, let alone traditional western-centric farmed animals. Traditionally because cats were seen as worse than dogs by society. Simply put, you can get charged with animal cruelty or not, depending on what type of animal an animal is. It is not because of morality, attributes or absolute worth, it is because of current or past societal opinion which makes laws and changes over time.

The only laws that I know of that target dogs rather than cats put responsibility on the owners. Which laws are you thinking of?
Where are there Animal rights(rather than welfare) laws on the books?

Lady Haywire

Eathrin wrote: »

Wild animals rape and murder each other all the time. I wouldn't be putting them in prison for it. I hold myself to higher standards than wild animals though. I'm not suggesting making eating meat illegal either, you do draw out some pretty insane conclusions. Again, I can act morally outside of the law. You don't need to look very far back in history to see where the law was quite obviously morally flawed. The law isn't necessarily just there for human on human offences either. Animal cruelty can carry quite a sentence depending on where you are in the world. However, again due to this "contradiction", the abuse of some animals is perceived to be worthy of greater sentencing than others. I don't support animal abuse at all.

''If we can almost universally agree that things like slavery, rape, murder, child abuse etc etc are wrong then why not this.''

You named out things which were all illegal & specified that this could also be put into the same spectrum. So yea, forgive myself & others for thinking you meant to make it illegal.

Eathrin wrote: »

Have you ever seen a cow in a slaughterhouse? Because I've seen lots of footage of cows absolutely terrified for their lives in these final moments. How could you not when you hear the screams of those who went before you and smell their blood?

I have actually, I worked in one, I was the livestock manager so I took all the cattle in. Most were calm, drank water, licked away at molasses. Went up the chute with no screams (Cattle can't scream btw)
Cattle cannot process what's in the future, they only think of the here and now so no they would have had a basic instinct that something wasn't normal but they wouldnt be fearing for their lives.

Traditionally cattle were for ploughing, leather, milk & meat as they were grazers who needed little care. Sheep provided milk, wool, hides & live in harsher climates. Cats & dogs are regarded as companion animals for a few factors. They are easy to share room with, & show devotion & thuse we form this emotional bond with them. But they are small, have uses like rodent protection & guarding. They require more upkeep by actually eating meat themselves so the cattle would have to be reared to feed them anyway.
Now of course you could choose have a pet cow or pig. And…in the same way, you are not required to eat them.

standardg60

Eathrin wrote: »

Wild animals rape and murder each other all the time. I wouldn't be putting them in prison for it. I hold myself to higher standards than wild animals though. I'm not suggesting making eating meat illegal either, you do draw out some pretty insane conclusions. Again, I can act morally outside of the law. You don't need to look very far back in history to see where the law was quite obviously morally flawed. The law isn't necessarily just there for human on human offences either. Animal cruelty can carry quite a sentence depending on where you are in the world. However, again due to this "contradiction", the abuse of some animals is perceived to be worthy of greater sentencing than others. I don't support animal abuse at all.



Have you ever seen a cow in a slaughterhouse? Because I've seen lots of footage of cows absolutely terrified for their lives in these final moments. How could you not when you hear the screams of those who went before you and smell their blood?

This is exactly what I mean!
You can only believe them to be terrified because of how you would feel, thank you for proving my point.
There is absolutely no point in arguing this with you though because of your inability to separate logic from emotion. That's not a putdown btw, it's just the way you are.

gozunda

Eathrin wrote: »

Wild animals rape and murder each other all the time. I wouldn't be putting them in prison for it. I hold myself to higher standards than wild animals though. I'm not suggesting making eating meat illegal either, you do draw out some pretty insane conclusions. Again, I can act morally outside of the law. You don't need to look very far back in history to see where the law was quite obviously morally flawed. The law isn't necessarily just there for human on human offences either. Animal cruelty can carry quite a sentence depending on where you are in the world. However, again due to this "contradiction", the abuse of some animals is perceived to be worthy of greater sentencing than others. I don't support animal abuse at all.

Do they? Animals have no concept of rape or murder. There are uniquely human precepts. We can only hold ourself to our (own) human standards and laws - that's the whole point. And yes the logical projection of making the act of killing an an animal and inter alia the eating of meat illegal logically means that in assigning human rights and laws to animals that ultimately predators and other meat eaters will be breaking those laws.

And don't think this is crazy either - that idea is already being pushed by vegan thinkers who see animal meat eaters as serial killers. With regard to your point on ' animal right' differences It is humans who are responsible for ensuring laws on 'animal cruelty' are implemented. I have posted on this previously.

The law doesn't support animal abuse either. In fact I don't know anyone who supports or engages in animal abuse as defined by our laws. That said I understand animal abuse sometimes happens and that is why we have those laws.

Whatever 'you believe' is moral must be done within the law. Try presenting a defence that your morals do not need to be exercised within the law and I guarantee you will end up in court at some point. In Ireland the Animal Welfare Act of 2013 confers the same protection on all domestic and farm animals.

Eathrin wrote: »

Have you ever seen a cow in a slaughterhouse? Because I've seen lots of footage of cows absolutely terrified for their lives in these final moments. How could you not when you hear the screams of those who went before you and smell their blood?

Yes I have. In Ireland. I would suggest much of the footage you've been exposed to is highly selected and edited by certain extreme vegan interests working to their own agenda. I think you are anthropomorphising the slaughter process. Humans 'scream'. Animals don't. I've seen animals outside a facility waiting with no indicator that they are aware of where they are or what is to happen. That is my personal experience.

anewme

This type of crap is too much for me.

For me a gut instinct of what is right or wrong for me will direct me.

There's just too much politics to allow people make their own decisions.

Eathrin

standardg60 wrote: »

This is exactly what I mean!
You can only believe them to be terrified because of how you would feel, thank you for proving my point.

Have you ever seen a terrified dog?

There is absolutely no point in arguing this with you though because of your inability to separate logic from emotion. That's not a putdown btw, it's just the way you are.

My arguments all come from a point of logic. I've previously linked several scientific studies on the environmental benefit and health benefits of veganism over traditional diets. It is not necessary to slaughter animals, so, also from a point of compassion, I would rather they didn't suffer this abuse.

I'm glad I am the way I am. Ignorance is not a virtue, so I wouldn't want to be like you.

Base price

gozunda wrote: »

Do they? Animals have no concept of rape or murder. There are uniquely human precepts. We can only hold ourself to our (own) human standards and laws - that's the whole point. And yes the logical projection of making the act of killing an an animal and inter alia the eating of meat illegal logically means that in assigning human rights and laws to animals that ultimately predators and other meat eaters will be breaking those laws.

And don't think this is crazy either - that idea is already being pushed by vegan thinkers who see animal meat eaters as serial killers. With regard to your point on ' animal right' differences It is humans who are responsible for ensuring laws on 'animal cruelty' are implemented. I have posted on this previously.

The law doesn't support animal abuse either. In fact I don't know anyone who supports or engages in animal abuse as defined by our laws. That said I understand animal abuse sometimes happens and that is why we have those laws.

Whatever 'you believe' is moral must be done within the law. Try presenting a defence that your morals do not need to be exercised within the law and I guarantee you will end up in court at some point. In Ireland the Animal Welfare Act of 2013 confers the same protection on all domestic and farm animals.



Yes I have. In Ireland. I would suggest much of the footage you've been exposed to is highly selected and edited by certain extreme vegan interests working to their own agenda. I think you are anthropomorphising the slaughter process. Humans 'scream'. Animals don't. I've seen animals outside a facility waiting with no indicator that they are aware of where they are or what is to happen. That is my personal experience.

AFAIK the Animal Health and Welfare Act 2013 confers protection to all animals.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2013/act/15/section/2/enacted/en/html
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2013/act/15/section/12/enacted/en/html#sec12

ExoPolitic

Either way the animals serve their purpose, how humans want them.

For companionship or a good bacon buttie, its all good.

That's all there is to it really, we use animals like we use plants and resources of the earth, to our advantage.

standardg60

anewme wrote: »

This type of crap is too much for me.

For me a gut instinct of what is right or wrong for me will direct me.

There's just too much politics to allow people make their own decisions.

Have you always had the same 'gut instinct' then?
About anything?

anewme

standardg60 wrote: »

Have you always had the same 'gut instinct' then?
About anything?

Yes and it's served me well.

Base price

ExoPolitic wrote: »

Either way the animals serve their purpose, how humans want them.

For companionship or a good bacon buttie, its all good.

That's all there is to it really, we use animals like we use plants and resources of the earth, to our advantage.

You have stated it in a nutshell.
Excuse the pun

standardg60

Eathrin wrote: »

Have you ever seen a terrified dog?



My arguments all come from a point of logic. I've previously linked several scientific studies on the environmental benefit and health benefits of veganism over traditional diets. It is not necessary to slaughter animals, so, also from a point of compassion, I would rather they didn't suffer this abuse.

I'm glad I am the way I am. Ignorance is not a virtue, so I wouldn't want to be like you.

You are still proving my point. You've seen a terrified dog because of something that's happened in its past, not in its future!

And your argument doesn't come from a point of logic at all, you've firstly reached a conclusion based on emotion and only then tried to argue that point with completely irrelevant (to the argument) information.

Would you care to address my point as to how a pet being euthanized in the vets is any different to a cow being slaughtered?
As far as they know they've both lived long and happy lives, its only you who doesn't think that.

anewme

standardg60 wrote: »

You are still proving my point. You've seen a terrified dog because of something that's happened in its past, not in its future!

And your argument doesn't come from a point of logic at all, you've firstly reached a conclusion based on emotion and only then tried to argue that point with completely irrelevant (to the argument) information.

Would you care to address my point as to how a pet being euthanized in the vets is any different to a cow being slaughtered?
As far as they know they've both lived long and happy lives, its only you who doesn't think that.

This is the type of **** I don't want to get into. Making excuses about my feelings and opinions.

I don't feel I owe this person an opinion or apology about how I live my life. They are not paying my Salary. .

ExoPolitic

Base price wrote: »

You have stated it in a nutshell.
Excuse the pun

Thanks!

I just see it for how it is, what ever we do in between is just culturally appropriate to who ever is dealing with the animals.

There is no right answer if you are taking the world as your context.

Base price

anewme wrote: »

This is the type of **** I don't want to get into. Making excuses about my feelings and opinions.

I don't feel I owe this person an opinion or apology about how I live my life. They are not paying my Salary. .

Why on Earth should your feelings/opinions be influenced by your Employer ???

standardg60

anewme wrote: »

This is the type of **** I don't want to get into. Making excuses about my feelings and opinions.

I don't feel I owe this person an opinion or apology about how I live my life. They are not paying my Salary. .

You don't, and I don't care about how you live your life.
I was simply responding rationally to the op and others who want to question how I live mine.

gozunda

anewme wrote: »

This is the type of **** I don't want to get into. Making excuses about my feelings and opinions.

I don't feel I owe this person an opinion or apology about how I live my life. They are not paying my Salary. .

Tbh I don't think they are. That conversation is covering stuff brought up between them relating to their own stand on those issues.

We are all free to come up with out own ideas - it doesn't mean we can't talk about them or discuss how we arrived at that point.

For myself I've been around animals all my life. I prefer to see animals well looked after and cared for much like the chickens you were talking about. That said I'm a realist that accepts that both domestic and farm animals have different lives and experiences do our own.

I'm interested in animal welfare and making sure animals are well looked after. I've read a fair bit about this and whilst doing that have came on various stuff about veganism. Most of which in principle is ok. However i have noted that there is a worrying extremist edge as well .

The scariest thing I personally came across were several vegan writers who genuinly proposed that wild carnivores and other meat eaters should be eradicated, because they believed those carnivores caused suffering to other animals. I had thought perhaps these ideas were fairly isolated until I and across several facebook pages which - very much supported these ideas. This worries me deeply. Because humans should not play god and determine whether any wild animal should exist or not purely on the basis of what other wild animal it eats.

I know most vegans don't entertain such ideas but the issue I see is that there are those who embrace these types of ideas as part of their belief that 'meat is murder' to 'all meat is murder and that is not right imo.

Base price

ExoPolitic wrote: »

Thanks!

I just see it for how it is, what ever we do in between is just culturally appropriate to who ever is dealing with the animals.

There is no right answer if you are taking the world as your context.

For fecks sake what other context can one take .

Thankfully I will be long dead when we (Homo Sapiens) spin out off this little Planet.
I often wonder why people who champion Veggie/Vegan diets refer to animal welfare but neglect to reference the destruction of ancient/historic natural habitats that clears virgin ground for palm trees etc.

anewme

Base price wrote: »

Why on Earth should your feelings/opinions be influenced by your Employer ???

Lighten up ffs.

It's a saying.

He who pays the piper calls the tune.

ExoPolitic

Base price wrote: »

For fecks sake what other context can one take .

Thankfully I will be long dead when we (Homo Sapiens) spin out off this little Planet.
I often wonder why people who champion Veggie/Vegan diets refer to animal welfare but neglect to reference the destruction of ancient/historic natural habitats that clears virgin ground for palm trees etc.

Well... if you lived in northern China, you'd be eating the dog you care so much about here in Ireland lol.

Or if you lived in the middle east you'd kill your animal by slitting its throat and hanging it up to drain of blood and that would be seen as the normal thing to do.

Depends from where you are in the world in relation to the answer of the OP

emaherx

Eathrin wrote: »

It is not necessary to slaughter animals, so, also from a point of compassion, I would rather they didn't suffer this abuse.

Isn't it though? How large does a creature need to be before it matters? Lots of insecticide used to produce vegtables. Rodent/pest control a requirement at many levels of food production. Plenty of animals killed either intentionally or unintentionally in the large scale production of all food.

auspicious

A house down the road in a housing estate has a 2 to 3 month old kitten locked in the boiler house outside by itself with no water or food, in darkness.
It is constantly crying ( not in a nice way) and scratching to get out. Many neighbours are commenting.
I haven't seen it myself. One neighbour called to door pretending she had lost her cat and asked the man of the house to open the boiler. He did so but quickly snapped the doors shut after proving it was not the lady's cat.
Disturbed by the interaction, the concerned lady went in to the local ISPCA here in the midlands to report the issue.
Quote " What do you want us to do about it?" was the association representative's reply. Quite shocking coming from a body designed to provide and most likely encourage positive animal welfare practices.

What should be done? Should the guards be notified about the distressed kitten?

ganmo

auspicious wrote: »

A house down the road in a housing estate has a 2 to 3 month old kitten locked in the boiler house outside by itself with no water or food, in darkness.
It is constantly crying ( not in a nice way) and scratching to get out. Many neighbours are commenting.
I haven't seen it myself. One neighbour called to door pretending she had lost her cat and asked the man of the house to open the boiler. He did so but quickly snapped the doors shut after proving it was not the lady's cat.
Disturbed by the interaction, the concerned lady went in to the local ISPCA here in the midlands to report the issue.
Quote " What do you want us to do about it?" was the association representative's reply. Quite shocking coming from a body designed to provide and most likely encourage positive animal welfare practices.

What should be done? Should the guards be notified about the distressed kitten?

This should be asked in the animal and pets forum

Nekarsulm

Eathrin wrote: »

It is not necessary to slaughter animals, so, also from a point of compassion, I would rather they didn't suffer this abuse.

Well that's true, but it's what all reasonable humans in Western society do, and in as humane a way as possible.
In the natural world, of course, this is not the way.
They rip each other apart and eat each other while still alive.
Have you ever seen a cat torment and kill/eat a mouse?
A terrier with a rat?
Any wildlife programme on the TV from the Serengetti or the great plains of Africa?

Eathrin

Nekarsulm wrote: »

Well that's true, but it's what all reasonable humans in Western society do, and in as humane a way as possible.
In the natural world, of course, this is not the way.
They rip each other apart and eat each other while still alive.
Have you ever seen a cat torment and kill/eat a mouse?
A terrier with a rat?
Any wildlife programme on the TV from the Serengetti or the great plains of Africa?

What makes it reasonable when there is a viable and better for everyone solution available for all? These animals have their whole short life planned out for them the moment they're born, and it's usually not all that humane.

Humane - "having or showing compassion or benevolence". No such thing as humane slaughter I'm afraid.

I consider myself capable of making decisions morally superior to that of a wild animal.

gozunda

Eathrin wrote: »

What makes it reasonable when there is a viable and better for everyone solution available for all? These animals have their whole short life planned out for them the moment they're born, and it's usually not all that humane.
Humane - "having or showing compassion or benevolence". No such thing as humane slaughter I'm afraid.I consider myself capable of making decisions morally superior to that of a wild animal.

Unfortunately some misinformation there . At the scale required to feed everyone on the planet - the alternatives have been shown to be little better or any more viable than that any other system in that arable, horticulture and animal agricultural systems are intrinsically linked. Is there room for improvement in these systems - undeniabley yes.

Livestock farming remains a very important part of Agriculture - for the one simple reason that vast amount of land on the planet which can not be used to grow crops suitable for humans - such as areas of climatic and topographical limited grasslands which cover vast areas of the globe. In these areas farm animals eat grass - which humans are not able to. And in these areas livestock rearing remain the mainstay for local populations.

As to humane - farming in Ireland is every bit as humane as possible. Farm animals such as cows etc are cared for in detailed humane conditions and are protected by law to ensure that those responsible for animals must provide "five freedoms" to animals under their care, these are:
freedom from hunger and thirst, freedom from discomfort (by providing adequate living conditions), freedom from pain, injury and disease, freedom to express normal behaviour, and freedom from fear and distress. 

A quick browse shows that humane slaughter is both practised and legislated here in that every animal for slaughter must be instantaneously killed or rendered instantaneously unconscious and insensible to pain until death occurs. Dept of Agriculture vetinary staff oversee all slaughter facilities.
Legislated conditions for humane slaughter include:
,*Supply of water and food to animals prior to slaughter.
*Prohibition of slaughter in sight of another animal.
*Prohibition of slaughter causing excessive suffering.
*Compulsory use of approved instrument for slaughter of animals.
*Approved instruments for slaughter of animals.
*Requirement for Slaughter Licences. *Prohibition of slaughtering without licence.

Ensuring animals are fed and looked after and are slaughtered quickly is both humane and correct. . Animals in the wild unfortunately frequently suffer fairly agonising deaths. And yes that is how it is. As humans however - we can provide humane slaughter conditions for the animals in our care and imo that is the right thing to do.

It matters little if anyone considers themselves "capable of making decisions morally superior to that of a wild animal". No society revolves around any one person's world view. I would add that to define oneself as superior to wild animals is in itself speciest. Tbh I find that a strange stance as vegan.

gozunda

Eathrin - for clarification the definition that you gave for "Humane" appears to be incomplete.

Eathrin wrote:

Humane - "having or showing compassion or benevolence"...

This from the online dictionary:

humane
adjective

1. having or showing compassion or benevolence.

"regulations ensuring the humane treatment of animals"

synonyms:compassionate, kind, kindly, kind-hearted, considerate, understanding, sympathetic, tolerant, civilized, good, good-natured, gentle; 

lenient,forbearing, forgiving, merciful,mild, tender, clement, benign,humanitarian, benevolent,charitable, generous,magnanimous; 

approachable,accessible;  rarebenignant

"regulations ensuring the humane treatment of animals"

Eathrin

I agree with the definition

To murder compassionately
To murder kindly
To murder kind-heartedly
To murder considerately
To murder understandingly
To murder sympathetically
...

These are oxymorons. Humane treatment of animals means not murdering them for starters. This isn't the same as euthanising a pet that is in pain and has lived a full life. How you fail to see the contradiction there is beyond me.

Using the law as your sole moral compass is living blindly if you ask me. No doubt it's a good starting point but the law has been shown to be morally lacking time and time again throughout history. Slavery, apartheid, women's rights, children's rights etc. Were any of these things morally justifiable just because they were lawful and regulated in the past?

If you don't possess the decision making ability superior to that of a wild animal then I truly pity you!

emaherx

Eathrin wrote: »

I agree with the definition

To murder compassionately
To murder kindly
To murder kind-heartedly
To murder considerately
To murder understandingly
To murder sympathetically
...

These are oxymorons. Humane treatment of animals means not murdering them for starters. This isn't the same as euthanising a pet that is in pain and has lived a full life. How you fail to see the contradiction there is beyond me.

Using the law as your sole moral compass is living blindly if you ask me. No doubt it's a good starting point but the law has been shown to be morally lacking time and time again throughout history. Slavery, apartheid, women's rights, children's rights etc. Were any of these things morally justifiable just because they were lawful and regulated in the past?

If you don't possess the decision making ability superior to that of a wild animal then I truly pity you!

And what of the sentient creatures killed to produce your food, this is the social contradiction.



Murder?
Definition of Murder; The premeditated unlawful killing of one human by another.
Safe to say no animal has ever been murdered.

gozunda

Eathrin wrote: »

I agree with the definition
To murder compassionately
To murder kindly
To murder kind-heartedly
To murder considerately
To murder understandingly
To murder sympathetically
These are oxymorons. Humane treatment of animals means not murdering them for starters. This isn't the same as euthanising a pet that is in pain and has lived a full life. How you fail to see the contradiction there is beyond me.

Using the law as your sole moral compass is living blindly if you ask me. No doubt it's a good starting point but the law has been shown to be morally lacking time and time again throughout history. Slavery, apartheid, women's rights, children's rights etc. Were any of these things morally justifiable just because they were lawful and regulated in the past?
If you don't possess the decision making ability superior to that of a wild animal then I truly pity you!

Ah I see you you subscribe to that old oxymoron that "meat is muder". The contradiction in that statement was already covered in a previous post.

Yes the humane treatment of animals includes providing humane means of slaughter of animals. See the definition of 'humane" for a start. As a previous poster said - 'do you think that the much loved pet about to be euthanized feels differently to the cow?'

The killing of an animal by any other animal for the purpose of food is not 'murder' no matter which way you want to look at it. I've already explained how entrophy works.

You really do need to get a better dictionary. Because murder is defined as follows:

murder

noun

the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

Yes I do abide by the law. And no your 'morals' do not constitute a proper basis for a rule of law thankfully. For example just because you think pumping a chicken full of antibiotics is 'morally right' does not mean it is A. either moral or B. legal.

Btw I am confused why do you keep comparing yourself to other animals?

Edit: genuine question - As "slavery, apartheid, women's rights, children's rights" are all 'human' issues - how do these fit with animal based agriculture etc?

Tilikum17

A bus in Seattle

gozunda

Tilikum17 wrote: »

A bus in Seattle

If you havn't seen it - that sentiment had a good outing in the other thread ...

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057903285/1/#post107847708

Tilikum17

https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/comments/9cll1a/the_sheer_scale_of_worldwide_animal_agriculture/?st=JLNB8SDQ&sh=9a80d113

Tilikum17

https://www.ecowatch.com/biomass-humans-animals-2571413930.html

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Global-change-in-the-collective-mass-for-wild-mammals-humans-cattle-and-all-livestock_fig7_275657970

ganmo

Tilikum17 wrote: »

https://www.ecowatch.com/biomass-humans-animals-2571413930.html

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Global-change-in-the-collective-mass-for-wild-mammals-humans-cattle-and-all-livestock_fig7_275657970

that's a strange article the eco watch one. the research paper's conclusion was 'We identify areas in which current knowledge is lacking and further research is most required. Ideally, future research will include both temporal and geographic resolution.'
yet the interviewed person that wasn't involved in the research sees it as a paper to change our way of life.

Tilikum17 wrote: »

https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/comments/9cll1a/the_sheer_scale_of_worldwide_animal_agriculture/?st=JLNB8SDQ&sh=9a80d113

whats the context for that vid?

and the researchgate piece, how is our diet in ireland going to impact on the african expansion into wildlife areas?

gozunda

Tilikum17 wrote: »

https://www.ecowatch.com/biomass-humans-animals-2571413930.html

ecowatch wrote:

Overall, animals have nothing on the other other kingdoms. Plants dominate, accounting for about 80 percent of all of the earth's biomass, followed by bacteria at about 15 percent.

A vegan future?

Intensive Industrial factory style arable production (US) and not an animal in sight ...

gozunda

Tilikum17 wrote: »

https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/comments/9cll1a/the_sheer_scale_of_worldwide_animal_agriculture/?st=JLNB8SDQ&sh=9a80d113

^^
On viewing a rather inaccurate US video - with the title ...
'The sheer scale of worldwide animal agriculture is utterly inconceivable' (sic)

For a comparison of scale - take a look at the "sheer scale' of US arable agriculture pictured above which I'm sure would surprise many etc....

No source details for footage either date nor location. Checked the group listed at the end of the video - and surprise it's a vegan anti animal farming organisation.

So details relevant to footage from one factory farm in the US not 'Worldwide' .

It's the naked dishonesty of this this type of social media propaganda which is the biggest turnoff for me tbh

Nekarsulm

gozunda wrote: »

^^
It's the naked dishonesty of this this type of social media propaganda which is the biggest turnoff for me tbh

Their agenda is a direct reversal of Orwell's mantra.
Two legs good, four legs bad.

Tilikum17

Edinburgh

Tilikum17

Google trends

Lady Haywire

Tilikum17 wrote: »

Edinburgh

Tilikum17 wrote: »

Google trends

What exactly have these to do with the thread title?

Suckler

Lady Haywire wrote: »

What exactly have these to do with the thread title?

Throwing sh1t at a wall in the hope some might stick.

ganmo

Suckler wrote: »

Throwing sh1t at a wall in the hope some might stick.

who has their muck spreader hooked up?