Kurt Zouma thinks it's funny to use a cat as a football

If we were to all just eat rabbit food economy's around the world would collapse with so many people out of jobs, saying meat is not necessary is quite naive

I've already said that subsidies should be put in place to aid in the transition to plant based food production. The whole world isn't just going to stop eating animals, it will be a gradual transition and industries and economies will adapt. This is currently happening. Animal agriculture is having a devastating impact on the environment. This is already destroying jobs, livelihoods and economies and it's really jus tip of the iceberg as to what's to come. So eating animals is not only unnecessary, but it's in the best interest for all life (including the trillions slaughtered annually of course) to transition to plant based food production with incentives such as rewilding land etc in place and subsidies and supports for transition.

Yeah it is depressing alright, we just don't see it. Classic out of sight out of mind. Certainly gives people a lot to think about regarding their meat consumption.

I don't because it is illogical. The subject of the thread here is a multi millionaire public figure, who filmed himself or let himself be filmed kicking his cat. Those are the facts

The word for what you are talking about is called 'Anthropomorphism'. You are putting human emotions on the rest of the cows. You use the line the cows could 'smell death'. They could not. What happened was you imagined that the rest of the cows smelt death. Putting yourself in the place of the cows as if they were human. Kicking a cat for fun and eating meat for fuel and well being are two entirely separate issues. It is only natural for the those higher up in the food chain to eat those lower down the food chain. What is not natural is teasing/bullying an animal for pleasure. That serves no practical purpose as an abattoir does.

I think these animals are smarter than you give them credit for.

@cormie

Are you? Tbh I have no idea why you have persistently asked me that particular inquiry. What your own personal philosophy is on what you chose to eat, is honestly not my concern.

Imho the thread has already been railroaded enough times down blind allies into vague philosophical asides which have nothing whatsoever to do with Zouma sadisticly kicking a cat and filming it.

But to your query. I'm being civil when I say I've absolutely no idea. I did look it up and I now know that the theory of 'least harm' is often viewed sceptically as being problematic for a whole host of reasons. I also understand it was used in the Pro life / Abortion debate not that long ago to support the idea that legislation allowing for women to have certain necessary gynecological services be denied.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/askaphilosopher.org/2017/10/09/problems-with-j-s-mills-harm-principle/amp/

In relation to your own notions about only eating plants. I believe that has already been dealt by someone who is qualified to answer such philosophical quanderies. This is a selected extract from that answer.

"If half of the total harvested land in the US was used to produce plant products for human consumption and half was used for pasture-forage production, how many animals would die annually so that humans may eat?

60 million ha, plant production × 15 animals/ha = 0.9 billion

60 million ha, forage production × 7.5 animals/ha = 0.45 billion

Total: 1.35 billion animals

According to this model then, fewer animals (1.35 billion) would die than in the vegan model (1.8 billion). As a result, if we apply the LHP as Regan did for his vegan conclusion, it would seem that humans are morally obligated to consume a diet of vegetables and ruminant animal products.

But what of the ruminant animals that would need to die to feed people in the pasture-forage model? According to USDA numbers quoted by Francione (2000), of the 8.4 billion farm animals killed each year for food in the US, approximately 8 billion of those are poultry and only 37 million are ruminants (cows, calves) the remainder includes pigs and other species.

Even if the numbers of cows and calves killed for food each year was doubled to 74 million to replace the 8 billion poultry, the total number of animals that would need to be killed under this alternative method wouldstill be only 1.424 billion, still clearly less than in the vegan model.

1. Another alternative, suggested recently by PETA (2001), recommends that if we are going to eat meat, we should kill the largest animalspossible, thereby reducing the number of animals that would need to die to feed humans (LHP). In fact, they have suggested that blue whales, the largest known living animal would be the ideal choice.

This suggestion strikes me as unsustainable, because it would be impossible to find adequate numbers of adult animals to harvest without totally depleting the population.

2. A third alternative, suggested by Peter Cheeke (personal communica- tion), would be to eliminate intensive agriculture altogether and have everyone produce their own vegan diet on small plots of land using no-till production systems to reduce killing/harm to animals of the field. Ibelieve that this system would also be unpractical and not viable. The human populations are too large, land is concentrated in the hands of the few rather than many, and social systems would need to revert to those of primitive cultures.

3. But if herbivores are used, wouldn’t it cause least harm if we used the fewest possible, therefore, the largest herbivores? Elephants might be used, but in practical terms, I believe that the majority of people would object to eating elephants. Large draft horse breeds developed previously as working horses, may be up to twice the size of a cow. Perhaps they could be used to harvest or convert forages into meat and dairy products. Again, I don’t believe many humans would support this option; otherwise there would already be more people willing to consume horsemeat.

4. Kerasote (1993) proposed that least harm would be done if humans were to hunt locally, particularly large animals like elk for their own food. But his least harm concept appears to be related as much to least harm to the environment (less fossil fuel consumption) as least harm to animals. Furthermore, this doesn’t seem to be a practical idea, because there are too few animals and there would be too many hunters. As Taylor (1999) said, one “issue that arises from Kerasote’s argument is whether hunting for one’s food is practical on a large scale.” ...

INTENDED VS. UNINTENDED DEATHS

Taylor (1999) says that another issue arises from Karasote’s argument, and that is the matter of intentional infliction of harm versus harm that is the unintentional, but a foreseeable side effect of one’s actions. The animals of the field die not intentionally, but incidentally as a consequence of producing food for humans. On the other hand, farm animals (chickens, pigs, cows, and sheep) are killed intentionally to provide food for humans.

Perhaps I don’t fully understand the nuances or moral significance of this difference, but it seems to me that the harm done to the animal is the same – dead is dead. Furthermore, many farmers do intentionally kill some animals of the field because their presence causes reduced yields. Taylor (1999) says about the questions of intent, “A utilitarian is likely to see no moral difference between the two, since utilitarianism holds that it is consequences that count and not intentions.”

CONCLUSION

1. Vegan diets are not bloodless diets. Millions of animals of the field die every year to provide products used in vegan diets.

2. Several alternative food production models exist that may kill fewer animals than the vegan model.

3. More research is needed to obtain accurate estimations of the number of field animals killed in different crop production systems.

4. Humans may be morally obligated to consume a diet from plant based plus pasture-forage-ruminant systems."

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://fewd.univie.ac.at/fileadmin/user_upload/inst_ethik_wiss_dialog/Davis__S._2003_The_least_Harm_-_Anti_Veg_in_J._Agric._Ethics.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiepKjz3_31AhUVQEEAHRtaBDUQFnoECCsQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1GCk0Z0V2rC1r_j7FrLprn"

Edit:

Btw I found the above when I looked it up. Hope it helps. I don't have any further "answers" for you based on that, as Philosophy is really not my area of expertise. Therefore I would be obliged if you didn't direct any more of those questions eitherway.

Nah it is simply Anthropomorphism.

Which is a big problem in such discussions IMO.

So are carnivores inherently evil and bad? Is Zouma's cat the real villain here?

no messing around on a farm, if the animal no longer serves a purpose it's killed, hung up and bled out and butchered. It's a different mindset to that of sheltered city folk who only see meat packed in plastic in a shop

Carnivores kill out of necessity and instinct. Tigers will also kill and eat their own babies. They however don't have the same moral compass most humans possess and with that should come responsibility and a will not to cause unnecessary harm and suffering to others.

I'm not asking you to debate my personal philosophy. I'm asking you simply, if you think it's wrong to cause harm where harm isn't necessary and you're failing to answer. I have stated I believe most people here would agree that it's wrong to cause harm where harm isn't necessary but they may not be aligning their actions with that principle. It can take a long time for people to come around and realise this and make changes to minimise their harm to others, but questioning your own principles and how your actions align to those principles is a start at least.

The use of the word perpetrator was in relation to Zouma.

Anyone speaking of least harm in relation to specific gynecological services to women should be against sending millions of sperm to an early grave and avoid any activity that may result in ejaculation in that case so 😂

It's not a rebuttal from some random website, it was literally in the same publication you have lauded above, The Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics as a rebuttal to what they had previously published, contributed to by multiple professors. The one you linked to was clearly peer reviewed as the rebuttal wouldn't have come from peers had they not first reviewed Davis' paper.

Ok -that is fear a basic animalistic emotion. It is not ‘smelling death’ as the poster claims. That phrase was like someone who was reading too much Orwell - ‘Animal Farm’ .

Cows are terrified of a lot of things at the best of times. But needs must. There is no need for kicking a cat just for the fun of it - in contrast.

But like Kay Burley reporting on the Paris terror attacks. I assume there are people who believe there are dogs ‘with sadness in their eyes’ upon hearing about what Kurt Zouma did to that cat.

The theory you're promoting of "least harm" is a philosophical one and as I've clearly detailed Philosophy is not my area of expertise. What I do know from looking it up is that theory is widely criticised both in its approach and application.

Therefore I would be obliged if you didn't direct any more of those questions eitherway.

Btw the discussion article in response to Professor Harris's paper seems to be in support of the case for vegetarianism and not "veganism" as you have incorrectly suggested in your previous comment

Note: the radom website referred to was the other somewhat dodgy website linked

You don't need to be a professor of philosophy to answer a very simple question of whether you agree that it's wrong to cause harm where harm isn't necessary. It's not a complicated theory that needs to be studied, it's a question of basic moral principles.

If you had read the article, you would have seen this:

"Davis concludes the collective adoption of an omnivorous diet consisting both of free-range ruminant meat and vegetarian fare would be more ethical than that of a strictly vegetarian (vegan) diet.1"

They still use the word vegan diet which is what I referred to. I believe they are referring to it as vegetarianism more frequently because it's a discussion on the consumption of meat, which is what vegetarianism avoids. Vegetarianism is a diet, Veganism is a far broader spectrum defined by far more than diet. Vegetarianism is therefore the correct term for the discussion.

I didn't claim his condition was caused by meat, I said the majority of heart disease, is a result of lifestyle factors so there's statistical probability his own heart issues were a result of this. It could well be other less common factors. Can you give any logical reason why a human's life should be held with higher value than the life of a pig, logical now, not emotional? I'd selfishly choose to harm the pig for my own survival, but I wouldn't feel good about it.

You don't need leather shoes or a leather belt to be good craic. You can get shoes and belts not made from animals and still have a good time would you believe 😉

There's no drama from my side, I'm just offering some logical and fair comparisons and you appear to be having trouble seeing the logic of them and claiming them to be dramatic, part of some agenda, thinking I'm ranting and questioning my rationale.

If you're unwilling to answer that's ok.

I'd say if somebody is speaking up for animals that are regarded as having no value other than that of commodification, and speaking of not causing harm where harm isn't necessary, that should answer where they stand on somebody kicking a cat.

The idea of pet "ownership" is an issue, we can have companion animals without seeing them as our property. We can be their caretakers, without expecting anything in return from them. Humans have created a world where animals are over bred, where virtually all land is owned by people, where natural habitats have been replaced with sterile, monochrome green pastures or concrete jungles. There are animals who will have a better life being taken care of by humans. We shouldn't be breeding more animals into existence for status, fashion or any other selfish reasons (including because we think they look cute).

If you can't see the connection between the issues mentioned on a basis of causing harm then maybe ask yourself why. It's not just me who has made comparisons between these issues. I wasn't even the one to first bring it into the discussion. There have already been articles and other media posted drawing lines between the issues. You then brought in the story of a heart surgery, where I pointed out the probable irony behind it.

You appear to be indicating that I'm not sane based off making these parallels. You made character assumptions surrounding my social qualities based on whether I wear animal shoes or belts. Is this rational or logical?

To answer your question, if it was myself or someone I cared for, I would prefer the pig to die. If I had a bond with a particular pig and it had to be that pig to save some random human who I had no connection with, I'd rather the human die. If I had no bond or connection with either human or pig, then I'd rather neither die, but if the human was going to die anyway, then I wouldn't think it's fair for the pig to be killed in this instance. I can understand that it would be seen as necessary from the humans side and see there being an argument for the moral justification for the killing, as opposed to animals used for products where there is no need. I don't know the details of medical advances and technology and if there were alternatives available that didn't involve a pig having to die, if so , then these should be used.

Healthy survival? Animal products are not only unnecessary for health and well being on an individual basis, but also detrimental and contribute to an array of diseases. "Nowadays, plant-based eating is recognized as not only nutritionally sufficient but also as a way to reduce the risk for many chronic illnesses." That's from Harvard Medical school but there's plenty more dietetic associations and the likes with similar stances on plant based diets. Then there's also the fact that animal agriculture is destroying the planet. How is that healthy? How is that functional? If you think there is no issue with an industry built on the exploitation of others, that's damaging the health of its workers, the health of its customers and the very planet we live on, then we indeed have very different viewpoints.

Yes, some people develop bonds with all sorts of animals. If you've ever cared for an animal maybe you had a bond with them, how would you feel if you were a child playing with that animal and your parents came to take them away to be killed because somebody you didn't know wanted a part of their body when there may have been other solutions available?

You're making a lot of assumptions in the rest of your post. Human life and animal life are as meaningful as each other if I don't have any connection to either life. I'd guess a poll would go in your favour on that issue as most people pay for the unnecessary exploitation of animals daily, so it would be a big step to expect otherwise. Maybe if you asked a more philosophical question with professors of philosophy only allowed answer, as in, not posted in after hours, without the emotion attached to it, without anthropocentric bias, you might get a much different result.

Yep, those who don't want harm caused to others are brainwashed indeed. B12 is really the only supplement needed on a plant based diet. It's advised to supplement Vitamin D for everyone in Ireland during winter,.

They even supplement b12 to farm animals - it says Natural on the carton so it must be, along with the natural selective breeding, the natural confinement etc! Iron is certainly not an issue, plenty of that in plant foods :)

If I let an incident like this affect me mentally, I don't think I'd be able to cope with the atrocities inflicted on the trillions of sentient lives annually. I'm more logically minded but thanks for your concern :)

Although the consumption of animal products has been a need for a lot of humans in the past, most reading this will be surrounded by an abundance of plant foods so it can no longer be seen as a need anymore. There's plenty of systematic reviews and meta analyses of RCT's and population studies which suggest the higher the consumption of whole plant foods, the lower the mortality and lower instances of disease. Even if that was't the case and animal products weren't associated with higher risk of disease, the fact that any reputable association of dietetics and health worldwide state that a diet void of animal food is perfectly suitable for all stages of life for humans, means that it's not necessary to consume animal products. Doing so for sensory pleasure, cultural and societal habits and norms etc is a want and not a biological need. Doing so also has damaging effects on health, environment, the risk of pandemics thus causing devastating effects on economies, mental health etc etc), as well as the unnecessary captivity and killing of trillions of lives each year.

Those of you who fail to see the connection and fail to acknowledge that it's unnecessary to keep animals captive and to kill them, would you say if you were working in a slaughterhouse, that the act of killing innocent animals who don't want to die would bring you joy and work satisfaction knowing you're providing for people like yourselves who think the way you do?

You're not wrong and it's not for trying.

Zouma now out ill afaik. Doesn't seem to be any update from that.

If they feel sensory pleasure for a 10 minute meal is more important than the life of an animal and is more morally justified than kicking a cat for whatever pleasure Zouna derived from it, they may want to reevaluate their actions if in principle, they agree it's wrong to cause harm where harm isn't necessary. It's entirely possible to avoid food you've been eating your whole life when you acknowledge the victims being harmed unnecessarily.

Besides, there's an abundance of foods now available to satisfy taste and texture preference now, plant based restaurants with Michelin stars, plant based chocolates beating hundreds of other chocolates in blind taste test competitions etc etc.