Animal Rights page 4

246 posts

Flag Post

[post deleted]

 
Flag Post

Bump. We can never tell if animal’s emotions are as good as ours, and if they have any at all, killing them for no reason is stupid, cruel, and pointless.

 
Flag Post

Do the animals think that?

 
Flag Post

might makes right.

Words to live by.

 
Flag Post

OK. I need to ask another question on this topic. Does anyone here disagree with farming. Animals being fattened to be eaten. Because I live on a farm, and i’m a proud farmer! I can let you know that all of the animals I “work” with seem to be happy. I know the argument could be stated that how do you know if an animal is happy or not however, (it may seem very typical), but the lambs/cows/(free range) chickens on our farm are always outside, and go to bed on a night in well – bedded and built barns that shelter them. They get fed twice every day and are well looked after. I saw on the first page a picture of a bettery farm that produce eggs and chicken cheaply and quickly. Just to let people know, they are badly looked after, not fed very well or looked after. Ther wings on the hens are clipped and there beaks are chopped off. If you don’t want to be involved with anything to do with “battery” eggs or chicken, then buy eggs from your local farmer. You will taste the difference as well as feel it. Also, coming from the hunting point. Everyone lives off food. Nobody can survive without food. Most of the foxes that are involved in hunting are killing sheep and livestock from most farms (even battery ones!). Most times the foxes are chased for the “fun” but they’re whats going to stop us from having food. If we don’t stop the foxes, they will not stop themselves. The foxes are killing our food for “fun” most livestock killed is never eaten. Thats the same for us, most foxes cannot be eaten by us because of diseases. Just to ask, any other types of hunting you can think of?

 
Flag Post

The foxes are killing our food for “fun” most livestock killed is never eaten.

You had a great post going until then. I agreed with almost everything you said. But that’s wrong. Even if they do not eat the livestock, I can assure you it is not based on fun. Animals do not understand the principles of fun. They just want to survive.

I know the argument could be stated that how do you know if an animal is happy or not however, (it may seem very typical), but the lambs/cows/(free range) chickens on our farm are always outside, and go to bed on a night in well – bedded and built barns that shelter them. They get fed twice every day and are well looked after. I saw on the first page a picture of a bettery farm that produce eggs and chicken cheaply and quickly. Just to let people know, they are badly looked after, not fed very well or looked after. Ther wings on the hens are clipped and there beaks are chopped off. If you don’t want to be involved with anything to do with “battery” eggs or chicken, then buy eggs from your local farmer. You will taste the difference as well as feel it.

Now that is very sensical. I don’t have anything against the sort of farmer who believes that, besides what you said about the foxes.

 
Flag Post

Animals do not understand the principles of fun.

What are the principles of fun, and why can animals not understand it? I always find the differences to between human and animal cognition rather interesting.

 
Flag Post

actually, i’d like a source on that. Dolphins play, cats play even out in the wild, and dogs experience jealousy and pride .

 
Flag Post

If anything I would argue that fun (for animals or humans) is nothing more than roleplaying critical events and processes.

 
Flag Post

Bump. I really think this is an important discussion, which is why I just sent this to the first page of Serious Discussion.

 
Flag Post

On Foxes

Before the banning of fox hunting in Britain, an average 16,000 foxes were killed by hunts each year, compared with 300,000 foxes that died of natural causes or in road accidents. Hitler banned fox hunting in Germany because he thought it was cruel and immoral.

From QI “F” Annual. It’s got a good bit about Noah’s ark (for another topic).

 
Flag Post

Still, people shouldn’t hunt them. That is purposeful harming. And you say Hitler banned fox hunting because he thought it was cruel and immoral? Is that a lame attempt to make it seem like fox hunting is good? Because if it is, your attempt failed, RMcD.

 
Flag Post

Hitler banned fox hunting in Germany because he thought it was cruel and immoral.

Hitler was a good guy ;)

 
Flag Post

Still, people shouldn’t hunt them. That is purposeful harming. And you say Hitler banned fox hunting because he thought it was cruel and immoral? Is that a lame attempt to make it seem like fox hunting is good? Because if it is, your attempt failed, RMcD.

I disagree. People don’t always hunt for sport. Hunting provides many people with food, and what is not used generally gets donated to local food banks. Hunting also keeps animal populations down, ensuring their survival.

 
Flag Post

Erm…barely anyone hunts foxes for food, but of course hunting is acceptable if you need to eat. However, I disagree with “hunting keeps animal populations down, ensuring their survival”. Hmm, you can count the amount of many species in thousands. You can count the human population in flipping billions.

 
Flag Post

What? You obviously don’t know me if you think I’d try and make something good… It’s just a little fact (supposedly), that I found.

People hunt for fun. That’s enough reason for me.

You can count the human population in flipping billions.

Another QI fact is that 1 in every 5 animals are beetles. Probably because we are alot smarter than all the other animals, no other animal could even take a survey on the population of the world animals…

Still, people shouldn’t hunt them.

Why not?

And to your answer, why should that be reason to not hunt them.

And to that answer, why? I’m sure you can work out the answer to the next one.

 
Flag Post

People hunt for fun. That’s enough reason for me.

So if a murdurer said he went and killed people for fun, that would be enough reason for you? Because it ammounts to the same thing, RMcD. You know, it’s a wonder how I’ve managed to never mute you.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by mariosuperlative:

People hunt for fun. That’s enough reason for me.

So if a murdurer said he went and killed people for fun, that would be enough reason for you? Because it ammounts to the same thing, RMcD. You know, it’s a wonder how I’ve managed to never mute you.

Yes. Of course that would be enough reason. I fail to see how a fox and human are similar though.

See, here’s the food chain.

Here’s us! waves from top

Here’s the fox! waves from somewhere near the bottom

shoots the fox

That was fun! turns to man Hey wait! Your on the same level as me! That’s not so good…. Ah well, it’s fun! boom

He shot a human! Fight him back! boom Justice has been served. So how was Majorca.

See if you understand that.

So if a murdurer said he went and killed people for fun, that would be enough reason for you?

What do you mean enough reason for me? To do what?

 
Flag Post

You said “people hunt for fun. That’s enough reason for me.” What I meant was, if a murderer said he killed people for fun, would that be, in the same way, enough reason for you?

 
Flag Post

Erm…barely anyone hunts foxes for food, but of course hunting is acceptable if you need to eat. However, I disagree with “hunting keeps animal populations down, ensuring their survival”. Hmm, you can count the amount of many species in thousands. You can count the human population in flipping billions.’

You’d be surprised at what some people eat. And the human population isn’t comparable to the fox population, as we are capable of ensuring that we have enough food to support ourselves. Foxes, on the other hand, will eat and breed until they can’t be supported on the amount of prey in the area. By hunting, humans can make sure that both the predator and prey population stay in balance.

 
Flag Post

If nobody eats meat, then what will happen to the ecosystem?

 
Flag Post

I am not against eating meat, myself. Unless it’s killed inhumanely, like veal or battery chickens. The way they treat the animals there is SICK. Thank-you for bumping this topic, now we can all continue to discuss animal rights. Of course, when RMcD shows up…

 
Flag Post
veal or battery chickens

or Kosher.

 
Flag Post

Nice pictures (sarcasm, in case you didn’t know). What weird things people believe in.

 
Flag Post

If nobody eats meat, then what will happen to the ecosystem?

The small portion of wild animals (those who are part of nature’s ecosystem) you eat would really do just fine without getting shot. We probably already killed the original predators (and whiped out most species), so I agree it’s not always a bad thing to shoot a limited amount of wild animals somewhere near the bottom of the food chain. A better idea would of course be to recover the ecosystem and stay out.

But I’ll explain how the system works where most of our meat comes from. I have the impression that most people are quite ignorant of the consequenses of eating meat. People eating meat is the greatest source of global warming, even worse than transport, since the entire process is extremely pressurizing to the environment. I’ll take beef as an example.

First, woods are cut or burned down to supply ground for agriculture of soybeans and other rich food sources for cattle. Estimations of when the entire Amazon forest (“the lung of the earth”) will be deforestated range from the year 2030 to 2080.

After a few years of agriculture the ground is no longer usefull and becomes a desert (it doesn’t grow back because all minerals and organic material left along with the soy beans). Millions of animals (along with some indians and farmers) die, several species are being exterminated entirely every day. (This is not calculated in the global warming problem.)
These beans are then shipped to western companies, where they are fed to cattle. To produce 1 kg of meat, around 10 kg of soybeans are needed (this varies, of course). This means that if we eat soy beans ourselves instead, we would only need 1/10th of the surface. I think this will become necessary with the number of humans living.
More