Animal rights

[Captain...]

You wish, this is what you do when you get bought off the subject of eating meat! last time I checked the subject was "aniaml rights" so I think the mis-treatment of a domestic animal by yourself is far from a Red Hearing! As Mark, one of your own supporters might I add, has pointed out, you look fvcking ridiculous posting that animal rights passage about animals not being imprisoned by Humans and exploited, when you've got one imprisoned yourself. You can't even follow your own stupid beliefs yourself so why should anyone listen to a thing you've got to say?

Although why we are here I've been meaning to ask, plants are also living breathing creatures, fair enough they don't have a nerveous system so can't feel pain in the same way but they still alive until you come along and pluck them from the ground, and then they die, so why is this so different?

Mr Sharpenel, I completley disagree if your going to come lecture people on being cruel when you can't even look after an animal in your care and state such ridiculous things such as "he is not for my pleasure" or "I do not own him" but yet he keeps him locked up in the house, you're going to get laughed at.

Health wise, meat's like anything else, if you eat it in moderation, it's good for you. I eat meat, I am not overweight, I am not unhealthy. If you mean should we eat meat less on the whole then yeah your probably right there are too many people eating too much of it but I'd most certainly perfer a world where there is choice to do so than one that controls my diet for me. The fact some people cannot control their own diets is not the fault of the meat industry. This is without mentioning taking away all animal based products (which is what he is arguing in favour of let us remember) would lead to people with certain dietry requirements at best struggling through life and at worse dying.

Econimically I don't know what you're on. How much money does the meat trade make? How much does it spend on animal feed and other equipment, how many jobs will be lost? As I say, you've already said 80% of Soy grown is for animals, so that's going to go as well, so there obviously is going to be an unemployment issue. No meat Industry lowers productively and pushes up costs, it's be an economic disaster. Bemused by that comment.

With regards the economic comment, it was of a personal economic benefit, eating veggies is cheaper than meat, and if it isn't then you've got to worry where the meat is coming from.

From a global economic stand point the whole world stopping eating meat would be a different prospect.

[Reynard Bleu]

Eating a purely vegatable diet is not in itself inherently healthy, its what you do with the vegatables. I love the vegetarian food at Bobby's in Leicester, but the way some of its is cooked aint healthy!

[Manwell Pablo]

With regards the economic comment, it was of a personal economic benefit, eating veggies is cheaper than meat, and if it isn't then you've got to worry where the meat is coming from.

From a global economic stand point the whole world stopping eating meat would be a different prospect.

Oh yes very much so.

But just because Meat is on sale it does not mean you have to buy it though, nothing stopping you living off vegtables if you want to save your pennys.

This is the great thing about this world we live in, there is choice.

[Captain...]

Mr Sharpenel, I completley disagree if your going to come lecture people on being cruel when you can't even look after an animal in your care and state such ridiculous things such as "he is not for my pleasure" or "I do not own him" but yet he keeps him locked up in the house, you're going to get laughed at.

I also disagree with this point, if you are only going to listen to somebody who is perfect, makes no mistakes and has never ever said or done anything hypocritical, or has a belief system but acts against it you are going to run out of teachers pretty fast.

It's like Jimmy Carr, he got blasted for being a tax dodger, despite making jokes and comments on how the banks and big businesses were all doing dodgy tax deals, it didn't make his point that the banks and big business were doing it any less valid.

[Captain...]

Oh yes very much so.

But just because Meat is on sale it does not mean you have to buy it though, nothing stopping you living off vegtables if you want to save your pennys.

This is the great thing about this world we live in, there is choice.

True but the choice isn't a fair one when meat prices are kept artificially low by government subsidies and don't reflect the true cost of farming meat, and the true cost of buying it, we pay for it twice once at the supermarket and again with our taxes.

You can choose to buy meat, but Vegetarians can't choose not to have their taxes spent on meat and are paying for the meat trade and not eating it.

Choice works both ways.

[MooseBreath]

It does make all his holier than thou shit about moral "evolution" seem utterly ridiculous. Between me eating meat and him engaging in the cold blooded and remorseless imprisonment of defenseless animals, I think it's clear which of us needs to take a look at their morals. His points may still have the same level of validity, but he certainly no longer has any right to take the high ground and preach like he has been doing for the majority of this thread. Any remaining credibility was lost the day he took the calculated decision to enforce an unnatural and deeply harmful way of life onto an animal that is guilty only of being the unfortunate victim of his deranged owner.

Edited 4 February 2013 by MooseBreath

[Manwell Pablo]

True but the choice isn't a fair one when meat prices are kept artificially low by government subsidies and don't reflect the true cost of farming meat, and the true cost of buying it, we pay for it twice once at the supermarket and again with our taxes.

You can choose to buy meat, but Vegetarians can't choose not to have their taxes spent on meat and are paying for the meat trade and not eating it.

Choice works both ways.

that's a bit of mute point really isn't it, people's taxes are frequently spent on things they wouldn't want or need themselves. My tax for example could be used on rehabilitating a drug addict which I would never need, or handed out to someone taking advantage of the benefit system that I wouldn't want.

[Captain...]

that's a bit of mute point really isn't it, people's taxes are frequently spent on things they wouldn't want or need themselves. My tax for example could be used on rehabilitating a drug addict which I would never need, or handed out to someone taking advantage of the benefit system that I wouldn't want.

But everyone gives and takes from the benefit system, and those that give more earn more, and whatever your political leanings the alternative is an unrehabilitated druggie or a a family forced into poverty, you can understand why tax is used to fund that.

When your tax money is going to support the lifestyle you vehemently oppose then it must be pretty galling.

Personally I would support a fair price for meat campaign, but not a ban on meat, if you want to eat meat, that is your choice but you should pay for it.

[Charl91]

But everyone gives and takes from the benefit system

Fallen at the first hurdle. Not "everyone gives" - that's one of the the problems with this country.

and those that give more earn more, and whatever your political leanings the alternative is an unrehabilitated druggie or a a family forced into poverty, you can understand why tax is used to fund that.

When your tax money is going to support the lifestyle you vehemently oppose then it must be pretty galling.

I vehemently oppose benefit scroungers, and it is pretty galling, but there's nothing I can do about it. I've never taken drugs, so I don't want to pay for drug addicts to get rehabitilitated. I don't smoke, so I don't want to have to fund the cost of paying for smoking related diseases. There are many things I oppose which taxes pay for, but if you could pick and choose and only payed for the bits that you wanted, then the amount raised would be peanuts.

That being said, I would be happy to pay for higher priced meat if it meant that Animals were kept in better conditions. But if vegetarians can pick and choose what they want to pay for, then there are many things I'd like to opt out on myself.

Edited 4 February 2013 by Charl91

[Manwell Pablo]

Fallen at the first hurdle. Not "everyone gives" - that's one of the the problems with this country.

I vehemently oppose benefit scroungers, and it is pretty galling, but there's nothing I can do about it. I've never taken drugs, so I don't want to pay for drug addicts to get rehabitilitated. I don't smoke, so I don't want to have to fund the cost of paying for smoking related diseases. There are many things I oppose which taxes pay for, but if you could pick and choose and only payed for the bits that you wanted, then the amount raised would be peanuts.

That being said, I would be happy to pay for higher priced meat if it meant that Animals were kept in better conditions. But if vegetarians can pick and choose what they want to pay for, then there are many things I'd like to opt out on myself.

I actually have nothing else to add other than Ciggertes are a bad example as Ciggerate tax raises more revenue than the NHS bill for treating smoking related diseases, that aside Bravo sir.

Edited 4 February 2013 by Manwell Pablo

[Captain...]

Ok the choice comment was specifically related to what mp said, that it is great that we live in a world of choice, my point is we don't and all you have done is agree with me. So we will leave it there can't be arsed to get into a discussion on semantics after the day I've had.

[The Doctor]

When your tax money is going to support the lifestyle you vehemently oppose then it must be pretty galling.

Tax money goes to the armed forces, I hate to think that I'm (indirectly) funding that - however I don't really have a choice, you can't just say taxes shouldn't fund stuff you aren't comfortable with, otherwise we'd be veering towards completely doing away with tax.

[Captain...]

Tax money goes to the armed forces, I hate to think that I'm (indirectly) funding that - however I don't really have a choice, you can't just say taxes shouldn't fund stuff you aren't comfortable with, otherwise we'd be veering towards completely doing away with tax.

I'm not, I'm saying we don't have choice, it is an illusion.

[ozleicester]

Animals dont have a choice.

[Jaspa]

Animals dont have a choice.

Not when you're about

[Manwell Pablo]

Animals dont have a choice.

They're incapable of making choices so there would be no point giving them one!

[Webbo]

Al, I've deleted your picture because it was a bit gruesome, even with the spoiler. I agree though, vile c'nts.

[The Doctor]

Fair enough, I did dally over posting it because of that.

[ozleicester]

They're incapable of making choices so there would be no point giving them one!

http://www.britannic...als-really-are/

Happy? Angry? Anxious? How can we measure animal emotions? To understand how animals experience the world and how they should be treated, people need to better understand their emotional lives. A new review of animal emotion suggests that, as in humans, emotions may tell animals about how dangerous or opportunity-laden their world is, and guide the choices that they make...

...Nicolas de Condorcet, an 18th-century French philosopher who was one of the first to apply mathematics to the social sciences. Now it is becoming clear that group decisions are also extremely valuable for the success of social animals, such as ants, bees, birds and dolphins. And those animals may have a thing or two to teach people about collective decision-making....

Edited 6 February 2013 by ozleicester

[Manwell Pablo]

http://www.britannic...als-really-are/

Happy? Angry? Anxious? How can we measure animal emotions? To understand how animals experience the world and how they should be treated, people need to better understand their emotional lives. A new review of animal emotion suggests that, as in humans, emotions may tell animals about how dangerous or opportunity-laden their world is, and guide the choices that they make...

...Nicolas de Condorcet, an 18th-century French philosopher who was one of the first to apply mathematics to the social sciences. Now it is becoming clear that group decisions are also extremely valuable for the success of social animals, such as ants, bees, birds and dolphins. And those animals may have a thing or two to teach people about collective decision-making....

, that's all pretty irrelevant isn't it? And your quoting a 18th century philospher desperate times.

The choice is, do you want to be held in captavity and killed, made by farm animal (none of the animals you've mentioned, except maybe the extremly dumb chicken, this is one of your problems, the inability to see the differences between different creatures) a choice they're incapable making.

I'm quite which one they'd make like, but then if we're talking completley hypothethtical choices I'm quite sure all the animals that would never get to exist at all at all due to the drastic reduction of numbers you suggest or the young animals that don't make it past a month old because another predator has ripped them apart (in a much less humane way than we do) because we aren't protecting them would probably choose differently.

Still waiting for you to tell me why killing plants is so much better than killing animals btw. Please read the question above again fully before churning our your central nervous system shit, EU regulations state the animal has to to be quickly stunned so it feels nothing.

How's the cat?

[Zingari]

They're incapable of making choices so there would be no point giving them one!

How come 8 out of 10 cats prefer whiskas then ?

[The Doctor]

How come 8 out of 10 cats prefer whiskas then ?

Because cats with no hair look ****ing stupid.

[MooseBreath]

Is that ozleicester's cat pulling its "i'm so happy" face?

Looks like a right evil ****er. I wouldn't even eat that in a cheap all you can eat Chinese buffet

[Leicester Piggott]

Anyone want a cat?

[ozleicester]

, that's all pretty irrelevant isn't it? And your quoting a 18th century philospher desperate times.

The choice is, do you want to be held in captavity and killed, made by farm animal (none of the animals you've mentioned, except maybe the extremly dumb chicken, this is one of your problems, the inability to see the differences between different creatures) a choice they're incapable making.

I'm quite which one they'd make like, but then if we're talking completley hypothethtical choices I'm quite sure all the animals that would never get to exist at all at all due to the drastic reduction of numbers you suggest or the young animals that don't make it past a month old because another predator has ripped them apart (in a much less humane way than we do) because we aren't protecting them would probably choose differently.

Still waiting for you to tell me why killing plants is so much better than killing animals btw. Please read the question above again fully before churning our your central nervous system shit, EU regulations state the animal has to to be quickly stunned so it feels nothing.

How's the cat?

The Britannica link is 2012!.... the de Condercet quote was just to show that many thinking people had recognised animal intelligence and ability to think 300 years ago. Do you actually believe that animals are not capable or thought and choice... is that really what you are saying?

Unfortunately your 2nd paragraph doesnt make sense.

Unfortunately your 3rd paragraph doesnt make sense.

So, because they are stunned, its ok for them to be killed?... this is your question?

If its ok for that, then you wont mind if i aneasthetise you and humanely pop a bolt through your head?