Animal rights

[Kitchandro]

Not really. Abortions should be conducted under the right circumstances with the right level of education to make an informed choice. But that's a different argument all together.

This would be to make people appreciate what's gone into actually producing what they've eaten. Why would you object to killing an animal you wish to eat?

Because I've got better things to do with my time. Why do all that malarkey when I can just go to a restaurant or my local shop?

And also, you can enjoy eating something when it's cooked and at the same time not enjoy killing it. Those are two completely different experiences so why should they go hand n hand? It doesn't mean I'm against killing it, it just means I don't particularly enjoy doing it myself.

[21st Century Fox]

Because I've got better things to do with my time. Why do all that malarkey when I can just go to a restaurant or my local shop?

And also, you can enjoy eating something when it's cooked and at the same time not enjoy killing it. Those are two completely different experiences so why should they go hand n hand? It doesn't mean I'm against killing it, it just means I don't particularly enjoy doing it myself.

So you agree with natural order and the food chain but you aren't willing to physically participate in it?

They go hand in hand because that is the natural order, we've just mechanised it. Enjoy it or not you wouldn't have a choice if it was about survival. So if you're morally willing to tear your molars through a piece of flesh why wouldn't you slit a throat to get it?

[Kitchandro]

So you agree with natural order and the food chain but you aren't willing to physically participate in it?

They go hand in hand because that is the natural order, we've just mechanised it. Enjoy it or not you wouldn't have a choice if it was about survival. So if you're morally willing to tear your molars through a piece of flesh why wouldn't you slit a throat to get it?

But it's not about survival. If it was I would kill something. But I don't have to, so why should I? It's just a ridiculous argument. Do you make your own clothes? Build your own house? Do you use the cooker or the oven or the microwave or do you make a fire out of some flint and sticks everytime you want a hot meal?

Even Lions don't do the hunting, the lionesses do. I'm the equivalent of the lion.

Even the mechanisation of it is nature, humans have naturally evolved to the point where they can hunt more efficiently.

[Mark_w]

You have time to find hilarrrrrrrious pictures, but not answer my simple question. I shall repeat, in case you simply missed it.

Do you check that every piece of fruit or vegetable you consume has not been treated with pesticides or extra fertilizing agent?

The majority of Fruit and Vegetables that I eat are organic, but I can't say that I've looked that deeply into what goes into it, I'm only a teenager and have very little say in that anyway, but I would hope that I have as little an impact as possible. It's not quite the same as directly eating meat, which is something that supports the direct and deliberate murder of animals. No one is perfect, but to stop eating meat is something that the majority are capable of, that would limit the number of deaths of innocent animals.

[Darkon84]

The majority of Fruit and Vegetables that I eat are organic, but I can't say that I've looked that deeply into what goes into it, I'm only a teenager and have very little say in that anyway, but I would hope that I have as little an impact as possible. It's not quite the same as directly eating meat, which is something that supports the direct and deliberate murder of animals. No one is perfect, but to stop eating meat is something that the majority are capable of, that would limit the number of deaths of innocent animals.

I could say that you are, in fact, more of a monster than us meat eaters then. At least we eat the end product. If you eat goods that have been treated with pesticides and fertilizers etc, then you are actively condoning the unfair killing and murder of innocent insects, and then marine life too, when the chemicals are washed through in to the rivers, waterways etc.

The fact you are a teenager doesnt mean anything in this debate. If you feel strongly enough to preach about meat and having a better conscience than meat eaters, why cant you take a look in to actions on fertilizers etc?

[21st Century Fox]

But it's not about survival. If it was I would kill something. But I don't have to, so why should I? It's just a ridiculous argument. Do you make your own clothes? Build your own house? Do you use the cooker or the oven or the microwave or do you make a fire out of some flint and sticks everytime you want a hot meal?

Even Lions don't do the hunting, the lionesses do. I'm the equivalent of the lion.

Even the mechanisation of it is nature, humans have naturally evolved to the point where they can hunt more efficiently.

But none of those other things involve taking a life. My point is if you can morally absolve yourself to eat meat, why wouldn't you get your hands dirty

Buying a steak from a super market isn't the natural order. Industrial food manufacturing isn't evolutionary, if it were we'd have evolved past our current physical state. Think about a bodybuilder he works out intakes protein, generates muscle. That's because we evolved to hunt our food (work out), eat our food (protein) and grow stronger (generate muscle growth) so next time we hunt our food we're up to the job and it becomes easier and we survive. We've not evolved past that, hence why bodybuilders can do what they do and people who don't exercise get fat. If the mass production of food were evolutionary we'd have physically evolved to account for that.

We also aren't lions we're humans and that's our place in the food chain. You'd be eating berries.

My main gripe is the mechanisation of meat production and the resulting attitude towards meat, where an animal can die (probably leading a pretty shitty life) and then get tossed in a bin because some fat shit over ate or didn't want it.

[Mark_w]

I could say that you are, in fact, more of a monster than us meat eaters then. At least we eat the end product. If you eat goods that have been treated with pesticides and fertilizers etc, then you are actively condoning the unfair killing and murder of innocent insects, and then marine life too, when the chemicals are washed through in to the rivers, waterways etc.

The fact you are a teenager doesnt mean anything in this debate. If you feel strongly enough to preach about meat and having a better conscience than meat eaters, why cant you take a look in to actions on fertilizers etc?

Well one would assume that you do both, and I'm not really in a position to influence it in that I do actually have to eat some fruit and/or veg and am not yet in a position to financially dictate what I'm willing to eat in that respect. I'm sure I do other things that don't contribute fantastically to the situation, but that doesn't excuse eating meat.

[Kitchandro]

But none of those other things involve taking a life. My point is if you can morally absolve yourself to eat meat, why wouldn't you get your hands dirty

Buying a steak from a super market isn't the natural order. Industrial food manufacturing isn't evolutionary, if it were we'd have evolved past our current physical state. Think about a bodybuilder he works out intakes protein, generates muscle. That's because we evolved to hunt our food (work out), eat our food (protein) and grow stronger (generate muscle growth) so next time we hunt our food we're up to the job and it becomes easier and we survive. We've not evolved past that, hence why bodybuilders can do what they do and people who don't exercise get fat. If the mass production of food were evolutionary we'd have physically evolved to account for that.

We also aren't lions we're humans and that's our place in the food chain. You'd be eating berries.

My main gripe is the mechanisation of meat production and the resulting attitude towards meat, where an animal can die (probably leading a pretty shitty life) and then get tossed in a bin because some fat shit over ate or didn't want it.

But we don't need to worry about survival in that sense. We've used our minds and made it so we don't have to hunt in the old sense. We don't need to do it to get food and we don't need to do it to stay fit. So yes we have evolved, we've made our lives easier, evolving isn't just physical, it's mental as well. People have jobs now, they can't spend all day hunting!

As I've already explained to you, I'm not saying I'd never kill an animal so I could eat it, but there are other humans to kill it for me and save me the time and effort. So there's really no good reason for me to do it myself, unless you think proving a point to veggies is a worthy reason.

What do you mean I'd be eating berries? My point is just because you don't hunt something personally, it doesn't mean it's not natural to eat it. Humans have learnt to work together, just like other species, not every human offers the same thing to the rest of humanity.

Agree with you about waste though, my family's always leaving the fat, skin and cartilage. Not me though.

[Darkon84]

Well one would assume that you do both, and I'm not really in a position to influence it in that I do actually have to eat some fruit and/or veg and am not yet in a position to financially dictate what I'm willing to eat in that respect. I'm sure I do other things that don't contribute fantastically to the situation, but that doesn't excuse eating meat.

I do both, yes, and Im fine with that. Im aware of the implications of pesticides, and im well aware of how a slaughterhouse really works, after working with Defra before and also being friends with a few farmers, and its nowhere near as bad as some sensationalists would have you believe.

Is your main problem with eating meat in the way in which the animals are killed? If so, I re-iterate my point about insects, fish etc that are affected by the chemicals in fields etc. How can you justify that? If you feel so strongly about meat, shouldnt you feel the same about commercial crops etc. At least meat eaters consume the end product, whereas many animals innocently bystanding may die because of these chemicals, and that is that. They are murdered, and just lay dead. Morally, I cant see how you can condone one, but not the other.

I appreciate that becoming self sufficient etc isnt the easiest thing to do and you may not be in a position to do so at the moment, but just think about it next time youre on your moral high horse about meat.

[Mark_w]

I do both, yes, and Im fine with that. Im aware of the implications of pesticides, and im well aware of how a slaughterhouse really works, after working with Defra before and also being friends with a few farmers, and its nowhere near as bad as some sensationalists would have you believe.

Is your main problem with eating meat in the way in which the animals are killed? If so, I re-iterate my point about insects, fish etc that are affected by the chemicals in fields etc. How can you justify that? If you feel so strongly about meat, shouldnt you feel the same about commercial crops etc. At least meat eaters consume the end product. Morally, I cant see how you can condone one, but not the other.

I appreciate that becoming self sufficient etc isnt the easiest thing to do and you may not be in a position to do so at the moment, but just think about it next time youre on your moral high horse about meat.

But the majority on here can do something about eating meat, for that reason I feel more than comfortable 'on my high horse'. My main problem is that we're abusing our power over them by killing them, not the way that they're being killed particullarly, but that they are being killed at all. The sensationalists really have little impact because my problem is that they're being murdered at all no matter how 'humanely'. If people had to in order to survive I could understand that, heck I'd begrudgingly participate in it, but we don't need to, it's now the unnecessary murder of innocent animals.

[21st Century Fox]

But we don't need to worry about survival in that sense. We've used our minds and made it so we don't have to hunt in the old sense. We don't need to do it to get food and we don't need to do it to stay fit. So yes we have evolved, we've made our lives easier, evolving isn't just physical, it's mental as well. People have jobs now, they can't spend all day hunting!

As I've already explained to you, I'm not saying I'd never kill an animal so I could eat it, but there are other humans to kill it for me and save me the time and effort. So there's really no good reason for me to do it myself, unless you think proving a point to veggies is a worthy reason.

What do you mean I'd be eating berries? My point is just because you don't hunt something personally, it doesn't mean it's not natural to eat it. Humans have learnt to work together, just like other species, not every human offers the same thing to the rest of humanity.

Agree with you about waste though, my family's always leaving the fat, skin and cartilage. Not me though.

You can't evolve mentally while it's detrimental to your physical evolution, evolution isn't willed or conscious. Human's have barely evolved enough to cope with agriculture in general. We still can't fully cope with dairy and grain. Job's only came about because of agriculture. I wasn't seriously proposing we start hunting and build a new society, I was illustrating the moral absolution people have between eating meat and killing an animal for food themselves and the attitude towards meat that has given rise to.

I meant this entirely as a moral argument but from an evolutionary one, the jury's still out on agriculture and our ability to stockpile food. It's enabled us to make massive technological advancements but also been detrimental to our species.

[Kitchandro]

But the majority on here can do something about eating meat, for that reason I feel more than comfortable 'on my high horse'. My main problem is that we're abusing our power over them by killing them, not the way that they're being killed particullarly, but that they are being killed at all. The sensationalists really have little impact because my problem is that they're being murdered at all no matter how 'humanely'. If people had to in order to survive I could understand that, heck I'd begrudgingly participate in it, but we don't need to, it's now the unnecessary murder of innocent animals.

You make it sound like they voted us in and we owe them something. They're not our people, they are different species, it's every species for themselves in this world. If they were more powerful than us do you think they'd give a shit about our lives? Of course they wouldn't.

I don't get why you sympathise with them so much, where does the emotional attachment come from?

[Mark_w]

I don't get why you sympathise with them so much, where does the emotional attachment come from?

Empathy.

[Kitchandro]

You can't evolve mentally while it's detrimental to your physical evolution, evolution isn't willed or conscious. Human's have barely evolved enough to cope with agriculture in general. We still can't fully cope with dairy and grain. Job's only came about because of agriculture. I wasn't seriously proposing we start hunting and build a new society, I was illustrating the moral absolution people have between eating meat and killing an animal for food themselves and the attitude towards meat that has given rise to.

I meant this entirely as a moral argument but from an evolutionary one, the jury's still out on agriculture and our ability to stockpile food. It's enabled us to make massive technological advancements but also been detrimental to our species.

Firstly, morality is relative. The bible and the Quran say a lot of really cool stuff is immoral. What you find immoral, I might not. People get carried away with all that stuff. I can't see any negative consequences from eating animals. Even the bible doesn't tell me I'm going to hell for doing it, not that I'd take any notice if it did.

I just don't see what it's got to do with whether I personally kill it or not. If I kill a cow do I have to eat it all by myself, can I not share it with my fellow man? Not even with my own family because they didn't kill. I've no idea what that's got to do with morality, the cow doesn't give a toss who killed it.

Physical evolution isn't that necessary now because our mental evolution has put us in a comfortable position in the food chain and in terms of survival. I dispute that we've not evolved physically anyway, people are generally living quite a bit longer than they were a few hundred years ago. If it's about survival, we're doing ok. I'm not really sure why I brought this into it though because it really is largely irrelevant.

And the end of the day killing other species for food is not something I consider immoral. We are the stronger species, and are just taking advantage of that for our own gain. The animals are welcome to fight back if they want.

[Kitchandro]

Empathy.

If a meat eating animal had you cornered and you didn't have a weapon, they wouldn't empathise with you, they'd eat you. They're not looking for empathy, they don't understand what it is.

[Mark_w]

Firstly, morality is relative. The bible and the Quran say a lot of really cool stuff is immoral. What you find immoral, I might not.

So what you're saying is, people should be allowed to do whatever they want, because they might not find it immoral?

If a meat eating animal had you cornered and you didn't have a weapon, they wouldn't empathise with you, they'd eat you. They're not looking for empathy, they don't understand what it is.

What's that got to do with me feeling empathetic?

[Kitchandro]

So what you're saying is, people should be allowed to do whatever they want, because they might not find it immoral?

Well, people will do what they want. There's no law saying you can't eat animals though, and not may people think it's immoral. So I think I'm justified in thinking it's ok to do it.

What's that got to do with me feeling empathetic?

Because I don't see what the point is in crusading for things like this. The animal doesn't give a shit if you feel empathy for it, it wouldn't feel empahty for you. Even if you promised not to eat one of the geese or the chick at my grandad, it wouldn't understand what you're on about - it would try to scratch your eyse out or peck at you if you went near it.

If you find it disgusting, and don't want to eat it that's one thing, but caring for dumb animals and calling other people immoral doesn't make any sense.

[Mark_w]

Because I don't see what the point is in crusading for things like this. The animal doesn't give a shit if you feel empathy for it, it wouldn't feel empahty for you. Even if you promised not to eat one of the geese or the chick at my grandad, it wouldn't understand what you're on about - it would try to scratch your eyse out or peck at you if you went near it.

If you find it disgusting, and don't want to eat it that's one thing, but caring for dumb animals and calling other people immoral doesn't make any sense.

I see the point in 'crusading for things like this' because I feel strongly about it, not because I expect the animals to overthrow people and make me their king. I find the fact that people kill innocent animals horrible so I voice that I have a problem with it, I don't do it because I think 'They'd do it for me' or for any kind of personal gain. It suffers, so to me it's intelligence is largely irrelevant, if it feels pain then it's reasonable for me to have a problem with it. If you think 'caring for dumb animals and calling other people immoral doesn't make any sense.' then there's something wrong with you.

[21st Century Fox]

Firstly, morality is relative. The bible and the Quran say a lot of really cool stuff is immoral. What you find immoral, I might not. People get carried away with all that stuff. I can't see any negative consequences from eating animals. Even the bible doesn't tell me I'm going to hell for doing it, not that I'd take any notice if it did.

I just don't see what it's got to do with whether I personally kill it or not. If I kill a cow do I have to eat it all by myself, can I not share it with my fellow man? Not even with my own family because they didn't kill. I've no idea what that's got to do with morality, the cow doesn't give a toss who killed it.

Physical evolution isn't that necessary now because our mental evolution has put us in a comfortable position in the food chain and in terms of survival. I dispute that we've not evolved physically anyway, people are generally living quite a bit longer than they were a few hundred years ago. If it's about survival, we're doing ok. I'm not really sure why I brought this into it though because it really is largely irrelevant.

And the end of the day killing other species for food is not something I consider immoral. We are the stronger species, and are just taking advantage of that for our own gain. The animals are welcome to fight back if they want.

Cool story. You were talking about 'mentally evolving' with regard to survival and not having to kill an animal!! I didn't say eating animals was immoral, I eat animals. I was talking about the moral detachment some people have between picking up a steak in Tesco to shying away from getting their hands dirty themselves.

No the cow wouldn't give a toss but I find it hard to understand people who lean so heavily on the 'natural order' argument to eating meat but wouldn't be willing to kill an animal themselves. As I said my gripe is with the mechanisation of food production and the attitude towards meat (food in general really) that's come from that, wastage and gluttony.

Of course if you killed an animal, share it with your family, that's my point, I'm sure they'd be more appreciative of it for that. I was trying to illustrate how the invisible conveyor belt of the mechanised slaughterhouses leave people now with no respect for the fact a life's been taken to further theirs and would happily waste god knows how much meat/food unnecessarily overeating or throwing it away.

You can't deem evolution necessary or not, it's born from necessity itself, we don't know what will become necessity. Overpopulation and food shortages would make certain traits a necessity.

[ozleicester]

For me this is not a "moral issue" its about one species believing it has the right to kill another, simply for their own pleasure.

Just because humans have reached the top of the evolutionary tree and we are therefore capable of killing anything less evolved or less intelligent, does not just make it right.

I am more intelligent than most many some at least a couple of people, and i have access to weaponry, this does not mean i can go an knock on their door and kill them and then use their carcass as i see fit.

Human beings no longer need to eat dead animal and therefore we no longer have the right to kill simply for that purpose.

[Zingari]

I’m not sure how you’ve come to the conclusion that being “top of the tree†somehow precludes man from eating meat, but being on the second, third or any lower branch doesn’t.

We may be top of the tree, but that’s all we are , just animals on the same tree .

Being a veggie certainly hasn’t diminished your energy for argument and confrontation though.

[Reynard Bleu]

Human beings no longer need to eat dead animal and therefore we no longer have the right to kill simply for that purpose.

I guess there are a few Inuit who may disagree, not much foliage in their world

[ozleicester]

I’m not sure how you’ve come to the conclusion that being “top of the tree†somehow precludes man from eating meat, but being on the second, third or any lower branch doesn’t.

We may be top of the tree, but that’s all we are , just animals on the same tree .

Being a veggie certainly hasn’t diminished your energy for argument and confrontation though.

Im amazed i have the energy for all these discussions, just as well i can argue sitting down

My theory on why it precludes us is... that the fact that we have evolved to such a point of power and control, should also mean we have evolved to a superior position of understanding and empathy.

[ozleicester]

I guess there are a few Inuit who may disagree, not much foliage in their world

Indeed i have acknowledged previously that there are some special cases and my utopian world isnt finalised, mind you given the rate of climate change, (due in no small part to the need for provision of meat), there is a fair chance the Inuits will be sipping coconut milk and wearing grass skirts before too long. So that wout be an issue

edit.. oh speaking of Coconut "milk" if anyone hasnt looked at the health benefits of this super food, i highly recommend doing a little research, along with bananas this stuff is the food of ... ahh whatever you want to believe in.

[Zingari]

Im amazed i have the energy for all these discussions, just as well i can argue sitting down

My theory on why it precludes us is... that the fact that we have evolved to such a point of power and control, should also mean we have evolved to a superior position of understanding and empathy.

How do you know other omnivore animals don't know that killing is wrong but continue anyway , you've put many other human emotions on them , why pick and choose which ones you believe they possess ?

I'm looking forward to seeing Innuits in grass skirts though