Animal rights

[ozleicester]

What? It was very honest, you just disagree with it.

I have a vegetarian sister so I can say with authority that the substitutes employed are pale imitations. They're 'dishonest' as you might say. Some vegetarian dishes can be very nice, but they're the ones which never include meat substitute products and I certainly wouldn't live off them.

No, enlighten me as to how an animal being bred in comfort for the sole purpose of being meat one day and then being painlessly killed contradicts the term 'humane'. You're not talking to a battery chicken man here.

Im not trying to be a smartarse on this occasion, but the term need is incorrect...

"Need - a requirement, necessary duty, or obligation"

You want meat because (you believe) it tastes nice, it is not a need as all dietary requirements can be fulfilled without having to kill another sentient being.

If someone told you that they were going to kill you, or your mum etc, very nicely, with a drug that puts you to sleep and then you will be killed, would you consider this humane?

Kill = inhumane..........This chicken is going to die, to fill your desire, there is NO WAY to kill something humanely..if it is being done purley for your pleasure.

There are certainly more cruel ways to kill something...but they are still being needlessley killed...and needless killing is inhumane.

[Manwell Pablo]

Im not trying to be a smartarse on this occasion, but the term need is incorrect...

"Need - a requirement, necessary duty, or obligation"

You want meat because (you believe) it tastes nice, it is not a need as all dietary requirements can be fulfilled without having to kill another sentient being.

If someone told you that they were going to kill you, or your mum etc, very nicely, with a drug that puts you to sleep and then you will be killed, would you consider this humane?

Kill = inhumane..........This chicken is going to die, to fill your desire, there is NO WAY to kill something humanely..if it is being done purley for your pleasure.

There are certainly more cruel ways to kill something...but they are still being needlessley killed...and needless killing is inhumane.

I can't quote you as your an idiot and didn't reply to my post properly (in both senses of the world)

Pets, demand will decrease and we wont breed them? you aren't answering the question again, you are making a statement, but not explaining how or why this is going to accure, If we don't breed them, they will breed themselves, believe it or not, this is one of their main purposes of existence, unless we stop allowing them to breed, leading to us killing off certain types of domestic animal like the dog (EXTINCTION as you put it) as I say, as a animal rights activist I find it strange you seem happy to wipe out the domestic cat and dog among many others, we're wiping out one species of animal, and as most pets are very happy creatures, we are just wiping out one race of animals to save another, this is an example of degree of your megalomania that you just don't see, unless you don't and you see them being set free slowly or whatever, leaving them to starve without the care they need. You can keep saying this will happen and that will happen, try explaining where all these animals are going to go? It's alright saying "Over time" this "Over time" that, at some point they will either need become extinct by our own hand by controlling breeding, or set free to roam and die, which is it to be Mr animal rights?

You are wrong, wrong wrong wrong, most things available from animals cannot be replaced adequately, or without significant cost, the world does not have a potless amount of money people will suffer and die if we remove our reliance from animals, I'd like to see statistics on death from farming, I'm guessing it wont touch the 50 million Spanish Flu killed, and this is why comparing you to Adolf Hitler or Osama Bin Laden is not inaccurate and not trolling, you want to do something that could mean that could return of a disease similar to that that killed 3 or 4 times the amount of people than those two men, put together, and we would be powerless to stop the outbreak. Just for your own stupid and ill informed beliefs. Infact I am sure even Adolf Hitler would be against doing something that would reasults in the deaths of hundreds of thousand of babys around the world (the removal of Formula Milk which requires Semi Skimmed milk, or indeed just milk from cows or goats in the third world) Which babies that cannot breast feed for whatever reason require, in fact all babies require it unless they are breast feed till they are nearly two) so yes this is not trolling, this is a very reasonable statement. Although I'll admit they are probably more evil than stupid, which just goes to show stupidity is more dangerous I guess!

Animals don't give a Fvck mate, they aren't soft in the head like you they are all about surviving and thriving as we are now, stop controlling them they will be all over it, they aren't going to come trotting up to your door and thank you for saving them and fighting for their rights. Instead all this lovely new farming land you've made "over time" from the space by not raising cattle on it "Over time", will be over run by ****ing rabbits and god knows what else "over time", they'll have the time of their lives, they'll breed to new levels, obviously a nice dose of mixamatosis or however you spell it to control the levels of breeding is out the question, as that would be cruel. What have we got (please look up what a pest rabbits can be on the internet, you will be surprised) Famine. Death. Your an idiot, you don't know what your asking for. As I've said previously, one in a hundred examples of what would happen of animals aren't controlled. Africa would be totally fvcked they struggle to survive as it is try telling them your going to phase out cheese and milk "over time" . "I am not asking for immediate blah blah" The arguement "Something will come up in the future" is not a viable one.

So to some up, your views = Extention for domesticated animals, death of millions from disease (not comparable to a few thousand farming related deaths) Famine from uncontrolled herbervours devouring our crops, and a rocket in infant deaths due to lack of milk, and this is just off the top of my head.

You're a real hero.

And to answer your question in certain situations I would take anothers life to prolong my own, i.e war. So your telling me your about to die, it's you or the house fly spreading shit around your house, you'd die and let the house fly live?

[The People's Hero]

The problem with this is every single one you are mentioning is a HUMAN BEING.

It clearly is not the same. How can you not see that?

Give me something below the human race itself in any form that has equal rights as us? It's never happened and never will.

Agreed.

Swans get too much protection for my liking.

Kill and eat one and its treason and the queen will kill and eat me? We'll see.

[Jimothy]

Manwell Pablo

Pretty much said what I've felt like saying every time I read this thread but didn't have the time to put a post together, or the skill to put the point across so well.

[Carl the Llama]

Im not trying to be a smartarse on this occasion, but the term need is incorrect...

"Need - a requirement, necessary duty, or obligation"

You want meat because (you believe) it tastes nice, it is not a need as all dietary requirements can be fulfilled without having to kill another sentient being.

If someone told you that they were going to kill you, or your mum etc, very nicely, with a drug that puts you to sleep and then you will be killed, would you consider this humane?

Kill = inhumane..........This chicken is going to die, to fill your desire, there is NO WAY to kill something humanely..if it is being done purley for your pleasure.

There are certainly more cruel ways to kill something...but they are still being needlessley killed...and needless killing is inhumane.

Don't get in a dictionary fight with me boyo:

humane[hjuËˈmeɪn]

adj

1.

characterized by kindness, mercy, sympathy, etc.

2. inflicting as little pain as possible

a humane killing

So no, kill ≠ inhumane as you posited.

I might take the time to respond to your other, more complicated misconceptions vis a vis the superior ethics of a vegetarian diet some other time when I'm not mentally exhausted (been studying the past week for a civil law exam in a foreign language, the test on which was earlier today), but don't hold your breath as I don't enjoy arguing in circles - I already have a vegetarian twin sister for that.

[Manwell Pablo]

Just read read his little rendition about his cat which is Fvcking hilarious too!

He does not "own" the cat, the cat allows him to feed and look after him, no doubt his bent logic to justify owning a pet . In reality given the cat is under house arrest due to the fact it's owner doesn't want his decreped old cat hurting the local wildlife it's, it's hardly suprising the poor thing lets you feed it a sub standard diet and "care" for it it has no alternative. I do not own it, yet I keep it prisoner brilliant.

Shining example of animal care there.

[Zingari]

Agreed.

Swans get too much protection for my liking.

Kill and eat one and its treason and the queen will kill and eat me? We'll see.

Swan Lestas should be hunted to extinction !!

[ozleicester]

I can't quote you as your an idiot and didn't reply to my post properly (in both senses of the world)

Pets, demand will decrease and we wont breed them? you aren't answering the question again, you are making a statement, but not explaining how or why this is going to accure, If we don't breed them, they will breed themselves, believe it or not, this is one of their main purposes of existence, unless we stop allowing them to breed, leading to us killing off certain types of domestic animal like the dog (EXTINCTION as you put it) as I say, as a animal rights activist I find it strange you seem happy to wipe out the domestic cat and dog among many others, we're wiping out one species of animal, and as most pets are very happy creatures, we are just wiping out one race of animals to save another, this is an example of degree of your megalomania that you just don't see, unless you don't and you see them being set free slowly or whatever, leaving them to starve without the care they need. You can keep saying this will happen and that will happen, try explaining where all these animals are going to go? It's alright saying "Over time" this "Over time" that, at some point they will either need become extinct by our own hand by controlling breeding, or set free to roam and die, which is it to be Mr animal rights?

You are wrong, wrong wrong wrong, most things available from animals cannot be replaced adequately, or without significant cost, the world does not have a potless amount of money people will suffer and die if we remove our reliance from animals, I'd like to see statistics on death from farming, I'm guessing it wont touch the 50 million Spanish Flu killed, and this is why comparing you to Adolf Hitler or Osama Bin Laden is not inaccurate and not trolling, you want to do something that could mean that could return of a disease similar to that that killed 3 or 4 times the amount of people than those two men, put together, and we would be powerless to stop the outbreak. Just for your own stupid and ill informed beliefs. Infact I am sure even Adolf Hitler would be against doing something that would reasults in the deaths of hundreds of thousand of babys around the world (the removal of Formula Milk which requires Semi Skimmed milk, or indeed just milk from cows or goats in the third world) Which babies that cannot breast feed for whatever reason require, in fact all babies require it unless they are breast feed till they are nearly two) so yes this is not trolling, this is a very reasonable statement. Although I'll admit they are probably more evil than stupid, which just goes to show stupidity is more dangerous I guess!

Animals don't give a Fvck mate, they aren't soft in the head like you they are all about surviving and thriving as we are now, stop controlling them they will be all over it, they aren't going to come trotting up to your door and thank you for saving them and fighting for their rights. Instead all this lovely new farming land you've made "over time" from the space by not raising cattle on it "Over time", will be over run by ****ing rabbits and god knows what else "over time", they'll have the time of their lives, they'll breed to new levels, obviously a nice dose of mixamatosis or however you spell it to control the levels of breeding is out the question, as that would be cruel. What have we got (please look up what a pest rabbits can be on the internet, you will be surprised) Famine. Death. Your an idiot, you don't know what your asking for. As I've said previously, one in a hundred examples of what would happen of animals aren't controlled. Africa would be totally fvcked they struggle to survive as it is try telling them your going to phase out cheese and milk "over time" . "I am not asking for immediate blah blah" The arguement "Something will come up in the future" is not a viable one.

So to some up, your views = Extention for domesticated animals, death of millions from disease (not comparable to a few thousand farming related deaths) Famine from uncontrolled herbervours devouring our crops, and a rocket in infant deaths due to lack of milk, and this is just off the top of my head.

You're a real hero.

And to answer your question in certain situations I would take anothers life to prolong my own, i.e war. So your telling me your about to die, it's you or the house fly spreading shit around your house, you'd die and let the house fly live?

Wow, congratulations on such a lengthy (mostly wrong and pointless, but lengthy nonetheless) post.

we dont eat a huge number of animals and they continue to live and not overrun the world, the same can apply to "pets"

Your (absurd) stories and paralells to Hitler and Bin Laden dont even justify my time, I will repeat, because you dont seem to understand. We do NOT need to use animals for almost all food, clothing AND medicine, we choose to do it because we care more about money than life.

To sum up.... it can be done, but it take sa desire and recognition that an animals life is more important than money or having to change your tastes.

Oh as regards the fly..if you bothered to read..or perhaps more importantly you are able to comprehend... you would have seen that i have said in the past that anyone should have the right to protect their and their families lives...if that necessitates killing another, so be it... but killing so you can enjoy a tasty meal is wrong

Don't get in a dictionary fight with me boyo:

humane[hjuËˈmeɪn]

adj

1.

characterized by kindness, mercy, sympathy, etc.

2. inflicting as little pain as possible

a humane killing

So no, kill ≠ inhumane as you posited.

I might take the time to respond to your other, more complicated misconceptions vis a vis the superior ethics of a vegetarian diet some other time when I'm not mentally exhausted (been studying the past week for a civil law exam in a foreign language, the test on which was earlier today), but don't hold your breath as I don't enjoy arguing in circles - I already have a vegetarian twin sister for that.

Boyo?

perhaps take note of the 1st line of your quote....

adj

1. characterized by kindness, mercy, sympathy, etc

Unneccesary killing does not demonstrate any ofthe above.

I hope you have finished your...civil law exam in a foreign language, the test on which was earlier today and can find the time to debate/discuss as im sure your learned views will be of interest.

Just read read his little rendition about his cat which is Fvcking hilarious too!

He does not "own" the cat, the cat allows him to feed and look after him, no doubt his bent logic to justify owning a pet . In reality given the cat is under house arrest due to the fact it's owner doesn't want his decreped old cat hurting the local wildlife it's, it's hardly suprising the poor thing lets you feed it a sub standard diet and "care" for it it has no alternative. I do not own it, yet I keep it prisoner brilliant.

Shining example of animal care there.

I guess i could kill and eat it, I hope that all of the meat you consume helps you to grow to the size you feel you need to be.

[Manwell Pablo]

Wow, congratulations on such a lengthy (mostly wrong and pointless, but lengthy nonetheless) post.

we dont eat a huge number of animals and they continue to live and not overrun the world, the same can apply to "pets"

Your (absurd) stories and paralells to Hitler and Bin Laden dont even justify my time, I will repeat, because you dont seem to understand. We do NOT need to use animals for almost all food, clothing AND medicine, we choose to do it because we care more about money than life.

To sum up.... it can be done, but it take sa desire and recognition that an animals life is more important than money or having to change your tastes.

Oh as regards the fly..if you bothered to read..or perhaps more importantly you are able to comprehend... you would have seen that i have said in the past that anyone should have the right to protect their and their families lives...if that necessitates killing another, so be it... but killing so you can enjoy a tasty meal is wrong

Boyo?

perhaps take note of the 1st line of your quote....

adj

1. characterized by kindness, mercy, sympathy, etc

Unneccesary killing does not demonstrate any ofthe above.

I hope you have finished your...civil law exam in a foreign language, the test on which was earlier today and can find the time to debate/discuss as im sure your learned views will be of interest.

I guess i could kill and eat it, I hope that all of the meat you consume helps you to grow to the size you feel you need to be.

oh dear your starting to lose horribly now, your not even putting up a fight!

Can it apply to Pets? really, please tell me (instead of arguing that black is white which is now basically all you are doing as you've lost all ground in winning a proper debate) how a domestic dog would survive in the wild, given the vast majoirity have lost hunting instinct some time ago? (I find it interesting you've deviated from your orginal "we'll just stop breeding" arguement now I've pointed out the obvious flaw in it).

instead of calling me absurd, answer my questions on child death, and what we were to do if the rabbit population got out of control again and started devouring our only food source in crops, except I'm not absurd am I? You just can't. And also while most medicine can be reproduced. The one that vacinates against the most deadly virus in the world cannot, if you can tell me why somone who is willing to tolerate, in fact abdicate really, the death of what would be trillions over the cause of time from flu is less of a threat that someone who caused the death of millions in a war then I'll admit I'm being absurd

Money is important to life, people starve and die without money, it would be millions of people as what your suggesting would mean thousands of food medicine and clothing changes in industrial terms. So yes it is more important than prolonging an animals life by about 5 years.

I'm not saying protect, if you had bothered to read or perhaps even comprehend what I am asking you, the fly is perfectly innocent it is a straight hypothetical question would you kill the innocent fly to save yourself?

what has killing your cat and eating got to do with anything? Desperate and immature answer from someone backe into a corner without the good sense to drop an arguement they lost some time ago, you advocate animal rights and claim you don't "own" an animal you keep imprisoned in your house, against it's will to stop it doing something you don't agree with, hypocritical anyone?

Please stop brining eating meet into our arguement I know it's the only thing your any good at it, but I've not mentioned the eating of meat once I am telling you why your hippy world isn't possible, I could be a veggy as well for all you know (in fact I was once) and if your arguements hadn't suppassed from the relm of simple animal rights to the land of increasing death and suffering on a global scale I might actuallly agree a lof of what you say

[Captain...]

In response to Oz's question about why we eat meat, it is clear there really are some delusional people on here.

Eat meat, but accept the truth you are doing so for 2 reasons:

1: You like it.

2: It is easy and convenient

We don't need to eat meat, but to have a meat free diet requires a lot more effort, planning and preparation time, and knowledge of food, we all know meat potatoes and 2 veg is a good solid meal, the equivalent in veggie terms is not as easy and, despite what I'm sure Oz will tell us, it is a lot easier to have a meaty diet. We are also accustomed to it and find change difficult.

All meat eaters should accept on the grand scale eating meat is an illogical and inefficient way of getting nutrients from nature into our stomachs, the facts are there in plain English.

In a natural balanced world it wouldn't be a big issue, hunt and eat, but we no longer live in a natural balanced world, and the amount of energy and resources and land put into farming is ridiculous.

I am a meat eater, but I admit that I probably shouldn't, and I do try and limit how much farmed meat I eat, but it is not always easy, or tasty to do so, I think we should take much more care in where we get our meat from, again not easy, and be more aware of the effect eating meat has on our planet.

[Rincewind]

I had turkey today. I enjoyed it and gobbled it up.

[Manwell Pablo]

In response to Oz's question about why we eat meat, it is clear there really are some delusional people on here.

Eat meat, but accept the truth you are doing so for 2 reasons:

1: You like it.

2: It is easy and convenient

We don't need to eat meat, but to have a meat free diet requires a lot more effort, planning and preparation time, and knowledge of food, we all know meat potatoes and 2 veg is a good solid meal, the equivalent in veggie terms is not as easy and, despite what I'm sure Oz will tell us, it is a lot easier to have a meaty diet. We are also accustomed to it and find change difficult.

All meat eaters should accept on the grand scale eating meat is an illogical and inefficient way of getting nutrients from nature into our stomachs, the facts are there in plain English.

In a natural balanced world it wouldn't be a big issue, hunt and eat, but we no longer live in a natural balanced world, and the amount of energy and resources and land put into farming is ridiculous.

I am a meat eater, but I admit that I probably shouldn't, and I do try and limit how much farmed meat I eat, but it is not always easy, or tasty to do so, I think we should take much more care in where we get our meat from, again not easy, and be more aware of the effect eating meat has on our planet.

Eating meat is one arguement, but it's not black and white, there are knock on effects, such as the pets one, which is yet to be properly answered, however had it stopped there I wouldn't have even posted in here.

But then there is Oz's arguement, I.e free all animals and have to live without basics that save people lives, and thats just the things we can't replace, the amount of money that has to go in to replacing everything that we can replace would lead to shortages of food, and medicine, which would lead to death. Unless he's saying do away with money all together? And we're going to spread resources out evenly throughout the world, in which case has anyone got a hammer and sycle they can lend him? Sorry if I'm confused but he hasn't really answered any questions he's been asked properly so........

And even then, do we never harm animals? So what happems we they become problematic? Exactly where is the line? As from what I've read so far, he hasn't got one. Again sorry if I'm confused but if he actually structured his arguements properly instead posting videos and playing the emotional card, I might not have that problem.

[Captain...]

Eating meat is one arguement, but it's not black and white, there are knock on effects, such as the pets one, which is yet to be properly answered, however had it stopped there I wouldn't have even posted in here.

But then there is Oz's arguement, I.e free all animals and have to live without basics that save people lives, and thats just the things we can't replace, the amount of money that has to go in to replacing everything that we can replace would lead to shortages of food, and medicine, which would lead to death. Unless he's saying do away with money all together? And we're going to spread resources out evenly throughout the world, in which case has anyone got a hammer and sycle they can lend him? Sorry if I'm confused but he hasn't really answered any questions he's been asked properly so........

And even then, do we never harm animals? So what happems we they become problematic? Exactly where is the line? As from what I've read so far, he hasn't got one. Again sorry if I'm confused but if he actually structured his arguements properly instead posting videos and playing the emotional card, I might not have that problem.

You have to forgive Oz I think he has been asked and answered these same questions a few times over the 50 odd pages of this thread and his answers get less coherent and lucid, probably due to frustration and a lack of protein.

From his previous posts, on the pets thing, and on the farming side, he knows that stopping instantly now would do more damage than good, and it is also not going to happen, but it is an ideal to aim for, and it would be gradual but as the world changes we will change and at some point in the future we will not need animals as food or as entertainment or as pets.

I think it could happen, but it all depends on how the world changes, if we found a perfectly synthetic yet equally nutritious and tasty and cheap and easy to manufacture meat substitute it could happen, but that relies on only one of those factors, cheap.

As for do we never harm animals, no, by building things we destroy habitats, by using energy and driving cars we burn fuel and pollute the atmosphere, we build fences to keep animals out and by not eating animals it means we will eat the food that they would otherwise eat, and we will use pesticides and fertilizers that will further pollute the water supply, everything we consume creates unnatural waste that doesn't decompose ends up in massive landfills that give off dangerous methane gas, and litter that ends up in natural habitats and kills animals.

The only way to not affect animals is to live off food grown yourself in an inhospitable environment that no animals can survive in.

[Carl the Llama]

Boyo?

perhaps take note of the 1st line of your quote....

adj

1. characterized by kindness, mercy, sympathy, etc

Unneccesary killing does not demonstrate any ofthe above.

I hope you have finished your...civil law exam in a foreign language, the test on which was earlier today and can find the time to debate/discuss as im sure your learned views will be of interest.

I feel pretty comfortable saying that the first line of that definition covers the execution process of the animals I eat (ie. not halal/kosher) and their living conditions. As for the unnecessary part - I can see why you believe that, but it's slightly more complicated than just "meat is murder". These are animals which only exist because somebody's going to eat them one day. If they weren't earmarked for consumption they wouldn't be alive in the first place and that field they live in would instead be used for some vegetable, of which the mechanical nature of their harvesting would result in the needless death of many small field animals. A death which is in no way guaranteed to be as quick and painless as that experienced by my food. In my experience vegetarians are actually worse than meat eaters when it comes to closing their eyes to the external harm resulting from their diet, or even being aware of it in the first place. We all have choices to make and imo the alternative to meat is currently no better so I'm unwilling to inconvenience (yes, inconvenience) myself in the name of a fruitless endeavour.

Maybe one day the world will be an agricultural utopia where all our alimentary needs are fulfilled harmlessly to mother earth and her children, but until then I'm not going to feel guilt over the carefully controlled death of a purpose-raised animal.

If you wanna talk about milk however - that's an animal product I genuinely feel shame for the production/consumption of, even though I do still use it. In this case it's definitely fair to say that the flavour and convenience are the only factors behind my continued consumption. Meat is far more nuanced.

[ozleicester]

I feel pretty comfortable saying that the first line of that definition covers the execution process of the animals I eat (ie. not halal/kosher) and their living conditions. As for the unnecessary part - I can see why you believe that, but it's slightly more complicated than just "meat is murder". These are animals which only exist because somebody's going to eat them one day. If they weren't earmarked for consumption they wouldn't be alive in the first place and that field they live in would instead be used for some vegetable, of which the mechanical nature of their harvesting would result in the needless death of many small field animals. A death which is in no way guaranteed to be as quick and painless as that experienced by my food. In my experience vegetarians are actually worse than meat eaters when it comes to closing their eyes to the external harm resulting from their diet, or even being aware of it in the first place. We all have choices to make and imo the alternative to meat is currently no better so I'm unwilling to inconvenience (yes, inconvenience) myself in the name of a fruitless endeavour.

Maybe one day the world will be an agricultural utopia where all our alimentary needs are fulfilled harmlessly to mother earth and her children, but until then I'm not going to feel guilt over the carefully controlled death of a purpose-raised animal.

If you wanna talk about milk however - that's an animal product I genuinely feel shame for the production/consumption of, even though I do still use it. In this case it's definitely fair to say that the flavour and convenience are the only factors behind my continued consumption. Meat is far more nuanced.

There have been and continue to be enormous improvements in the welfare of animals and their kiling is much less painfull and traumatic than it has been in the past, however as long as we are killing for pleasure (and that is what killing for food and clothing is), then we are not being "humane", lets be honest (excluding euthanasia) is there a humane way to kill your mother, child, wife, husband etc?

The example of we breed them, so its ok.... kinda falls down....i have a child, who wouldnt exist if it werent for me, this does not give me the right to kill her.

Im sure that some vegetarians are as bad or worse than some meat eaters and their atttitudes to the world etc. we are all individuals and i dont align myself with all veggies as some great group saving the world. As i am sure you dont align yourself with all meat eaters as intelligent thinking people.

Yur use of the word inconvenience is very much a part of the discussion to me... my point throughout this lengthy and often repetetive discussion is that, in my opinion, i do not have the right to kill another creature, for my convenience and pleasure.

It has been remarkable the number of times that the word guilt has been used in this discussion, i dont think ive used it but it must be something of an issue for many people, the fact is... our material and food needs can be fulfilled without killing, we choose not to.

If anyone reading this could buy the "petri dish meat" tomorrow instead of a dead anilmal, would you?

[ozleicester]

Eating meat is one arguement, but it's not black and white, there are knock on effects, such as the pets one, which is yet to be properly answered, however had it stopped there I wouldn't have even posted in here.

The demand for pets will decrease over (lets just pick a timeframe).. 250 years, that decrease in demand will lead to a decrease in breeding, therefore we will not be overrun but puppies and kitties.

But then there is Oz's arguement, I.e free all animals and have to live without basics that save people lives, and thats just the things we can't replace, the amount of money that has to go in to replacing everything that we can replace would lead to shortages of food, and medicine, which would lead to death. Unless he's saying do away with money all together? And we're going to spread resources out evenly throughout the world, in which case has anyone got a hammer and sycle they can lend him? Sorry if I'm confused but he hasn't really answered any questions he's been asked properly so........

We dont have to live without things, we just have to choose other things...meat substitutes and clothing substitutes are already available and medicines CAN be created without using animals..it just costs more. Why would there be a shortage, as has been explained it takes 20 times as much land and water to grow meat, than vegetables. Im not saying do away with money, just that life is more important than money.

And even then, do we never harm animals? So what happems we they become problematic? Exactly where is the line? As from what I've read so far, he hasn't got one. Again sorry if I'm confused but if he actually structured his arguements properly instead posting videos and playing the emotional card, I might not have that problem.

as has been explained before... i am talking about trying to avoid killing for pleasure when an alternative is available. the videos may be emotional, but they also contain facts, but you can always decide to block that out for your convenience.

[ozleicester]

I had turkey today. I enjoyed it and gobbled it up.

Why not to eat turkey (yes its american)

1 They're Begging Your Pardon

Turkeys are “smart animals with personality and character, and keen awareness of their surroundings,†Oregon State University poultry scientist Tom Savage says. Turkeys are social, playful birds who enjoy the company of others. They relish having their feathers stroked and like to chirp, cluck, and gobble along to their favorite tunes. Anyone who spends time with them at farm sanctuaries quickly learns that turkeys are as varied in personality as dogs and cats. The president “pardons†a turkey every year—can't you pardon one too? Learn more about turkeys.

2. Get Rid of Your Wattle

Turkey flesh is brimming with fat. Just one homemade patty of ground, cooked turkey meat contains a whopping 244 mg of cholesterol, and half of its calories come from fat. Research has shown that vegetarians are 50 percent less likely to develop heart disease, and they have 40 percent of the cancer rate of meat-eaters. Plus, meat-eaters are nine times more likely to be obese than vegans are. Learn more about animal products and your health.

3. Can You Spell ‘Pandemic’?

Experts are warning that a virulent new strain of bird flu could spread to human beings and kill millions of Americans. Current factory-farm conditions, in which turkeys are drugged up and bred to grow so quickly they can barely walk, are a prescription for disease outbreaks. Eating a turkey carcass contaminated with bird flu could kill you, and currently available drugs might not work. Cooking should kill the virus, but it could be left behind on cutting boards and utensils and spread through something else you're eating. Learn more about bird flu.

4. Recall Process Doesn't Fly

The U.S. government is the only government in the Western world that does not have the power to recall contaminated animal products. Instead, American consumers must trust the profit-hungry meat, dairy, and egg industries to decide when recalls are necessary. Dan Glickman, secretary of agriculture under President Bill Clinton, explained that this limit on the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) power to protect consumers from tainted animal products is “one of the biggest loopholes out there.†There are all sorts of killer bacteria found in turkey flesh, including salmonella and campylobacter. The Center for Science in the Public Interest found that 28 percent of fresh turkeys were contaminated with bacteria, primarily with campylobacter, for which the USDA does not even require testing. Learn more about meat contamination.

5. Let the Turkeys Give Thanks!

Let's face it: If you're eating a turkey, that's a corpse you've got there on the table, and if you don't eat it quickly enough, it will decompose. Is that really what we want as the centerpiece of a holiday meal: an animal's dead and decaying carcass? Thanksgiving is a time to take stock of our lives and give thanks for all that we have, so why not let the turkeys give thanks too? Learn more about what happens to turkeys on factory farms.

6. Want Stuffing With Your Supergerms?

Dosing turkeys with antibiotics to stimulate their growth and to keep them alive in filthy, disease-ridden conditions that would otherwise kill them poses even more risks for people who eat them. Leading health organizations—including the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, and the American Public Health Association—have warned that by giving powerful drugs (via animal products) to humans who are not sick, the farmed-animal industry is creating possible long-term risks to human health and will spread antibiotic-resistant supergerms. That's why the use of drugs to promote growth in animals used for food has been banned for many years in Europe.

7. Without a Wing and a Prayer

On factory farms, turkeys live for months in sheds where they are packed so tightly that flapping a wing or stretching a leg is nearly impossible. They stand in waste, and urine and ammonia fumes burn their eyes and lungs. At the slaughterhouse, turkeys have their throats slit while they are still conscious. Those who miss the automated knife are scalded to death in the defeathering tank. Learn more about the cruelty endured by turkeys.

8. Foul Farming

Anyone who has driven by a farm has probably smelled it first from a mile away. Turkeys and other animals raised for food produce 130 times as much excrement as the entire U.S. human population—all without the benefit of waste treatment systems. There are no federal guidelines to regulate how factory farms treat, store, and dispose of the trillions of pounds of concentrated, untreated animal excrement that they produce each year. Learn more about how factory farming damages the environment.

9. Blood, Sweat, and Fear

Killing animals is inherently dangerous work, but the fast line speeds, the dirty, slippery killing floors, and the lack of training make animal-processing plants some of the most dangerous places to work in America today. The industry has refused to slow down the lines or buy appropriate safety gear because these changes could cut into companies’ bottom lines. In its 185-page exposé on worker exploitation by the farmed-animal industry, “Blood, Sweat, and Fear: Workers’ Rights in U.S. Meat and Poultry Plants,†Human Rights Watch explains, ‘These are not occasional lapses by employers paying insufficient attention to modern human resources management policies. These are systematic human rights violations embedded in meat and poultry industry employment.â€

10. A Cornucopia of Turkey Alternatives

Give up the giblets and carve out a new tradition this Thanksgiving—Tofurky Roast, a savory soy- and wheat-based roasts with stuffing and gravy or oven-roasted, peppered, hickory-smoked, or cranberry- and stuffing-flavored Tofurky Deli Slices. Give animals and yourself something to be really thankful for this year: Order a free vegetarian starter kit full of tasty recipes and celebrity features today!

[Manwell Pablo]

You have to forgive Oz I think he has been asked and answered these same questions a few times over the 50 odd pages of this thread and his answers get less coherent and lucid, probably due to frustration and a lack of protein.

From his previous posts, on the pets thing, and on the farming side, he knows that stopping instantly now would do more damage than good, and it is also not going to happen, but it is an ideal to aim for, and it would be gradual but as the world changes we will change and at some point in the future we will not need animals as food or as entertainment or as pets.

I think it could happen, but it all depends on how the world changes, if we found a perfectly synthetic yet equally nutritious and tasty and cheap and easy to manufacture meat substitute it could happen, but that relies on only one of those factors, cheap.

As for do we never harm animals, no, by building things we destroy habitats, by using energy and driving cars we burn fuel and pollute the atmosphere, we build fences to keep animals out and by not eating animals it means we will eat the food that they would otherwise eat, and we will use pesticides and fertilizers that will further pollute the water supply, everything we consume creates unnatural waste that doesn't decompose ends up in massive landfills that give off dangerous methane gas, and litter that ends up in natural habitats and kills animals.

The only way to not affect animals is to live off food grown yourself in an inhospitable environment that no animals can survive in.

No he hasn't he just answers the same questions as he ignores all the ones he can't answer. And his arugments have become less lucid as the questions have got more complicated.

The only thing he's said that makes any sense it "I don't have all the answers" which is totally correct, he does not, so until he does perhaps he should stop ramming his opnions down every one elses throat like he is totally in the right and everyone else is totally in the wrong.

Anyway, luckily for him I've got no intention of arguing in circles so until he can come up with some points to raised I've got no intention of wasting my time.

[Carl the Llama]

There have been and continue to be enormous improvements in the welfare of animals and their kiling is much less painfull and traumatic than it has been in the past, however as long as we are killing for pleasure (and that is what killing for food and clothing is), then we are not being "humane", lets be honest (excluding euthanasia) is there a humane way to kill your mother, child, wife, husband etc?

The example of we breed them, so its ok.... kinda falls down....i have a child, who wouldnt exist if it werent for me, this does not give me the right to kill her.

Im sure that some vegetarians are as bad or worse than some meat eaters and their atttitudes to the world etc. we are all individuals and i dont align myself with all veggies as some great group saving the world. As i am sure you dont align yourself with all meat eaters as intelligent thinking people.

Yur use of the word inconvenience is very much a part of the discussion to me... my point throughout this lengthy and often repetetive discussion is that, in my opinion, i do not have the right to kill another creature, for my convenience and pleasure.

It has been remarkable the number of times that the word guilt has been used in this discussion, i dont think ive used it but it must be something of an issue for many people, the fact is... our material and food needs can be fulfilled without killing, we choose not to.

If anyone reading this could buy the "petri dish meat" tomorrow instead of a dead anilmal, would you?

The point wasn't just that they wouldn't exist without farming, but that they were actively brought into the world to be meat one day - unless the same applies to your child I think that's a poor comparison.

Don't pretend guilt has nothing to do with it for you - the whole reason vegetarians start discussions like this is to try and guilt meat-eaters into not eating it anymore. I was just addressing the fact that I don't feel any given the way the whole production process works.

Petri dish meat? No problem, would you eat it too?

Nice to see that, a whole one response after I returned to the discussion despite saying that I probably wouldn't because "I don't like arguing in circles", this very fear has already been realised. Sometimes you have to agree to disagree - I don't think my dead animals are inhumane but you do. Can't see that changing.

[ozleicester]

The point wasn't just that they wouldn't exist without farming, but that they were actively brought into the world to be meat one day - unless the same applies to your child I think that's a poor comparison.

My daughter doesnt exist for that reason, but if i were to decide to have a child so that i could kill and eat it.. would make it ok?

Don't pretend guilt has nothing to do with it for you - the whole reason vegetarians start discussions like this is to try and guilt meat-eaters into not eating it anymore. I was just addressing the fact that I don't feel any given the way the whole production process works.

Wrong, its not about guilt, its about recogntion of rights, animals have a right to life and we do not have the right to kill them or use them for our pleasure. If you feel guilty about your eating habits. thats your problem, not mine.

Petri dish meat? No problem, would you eat it too? Yup, in a flash, i acknowldge the death of the first animal, but im prepared to accpet that to bring and end to the cruelty put upon the millions of others... then we just have to start on the horse racing , furs, etc etc.

Nice to see that, a whole one response after I returned to the discussion despite saying that I probably wouldn't because "I don't like arguing in circles", this very fear has already been realised. Sometimes you have to agree to disagree - I don't think my dead animals are inhumane but you do. Can't see that changing.

Its not an agree to disagree situation, its a situation where you have to accept that killing animals to eat is cruel, you dont have to agree that it is wrong... but it is not possible to deny that killing something for your pleasure is cruel.

[Manwell Pablo]

Until you can justify the death of children unable to breast feed, for the sake of keeping cows in captivity whilst having a better standard of living than they would have in the wild, nothing you say should be taken as anything more than the ramblings of an extremist moron.

[Kitchandro]

Its not an agree to disagree situation, its a situation where you have to accept that killing animals to eat is cruel, you dont have to agree that it is wrong... but it is not possible to deny that killing something for your pleasure is cruel.

If it really can't be an agree to disagree situation, you're going to have to back down. You can't force someone to agree with you.

And just to prove that it is in fact possible to deny that killing something for pleasure is cruel: I deny it. There, proved you wrong in 3 words.

And stop saying animals have a right to life. They have a right to fight for life, as far as I know there are no laws that prevent all animals from being killed. They don't have the same rights to humans because they are not the same species.

They are inferior beings, they should be bloody grateful we show them any mercy at all. If only all animals were as humane as us.

[Manwell Pablo]

If it really can't be an agree to disagree situation, you're going to have to back down. You can't force someone to agree with you.

And just to prove that it is in fact possible to deny that killing something for pleasure is cruel: I deny it. There, proved you wrong in 3 words.

And stop saying animals have a right to life. They have a right to fight for life, as far as I know there are no laws that prevent all animals from being killed. They don't have the same rights to humans because they are not the same species.

They are inferior beings, they should be bloody grateful we show them any mercy at all. If only all animals were as humane as us.

I think that's the next step of our "evolving" Fvck off investing time and money into curing cancer, aids, and solving world hunger. Lets train bears not to fish, as if trained properly they can survive on berries alone.

Most Fvcking ridiculous opnion I've ever read on this forum and I've seen people call Elvis Hammond a Premier League standard player. Shocking that some people have actually given him 50 pages of debate instead of shooting him down flat.

[ozleicester]

If it really can't be an agree to disagree situation, you're going to have to back down. You can't force someone to agree with you.

And just to prove that it is in fact possible to deny that killing something for pleasure is cruel: I deny it. There, proved you wrong in 3 words.

And stop saying animals have a right to life. They have a right to fight for life, as far as I know there are no laws that prevent all animals from being killed. They don't have the same rights to humans because they are not the same species.

They are inferior beings, they should be bloody grateful we show them any mercy at all. If only all animals were as humane as us.

Im not forcing anyone to agree with me, logic is doing that.

I accept you can deny it, but not if you want to be honest or logical. You can also say the black is white..it clearly isnt, but you can say it... if you want to prove yourself a fool.

There are not laws that prevent it... because yes they are considered infeior...in much the same way, blacks and women were in the past.

Yes, they should be grateful that we, the more intelligent, more evolved, humans show them compassion and respect.... its a pity that that compassion and respect dooesnt extend to not killing them for pleasure.

I think that's the next step of our "evolving" Fvck off investing time and money into curing cancer, aids, and solving world hunger. Lets train bears not to fish, as if trained properly they can survive on berries alone.

Most Fvcking ridiculous opnion I've ever read on this forum and I've seen people call Elvis Hammond a Premier League standard player. Shocking that some people have actually given him 50 pages of debate instead of shooting him down flat.

Unlike an animal, i am a human and capable of defending myself, so shooting me down metaphorically or otherwise is not something someone of your limited intellect is capable of.

I have answered your questions, but you refuse to either accept or acknowledge that.

Oh and as an aside, solving world hunger was addressed about 27 pages ago.

Im not sure what you major problem is, why your attitude is one of such childlike aggression and petulant insults, perhaps too much meat in your diet?

[Manwell Pablo]

yes you have answered all my questions and if I don't accept your answers perhaps you shouldn't give such sh1t ones with lack of feasibiliy.

I'll keep it nice and simple for you as I know if I give more than one question to answer you'll just pick and choose your arguement.

Please justify, the death of children unable to brest feed for the sake of keeping cows in capativity leading a as good, if not better better life style than they would if left to their on divises. The only arguement I've seen on this is you saying cows milk is bad for kids, well yes it probably isn't great but it is certainly better than fvcking nothing!

Not to mention that fish is also a key ingrediant in forumla milk.

Fairies bringing us a magical replacement in the future is not an answer.

As for my tone, it is bought on by your lack of respect for other posters, condecending manner, and your desire to ram your opnions down others throat despite your lack of insight. I don't need to worry about world without meat, It's your dream world that will never happen so why would I be worried . Although you accuse me of not listening, I have told you time again I have not even mentioned eating meat during our entire discussion I have stuck to things which are strictly nescc for human survival and sustaining decent living standards. I am arguing about not keeping any animals for any of our needs at all.