Animal rights

[Mark_w]

I would say that it being part of our natural diet justifies eating it yes, morality means nothing really: A shark doesn't have sympathy for a seal, a lion for an antelope etc. There is no place for morality in the food chain.

 

Plenty of animals wouldn't have sympathy for their own species, does that mean cannibalism is okay?

 

As Shrapnel pointed out when TPH raised this earlier, other animals follow their instincts in a way that we no longer do. We're far more evolved and surely as a result morality should play a part?

 

When we've reached a stage where we can survive quite comfortably without killing animals for food, I don't see why morality shouldn't play a part in the decision, it does with everything else.

 

---

 

On a relatively unrelated note, how many meat eaters are there on here, who wouldn't feel comfortable killing the animals they happily eat?

[Vacamion]

people (like me) who think that any other animal has as much right to life as a human does

 

 

 

I haven't really paid that much attention to this thread, but this response intrigued me.

 

Any other animal? 

 

To what level of animal does this statement hold true for you?  Does this include insects (eaten in many parts of the world)?  Marine invertebrates? Microbes (your own immune system might be "eating" them)?  What about animals which are, themselves, cruel meat eaters?

 

Is the opinion you hold based on the level of brain actiivity and capacity to suffer?  If so, how far "down" (dangerous concept, but you know what I mean) does one go?

 

I often get the impression that some veggies just want to protect fluffy animals they can anthropomorphize into suffering, feeling beings with big sad eyes.

 

I'm not setting you up for a wind up or anything, I would be interested in your response. 

[The Doctor]

Plenty of animals wouldn't have sympathy for their own species, does that mean cannibalism is okay?

 

As Shrapnel pointed out when TPH raised this earlier, other animals follow their instincts in a way that we no longer do. We're far more evolved and surely as a result morality should play a part?

 

When we've reached a stage where we can survive quite comfortably without killing animals for food, I don't see why morality shouldn't play a part in the decision, it does with everything else.

 

---

 

On a relatively unrelated note, how many meat eaters are there on here, who wouldn't feel comfortable killing the animals they happily eat?

 

 

We aren't above ourselves on the food chain - it doesn't go: Big Human -> Smaller Humans -> other animals etc.: If it were I'd have thrown lots of you on the bbq a long time ago. This whole cannibalism stuff is a poor comparison for precisely that reason.

[Mark_w]

I haven't really paid that much attention to this thread, but this response intrigued me.

 

Any other animal? 

 

To what level of animal does this statement hold true for you?  Does this include insects (eaten in many parts of the world)?  Marine invertebrates? Microbes (your own immune system might be "eating" them)?  What about animals which are, themselves, cruel meat eaters?

 

Is the opinion you hold based on the level of brain actiivity and capacity to suffer?  If so, how far "down" (dangerous concept, but you know what I mean) does one go?

 

I often get the impression that some veggies just want to protect fluffy animals they can anthropomorphize into suffering, feeling beings with big sad eyes.

 

I'm not setting you up for a wind up or anything, I would be interested in your response. 

 

If it has feelings, can feel pain or suffer then I think it's wrong to actively choose to kill it (I'd include insects). Obviously if it's done accidentally then I don't have a huge problem with that and the exception would be if you literally had to kill an animal to survive, then not only would I be fine with that but I'd probably do it myself.

 

As for whether it's okay to kill cruel meat eating animals, well as I tongue-in-cheek pointed out to MattP in this thread months ago, he along with plenty of other human meat eaters would be high up on the list.

[Mark_w]

We aren't above ourselves on the food chain - it doesn't go: Big Human -> Smaller Humans -> other animals etc.: If it were I'd have thrown lots of you on the bbq a long time ago. This whole cannibalism stuff is a poor comparison for precisely that reason.

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/04/0410_030410_cannibal.html

[Vacamion]

If it has feelings, can feel pain or suffer then I think it's wrong to actively choose to kill it (I'd include insects). Obviously if it's done accidentally then I don't have a huge problem with that and the exception would be if you literally had to kill an animal to survive, then not only would I be fine with that but I'd probably do it myself.

 

As for whether it's okay to kill cruel meat eating animals, well as I tongue-in-cheek pointed out to MattP in this thread months ago, he along with plenty of other human meat eaters would be high up on the list.

 

 

Thanks.

 

Now I know.

 

[ozleicester]

Just to repeat a couple of things....

 

"Preaching" ...

I specifically started this topic to avoid preaching in other non related discussions, a number of people chose to, and continue to, try and drag this discussion in to other often unrelated topics. The title is pretty clear.

 

"we can, therefore we should, eat meat"...

As the assumed, highest, most evolved life form on the planet, We can do a myriad things. That doesnt mean we should, in my opinion, it means that we have the greatest responsibility to the less evolved, less intelligent and less capable, rather than kill them for our pleasure.

 

The "ad hominen" games...

There are a few people who have chosen to be involved in this discussion who continually "play the man not the ball" and that is of course their choice, i welcome any discussion because it means at least people are thinking.

 

and of course "the cat"...

What an absurd few days that was. Another fine example of a red herring fallacy, 

 

Oh and in reference to a recent question about what i will and wont eat, For me it comes down to.... if it can experience pain then i choose not to make it suffer for my pleasure. Someone in the topic made some very valid points about cockles and the like and whether they feel pain (apparently not) and whilst i havent been game to eat them yet, it has given me more to think about.

 

Oh and also... yes i miss meat... especially bacon, something about it, is at times mouthwatering... until i remind myself that it is the flesh of an animal... that tends to put me off.

 

Someone also mentioned cute fluffy kitties and puppies and that is where my confusion lies... how do people rationalise that their little "fluffy" should be kept in the lap of luxury and be horrified and outraged when a chav drops some random fluffy in a bin... but then sit down to a blood filled piece of carcass (which was once a cute little baby animal) for dinner?

 

In the end, i have my own opinion and others have theirs and as ive stated a number of times.. "to each their own". 

[Manwell Pablo]

Just to repeat a couple of things....

 

"Preaching" ...

I specifically started this topic to avoid preaching in other non related discussions, a number of people chose to, and continue to, try and drag this discussion in to other often unrelated topics. The title is pretty clear.

 

"we can, therefore we should, eat meat"...

As the assumed, highest, most evolved life form on the planet, We can do a myriad things. That doesnt mean we should, in my opinion, it means that we have the greatest responsibility to the less evolved, less intelligent and less capable, rather than kill them for our pleasure.

 

The "ad hominen" games...

There are a few people who have chosen to be involved in this discussion who continually "play the man not the ball" and that is of course their choice, i welcome any discussion because it means at least people are thinking.

 

and of course "the cat"...

What an absurd few days that was. Another fine example of a red herring fallacy, 

 

Oh and in reference to a recent question about what i will and wont eat, For me it comes down to.... if it can experience pain then i choose not to make it suffer for my pleasure. Someone in the topic made some very valid points about cockles and the like and whether they feel pain (apparently not) and whilst i havent been game to eat them yet, it has given me more to think about.

 

Oh and also... yes i miss meat... especially bacon, something about it, is at times mouthwatering... until i remind myself that it is the flesh of an animal... that tends to put me off.

 

Someone also mentioned cute fluffy kitties and puppies and that is where my confusion lies... how do people rationalise that their little "fluffy" should be kept in the lap of luxury and be horrified and outraged when a chav drops some random fluffy in a bin... but then sit down to a blood filled piece of carcass (which was once a cute little baby animal) for dinner?

 

In the end, i have my own opinion and others have theirs and as ive stated a number of times.. "to each their own". 

 

 

  :w00t:  One of the richest things I have ever read!!

 

 

You are without doubt.. the perfect example as to why heterosexuals shouldnt be allowed to mate.

 

You piss weak , fat little gobshite...Make no mistake, if your internet persona was even close to real, someone like me will fvck you up soon.

 

 

Don't try and play the balanced "everyone has an opinion" card now far too many of us know what you're actually like.

 

And you keeping a pet despite being against keeping pets is far from a red hearing in this discussion!

[BoneDog]

This would be ****ing hilarious if it weren't for that this sort of view puts childrens lives at risk. Vaccines don't sterilise or poison kids, they don't depopulate.

 

The anti-vaccine lobby draw my ire more than anyone else, even homeopaths - you ****ing mongols with your psuedoscientific garbage kill people, and sit there with a straight face.

 

I bet they're shitting!

 

So are you saying that you think Bill and his eugenics and depopulation supporting mates have the African and Indian kids interests at heart? If that was the case then I think that they would spend their money on supplying clean water and good nutrition to these places. Instead, they decide to spend much more money on manufacturing billions of 'shots'.

 

Building water treatment facilities among other things is the real way to tackle these problems, but Bill and big pharma have a different agenda.

 

http://pharmabiz.com/NewsDetails.aspx?aid=68352&sid=1

[The Doctor]

I bet they're shitting!

 

So are you saying that you think Bill and his eugenics and depopulation supporting mates have the African and Indian kids interests at heart? If that was the case then I think that they would spend their money on supplying clean water and good nutrition to these places. Instead, they decide to spend much more money on manufacturing billions of 'shots'.

 

Building water treatment facilities among other things is the real way to tackle these problems, but Bill and big pharma have a different agenda.

 

http://pharmabiz.com/NewsDetails.aspx?aid=68352&sid=1

 

 

Clean water and nutrition are important, but that says nothing for the need for vaccines: vaccines do nothing more than build up the immune system to tackle diseases, they're completely harmless. More over they are incredibly necessary - people avoiding vaccines can damage herd immunity, hence Polio rates jumping back up in Nigeria since the clerics there declared it a western sterilisation plot... All this "vaccines are evil" stuff comes from absolute retards who know slightly less than nothing of science and aren't afraid to show it.

[theessexfox]

Just to repeat a couple of things....

 

"Preaching" ...

I specifically started this topic to avoid preaching in other non related discussions, a number of people chose to, and continue to, try and drag this discussion in to other often unrelated topics. The title is pretty clear.

 

"we can, therefore we should, eat meat"...

As the assumed, highest, most evolved life form on the planet, We can do a myriad things. That doesnt mean we should, in my opinion, it means that we have the greatest responsibility to the less evolved, less intelligent and less capable, rather than kill them for our pleasure.

 

The "ad hominen" games...

There are a few people who have chosen to be involved in this discussion who continually "play the man not the ball" and that is of course their choice, i welcome any discussion because it means at least people are thinking.

 

and of course "the cat"...

What an absurd few days that was. Another fine example of a red herring fallacy, 

 

Oh and in reference to a recent question about what i will and wont eat, For me it comes down to.... if it can experience pain then i choose not to make it suffer for my pleasure. Someone in the topic made some very valid points about cockles and the like and whether they feel pain (apparently not) and whilst i havent been game to eat them yet, it has given me more to think about.

 

Oh and also... yes i miss meat... especially bacon, something about it, is at times mouthwatering... until i remind myself that it is the flesh of an animal... that tends to put me off.

 

Someone also mentioned cute fluffy kitties and puppies and that is where my confusion lies... how do people rationalise that their little "fluffy" should be kept in the lap of luxury and be horrified and outraged when a chav drops some random fluffy in a bin... but then sit down to a blood filled piece of carcass (which was once a cute little baby animal) for dinner?

 

In the end, i have my own opinion and others have theirs and as ive stated a number of times.. "to each their own". 

Would you eat roadkill? 

[MooseBreath]

Heard some buzzing in my lounge earlier and thought it could be some faulty electrics so investigated the issue. Turned out that a spider had caught a fly in its web down the back of my tv stand. The spider was busy wrapping the fly in web presumably in preparation for eating it. The fly was desperately trying to escape, buzzing its little wings off, and was obviously in serious pain.

What's the morally correct thing to do in such a situation? Rescue the fly? Put the fly out of its misery? Kill the spider? Leave them be?

[theessexfox]

Kill them all.

[FoxesAreBlue]

Kill the spider. Disgusting dirty fvcking things.

My choice of kill is a bit of bog-roll, crunch the eight legged freak and flush the bastard to a watery grave.

[Rincewind]

It's strange isn't it, the nasty creatures we kill, spiders, cockroaches, bugs, spiders etc we do not put on the menu, yet the cute fluffy animals we eat with relish. (not an intentional pun)

[ozleicester]

Would you eat roadkill? 

 

Personally no I wouldnt, but only because the idea of eating something mushed into the dirty road by a car tyre isnt in any way appealing.

[Rincewind]

Personally no I wouldnt, but only because the idea of eating something mushed into the dirty road by a car tyre isnt in any way appealing.

Doesn't appeal to me either. Saw something about meerkats last night. Apparently the older ones send the youngest ones on the road to see if any cars are coming. Don't know what they do when they run out of children.

[The People's Hero]

It's strange isn't it, the nasty creatures we kill, spiders, cockroaches, bugs, spiders etc we do not put on the menu, yet the cute fluffy animals we eat with relish. (not an intentional pun)

In many places, the non furries are eaten too

I love to eat the pig. Sweet sweet pig.

[Zingari]

Heard some buzzing in my lounge earlier and thought it could be some faulty electrics so investigated the issue. Turned out that a spider had caught a fly in its web down the back of my tv stand. The spider was busy wrapping the fly in web presumably in preparation for eating it. The fly was desperately trying to escape, buzzing its little wings off, and was obviously in serious pain.

What's the morally correct thing to do in such a situation? Rescue the fly? Put the fly out of its misery? Kill the spider? Leave them be?

Clean and dust behind your TV more often .

[Rincewind]

In many places, the non furries are eaten too

I love to eat the pig. Sweet sweet pig.

True. I just visage a family sitting at a table at a countryside restaurant overlooking a field of newly born lambs leaping gleefully through the grass and the family sitting there with plates full of leg of lamb with mint sauce.

Clean and dust behind your TV more often .

Good option

[ozleicester]

  Anyone going along?    

Societies participating in the Big Animal Research Debate

Debating societies from universities across the UK and the Republic of Ireland are taking part in the Big Animal Research Debate. Click the name of a university in the list below to view its debating society's profile, or scroll down to view all of the societies currently in the Big Animal Research Debate's line-up.

ENGLAND

London: Imperial College, Kings College London, London School of Economics, New College of the Humanities, University College London, University of London Union, University of Westminster  

Home counties: University of Cambridge, University of Essex, University of Kent

South and South West of England: University of Southampton

The Midlands: Staffordshire University, University of East Anglia, University of Nottingham, University of Warwick

The North of England: University of Durham, University of Hull, University of Liverpool, Newcastle University, University of Manchester, University of Sheffield

 

 

 

 

 

http://animalresearchdebate.idebate.org/

[Guest MattP]

Sounds exciting.

I might pop along just to wind up the animal rights weirdos

[OzFox]

Sounds exciting.

I might pop along just to wind up the animal rights weirdos

 

You could take along your album of steak pictures

[Bobby Hundreds]

  Anyone going along?    

Societies participating in the Big Animal Research Debate

Debating societies from universities across the UK and the Republic of Ireland are taking part in the Big Animal Research Debate. Click the name of a university in the list below to view its debating society's profile, or scroll down to view all of the societies currently in the Big Animal Research Debate's line-up.

ENGLAND

London: Imperial College, Kings College London, London School of Economics, New College of the Humanities, University College London, University of London Union, University of Westminster  

Home counties: University of Cambridge, University of Essex, University of Kent

South and South West of England: University of Southampton

The Midlands: Staffordshire University, University of East Anglia, University of Nottingham, University of Warwick

The North of England: University of Durham, University of Hull, University of Liverpool, Newcastle University, University of Manchester, University of Sheffield

 

 

 

 

 

http://animalresearchdebate.idebate.org/

 

 

 

The days of people linking images of rabbits wearing make-up with animal research hopefully no longer exist. 

 

I hope people do attend this. Animal research is absolutely necessary in the advancement of our mechanistic understanding in the pathological origins and actions of human disease and our subsequent treatment methods of these diseases.

[Guest MattP]

You could take along your album of steak pictures

Covered one with a meat pie outside Aintree.