Turn on thread page Beta

Are meat eating vets the biggest hypocrites in the history of mankind? watch

    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LeCapitalist)
    Is your view that raising animals for food is akin to keeping humans in slavery?
    My view is there are a lot of cross overs and so on many points they are comparable, obviously there are elements that can't be compared, but that doesn't invalidate most elements of a comparison.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=there's too much love;59315241][QUOTE=redferry;59314581]You can ensure you eat meat from animals that do have aa good life though, by buying from local producers or limiting yourself to wild shot. At the end of the day most animals in the wild live an awful life full of fear and pain - not battery farmed bad, but parasite infested, disease riddled heavily predated on bad. People who think otherwise are just deluded. You think natures some beautiful place where all the animals run around happily and die in their sleep, whereas in reality those animals scrape by every day and spent their whole lives terrified...



    What's taking their own life got to do with anything? Just because they don't take their own life doesn't mean that killing them swiftly isn't a better way for them to die than natural causes.
    Is it in the animals interests to die? No. Or is forcibly taking a sentient beings life against it's interests ethical now?

    There's a reason that very few philosophers argue in favour of meat eating (in fact, currently I don't know of one that does, the only ones that have seem to be dead) and that's because morally speaking it's very hard (many would say impossible) to defend.


    Oh, when you're eating meat you're actually eating animals that have been euthanasia?
    That's funny, the vast majority of the deaths of any farm are not euthanasia.


    And that's why you've failed to put up a valid defense of it so far? Keep trying.
    You're clearly not interested in having a reasonable discussion, you would rather resort to insults and randomly generated retorts that shut down any chance of conversation. You clearly run on emotion not logic and anthropomorphise animals to a great extent.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=redferry;59315329][QUOTE=there's too much love;59315241]
    (Original post by redferry)
    You can ensure you eat meat from animals that do have aa good life though, by buying from local producers or limiting yourself to wild shot. At the end of the day most animals in the wild live an awful life full of fear and pain - not battery farmed bad, but parasite infested, disease riddled heavily predated on bad. People who think otherwise are just deluded. You think natures some beautiful place where all the animals run around happily and die in their sleep, whereas in reality those animals scrape by every day and spent their whole lives terrified...



    What's taking their own life got to do with anything? Just because they don't take their own life doesn't mean that killing them swiftly isn't a better way for them to die than natural causes.


    You're clearly not interested in having a reasonable discussion, you would rather resort to insults and randomly generated retorts that shut down any chance of conversation. You clearly run on emotion not logic and anthropomorphise animals to a great extent.
    I already gave you the benefit of the doubt and said don't use false dichotomies in my first reply to you.
    Then you not only did that again in your first paragraph, but you made a strawman argument and put words in my mouth.

    Which again you've done here.

    I replied to a lot of your post considering that. But no, I don't respond to strawman arguments. I rarely respond to false dichotomies.
    And you're in ability to argue without those show how weak your arguments are.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    My view is there are a lot of cross overs and so on many points they are comparable, obviously there are elements that can't be compared, but that doesn't invalidate most elements of a comparison.
    Alright I just want to be clear on the analogy (and I will come back to this point if needed)

    Do you favour animal rights or are you a pure utilitarian? (I remember reading DeGrazia's paper in which he defended a "third way" so not suggesting those are the only approaches to animal welfare)
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=there's too much love;59315391][QUOTE=redferry;59315329]
    (Original post by there's too much love)

    I already gave you the benefit of the doubt and said don't use false dichotomies in my first reply to you.
    Then you not only did that again in your first paragraph, but you made a strawman argument and put words in my mouth.

    Which again you've done here.

    I replied to a lot of your post considering that. But no, I don't respond to strawman arguments. I rarely respond to false dichotomies.
    And you're in ability to argue without those show how weak your arguments are.
    You are unwilling to engage in real discussion therefore throw around 'strw man argument' and false dichotomy instead. Plus a load of insults, which is frankly just rude. I have been very reasonable with you, undeservedly so.

    Look, I get it, its very easy to attach human emotions to animals despite in most cases the scientific evidence just not being there. I love animals, I don't particularly want to kill them, but I don't think it's the moral abomination you make it out to be because I have actually spent thousands of hours observing animals in the wild, and know it to be a lesser 'evil' than that which they would face in their natural habitat. You are unwilling to argue because your morals are pureley emotional, you feel you are right because you have chosen to anthropomorphise animals in a way that is not backed up in the field of zoology. For me, I stick with science and evidence to guide my morals,, because I am a scientist, you are perfe tly entitled to base yours on emotion. But that doesn't mean you get to be rude about it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rock_climber86)
    They say they care for animals but they eat them. Surely they are the biggest hypocrites in the history of human civilisation? Discuss.

    I think all vets should be vegan, or at the very least vegetarian, if they truly care about animals. Just think about it if you're a meat eating vet reading this. Why are you taking with one hand and giving with the other? You are being speciesist! That is fundamentally wrong. Might as well just kill them in theatre if you're going to eat meat too.

    watch this video if you really want to know where your meat comes from etc: http://earthlings.com/?page_id=32
    Vets aren't all there to care for animals although they often do. Their role is specifically to maintain welfare standards with regard to farm animals - should we argue that anyone who eats meat cannot have good standards of animal welfare? This would apply to any pet owner as much as a vet. In addition, if an animal was destined solely to be eaten and not bred/as a pet then I doubt most of them would reach theatre as the cost of operating would outweigh the price of their meat...
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=redferry;59315553][QUOTE=there's too much love;59315391]
    (Original post by redferry)

    You are unwilling to engage in real discussion therefore throw around 'strw man argument' and false dichotomy instead. Plus a load of insults, which is frankly just rude. I have been very reasonable with you, undeservedly so.

    Look, I get it, its very easy to attach human emotions to animals despite in most cases the scientific evidence just not being there. I love animals, I don't particularly want to kill them, but I don't think it's the moral abomination you make it out to be because I have actually spent thousands of hours observing animals in the wild, and know it to be a lesser 'evil' than that which they would face in their natural habitat. You are unwilling to argue because your morals are pureley emotional, you feel you are right because you have chosen to anthropomorphise animals in a way that is not backed up in the field of zoology. For me, I stick with science and evidence to guide my morals,, because I am a scientist, you are perfe tly entitled to base yours on emotion. But that doesn't mean you get to be rude about it.
    And what do you do as soon as you finish saying I 'throw' around strawman arguments?

    You make a strawman argument.

    Perhaps you're unsure of what I mean by that, so to be clearer for you:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman_argument
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LittleFurry)
    Vets aren't all there to care for animals although they often do. Their role is specifically to maintain welfare standards with regard to farm animals - should we argue that anyone who eats meat cannot have good standards of animal welfare? This would apply to any pet owner as much as a vet. In addition, if an animal was destined solely to be eaten and not bred/as a pet then I doubt most of them would reach theatre as the cost of operating would outweigh the price of their meat...
    It is arguable that they are unable to see the welfare of animals properly if they don't value the animals in and of themselves.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rock_climber86)
    They say they care for animals but they eat them. Surely they are the biggest hypocrites in the history of human civilisation? Discuss.

    I think all vets should be vegan, or at the very least vegetarian, if they truly care about animals. Just think about it if you're a meat eating vet reading this. Why are you taking with one hand and giving with the other? You are being speciesist! That is fundamentally wrong. Might as well just kill them in theatre if you're going to eat meat too.

    watch this video if you really want to know where your meat comes from etc: http://earthlings.com/?page_id=32
    And the award for todays hyperbole load of crap goes to...........................
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LeCapitalist)
    Alright I just want to be clear on the analogy (and I will come back to this point if needed)

    Do you favour animal rights or are you a pure utilitarian? (I remember reading DeGrazia's paper in which he defended a "third way" so not suggesting those are the only approaches to animal welfare)
    It depends on what analogy is being made.

    I don't believe that most animals or some humans are able to enter into a social contract that contains rights, although that doesn't preclude such a contract from having clauses in for the society to maintain rules on how to treat those who can't enter into rights agreements.

    I'm not sure I'd consider myself a pure utilitarian. To be honest I never fully settled on one meta-ethical theory (though always willing to be convinced). Utilitarianism has of course been a strong influence, where as Regan who argues strongly for animal rights doesn't appeal to me.

    I think the reason that most meta ethical theories fall flat on their face eventually is over reaching though. There are an infinite number of thought experiments that one could make which makes it impossible to find one theory to categories every possible event as humans will and do make mistakes. What the moral thing to do in plenty of situations can be difficult to decipher, so I prefer to look at the events I'm facing, and similar events, and work from that basis in a more pragmatic approach.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by silverbolt)
    And the award for todays hyperbole load of crap goes to...........................
    Hyperbole? Definitely. And the OP's argument isn't the strongest, but there is some merit to it.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=there's too much love;59315639][QUOTE=redferry;59315553]
    (Original post by there's too much love)

    And what do you do as soon as you finish saying I 'throw' around strawman arguments?

    You make a strawman argument.

    Perhaps you're unsure of what I mean by that, so to be clearer for you:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman_argument
    Youre genuinely unwilling to have any sort of discussion around the topic other than 'killing things is wrong' aren't you?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redferry)

    Youre genuinely unwilling to have any sort of discussion around the topic other than 'killing things is wrong' aren't you?
    Ironically do you know what you just did there?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Ironically do you know what you just did there?
    No, I don't.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I don't really have an opinion on the vets but I think that it must run through their heads and make them question what they do from time to time if they choose to eat meat. I'd just like to make the point about all these posts about it's worst for them in the wild, what an ignorant thing to say. It's not in a pigs nature to be inside a cage its entire life, so what if it's apparently worst in the wild (which I do not believe), it's not a humans choice to make, just because it's worst for them justifies they aren't given a shot at a normal life? What a load of rubbish. Also condoning what we do because of what animals do in the wild really makes me question the intelligence of some people, "but animals eat meat", really?

    At the end of the day, you people saying killing animals is humane. There is no way of killing something that doesn't want to die humanely, and there is nothing you can change about that fact.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    No they are not.

    If you think all vets should be vegan or vegetarian you are deluded, and putting many highly trained, highly skilled vets who save countless animals live out of a job because of their eating habits.

    Yes, farm animals are raised to be killed and eaten, it's not the vet's fault this is the way life is, don't take it out on them.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    It is arguable that they are unable to see the welfare of animals properly if they don't value the animals in and of themselves.
    I do value the animals I see on farms, but I also accept that they only ever lived for the purpose of farming. That sounds harsh but as long as the animals are kept in good conditions and I consider that they've not suffered overly muching, I'm happy to eat the meat. I also have some standards like only eating free range eggs etc.

    (I'm a first year vet student)
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rock_climber86)
    They say they care for animals but they eat them. Surely they are the biggest hypocrites in the history of human civilisation? Discuss.
    well, the JIBLA (Jewish&Islamic Bacon Lovers Association) is a close second
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LwR)
    I don't really have an opinion on the vets but I think that it must run through their heads and make them question what they do from time to time if they choose to eat meat. I'd just like to make the point about all these posts about it's worst for them in the wild, what an ignorant thing to say. It's not in a pigs nature to be inside a cage its entire life, so what if it's apparently worst in the wild (which I do not believe), it's not a humans choice to make, just because it's worst for them justifies they aren't given a shot at a normal life? What a load of rubbish. Also condoning what we do because of what animals do in the wild really makes me question the intelligence of some people, "but animals eat meat", really?

    At the end of the day, you people saying killing animals is humane. There is no way of killing something that doesn't want to die humanely, and there is nothing you can change about that fact.
    I did quite clearly say as long as they had a nice life. I don't support intensive farming in any way.

    Or farming animals at all to be honest, but that's for a completely different set of moral reasons
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AmberEyes)
    I do value the animals I see on farms, but I also accept that they only ever lived for the purpose of farming. That sounds harsh but as long as the animals are kept in good conditions and I consider that they've not suffered overly muching, I'm happy to eat the meat. I also have some standards like only eating free range eggs etc.

    (I'm a first year vet student)
    Free range eggs? Don't make me laugh.
    The conditions that those birds thrive in is not simply a field (which most don't even try to use as it's not stimulating).
    By the way, what happens to the males in that industry?



    You're basically saying "I don't care about the interests of the animals, I care about my interests."

    By your logic I can breed human children into slavery, then use them as slaves as that's what they were 'bred' for. But somehow I think you'd be outraged if that happened.
 
 
 
Poll
Is the Big Bang theory correct?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.