Non vegetarians does this film not have and impact upon you? Watch

there's too much love
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#101
Report 7 years ago
#101
(Original post by CurlyBen)
To the vegetarians: if someone made a film of all the unpleasant things that happen to animals (unintentionally) whilst growing crops on modern farms, would you stop eating altogether? There's a lot of stupid animals out there without the sense to move out of the way of machinery (often they'll move once or twice, then the next time they'll just sit still). One of the guys on the farm I used to work on was rolling after sowing at night - came back to the field the next day and found loads of partridge legs sticking up through the soil - they'd not been quick enough to move and had been buried alive. Sickle bar mowers chop the legs off birds in a crop. Combines chop and thresh plenty of critters. Hares get skewered by cultivators. Seed often has poisonous coatings such as mercury, which won't do a bird any good at all if it's eaten. None of it's intentional though, and arguably much more unpleasant for the animal.

Also do you consider it better for an animal simply never to live than to live on a farm and then be slaughtered? Obviously animals which can't be sold for profit won't be reared.



I'm very sceptical of that - there's a good reason areas have one type of farming dominant. There's large areas of land which simply aren't suitable for growing crops on a commercial scale - poor drainage, poor soil, steep hillsides, large rocks, anything that will prevent mechanised seeding or harvesting. 23% of the UK land area is rough grazing which isn't suitable for growing crops. Also grass is often used in crop rotation, but I don't suppose anyone's going to eat grass in a hurry! For what it's worth, the farm I worked on used to run a medium scale (~2000) pig business but found it more profitable just to turn the couple of fields they took up back to arable.
Be as skeptical as you want, but the animals need to be fed and a **** load of food is grown for their feed that could be used to grow crops that would feed more humans. Of course some land can't be used for crops, but animals are generally more profitable than vegetables.
0
reply
TurkeyProphet
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#102
Report 7 years ago
#102
But being a vegetarian isn't enough. Animals products are used beyond just consumption of the flesh.

Vegetarians piss me off when they will only change to the extent that it is convenient for them. You should be boycotting all animal products including stuff like honey, eggs, fabric softeners, lots of wines and beers, flu vaccines, various types of medicines, make up, oils, glues, furs and clothing.

There is a huge list of stuff that contains at least some animal products. So if you will accept some animals products in your life and also the fact that animals will be killed whilst your vegetables are being mass produced then why not accept some animals for food? If you are trying to buy as ethically as you can, I don't really see a problem with buying meat.
0
reply
burgergetsbored
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#103
Report 7 years ago
#103
I think it's disgusted how they're treated, if they're being killed they shouldn't have to suffer, but I'm afraid it wont stop me eating meat :/
0
reply
Lewroll
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#104
Report 7 years ago
#104
(Original post by there's too much love)
What do you mean by a learnt behaviour?

Because you put "eventually you will try to eat anything" the implications of that being eventually you will try to eat meat, but not as a first resort...

Also killing an animal to eat it seems to be something we rationalise a lot to do. Not in terms of justification, but just how to actually do it.

I posted earlier, I think I quoted you, with regards to these random bits of biological essentialism people are hinting at.
Good points. I would have thought that our instincts would lead us to eating the animal.
0
reply
CurlyBen
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#105
Report 7 years ago
#105
(Original post by there's too much love)
Be as skeptical as you want, but the animals need to be fed and a **** load of food is grown for their feed that could be used to grow crops that would feed more humans. Of course some land can't be used for crops, but animals are generally more profitable than vegetables.
Go on then, provide a source for that. I'm sure all the big arable farms round me would switch to livestock if they're genuinely more profitable. Or maybe, just maybe, crops are more profitable than livestock? Hence why arable land is over twice as valuable as grazing land, and "More and more farmers are giving up outdoor livestock production and turning to more profitable arable crops". Clearly my boss got rid of the pig operation because it was simply too profitable.
Or maybe that argument's just *******s, and most grazing land can't be used for any serious crop production.
Oh, and another point, crops sold as animal feed fetch much less than those for human consumption, so farmers grow for human consumption. Crops which go for feed are the lowest quality which the supermarkets won't buy for human use.
0
reply
there's too much love
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#106
Report 7 years ago
#106
(Original post by Lewroll)
Good points. I would have thought that our instincts would lead us to eating the animal.
But you admit there's no evidence to support your claims related to biological essentialism made in this thread?


(Original post by CurlyBen)
Go on then, provide a source for that. I'm sure all the big arable farms round me would switch to livestock if they're genuinely more profitable. Or maybe, just maybe, crops are more profitable than livestock? Hence why arable land is over twice as valuable as grazing land, and "More and more farmers are giving up outdoor livestock production and turning to more profitable arable crops". Clearly my boss got rid of the pig operation because it was simply too profitable.
Or maybe that argument's just *******s, and most grazing land can't be used for any serious crop production.
...in the UK yes it may be more profitable to grow vegetables, but I'm talking on a global level, you realise we import plenty of vegetables, meat, and of course, animal feed, right?
0
reply
canimakeit
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#107
Report 7 years ago
#107
(Original post by CurlyBen)
Go on then, provide a source for that. I'm sure all the big arable farms round me would switch to livestock if they're genuinely more profitable. Or maybe, just maybe, crops are more profitable than livestock? Hence why arable land is over twice as valuable as grazing land, and "More and more farmers are giving up outdoor livestock production and turning to more profitable arable crops". Clearly my boss got rid of the pig operation because it was simply too profitable.
Or maybe that argument's just *******s, and most grazing land can't be used for any serious crop production.
This is so true a lot of land used for animals simply couldn't support mass farming.
0
reply
Grund
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#108
Report 7 years ago
#108
Animals kill other animals brutally all the time, but you aren't going to stop them from killing each other because it's naturally what they do and what's good for them. And we're animals just the same, we're just generally more rational and intelligent.
0
reply
RoshniDiya
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#109
Report 7 years ago
#109
(Original post by Lewroll)
Yes you are right. I eat meat because I enjoy it, and I eat meat because I can.

And if you look back at my post you will see I never said it was our 'responsibility', I said it was our 'place'. Meaning we have a right as a species to eat anything we want to, it doesn't mean we have to. Just like a chimp has a right to eat a small bird, or a lion has a right to eat an antelope.
I don't like you anymore. :sad:
0
reply
Jimbo1234
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#110
Report 7 years ago
#110
(Original post by there's too much love)
You expect me to take your posts seriously when you post things from "beyond veg"? That's like me taking the other site seriously, I already replied to that stupid post though.


Things and black and white, and you talk as if morality as no meaning, importance, or even existence.

What you mean by serious, how serious one needs to be, why you have to be serious about something to do it, you're just not responding to those issues.

If you're trolling, please stop.
When the text is referenced.........yes, I do expect you to take it seriously unless you can provide counter evidence. :rolleyes:

Morality? What the **** are you on about? Animals eat other animals all that time, that is life - deal with it. We don't live on a fluffy cloud were everyone is holding hands. Also, who cares if a cow dies so we can eat it? It is a cow, it not like they are good for anything but being a food source.
0
reply
there's too much love
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#111
Report 7 years ago
#111
(Original post by Grund)
Animals kill other animals brutally all the time, but you aren't going to stop them from killing each other because it's naturally what they do and what's good for them. And we're animals just the same, we're just generally more rational and intelligent.
:facepalm2:

So, let me get this straight, if humans rape other humans all the time, and no-one stops them, that means I get to do it as well?

If something is natural that makes it good? (see the naturalist fallacy)

And we're the same as other animals, yet obviously different as we're a different species to dogs, which are different in turn to us and pigs etc. But we're not the same because we're more rational and intelligent. Apart from it's just we're generally that and not all of us are.

I'm very confused!:rolleyes:
0
reply
CurlyBen
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#112
Report 7 years ago
#112
(Original post by there's too much love)
...in the UK yes it may be more profitable to grow vegetables, but I'm talking on a global level, you realise we import plenty of vegetables, meat, and of course, animal feed, right?
So why are so many of the farms in this country, in almost all areas other than the south/mid east either livestock only or mixed? If they could be used for arable they would be - a lot of them aren't profitable for livestock in any case. The fact is they're just not suitable.
If you want to continue arguing your position perhaps you'd care to share a source which supports it.
0
reply
Boom.Squish
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#113
Report 7 years ago
#113
(Original post by there's too much love)
Putting a creature ahead of another creature does not mean harming either creature.
You know eating meat is unnecessary, you are putting human values randomly in front of other animal interests, and then trying to make it look as if animal interests hold all this weight for you. You are causing the unnecessary suffering of animals, then back tracking and saying "I care enough for amount X of suffering to be avoided". You're trying to ease your conscience but have you even looked into the standards of care for the animals you do eat?

ARGS, people like you make me so ****ing angry.

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...&postcount=208

Should help clarify at least one of the points I've made in this post for you.
I'm not trying to "ease my conscience", I'm just able to be detached on this issue. If I allowed myself to feel sad for all the animals being slaughtered for food, I'd implode and maybe it's not right, maybe it's okay but it's what people do. I feel like crying when I watch parts of Comic Relief and disgusted when I see things like that woman who put the cat in the bin but you just can't allow yourself to mourn all the evil in the world. It's similar with eating meat. I see a sausage and don't think about the poor little piggy who went to market, I just see it as food and I feel no emotional connection with my food! Maybe it is wrong, but until my conscience tells me so, I'll keep doing it. Do you look down on all non-vegetarians, see them as a lesser person because of it? I just don't feel bad for eating animals! If that makes me an awful person in your eyes, then so be it. You clearly feel strongly about this, but I don't.
0
reply
Lewroll
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#114
Report 7 years ago
#114
(Original post by there's too much love)
But you admit there's no evidence to support your claims related to biological essentialism made in this thread?
I'm sure there is plenty of evidence for my claims. I can't have been the first person to suggest it. Just give me a moment to find some
Also the fact that humans eat meat in nearly every society on earth suggests a biological element to the behaviour.
(Original post by RoshniDiya)
I don't like you anymore. :sad:
Why not? :cry2:
0
reply
there's too much love
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#115
Report 7 years ago
#115
(Original post by Jimbo1234)
When the text is referenced.........yes, I do expect you to take it seriously unless you can provide counter evidence. :rolleyes:

Morality? What the **** are you on about? Animals eat other animals all that time, that is life - deal with it. We don't live on a fluffy cloud were everyone is holding hands. Also, who cares if a cow dies so we can eat it? It is a cow, it not like they are good for anything but being a food source.

So to translate:

WHAT THE HELL IS MORALITY!!!

Animals eat others as well, in the wise words of Tommy Wiseau "that is life".

So if you don't like it **** YOU!

And who cares if a cow dies, who cares if other people don't share the values I project onto a cow, and who cares about the interests of a cow? CONFORM TO MY VALUE PROJECTIONS OF WHAT A COW IS WORTH, OR ELSE!!11!1:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:.
I see you trollin'. I hate it.
You're condemned to the power of the ignore list.
0
reply
there's too much love
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#116
Report 7 years ago
#116
(Original post by Lewroll)
I'm sure there is plenty of evidence for my claims. I can't have been the first person to suggest it. Just give me a moment to find some
Also the fact that humans eat meat in nearly every society on earth suggests a biological element to the behaviour.
:

All the evidence can also be seen as evidence as being based in social constructions.
The suggestion is weak.
My whole point has been to show you that claims that it is evidence have been neutralised.

The reason people resort to claims of biological essentialism was because wilsonian sociobiology was popular a few decades ago.
0
reply
there's too much love
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#117
Report 7 years ago
#117
(Original post by Boom.Squish)
I'm not trying to "ease my conscience", I'm just able to be detached on this issue. If I allowed myself to feel sad for all the animals being slaughtered for food, I'd implode and maybe it's not right, maybe it's okay but it's what people do. I feel like crying when I watch parts of Comic Relief and disgusted when I see things like that woman who put the cat in the bin but you just can't allow yourself to mourn all the evil in the world. It's similar with eating meat. I see a sausage and don't think about the poor little piggy who went to market, I just see it as food and I feel no emotional connection with my food! Maybe it is wrong, but until my conscience tells me so, I'll keep doing it. Do you look down on all non-vegetarians, see them as a lesser person because of it? I just don't feel bad for eating animals! If that makes me an awful person in your eyes, then so be it. You clearly feel strongly about this, but I don't.
You've missed the points in my post, where I essentially took a dump over the 'points' you made and explained they fell down.

Now you're getting defensive and trying to draw attention away from what we had been discussing.
0
reply
Planto
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#118
Report 7 years ago
#118
(Original post by Schmokie Dragon)
These animals belong to no-one but themselves. We don't have a right to abuse and exploit them any more than we have a right to exploit the disabled or extremely stupid humans.
This line of argument annoys me. Rights are a human invention. No animal has a right to anything unless you afford it one, much like no human has any rights until other humans afford them those rights. It is rather arrogant to attempt to assign some kind of natural tautology to a product of your own moral perspective.
1
reply
Lewroll
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#119
Report 7 years ago
#119
(Original post by there's too much love)
All the evidence can also be seen as evidence as being based in social constructions.
The suggestion is weak.
My whole point has been to show you that claims that it is evidence have been neutralised.

The reason people resort to claims of biological essentialism was because wilsonian sociobiology was popular a few decades ago.
It can't all be down to social constructions. The fact that nearly every human society on Earth eats meat suggests something biological. If you went to a tribe somewhere in south america or africa which hadn't been touched by western society, they will most likely be eating meat as well. You cannot deny a biological element to meat eating.
0
reply
CurlyBen
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#120
Report 7 years ago
#120
Interesting link
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (329)
37.3%
No - but I will (71)
8.05%
No - I don't want to (63)
7.14%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (419)
47.51%

Watched Threads

View All