Turn on thread page Beta

Is it wrong to give money to animal charities over human ones? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Liverpool's Number 9)
    What if that TV guilts you into spending more money on charity than you would have?

    Just 2 pounds a month....
    you will get a post card from me every week for just 2 pounds a month
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    urm no. We kinda need animals so they can carry out their ecological niche
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bateman)
    you will get a post card from me every week for just 2 pounds a month
    Naked?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *AllyBaba)
    urm no. We kinda need animals so they can carry out their ecological niche
    who/what are you replying to please?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bateman)
    and i replied. I also said that there is a difference between what we can do ( because we are superior) and what we should do.
    Obviously there is a difference between what we can do and what we should do.
    I fail to see how this difference between what we can and what we should do bears any relevance to your contention, which was:
    "of course it's wrong, it will only be right if every human has enough food, water shelter, healthy care, education etc."

    Would you care to explain why your assertion that "humans are superior" justifies not helping animals at all until every single human has food, shelter, healthcare and education?

    In case you missed it, it seems to me that the opposite is self-evident, putting aside my 'right to earn' rather than 'right to have' point:
    "Animals are sentient, their suffering has to be acknowledged on this basis, even if one accepts that minimising human suffering is less important. There is no magic dividing line between humans and animals; we are not far removed from chimps and we will certainly have evolved significantly in the next couple of millions of years. You can't realistically hold that animals deserve NO consideration by basis of their existence, but humans do, without going into religious bull****."
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I've never given to an animal charity and don't intend to, but others can do what they want with their monies.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    who/what are you replying to please?
    Just the post in general lol
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    who/what are you replying to please?
    The OP maybe? Not everyone replying in a thread is arguing with someone. :p:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Why would you give money to some rabid beastie who craps on the carpet and smells.... and chews stuff? - in S.E. Asia they have the right idea.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    Would you care to explain why your assertion that "humans are superior" justifies not helping animals at all until every single human has food

    If we all lived off a vegan diet there'd be a lot more food. plant-->animal-->animal is very inefficient for the third animal (unless carnivorous/omnivore and can't live without meat)

    plant-->animal isn't so inefficient.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    But why would you want to be a vegan - can you actually tell me why I should not eat a bacon sandwich?. Think about cows..... they eat grass, they produce a considerable amount of methane which subsequently contributes to the greenhouse effect.?? - your rank vegan ass emissions are actually damaging to the planet.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheVeryHungryCaterpillar)
    But why would you want to be a vegan - can you actually tell me why I should not eat a bacon sandwich?. Think about cows..... they eat grass, they produce a considerable amount of methane which subsequently contributes to the greenhouse effect.?? - your rank vegan ass emissions are actually damaging to the planet.
    or you could think logically.

    Why are there so many cows?
    because of the demand for beef.

    Without that demand, the cows wouldn't be there, they are only there to serve man.

    Not everyone will turn vegan all at once, so there wouldn't suddenly just be too many cows, if everyone did turn vegan, it'd be a slow process, so the cows would just be breed less and less. By buying beef you're saying "more of a demand, more of a supply" or "same demand same supply" so the farmer will either try to keep the same amount of cows, or even breed more cows.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    So you are making the assumption that a cows only purpose in life is to feed humans?- thats a bit of a generalisation.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheVeryHungryCaterpillar)
    So you are making the assumption that a cows only purpose in life is to feed humans?- thats a quite an assumption.
    When looking at beef, the cows over all function is to make the food for us, it's what they're breed for doing (that or milk, bleh!).

    Any other purpose for their existent is unknown, but that one is known (with regards to cows who are grown for beef).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    does one 'grow a cow?'..... I always wondered what 'Cow Beans' were. How about one justifies the presence of cows due to their charming good looks, that cheeky swagger as they drool wildly and break wind profusely. As for the purpose of their existence being unknown...... that is a rather deep, philosophical thought - maybe they are part of something special?. I don't know about them only being there to make food for us, we only munch them as they are deemed to be tasty (especially aberdeen angus), if I thought that Dukey..... next doors dog, was scrummy and gobbled him up...... would that make dogs a viable source of protein?. ( I'm not sure where I am going with this so bear with me).
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheVeryHungryCaterpillar)
    does one 'grow a cow?'..... I always wondered what 'Cow Beans' were. How about one justifies the presence of cows due to their charming good looks, that cheeky swagger as they drool wildly and break wind profusely. As for the purpose of their existence being unknown...... that is a rather deep, philosophical thought - maybe they are part of something special?. I don't know about them only being there to make food for us, we only munch them as they are deemed to be tasty (especially aberdeen angus), if I thought that Dukey..... next doors dog, was scrummy and gobbled him up...... would that make dogs a viable source of protein?. ( I'm not sure where I am going with this so bear with me).
    it's possible to get protein from dog meat yes (even if it wasn't, how would that change the argument?), have you never heard of people eating dogs?

    And the cows are only born because we breed them, otherwise they wouldn't be profitable and the farmer would kill them (it's not like they're born outside of the farm*)

    So the purpose for them being bred, and born, is to grow up, and then killed, so that we can eat them.

    *I'm talking about cows that are turned into beef
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Of course I have, I ate Dukey (though the neighbours don't know that yet "here Dukey, Dukey, Dukey"....). On a serious note, yes I have, and I have eaten it myself.
    Why don't we just free the cows?- reminiscent of the scene at the end of Free Willy, as the cow gloriously dances past the bolt gun into freedom...... of course with some stirring music and a nonchalant gaze to camera?. Maybe we could get Sir Bob to endorse it - "Cow Aid"...... has a ring to it don't you think? - and maybe Bono?.
    So what if we gobble moo moo's - they are yummy in my tummy.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheVeryHungryCaterpillar)
    Of course I have, I ate Dukey (though the neighbours don't know that yet "here Dukey, Dukey, Dukey"....). On a serious note, yes I have, and I have eaten it myself.
    Why don't we just free the cows?- reminiscent of the scene at the end of Free Willy, as the cow gloriously dances past the bolt gun into freedom...... of course with some stirring music and a nonchalant gaze to camera?. Maybe we could get Sir Bob to endorse it - "Cow Aid"...... has a ring to it don't you think? - and maybe Bono?.
    So what if we gobble moo moo's - they are yummy in my tummy.
    is that your attempt at trolling?

    You were talking about environmental factors...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    definitely not wrong- they should be considered fairly ie

    saving an animals life is more important than getting an orphan a new toy

    but

    getting a dog at a shelter a new toy is less important than giving an orphan an operation
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Can we clarify what trolling is?- as I have often encountered this term and the meaning has eluded me. Yes, getting back to 'Environmental factors....... windy vegans', I cannot even recall my trail of thought ( must be the onset of CJD due to all the cows I have gobbled), but I will have a stab at it. What I am saying is that if people go vegan, then the methane produced by their diets will only contribute to the greenhouse effect, and if we stop 'growing cows' and cows become extinct...... then surely won't the windy vegans only replace them?.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like exams?
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.