Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Where do you stand in the animal rights argument? Watch

    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    I am for animal rights but I don't think we should stop eating meat.
    Why is it okay to kill them for food (I presume they'd be killed before being eaten).
    Would you at least be willing to allow me to kill human animals for food?
    If not what characteristic would put all humans above all animals?
    Note: "because they're human" is the same justification of "because they're black" used by racists just a few decades ago.
    Edit:
    Unless you mean we shouldn't be allowed to farm them, just eat them once they die. However again what about doing the same with humans?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    I am for animal rights but I don't think we should stop eating meat.
    As I've argued before this is a perfectly compatible position. You are not violating any rights by eating meats,only the farmer/slaughterer is. Thus not eating meat is forbidden not on a deontic but utilitarian basis.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    With regards to veganism, you realise that most vegans (myself included) are trying to avoid killing sentient life, or at the very least, minimise it. When you talk about killing organisms as if that automatically goes against veganism, are you in-fact talking out of your rear end?

    Secondly why is for food just fine, but hunting for fun isn't?

    If you're eating meat then you are exploiting animals for your own fun.


    Would you agree that if I were to go around killing humans in a quick way in which they didn't know I was coming (surreptitiously) and then ate their meat that this would be okay?

    I don't see how any intentional taking of life (note it's in the context of this thread, so please don't try to straw man me on this) other than in cases of euthanasia (and that's another topic altogether) can be "humane". If it's not in the animals benefit, it's done for exploitive reasons only, and that seems inhumane.

    If you don't then I fail to see why you feel farming is justified.
    When most people here talk about hunting it's generally in the context of the western world. Why is this? because that's where we live. Why is this different? Because we can live easily without meat. Where as those tribes may need it for survival.

    If we were to grow food on the land available and not feed our crops to animals (which is how we rear most animals) then we would be able to feed about 12 billion. As it happens we can only feed about 8 billion people in total.
    We feed a lot of our food to animals and then eat them. This is very inefficient kcal wise.
    Hunting for food is fine because we get nutritional value out of it. As you mention in the western world it is very rare to manually hunt (i.e. to get a gun and kill your own lunch). If you do this it is fine because you are doing it to sustain your diet. Nobody has answered why it is fine for an animal to cause pain to another animal (to eat) but not for a human. I thought we're all equal.

    If I was marooned on a desert island with nothing else to eat but another human, I wouldn't even think twice about it because you need to eat to survive. As it is there are plenty of other sources of meat so we don't need to kill other humans but if there wasn't i'm sure it would happen. I can't survive without meat. No amount of vegetables can provide me with enough nutrition for me to be completely healthy. There will always be some kind of defiency.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    no they shouldnt suffer more, they should suffer less because lets face it, humans are whats wrong with this world, they cause everything that goes wrong with it
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Michelin Man)
    Hunting for food is fine because we get nutritional value out of it. As you mention in the western world it is very rare to manually hunt (i.e. to get a gun and kill your own lunch). If you do this it is fine because you are doing it to sustain your diet. Nobody has answered why it is fine for an animal to cause pain to another animal (to eat) but not for a human. I thought we're all equal.

    If I was marooned on a desert island with nothing else to eat but another human, I wouldn't even think twice about it because you need to eat to survive. As it is there are plenty of other sources of meat so we don't need to kill other humans but if there wasn't i'm sure it would happen. I can't survive without meat. No amount of vegetables can provide me with enough nutrition for me to be completely healthy. There will always be some kind of defiency.
    But you don't need to do that hunting to sustain your diet :brickwall:

    And equality is different from having the same abilities.

    “it would be nonsensical to hold a lion morally responsible for the death of a gnu. As far as we know, lions aren’t the sort of creatures that can engage in deliberations about the morality of such behaviours. Similarly however, an infant cannot be held responsible for destroying an original sculpture, or a child held culpable for accidentally shooting her sister. Animals are not moral agents.”
    Page 344 of "a companion to ethics"-peter singer.

    There is a difference between being a moral agent, someone who can be a moral agent, and a moral patient.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    One of those issues with distribution is surely the value of food.
    However if the over all value of food were to fall for the basic essentials then the distribution would be a lot easier. As we would have more of these basics their value would fall.
    Meaning poor-er countries would be able to get more food.
    Unless capitalism is of course overthrown as the leading world economic system.
    This completely hypothetical and although possible will never happen due to the nature of humans and animals. It's a dog eat dog world and people will horde the food for themselves. Poorer countries wouldn't get more food because the richer countries will keep it for themselves.

    TBH if someone told me I could only eat meat if I lived the hunter gatherer lifestyle then I would. Meat IS a basic essential and those without meat are somewhat less healthier. A prime example is India, a country of vegetarians for religious reasons (note: I'm not against their religion) and where there is widespread malnutrition despite there being a wealth of resources.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    But you don't need to do that hunting to sustain your diet :brickwall:

    And equality is different from having the same abilities.

    “it would be nonsensical to hold a lion morally responsible for the death of a gnu. As far as we know, lions aren’t the sort of creatures that can engage in deliberations about the morality of such behaviours. Similarly however, an infant cannot be held responsible for destroying an original sculpture, or a child held culpable for accidentally shooting her sister. Animals are not moral agents.”
    Page 344 of "a companion to ethics"-peter singer.

    There is a difference between being a moral agent, someone who can be a moral agent, and a moral patient.
    I'm not doing it out of lack of morals. Excessive eating is immoral. Only eat enough meat to sustain yourself. Anything more is a waste, save it for the next day. I'm doing it so I can eat healthily.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I abhor the use of animals for research that isn't into something that could potentially kill many people. I agree with testing for serious medical conditions on the presumption that the animals be treated with respect, given as good a life as possible and not taken advantaged of. Testing how a monkey would act without such and such sense or some other bullcrap is stupid. Ditto cosmetics.

    On the eating meat front, it appears to be a hypocrisy to do so but I am of the opinion that we are just animals anyway. We are in no way different to them, we just have a larger mental capacity. Therefore, eating meat is legitimate as it happens in the animal kingdom.

    Hunting - On the fox variety, I agree with Bill Bailey. It's just toffery nonsense and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Give permission to the farmers to protect their livestock if there is proof they are being terrorised by foxes. That's it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pinkpenguin)
    I abhor the use of animals for research that isn't into something that could potentially kill many people. I agree with testing for serious medical conditions on the presumption that the animals be treated with respect, given as good a life as possible and not taken advantaged of. Testing how a monkey would act without such and such sense or some other bullcrap is stupid. Ditto cosmetics.

    On the eating meat front, it appears to be a hypocrisy to do so but I am of the opinion that we are just animals anyway. We are in no way different to them, we just have a larger mental capacity. Therefore, eating meat is legitimate as it happens in the animal kingdom.

    Hunting - On the fox variety, I agree with Bill Bailey. It's just toffery nonsense and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Give permission to the farmers to protect their livestock if there is proof they are being terrorised by foxes. That's it.
    This.

    Summed it up perfectly. We are animals but smart animals. Therefore we are top of the foodchain and it's easier for us to get meat. If we weren't so smart we'd have less meat.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    I'm ok with eating meat as long as they're killed humanely and treated reasonably when alive (e.g. battery chickens = bad)
    I'm ok with keeping animals for pets as long as they're treated well
    I'm ok with animal testing for medical reasons if there aren't really any other options
    I think testing cosmetics on animals is bad
    I'm alright with zoos so long as the living conditions are good
    I agree with hunting, because although people do do it for fun, what people don't realise is that in the case of fox hunting in particular, it isn't solely for fun - foxs are a right pest to farmers, i.e. killing whole flocks of chickens and only eating one, and fox hunting is more humane than setting a trap/poison
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Michelin Man)
    This completely hypothetical and although possible will never happen due to the nature of humans and animals. It's a dog eat dog world and people will horde the food for themselves. Poorer countries wouldn't get more food because the richer countries will keep it for themselves.

    TBH if someone told me I could only eat meat if I lived the hunter gatherer lifestyle then I would. Meat IS a basic essential and those without meat are somewhat less healthier. A prime example is India, a country of vegetarians for religious reasons (note: I'm not against their religion) and where there is widespread malnutrition despite there being a wealth of resources.
    And you base this on a lack of understanding of, well, anything.
    If meat is essential why are there healthy vegans?
    It's not particularly hard to get a decent diet when living a vegan life style. And you've made an invalid argument with regards to India. I suggest you take a critical thinking lesson, in the most basic way: a valid argument must have a conclusion that is true if the premises are true. However the premises can be true in this case without the conclusion following.
    You seem to think there's a link between the resources being there, not being used properly, and being vegetarian. Unless you're just talking about meat as a resource?
    And that because people are vegetarian they're automatically going to suffer from malnutrition. All of this is still out of context of the western world of course.

    I'm not doing it out of lack of morals. Excessive eating is immoral. Only eat enough meat to sustain yourself. Anything more is a waste, save it for the next day. I'm doing it so I can eat healthily.
    Read why you replied to there IN CONTEXT.

    If you continue to read what I put out of context and consequentially either don't address the issues raised or make straw man arguments I will reply to your post with either:
    "strawman" and until you reply properly I won't reply
    OR
    "out of context" and until you reply properly I won't reply.
    Perhaps both.
    If you're looking for a debate, then debate properly, if you're looking for mindless statements, then make another thread and post incoherently there.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Michelin Man)
    Erm no because just because we don't eat the animals doesn't mean they won't still be there consuming energy.

    You've just voided your entire argument by saying you'd test on criminals. However bad they are they're still living "animals". Will you be testing on a lion because it caused pain to a zebra?
    They won't still be there because we won't be breeding them. If everyone in the world stopped eating meat, do you think farmers would continue to maintain a population of 1.5 billion cows? Derp.

    I said I'd rather - I didn't say I would. Derp. The point was that animals have done nothing to deserve a life of slavery, torture and premature death.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    And you base this on a lack of understanding of, well, anything.
    If meat is essential why are there healthy vegans?
    It's not particularly hard to get a decent diet when living a vegan life style. And you've made an invalid argument with regards to India. I suggest you take a critical thinking lesson, in the most basic way: a valid argument must have a conclusion that is true if the premises are true. However the premises can be true in this case without the conclusion following.
    You seem to think there's a link between the resources being there, not being used properly, and being vegetarian. Unless you're just talking about meat as a resource?
    And that because people are vegetarian they're automatically going to suffer from malnutrition. All of this is still out of context of the western world of course.


    Read why you replied to there IN CONTEXT.

    If you continue to read what I put out of context and consequentially either don't address the issues raised or make straw man arguments I will reply to your post with either:
    "strawman" and until you reply properly I won't reply
    OR
    "out of context" and until you reply properly I won't reply.
    Perhaps both.
    If you're looking for a debate, then debate properly, if you're looking for mindless statements, then make another thread and post incoherently there.
    HAHAHA that is probably one of the most childish responses I've ever seen on TSR. I'm not looking for a debate, I'm counteracting your arguments with facts.

    So are you saying only people in the western world "need" to be vegetarian? In some cases it is only the eating of meat that keep the people nourished and therefore allows them to be a "western" country. i.e. take away the meat and there would be major issues.

    If we didn't eat meat in the first place we wouldn't be the dominant race. Now we're dominant we should stop eating meat? If we did that the animal population would go out of control and we would no longer be the dominant species meaning we'd have to kill the animals. Of course all hypothetical just like the feed the world with soy beans argument. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Why is it okay to kill them for food (I presume they'd be killed before being eaten).
    Would you at least be willing to allow me to kill human animals for food?
    If not what characteristic would put all humans above all animals?
    Note: "because they're human" is the same justification of "because they're black" used by racists just a few decades ago.
    Edit:
    Unless you mean we shouldn't be allowed to farm them, just eat them once they die. However again what about doing the same with humans?
    Hmm, all this talk of cannibalism is making me hungry.

    Other animals eat meat. Do you ask them why they do it or do you just let them get on with it?
    I like how vegetarians try to take the moral high ground with people who eat meat, in the same way an ex-smoker might try and preach to smokers.

    All the bleeding hearts at PETA no doubt.

    Apart from being super tasty, there are some things in meat that is good for us. That is good for our diet and our way of life.

    Humans have been eating meat for as long as they have been around. Why stop now? Because Veggies want us to have lentil's instead?

    Sheep, cows, chickens, pigs. Lovely animals, and whilst I have respect for animals and will always treat them well, if it's between me and them and I have to eat to live it's going to be me. Because it's human nature. You do what you must to survive, to live. Most veggies might not understand this because they live in a society that gives them choice, choice not to eat meat.

    As for waiting unti lthe animal is dead, do you mean from natural causes? I think that is too long to wait, as long as the animal has had a good life, and it's demise is paineless, I see no harm in harvesting the animal for food.

    As for cannibalism, well if that's what floats your boat. Apparantly human flesh is a bit like pork.
    However being the dominant species I think it's not hypocritical for humans to harvest animals for food whilst not resorting to cannabalism, after all canabalism is a somewhat desperate resort, we feed on animals to live and preserve our own life, to start eating each other would be counter productive.


    If I were you I relax and go watch "Babe" again. I'm sure all you veggies love that flilm. :p:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paddyman4)
    They won't still be there because we won't be breeding them. If everyone in the world stopped eating meat, do you think farmers would continue to maintain a population of 1.5 billion cows? Derp.

    I said I'd rather - I didn't say I would. Derp. The point was that animals have done nothing to deserve a life of slavery, torture and premature death.
    You still didn't answer the bit about the rest of nature. Other animals don't "deserve" to be killed by other animals for food but they still do. How exactly is it slavery for free range animal? They're not being asked to drag mammoth loads around the country. I don't agree with battery hens so I'm not advocating torture of animals.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Michelin Man)
    HAHAHA that is probably one of the most childish responses I've ever seen on TSR. 1)I'm not looking for a debate, I'm counteracting your arguments with facts.

    2)So are you saying only people in the western world "need" to be vegetarian? In some cases it is only the eating of meat that keep the people nourished and therefore allows them to be a "western" country. i.e. take away the meat and there would be major issues.

    3)If we didn't eat meat in the first place we wouldn't be the dominant race. Now we're dominant we should stop eating meat? If we did that the animal population would go out of control and we would no longer be the dominant species meaning we'd have to kill the animals. Of course all hypothetical just like the feed the world with soy beans argument. :rolleyes:
    1) No you're not, you've listed little to not factual evidence, and you've not countered any of my points, you've ignored what I've said and moved on time after time. Go back and read your posts in the context of mine.

    2) straw man, I've not said anyone 'needs' to be vegetarian.
    People are not countries.
    Take away all the meat at once in a western country and yes, there would be issues, but the world isn't going to turn vegan all at once. Instead it would happen over a long period of time, I would think the soonest it would be able to do this would be around a decade.

    3) Sorry, I fail to get any point to this part. Are you claiming that we would be forced to submit by animals if we stopped eating animals?
    Or that we would just release all animals we farmed but no longer ate?
    I hope you're not, and doubt you are, because that would be a retarded thing to say. However I can't see what else you could mean.
    And your soy bean argument is a straw man.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    Hmm, all this talk of cannibalism is making me hungry.

    1)Other animals eat meat. Do you ask them why they do it or do you just let them get on with it?
    I like how vegetarians try to take the moral high ground with people who eat meat, in the same way an ex-smoker might try and preach to smokers.

    2)All the bleeding hearts at PETA no doubt.

    3)Apart from being super tasty, there are some things in meat that is good for us. That is good for our diet and our way of life.

    4)Humans have been eating meat for as long as they have been around. Why stop now? Because Veggies want us to have lentil's instead?

    5)Sheep, cows, chickens, pigs. Lovely animals, and whilst I have respect for animals and will always treat them well, if it's between me and them and I have to eat to live it's going to be me.6) Because it's human nature. You do what you must to survive, to live.7) Most veggies might not understand this because they live in a society that gives them choice, choice not to eat meat.

    8)As for waiting unti lthe animal is dead, do you mean from natural causes? I think that is too long to wait, as long as the animal has had a good life, and it's demise is paineless, I see no harm in harvesting the animal for food.

    9)As for cannibalism, well if that's what floats your boat. Apparantly human flesh is a bit like pork.
    However being the dominant species I think it's not hypocritical for humans to harvest animals for food whilst not resorting to cannabalism, after all canabalism is a somewhat desperate resort, we feed on animals to live and preserve our own life, to start eating each other would be counter productive.


    10)If I were you I relax and go watch "Babe" again. I'm sure all you veggies love that flilm. :p:
    wow, where to start with fallacy after fallacy.

    1)
    read my posts and I won't need to repeat myself...
    ...but this time I'll let you off:

    “it would be nonsensical to hold a lion morally responsible for the death of a gnu. As far as we know, lions aren’t the sort of creatures that can engage in deliberations about the morality of such behaviours. Similarly however, an infant cannot be held responsible for destroying an original sculpture, or a child held culpable for accidentally shooting her sister. Animals are not moral agents.”
    Page 344 'a companion to ethics' P. Singer.

    2) Read my reply to Bansheeeee*

    3) we can live perfectly healthily without meat.

    4) tradition is not a justification, it just means it's happened before, not that it should continue.

    5) you're not in a survival situation so it's not between you and them.

    6) human nature? what the hell are you talking about.

    7) see 5)

    8) then you would see nothing against taking a humans life for food in the same circumstances.

    9) why is it 'desperate' why does being apart of the same category mean anything? I may want to survive, why would I care if you survive? In essence why not just a '**** you, I'll eat you, I'll survive, and I don't care about other humans' attitude.

    10) :facepalm2:

    I hope, and think, you were trolling. If not please remove yourself from the internet, and the gene pool.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I don't see how the vast majority of the human race can be wrong. Humans by nature are omnivorous, that is an undeniable fact. Before we became "civilized" we hunted and killed meat. It was because we were intelligent we developed tools which allowed us to get meat more easily. Therefore we prospered and our numbers increased. There were more people to feed so we developed farming which made it easier to get meat. Just because we became "civilized" doesn't mean we should stop eating meat. The chinese have got it exactly right. They eat any animal regardless of whether it is considered 'cute'. e.g. dogs. The number of dogs are large and it is an edible food that tastes good according to them therefore they eat it. The point I'm making is that we are the dominant race because we have the intelligence to hunt/farm animals. Lions, tigers, gorillas (insert random strong animal here) are doubtlessly bigger and stronger than us but because we are smarter we can outwit them and survive.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Michelin Man)
    You still didn't answer the bit about the rest of nature. Other animals don't "deserve" to be killed by other animals for food but they still do. How exactly is it slavery for free range animal? They're not being asked to drag mammoth loads around the country. I don't agree with battery hens so I'm not advocating torture of animals.
    Animals don't have the technological, moral or physical advancements to be able to survive without meat. Were we in that position, I would have no problem with eating meat.

    With regards to free range eggs, I don't have a problem with the hens who are producing eggs. I'm realistic in that the chickens are enclosed, but I doubt they really care on a free range farm. But many male chickens (avoiding using the word '****' just in case) are killed at birth because they are of limited use.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Michelin Man)
    1)I don't see how the vast majority of the human race can be wrong. 2)Humans by nature are omnivorous, that is an undeniable fact. 3)Before we became "civilized" we hunted and killed meat.4) It was because we were intelligent we developed tools which allowed us to get meat more easily. Therefore we prospered and our numbers increased.5) There were more people to feed so we developed farming which made it easier to get meat. Just because we became "civilized" doesn't mean we should stop eating meat. 6)The chinese have got it exactly right. 7)They eat any animal regardless of whether it is considered 'cute'. e.g. dogs. The number of dogs are large and it is an edible food that tastes good according to them therefore they eat it. 8)The point I'm making is that we are the dominant race because we have the intelligence to hunt/farm animals. Lions, tigers, gorillas (insert random strong animal here) are doubtlessly bigger and stronger than us but because we are smarter we can outwit them and survive.
    1) the majority can't be wrong can they lulz

    2) oh so we can survive without meat, glad that's settled .

    3) I believe men often went to war and in this raped women as well as pillaging. Perhaps we should do that as well? Or is being 'civilised' as you put it, perhaps a good thing, which may in fact go hand in hand with stopping bigotry, like sexism, racism, and species-ism.

    4)so because we can do something we should do something? If I can kill and eat you...or blow up the world, etc.

    5) again, we can feed more people if we utilise our land for growing plants to feed ourselves. See previous posts about survival as well as kcalorie efficentcy.

    6) Oh well if you say so, you must be right :awesome:

    7) at least form a logical point of view they're coherent.

    8) we're not doing it for survival, not eating these animals does not mean they'll suddenly grow a power over us to control us and eat us.
 
 
 
  • 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.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources
  • 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.

  • 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.