Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

I hate animal charities

Scroll to see replies

Original post by ChaoticButterfly

Yes there is. Ethics is not a science for a start. You can make sound logically arguments as to why we shouldn't care at all whether or not an animal suffers. Just like how you can make counter arguments to that.

There are lots of reason why we as humans should/do care more about other humans from an evolutionary stand point. Just like you can to explain why we care about other animals (we are in a minority of species here as it is).

Precisely, ethics is a philosophical discipline, and thus requires logic. Logic does not allow for the truth of mutually exclusive viewpoints.

You can make arguments as to why we shouldn't care at all whether an animal suffers, but why we should care about why humans suffer. I'm extremely confident that I can demonstrate that these arguments are illogical. One can make a valid logical argument in favour of giving more weight to the interests of humans, but I'm almost certain that one or more of the premises will be fallacious.

You've not actually given any examples of these arguments, however.

We can explain why humans tend to care about their families and people living in their own country more than people on the other side of the world, and why they tend to care about people who are similar to them.

Evolution can't tell us that these attitudes are morally right, however. To claim so would be a fallacious appeal to nature - just because something, such as caring for your own family/species, is natural, doesn't make it right.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 61

Gears265

Original post by viddy9

Jeremy Corbyn is a vegetarian, and has appointed a vegan shadow agricultural secretary. It's therefore extremely likely that he will do more for the welfare of animals in the meat industry, and Labour pledged even in the last election to ban the use of animals in circuses.

Corbyn has also signed a petition calling for primates not to be used in animal testing, and I'm sure he seriously considers animal testing as a whole to be problematic.

Being a vegan doesn't necessarily mean you are pro welfare or animal rights. I know people who apparently do it for environmental reasons or healthy eating reasons and don't care one bit on the animals.

Plus he openly supports Halal slaughter houses and non stun methods which really bugs me.

Whatever he does I will never vote for him, I would only give him more respect if he released some good policy on the issue. All in all me and him are just too different.

Reply 62

viddy9

Original post by Gears265

Well, I know Corbyn does it for ethical reasons.

Original post by Gears265

Plus he openly supports Halal slaughter houses and non stun methods which really bugs me.

Source? I would hope this is a credible assertion and not another claim derived from a propaganda piece.

Reply 63

Prince_fancybum

Original post by Orff

I find it disgusting that time and money is wasted on donkeys when there are starving children out there.

Some people make me sick

you're a c*nt

Reply 64

redferry

Original post by Orff

I find it disgusting that time and money is wasted on donkeys when there are starving children out there.

Some people make me sick

Yeah the amount the donkey sanctuary make is a joke. My grandma and her friends knit blankets for them - for free. It's like Jesus your rich enough to buy your blankets instead of using my 90 y/o hran as slave labour.

That said some animal charities do really important work, even with regards to humans. The RSPCA, for example, will always turn families abusing animals over to social services, as often it goes hand in hand with child neglected. My brothers siblings were only adopted thanks to the RSPCA.

Reply 65

joey11223

Original post by Dalek1099

and this is where all animal rights activists always fail humans are not animals, there isn't a person inside the donkey just an animal they are pretty much biological robots from what I can see pretty much always acting on instinct(in fact a lot of these animal activists argue that their acts aren't accountable for this reason which actually further proves my point), there have been a lot of stories of pets eating their owners once they have died because all they were to them was a way to get food.

Well hi there Descartes, how is thou doing of late?

Also lol as if humans don't eat each other during times of hardship with no food sources, there are tribes which practice it as a cultural activity even without facing hunger to this day and other groups practiced it to the unease of their cultural leaders at the time that you have multiple legendary beasts which are born from humans cannibalizing each other, to try and discourage it.

I mean hell in all honesty if it was die or survive on Everest and I had a fire, I'd consider the muscular flesh of another human.

I assume you don't own a dog, I cannot imagine how you would and be able to say animals can in no way emote.

Also big lols at the argument that some defend animals who kill humans by saying their can't help it, thus it reinforces your view animals have no capacity beyond instinct. So since the law has an age of criminal responsibility, for example a 5yr old isn't held accountable for murder even if they attack an adult with a knife and happen to severe an artery, as it is deemed they cannot understand the consequences. I assume this means a 5yr old, potentially up to 10 since that's the age in this country, is not capable of any sort of conscious thought? Interesting....