how much do you really love and care about animals???

Chris, perhaps this is a kiwi thing, but I've never encountered grain-farms of the huge magnitude that such turbines imply.

Likewise, I'm not going to argue too heavily with you because, just as you point out, you are minimising damage to the degree "you feel comfortable with". But you fail to acknowledge necessity and practicality in your hypotheses - is it necessary that we farm and kill animals? Shit, I grew up (and am currently living on) a pork and dairy farm and if one thing is apparent to me it is that none of these pigs need to die or to be artificially bred in the first place. They are monsters of domestication, but they are not vegetables.

You may very well believe incidental death-counts in a grain-based industry are just as artificially high as in, say, the pork industry, but that's one of the most blatant fallacies I've heard in a while. Necessity means a lot in this situation. I approve of hunting and meat consumption WHEN they are necessary. In the developed world they are unjustifiable.

Of course someone who only eats one chicken wing in a year is a more humane person than someone who ate seventy - but only in the same sense that someone who kills once and regretably is a more humane person than an unrepentent serial killer.

As to accusations of judgementality and self-righteousness, directing these at vegetarians who merely defend animals from the banal judgementality and self-righteousness of meat-eaters is appallingly hypocritical and misdirected. BE defensive if you feel you need to, you need no justifications for what you do, eat flesh, shit eat your sister's flesh! No one can really tell you it's instrinsically wrong to do anything. But this relativity does not change the practical results of your actions (i.e. your meat-eating when it is unnecessary is implicitly an unnecessary cruelty).

"Omnivorous animal lovers in developed countries" is, without a doubt, an oxymoron. Suffice to say such people love their pets, or love petting animals in artificial situations, or even love animals but erroneously see slaughter (I believe the word "murder" to entail humankind, but believe the word "slaughter" is equally horrifying) as a necessity or as "natural".

Ultimately you reserve the right to believe what you like, I know. But do you reserve the right to say that you love an entire category ("Animals") that includes the pig/cow/chicken on your plate when it could as easily be replaced by something non-animal with no loss involved?
It parallels precisely the scenario of a grave-robber or necrophiliac calling him or herself a humanitarian.

Ultimately we are highly intelligent beings who should question our right to reduce the status of other intelligent beings to the status of "food" for nothing more than our own gratification.

No, I won't judge you to be evil or condemn those who eat meat and call themselves animal lovers, but I will disagree with their terminology because it is indisputably contradictory. They and their prey only have my sympathies for being, respectively, poor logicians and poor victims.

Peace, love and open doors,
Matty.

P.S. The battle for resources is a reality - but does that mean we need to be excessively self-involved fucktards just because we can be? I mention it in postscript only because it was your weakest point.

 

In North America we have huge grain-farms that are larger than most countries. I'm sure there are such massive farms in south america, eastern europe/asia, australia etc.

Nothing "needs to die." Pigs dont need to die. Plants dont need to die to feed us either. The question is whether it is wrong that they die.

We all basically play god and either say "I'm a human and everything is my food source or we say "i'm human and only non animal products are my food source." Both of these life styles require the death of living things. The distinction vegetarians make between sentient and non sentient beings is rather convenient for me. Why are non sentient beings inferior to sentient beings?

If its about suffering, then would you find it acceptable to eat meat if we can remove the pain of death? That ends the suffering.

The "incidental death counts" are nowhere near as high as the ones done on purpose

What is necessity? In my state hunting is huge, something around 1 in 3 men are registered hunters. Now, we have a serious deer problem, we also have people who need to be fed. That seems like a win-win situation to me. The reduction of deer(and moose) saves resources for some endangered animals, and it helps feed a lot of families who scrape to get by.

As a side note, i'm curious what your opinion on saving the kiwi is, are you for or against the culling of animals such as possums in order to protect kiwi?

Thats exactly what i'm getting at. We are all complicit in the slaughter of animals. How we can argue/bicker and take moral stances seems rather a waste of time/foolish to me. But a lot of my beliefs seem foolish to some..so i guess i'm in the same boat.

So i take it you consider "incidental deaths" from the production of food, shelter, and everything else humans do is a 'necessary cruelty'? I guess this is where i think it becomes a slippery slope. I can say animals used for food is a 'necessary cruelty.' I think most people in the world would agree with me.

Who is right?

I guess this is what i dont understand.

You think its ok to say you're an animal lover even though you're complicit in the slaughter of animals.

But you think its hypocritical of me to say i'm an animal lover when i eat certain animals for nourishment.

I dont want to see cows/chickens/turkeys etc killed for no reason, i dont want to see them tortured.

I dont see killing for nourishment as 'cruel.' I do see unnecessary torture/pain as wrong.

In my opinion, not all death is wrong.

Yes, we should question everything we do. But that doesn't mean have to overturn our beliefs just because we question them.

Many, many omnivores question and reject the notion that animals shouldnt be used as a food source.

I'm sure your logic seems sound to yourelf. I, however, doubt that your logic will be accepted by the overwhelming majority of the human populace. But hey, some of the most enlightened people in the world were once in the minority. There is hope


cheers for not comdemning me

Chris

edit: P.S. I think there are a lot of valid arguments for vegetarianism, among them environmental damage and health. I just dont believe that the moral reasons are valid arguments. I believe that the right to hunt is a fundamental human right and that no government/authority has the right to deny it.

 

My point was that the very existence of humans(and any animal) is an infringement on the existence of other animals.

We all have different ideas of what 'self involved' is. I dont know how we rectify them all or if that is even possible. I think we can only reason through it ourselves and come to our own conclusions.

 

Who said anything about inferiority? What does inferiority even have to do with all this? We don't respect something's mortality due to it not being "inferior", we respect them because we empathise with a shared trait - suffering - otherwise we'd have no reason not to eat each other as well.

It seems you are more interested in sacrificing any practical thoughts to your adoration of status quo. Redefine whatever you like and enjoy, anyone can play with semantics and situations to get a conclusion that they like, but it takes reflection and thought to reach a conclusion where you have to eat humble pie like I did when I realised the reality of my (relatively recently ended) steak-ridden existence.

We may both love animals selectively, but at least I love as much as possible within practical means. Although, in your defence, I have not seen you claim yourself an animal-lover yet, so cannot really hold you to a practical application of your love (nuturing empathy) "within practical means".

 

Since you live on a farm, i'm sure you know that animals can and are routinely killed instantly. Most animals dont die a death by 1000 cuts as much as many vegetarians/vegans want us to believe.

what exactly is suffering for you? physical pain? the loss of a sentient being? Eventually science will allow us to eat meat without any physical pain being endured nor a sentient being lost. I think vegetarians will need to readjust their beliefs when that time comes.

And this is the problem that all dicussions have: Unless both sides are in agreement, one side is always brainwashed and sacrificing practical thoughts out of adoration of the status quo.

I doubt we will ever agree on what 'practical means' is. You can say my beliefs are because of my adoration for the status quo, and i can say you are laden with guilt(a kind of "white guilt") over the death of animals. Either way, they are just phrases that get tossed out in discussions to invalidate another's opinion.

 

Agreed. But they still die and flesh sure as hell ain't free yet. Suffering is the fear involved right up to the point of death. Don't think a pig doesn't feel ill at ease or even terrified when they're suddenly shifted to a new (and deadly) environment. More-over, they tend to get defensive. I've killed my share of pigs, however "humane" we pretend it is it's still unnecessary death.

As to your accusations of vegetarian melodrama... ...who? When? Where? I've seldom seen a vegetarian augment the simple horrors of bloodlust and fleshlust. I think a quick electric shock turned into a meal is far more terrifying than a gore-fest because, like gas chambers, it seems more sanitary.

Really? Vegetarianism can hardly be called "the status quo". I call it a difficult decision made after a lot of deliberation that earns me a fucking annoying "radical" status.

Fuck yes I'm guilty. I've spent the majority of my life being cruel. I doubt we will ever agree, because you are insistent on justifying the unnecessary. Unless, and I highly doubt this is the case, you believe that intentional killing of animals IS necessary. Good luck proving that.

 

That is true of of most farmed animals.

Not quite the same of many fished/hunted animals though.

Also, farming DOES "help" a lot of animals as they are protected from diseases that would otherwise have killed them earlier. Also, animals like sheep are killed when they have no teeth. Dying of starvation is hardly a 'humane' way to die. At leas their death serves a useful purpose to us. Also, sheep are protected from their natural predators like wolves. Maybe this is another evil we commit? Depriving wolves of their food?

I think you can read the vegetarian board and see many people talk about the torture and horrible cruelty that animals suffer.

see the guilt laden comment.

I am not sure that you can be trusted to form an unbiased opinion with something weighing so heavy on your heart.

I've already said that eating meat isnt necessary. Neither is eating fruits, vegetables, or grains. We dont need to eat ONE specific source of food to live.

Also, i believe the burden of proof is on you. You are the one who wants to change the status quo and revoke what is considered by many to be a fundamental, inalienable human right.

 

i like agree with alot of what you have said and other people but in saying that i also must say that i want to be a zoo-ologist or zookeeper not to contain animals from there natural home and treat them like a freak show and ect.. butand to take care of them and make sure they are being treated with the respect they deserve its not like anyone to do with puttin the animals in zoos wants to hurt theem they just want other people to see there beauty to learn more about them so that they can understand that everyone needs to do there bit to protect them from anydangers and i could go on forever but im rather not all here but anywho ill finish with i love and respect animals and i always will peave put n love jubbah

 

Dude,
this all very enlightening... but alot of zoos dont run into the forest with shot guns and tranqs and just take random rhinos.. they usually take sick animals, get em to good health and breed em if they endangered, they usually lead very piecfull lives..
Circuses are different but, they crack the whip so they do cartwheels and smoke cigars.. animals arent ment for that and i reackon we should get a group togeter and steal all the animals and realease back in the wild cause anything would be better than the fucked up shit ive seen happening there.
Jubbah is right though, zoos are to spread awareness if it werent for the zoo i wouldnt of seen how mystical some animals really are and then i wouldnt be obsessed about seeing what i can do to help stop getting hunted for such stupid damn reasons.
peace,love and paws
billie