Animal Rights - how far do you go?

[Jonti]

Down with this sort of thing!

 

[Cobbles]

There is no reason to eat meat, apart from barbarism.

I agree.

Lions are barbaric - slaughter the lot.

 

[The Black Hand]

There's "no reason" to eat crisps or chocolate either, people have this odd habbit of eating things just because they like it. The decadant bastards.

Anyway, when you think about it, farm animals exist in symbiosis with human being anyway. If we didn't keep them for food, they would die, since they aren't fit to survive in the wild. It's only fair that we get to eat their flesh once they're not using it.

Dear me - if 'we didn't eat them for food they would die'....bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

 

[The Black Hand]

I agree.

Lions are barbaric - slaughter the lot.

And slaughter the meatheads too while your at it.

 

[The Black Hand]

There's "no reason" to eat crisps or chocolate either, people have this odd habbit of eating things just because they like it. The decadant bastards.

Anyway, when you think about it, farm animals exist in symbiosis with human being anyway. If we didn't keep them for food, they would die, since they aren't fit to survive in the wild. It's only fair that we get to eat their flesh once they're not using it.

Just a point, your pov is positivist here (a conservative social science perspective), and I don't think you know it. Rather than look at how the world is consistently socially constructed, yours is a strange sort of inconsistent sort of political theory(s). I think you unfortunately have been influenced by the sort of emotionless and detached ultra left theorisation of limpcok, who have similar problems...

 

[goldenecitrone]

Do people really still think there's such an unbridgeable qualitative difference between humans and other animals?!

Surely it's the other way around. It's because we're such rapacious chimps that we enjoy the taste of animal flesh.

 

[WouldBe]

I think Attica was speaking energetically-wise . .

Wild animals manage it.

When was the last time you saw a gazelle ordering soya from a catalogue?

 

[Cobbles]

Do people really still think there's such an unbridgeable qualitative difference between humans and other animals?!

Let me see....

When was the last time something non homo sapiens won a Nobel prize?

Mind you, with academic standards slipping, I suppose that a chimp or a porpoise might have a fighting chance at getting a d "pass" GCSE if they could get round the lack of an opposable thumb and fill out their name on the paper.

 

[ATOMIC SUPLEX]

I hold the doors open for them and give them a fair chance in an interview.

 

[dash_two]

Rights exist by common agreement and/or the force to set them into effect. If enough people thought animals had rights and the law backed them up, then animals would have rights. The argument is therefore not about whether animals do or don't have rights, but whether they should or should not.

 

[Jonti]

Let me see....

When was the last time something non homo sapiens won a Nobel prize?

Mind you, with academic standards slipping, I suppose that a chimp or a porpoise might have a fighting chance at getting a d "pass" GCSE if they could get round the lack of an opposable thumb and fill out their name on the paper.

What has any of this got to do with any unbridgeable qualitative difference between humans and other animals?!

Nothing, perhaps? All you've done is demonstrate that some people are as stupid as chickens ... and that rather proves my point, thanks!

 

[Jonti]

Surely it's the other way around. It's because we're such rapacious chimps that we enjoy the taste of animal flesh.

Heh! Not to mention enjoying an inventive sex life!!

 

[likesfish]

if were just animals
and animals kill and eat other animals then whys it suddenly wrong for us to eat flesh?

 

[Jonti]

The usual answer to that is that we have the choice; and a greater degree of moral awareness than other species.

We are brutes, yes; but we need not be brutal.

 

[likesfish]

but is it actually immoral to eat meat?
life and death is part of nature.
I know a vegan who believes horse riding is oppressing horses and they should only run wild same with dogs and other pets.
personally I think this is a view of an urban liver who has'nt grown up with agriculture.

 

[dash_two]

I don't think it is immoral to eat meat provided the animals are reared in a humane way and the end is quick and painless.

 

[8ball]

I don't think it is immoral to eat meat provided the animals are reared in a humane way . . .

I dunno, then it gets you thinking that you're eating a happy animal that had so much to live for etc. etc.

Maybe you're better off killing and eating the miserable ones.

 

[Leeloks]

I am pretty heavily involved in animal conservation and habitat protection. Not an extreme thing of cause or a rights thing. I have been 'approached' by a group of 'extremists' over the last year to join ranks. Nah.

Protection of valuable land and preservation of what we have is the way to go. After all without animalia we would not survive so i think a decent amount of respect needs to be had without killing someone or throwing acid in their face.

Do you know that in the US hundreds of thousands of bees are MOVED from Florida to California to pollinate the Almond crops? One example of the importance of nature, without them obviously no almonds and so on.

 

[guinnessdrinker]

Do you know that in the US hundreds of thousands of bees are MOVED from Florida to California to pollinate the Almond crops? One example of the importance of nature, without them obviously no almonds and so on.

it makes you wonder why there aren't enough bees, if any, in california, to pollinate the almond crop.

 

[bi0boy]

Hurray for the green fluorescent frog-chicken embryos!

 

[In Bloom]

Just a point, your pov is positivist here (a conservative social science perspective), and I don't think you know it. Rather than look at how the world is consistently socially constructed, yours is a strange sort of inconsistent sort of political theory(s). I think you unfortunately have been influenced by the sort of emotionless and detached ultra left theorisation of limpcok, who have similar problems...

So it's a social construct that the domestic cow would die out if we weren't sustaining it's population? Silly me, I was thinking that was something to do with a little thing called reality.

The relationship between people and farm animals is by it's very nature an exploitative one. That's got nothing to do with "positivism", people would probably take you a lot more seriously if you'd stop throwing around words you don't really understand.

 

[northernhord]

I dint eat meat and aint done for almost two decades, that's how I do my bit, I dont agree with these fuckers though who dig dead bodies up cos the persons family was involved in breeding animals for experimentation, these people are the fuckin scum of the earth, sick cunts for sure.

 

[The Black Hand]

So it's a social construct that the domestic cow would die out if we weren't sustaining it's population? Silly me, I was thinking that was something to do with a little thing called reality.

The relationship between people and farm animals is by it's very nature an exploitative one. That's got nothing to do with "positivism", people would probably take you a lot more seriously if you'd stop throwing around words you don't really understand.

I do understand it - you clearly don't.

You're qualifying your terms a bit more here though. GOod try to be knowledgeable. But you failed again cos 'the domestic cow' doesn't exist!!

 

[In Bloom]

I do understand it - you clearly don't.

You're qualifying your terms a bit more here though. GOod try to be knowledgeable. But you failed again cos 'the domestic cow' doesn't exist!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated
Domestication refers to the process of taming a population of animals (although it can also be used to refer to plants) or even a species as a whole. Humans have brought these populations under their care for a wide range of reasons: to produce food or valuable commodities (such as wool, cotton, or silk), for help with various types of work, transportation and to enjoy as pets or ornamental plants.

I suppose it's a poor use of the word, since all cows are domesticated these days, but you get my point.

In any case, I wasn't "qualifying" anything, just repeating what I've said here and elsewhere in the past. I just gave an example for people who might have difficulty grasping simple concepts. Like that most the fluffy animals that AR nutters agonise about would die out if we weren't keeping them alive for our own purposes.

 

[Fullyplumped]

This is an extremely one sided debate. Nobody has paid attention to animal responsibilities. Surely if animals have rights, they also have responsibilities. The responsibility to educate their young, the responsibility not to act in an antisocial manner, the responsibility to respect the cultures of other animal life.

By that standard many animals are extremely delinquent. Consider the pigeon, for example. It defecates freely in urban areas, spreading disease and leaving unsightly marks on people's cars. The hippopotamus is notoriously aggressive towards other species, including crocodiles and humans, as well as being retromingent. The mosquito and tsetse fly are appallingly antisocial.

How can we respect the "rights" of such animals when they are so pathologically irresponsible??

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

70% who would do knacker all except back up a gag about slaughter.

Oh gosh, its those "radicals" and "progressives" of urban75, backing up the meat and dairy industry, mass enforced suffering and unsustainable unhealthy diets.

Urban75er say "support a trade that takes the poors land so we can be fed, that screws up the environment through mis-use of land and climate change"

Fantastic. At least we know where we stand. Either people here aint on balance as progressive I thought or there are a lot of phoneys. Genuinelly disappointed :-(

 

[Louloubelle]

70% who would do knacker all except back up a gag about slaughter.

Oh gosh, its those "radicals" and "progressives" of urban75, backing up the meat and dairy industry, mass enforced suffering and unsustainable unhealthy diets.

Urban75er say "support a trade that takes the poors land so we can be fed, that screws up the environment through mis-use of land and climate change"

Fantastic. At least we know where we stand. Either people here aint on balance as progressive I thought or there are a lot of phoneys. Genuinelly disappointed :-(

I'm one of the 70% but just because I don't support animals rights groups doesn't mean that I'm unconcerned or inactive about animal welfare or conservation

I don't buy factory farmed produce and it's very likely that I've done more to conserve endangered species in the last month than you've done in the last year, so ner

The problem with your poll is that you are concerned only with people who support animal rights and not animal welfare or conservation

FWIW most (not all) people I know who are involved in conserving endangered species, on the ground, regard the animal rights people as "bunny huggers", that is to say, deluded people with a romanticised perspective on animal conservation issues, scant regard for human welfare or human rights and unrealistic dreams with regards to humans and animals all living together in harmony

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

FWIW most (not all) people I know who are involved in conserving endangered species, on the ground, regard the animal rights people as "bunny huggers", that is to say, deluded people with a romanticised perspective on animal conservation issues, scant regard for human welfare or human rights and unrealistic dreams with regards to humans and animals all living together in harmony

Animal rights and species conservation can be directly opposed. If animals have the right not to be killed, as individuals, then it would be wrong to kill cane toads or rats, for example, regardless of their effect on species in areas where they have been introduced.

 

[Louloubelle]

Animal rights and species conservation can be directly opposed. If animals have the right not to be killed, as individuals, then it would be wrong to kill cane toads or rats, for example, regardless of their effect on species in areas where they have been introduced.

Indeed

I'm reminded of a PETA representative who was in favour of whaling because whales ate millions of fish and therefore if a whale was slaughtered only one life would be lost but millions of fish lived would be saved

Bonkers really

eta

you wonder what the bunny huggers would do when confronted with a sea of rats

http://youtube.com/watch?v=FH7NmPPVJh0&mode=related&search=

make friends with them perhaps?

 

[lights.out.london]

Indeed

I'm reminded of a PETA representative who was in favour of whaling because whales ate millions of fish and therefore if a whale was slaughtered only one life would be lost but millions of fish lived would be saved

Bonkers really

Post of the thread, IMHO.

**my emphasis**