Animal rights thread

[Strike For The South]

Agreed, but I won't feed my children with the polluted crap coming out of factory farming.

If you have the means to do that great.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Cats are animals. They kill other animals. People are animals. They kill other animals. You can't reasonably object to people killing animals on a moral basis without also objecting to cats on a moral basis.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Cats are animals. They kill other animals. People are animals. They kill other animals. You can't reasonably object to people killing animals on a moral basis without also objecting to cats on a moral basis.

Lions Kill other animals... Tigers do.... Cheetahs do...... Snakes do... They are all animals,lizard, whatever you like to call them and they kill things for what.... Food?

Why do I hunt primarly? Food... Well.

Sure, you got a point, but doesn't change my viewpoint about cats much.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Cats are animals. They kill other animals. People are animals. They kill other animals. You can't reasonably object to people killing animals on a moral basis without also objecting to cats on a moral basis.

If an animal goes around killing people, would it be ok for people to go around killing people?

Just because an animal kills other animals for survival, defense and due to instinct, we do not need to inflict needless suffering on the innocent.

I'm of the theory that people should behave in a more civilized fashion than the animals.

[Tristuskhan]

If you have the means to do that great.

Food is the last thing I put restrictions on. I won't eat crap in order to travel, buy nice clothes or spend nights out. Just a matter of choice, again.

Sasaki, you're a great philosopher! The topic is more on animal suffering than animal killing. No one is objecting people killing animals here. The matter is how they are killed. And we're not cats, by the way.

[Strike For The South]

Food is the last thing I put restrictions on. I won't eat crap in order to travel, buy nice clothes or spend nights out. Just a matter of choice, again.
.

well yes but sometimes people cant afford those things to begin with

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The topic is more on animal suffering than animal killing. No one is objecting people killing animals here. The matter is how they are killed. And we're not cats, by the way.

Weren't people objecting to hunting for sport?

Cats are known to play with their food (as in "a game of cat and mouse"). This causes unnecessary suffering. Is it immoral to let your cat outside? But if you keep him inside aren't you imprisoning him???? I find these questions to be ridiculously trivial in comparison to actual human suffering. There's a tremendous amount of animal suffering that takes place and yet people only care about the tiny sliver of suffering that humans cause. That racehorse may have been shot when it broke its ankle but what do you think it's life would have been like in the wild?

By the way here's some free range chickens ,heh:

[Yoyoma1910]

BTW, one of the largest environment concerns here is a giant dead zone, the size of New Jersey, in the Gulf Of Mexico. And the leading cause is the over production of corn in the Midwest.


Sierra Club Website, about it

Where does the Dead Zone come from?
Scientific research has indicated that the excess nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) result from human activities in the upstream Mississippi River watershed. The principal areas contributing nutrients to the Mississippi River, and ultimately to the Gulf, are streams draining the corn belt states, particularly Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and southern Minnesota.

Edu websitte



article from 2004




If you really cared about animals, maybe you should consider a cessation of your over corn consumption. Or follow any of these steps:

Ask your state's Governor to establish numeric nutrient standards to protect waters from pollution. You could make the following points:

* Nutrient pollution is one of the biggest water quality problems in the nation.

* The state has had many years to set numeric standards for nitrogen and phosphorus. Delay is only making pollution worse. The state should set these standards by no later than 2008.

* The state standards should be set low enough to protect downstream waters from excessive nutrients. States are not allowed to contribute to the degradation of downstream waters.

* It is important that the state set standards for all waterbodies to ensure that nutrient pollution is reduced across the board. (Some states are planning to set standards for some waterbodies, delaying standards for others.)

* The state should follow the EPA's technical guidance for developing standards. If not, the state must use a scientifically-defensible method. (Although states are free to use their own methods to develop standards, some states are developing their own methodologies more as a way to delay the process than to arrive at a standard which will protect water quality.)

* The state should set standards for both nitrogen and phosphorus. (Some states are planning to address only one of these nutrients.) You can find additional information on how to get involved in your state's process for setting nutrient standards here (pdf).

[Strike For The South]

I blame everything on the midwest anyway. Bunch of whiners

[Yoyoma1910]

I blame everything on the midwest anyway. Bunch of whiners

I agree, what do people need that much corn for anyway. It's not like they know how to make super awesome rum and red pepper corn bread.

[Strike For The South]

I agree, what do people need that much corn for anyway. It's not like they know how to make super awesome rum and red pepper corn bread.

They don't

[Yoyoma1910]

They don't

They may have the corn, but they don't have the red peppers, nor the rum.