Org Mobile Site
Thread: Animal rights thread
Apologies if there already is a thread on this, but I'd like to open a discussion about it.
Question: What, if any, rights do animals have? What rights should they have? I have long pondered this question.
From the mighty whale to the lowliest ant, the senseless destruction of a living thing for absolutely no purpose offends me. Predatory whaling, industrial farms where chickens are crammed into tiny cages, the slaughter of cattle in "kosher" fashion, hunting for sport instead of for survival, or even just some sicko who gets a kick out of abusing his dog, whipping his cat at a wall, abandoning his pets or confining them and starving them to death, and even those freaks who get their jollies from pulling living flies apart one wing at a time... it's all very disgusting to me.
However, I'm not about to advocate throwing people in prison for stepping on an anthill. In spite of ample evidence to the contrary, I am not insane.
I see the militant side of things; such as the ALF, or legislation which could penalize pest-removal services or ban them altogether, resorting to violence or fear-tactics to get others to respect the rights of animals; to be horrendous and despicable. I don't really see myself as an environmental wacko or a militant fighting for animals, but at the same time I don't think that we should do nothing on these issues. I wouldn't advocate making the state care for and feed perpetually animals that are caught by animal control services, or force anyone to help a starving animal, etc, anything of the sort, but I have to believe one can be a lover of animals and still be allowed to eat meat, one can defend animal rights and not be an eco-terrorist, one can look down upon and penalize those who neglect or intentionally mistreat higher order animals.
But it's rather vague. Mistreating a pet or abusing livestock may have legal ramifications, but I would admit sending someone to court over accidentally stepping on a frog is over the line. But where is the line? What animals deserve rights? Which rights do they deserve? How can we protect those rights, or should those rights even be protected?
I am curious to hear people's views on the matter. Clearly this is not a liberal/conservative issue, a secular/religious issue, or a left/right issue. I know we have human beings to worry about, and more pressing and urgent matters of state. But to be an ethical, moral, civilized society I feel this sort of topic needs to be addressed. Feel free to chime in with your views; I only ask that they be respectful and not spam or one-liners such as "animals sux, burgers rool".
Have at it!
Question: What, if any, rights do animals have? What rights should they have? I have long pondered this question.
From the mighty whale to the lowliest ant, the senseless destruction of a living thing for absolutely no purpose offends me. Predatory whaling, industrial farms where chickens are crammed into tiny cages, the slaughter of cattle in "kosher" fashion, hunting for sport instead of for survival, or even just some sicko who gets a kick out of abusing his dog, whipping his cat at a wall, abandoning his pets or confining them and starving them to death, and even those freaks who get their jollies from pulling living flies apart one wing at a time... it's all very disgusting to me.
However, I'm not about to advocate throwing people in prison for stepping on an anthill. In spite of ample evidence to the contrary, I am not insane.
I see the militant side of things; such as the ALF, or legislation which could penalize pest-removal services or ban them altogether, resorting to violence or fear-tactics to get others to respect the rights of animals; to be horrendous and despicable. I don't really see myself as an environmental wacko or a militant fighting for animals, but at the same time I don't think that we should do nothing on these issues. I wouldn't advocate making the state care for and feed perpetually animals that are caught by animal control services, or force anyone to help a starving animal, etc, anything of the sort, but I have to believe one can be a lover of animals and still be allowed to eat meat, one can defend animal rights and not be an eco-terrorist, one can look down upon and penalize those who neglect or intentionally mistreat higher order animals.
But it's rather vague. Mistreating a pet or abusing livestock may have legal ramifications, but I would admit sending someone to court over accidentally stepping on a frog is over the line. But where is the line? What animals deserve rights? Which rights do they deserve? How can we protect those rights, or should those rights even be protected?
I am curious to hear people's views on the matter. Clearly this is not a liberal/conservative issue, a secular/religious issue, or a left/right issue. I know we have human beings to worry about, and more pressing and urgent matters of state. But to be an ethical, moral, civilized society I feel this sort of topic needs to be addressed. Feel free to chime in with your views; I only ask that they be respectful and not spam or one-liners such as "animals sux, burgers rool".
Have at it!
I am all in favor of animal rights but less in favor of animal rights 'activists'. For example testing on lab-animals should be done only for medical reasons, cosmetic industry is a big no. When an animal is butchered it should be painless and with as little stress as possible. It is perfectly possible to locally sedate when castrating young boars. If you can ease things do so.
Oh my, I do believe Hell has frozen over, yesterday Frags agreed with me, and now I agree with him 
Industrialized farming should be abandoned as a practice IMO. They're animal concentration camps, there are other ways to produce our food.
EDIT: Just realized that the english term is "factory farming", not "industrialized farming". Factory farming is what I'm against, not tractors and such
Industrialized farming should be abandoned as a practice IMO. They're animal concentration camps, there are other ways to produce our food.
EDIT: Just realized that the english term is "factory farming", not "industrialized farming". Factory farming is what I'm against, not tractors and such
I am a Greenpeace and a PETA supporter. I always thought animal rights are important as human rights.
How should we protect it? By promulgating stronger laws against poachers, banning hunting (ok, maybe for rabbits, because we are going to be invaded if we do not control rabbit populations...I can agree with that) and all animals that will be killed for food, skin and anything else, if they have to be killed, they need to be killed in a civilised and painless way. Slaughterhouses where these rules are not expected - 20 years for the director, 10 years for each guy who worked in the slaughterhouse.
People still do not realise we need animals to survive. We need them like oxygen.
Miss Sarah "Pure Blondeness" Palin encouraged hunters to kill wolves in Alaska. Excuse me? Miss Palin I think you do not realise what's going to happen if wolves are killed. I simply cannot believe America was about to elect such a leader.
Originally Posted by :
But where is the line? What animals deserve rights? Which rights do they deserve? How can we protect those rights, or should those rights even be protected?
The line is between logical and illogical/ridiculous. The example of someone accidentally stepping over his frog and sending him to jail, that's just dumb. All animals deserve rights, no discrimination should be made whatsoever. Endangered species should receive extra attention, as their numbers are dwindling, and we don't want to have even more wonderful animals on the brink of extinction because some retards (in my opinion, poachers - jail 30 years, no bail, stay in there - rhymes too, maybe I should do a rap song about it) want them for their fur or meat. For example, whaling is wrong, all types of whaling, including in small numbers. We need whales, and we can easily replace whale meat. But where is the line? What animals deserve rights? Which rights do they deserve? How can we protect those rights, or should those rights even be protected?
How should we protect it? By promulgating stronger laws against poachers, banning hunting (ok, maybe for rabbits, because we are going to be invaded if we do not control rabbit populations...I can agree with that) and all animals that will be killed for food, skin and anything else, if they have to be killed, they need to be killed in a civilised and painless way. Slaughterhouses where these rules are not expected - 20 years for the director, 10 years for each guy who worked in the slaughterhouse.
People still do not realise we need animals to survive. We need them like oxygen.
Miss Sarah "Pure Blondeness" Palin encouraged hunters to kill wolves in Alaska. Excuse me? Miss Palin I think you do not realise what's going to happen if wolves are killed. I simply cannot believe America was about to elect such a leader.
I knew there was stuff we agree on. 
It's nice to step outside traditional politics for a while and bask in the glorious moment that is realizing (or remembering) that your occasional political adversaries are human too.
I saw the method of killing used by one kosher slaughterhouse, regarding cattle. Not to pick on the "kosher" people in particular, but this practice should really be re-evaluated and abandoned. I saw a video of the cow being put in a machine, turned upside down, and had it's throat cut open with a large knife and it's esophagus and so forth being pulled out through the gaping hole in it's neck, not wide enough to cause a quick death, but long enough to be painful and traumatic. See spoiler below.
Then the machine was turned back around, and the bleeding, confused animal was allowed to trot around, slipping in an ever-growing pool of it's own blood, ramming into walls, until it finally, several minutes later, passed out from the blood loss. Nothing was done to reduce the pain, and the animal literally suffered for minutes on end for no reason. One poor cow was still alive past the ten minute mark, just bleeding and trying to moo. Is it really necessary? Everyone knows by now my disagreement with outdated religious traditions, and I'd really rather not be called an anti-semite (If it's any consolation, I have reservations about every major religion).
I also find it unnecessarily cruel what factory farmers do to male chicks. Male chicks are worthless to the egg industry, so every year, millions of them are tossed into trash bags to suffocate or are thrown into high-speed grinders called macerators while they are still alive. That's rather harsh. Young piglets are castrated by having their testicles literally ripped off, without any painkillers, as well as other male animals. Guys, seriously, would you do that to your worst enemy? I wouldn't. So why abuse animals in this fashion?
And so on.
So we've discussed the factory farming stuff. What limits should there be regarding animal testing?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_of_despair
I learned that human beings are perhaps the most creative of all the species when it comes to inflicting unnecessary pain and suffering onto other sentient beings. But other than that, I would suggest such experiments are complete failures and yield no real scientific value. Thankfully this last example was an experiment from the 1970's, not from my lifetime.
Where do we draw the line? I am not suggesting we don't experiment and develop cures and new medical procedures, but there really should be an elected official, one of us, in charge of monitoring this treatment to ensure it meets the criteria of being necessary and as humane as possible to the subjects.
Example: Any animal which must be destroyed (due to disease, injury, or other damage) must be euthanized quickly and relatively painlessly.
Example: Any test on an animal which will result in possible permanent injury, horrible suffering, trauma, or death, must have a vital purpose which saves human lives. This is not supposed to be about inflicting pain for the amusement of some demented scientist.
You know, guidelines of that nature. I assume we have some laws in place, I'd be interested to know what they are, when they apply, when they don't apply, and how they are enforced.
It's nice to step outside traditional politics for a while and bask in the glorious moment that is realizing (or remembering) that your occasional political adversaries are human too.
I saw the method of killing used by one kosher slaughterhouse, regarding cattle. Not to pick on the "kosher" people in particular, but this practice should really be re-evaluated and abandoned. I saw a video of the cow being put in a machine, turned upside down, and had it's throat cut open with a large knife and it's esophagus and so forth being pulled out through the gaping hole in it's neck, not wide enough to cause a quick death, but long enough to be painful and traumatic. See spoiler below.
Then the machine was turned back around, and the bleeding, confused animal was allowed to trot around, slipping in an ever-growing pool of it's own blood, ramming into walls, until it finally, several minutes later, passed out from the blood loss. Nothing was done to reduce the pain, and the animal literally suffered for minutes on end for no reason. One poor cow was still alive past the ten minute mark, just bleeding and trying to moo. Is it really necessary? Everyone knows by now my disagreement with outdated religious traditions, and I'd really rather not be called an anti-semite (If it's any consolation, I have reservations about every major religion).
I also find it unnecessarily cruel what factory farmers do to male chicks. Male chicks are worthless to the egg industry, so every year, millions of them are tossed into trash bags to suffocate or are thrown into high-speed grinders called macerators while they are still alive. That's rather harsh. Young piglets are castrated by having their testicles literally ripped off, without any painkillers, as well as other male animals. Guys, seriously, would you do that to your worst enemy? I wouldn't. So why abuse animals in this fashion?
And so on.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
So we've discussed the factory farming stuff. What limits should there be regarding animal testing?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_of_despair
Originally Posted by :
Harlow's first experiments into the effects of loneliness involved isolating a monkey in a cage surrounded by steel walls with a small one-way mirror, so the experimenters could look in, but the monkey couldn't look out. The only connection the monkey had with the world was when the experimenters' hands changed his bedding or delivered fresh water and food. Baby monkeys were placed in these boxes soon after birth; four were left for 30 days, four for six months, and four for a year.
After 30 days, the "total isolates," as they were called, were found to be "enormously disturbed." After being isolated for a year, they barely moved, didn't explore or play, and were incapable of having sexual relations. When put with other monkeys for a daily play session, they were badly bullied. Two of them refused to eat and starved themselves to death.[4]
In order to find out how the isolates would parent, Harlow devised what he called a "rape rack," to which the female isolates were tied in the position taken by a normal female monkey in order to be impregnated. Artificial insemination had not been developed at that time. He found that, just as they were incapable of having sexual relations, they were also unable to parent their offspring, either abusing or neglecting them. "Not even in our most devious dreams could we have designed a surrogate as evil as these real monkey mothers were," he wrote. [5] Having no social experience themselves, they were incapable of appropriate social interaction. One mother held her baby's face to the floor and chewed off his feet and fingers. Another crushed her baby's head. Most of them simply ignored their offspring.
A particularly telling passage from the article. What did we gain from this study?Harlow's first experiments into the effects of loneliness involved isolating a monkey in a cage surrounded by steel walls with a small one-way mirror, so the experimenters could look in, but the monkey couldn't look out. The only connection the monkey had with the world was when the experimenters' hands changed his bedding or delivered fresh water and food. Baby monkeys were placed in these boxes soon after birth; four were left for 30 days, four for six months, and four for a year.
After 30 days, the "total isolates," as they were called, were found to be "enormously disturbed." After being isolated for a year, they barely moved, didn't explore or play, and were incapable of having sexual relations. When put with other monkeys for a daily play session, they were badly bullied. Two of them refused to eat and starved themselves to death.[4]
In order to find out how the isolates would parent, Harlow devised what he called a "rape rack," to which the female isolates were tied in the position taken by a normal female monkey in order to be impregnated. Artificial insemination had not been developed at that time. He found that, just as they were incapable of having sexual relations, they were also unable to parent their offspring, either abusing or neglecting them. "Not even in our most devious dreams could we have designed a surrogate as evil as these real monkey mothers were," he wrote. [5] Having no social experience themselves, they were incapable of appropriate social interaction. One mother held her baby's face to the floor and chewed off his feet and fingers. Another crushed her baby's head. Most of them simply ignored their offspring.
I learned that human beings are perhaps the most creative of all the species when it comes to inflicting unnecessary pain and suffering onto other sentient beings. But other than that, I would suggest such experiments are complete failures and yield no real scientific value. Thankfully this last example was an experiment from the 1970's, not from my lifetime.
Where do we draw the line? I am not suggesting we don't experiment and develop cures and new medical procedures, but there really should be an elected official, one of us, in charge of monitoring this treatment to ensure it meets the criteria of being necessary and as humane as possible to the subjects.
Example: Any animal which must be destroyed (due to disease, injury, or other damage) must be euthanized quickly and relatively painlessly.
Example: Any test on an animal which will result in possible permanent injury, horrible suffering, trauma, or death, must have a vital purpose which saves human lives. This is not supposed to be about inflicting pain for the amusement of some demented scientist.
You know, guidelines of that nature. I assume we have some laws in place, I'd be interested to know what they are, when they apply, when they don't apply, and how they are enforced.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Oh my, I do believe Hell has frozen over, yesterday Frags agreed with me, and now I agree with him
Industrialized farming should be abandoned as a practice IMO. They're animal concentration camps, there are other ways to produce our food.
EDIT: Just realized that the english term is "factory farming", not "industrialized farming". Factory farming is what I'm against, not tractors and such
The cruelest part is the transportation, it should all be done in one place, can't get around the bio-industry but it can be made more pleasant. Here we are working on a concept the pig-skyscraper, a great amount of pigs can be held there in good conditions, from raising till slaughtering in the same place. Sounds sick but it's way above the current situation.Oh my, I do believe Hell has frozen over, yesterday Frags agreed with me, and now I agree with him
Industrialized farming should be abandoned as a practice IMO. They're animal concentration camps, there are other ways to produce our food.
EDIT: Just realized that the english term is "factory farming", not "industrialized farming". Factory farming is what I'm against, not tractors and such
I approve of the idea of vertical farming. If space is a problem, do what other smart sectors of our economy have done, which is go vertical.
With more space for the animals, perhaps the conditions don't have to be so cruel.
With more space for the animals, perhaps the conditions don't have to be so cruel.
Originally Posted by :
I am a Greenpeace and a PETA supporter. I always thought animal rights are important as human rights.
Well straight away we see a problem with the animal rights thingI am a Greenpeace and a PETA supporter. I always thought animal rights are important as human rights.
Originally Posted by :
All animals deserve rights, no discrimination should be made whatsoever.
Then....All animals deserve rights, no discrimination should be made whatsoever.
Originally Posted by :
ok, maybe for rabbits, because we are going to be invaded if we do not control rabbit populations
but thats discrimination against the poor fluffy bunniesok, maybe for rabbits, because we are going to be invaded if we do not control rabbit populations
yet....
Originally Posted by :
Miss Sarah "Pure Blondeness" Palin encouraged hunters to kill wolves in Alaska. Excuse me?
Ah the poor fluffy wolves , they are fluffier than bunnies so are special .Miss Sarah "Pure Blondeness" Palin encouraged hunters to kill wolves in Alaska. Excuse me?
So if wolves are special does that mean I shouldn't shoot a fox ? what about mink ? should I poison rats ? should I squash a midge ?
Animal rights are as important as human rights ......what a load of bollox
Originally Posted by :
The cruelest part is the transportation
Tell that to Noah , greenpeace were very angry about the way he was cramming animals into his boat , they were going to protest but like all the other humans they didn't have boats to launch their protest fromThe cruelest part is the transportation
Originally Posted by :
Young piglets are castrated by having their testicles literally ripped off
Actually you cut very carefully and then pull , if you don't you can damage your merchandise .Young piglets are castrated by having their testicles literally ripped off
Other livestock is a lot easier and can be done in many different ways , but pigs is different .
So Pizza what are your views on docking and de-horning ?
What about tagging ? thats really cruel , you put holes in the poor animals ears
Im for saving all the cute ones.
Animals have the right to remain tasty...
I find myself agreeing with some of the views here and disagreeing with some, shocker eh?
Tribesman doesn't think that animal rights should equal human rights, I disagree but have enough common sense to realise that it's never going to happen. My view is that if they aren't the same doesn't that mean that the only rights are the ones you take? Which makes a mockery of human rights as a whole, which I find a laughable concept anyway so who knows.
I don't believe that animals should be used for testing anything, partly because it is legalised torture and partly because there are enough people who are willing to be tested on if they are paid and if not there are always paedo's.
Should we eat animals? Of course we should, they taste great and that is how we are designed, if we decide eating animals is cruel would we then have to forcibly convert lions to eating grass? Therefore is whaling cruel? Not in the generic sense, poeple have been hunting and eating whales since they figured out how to do so, what is cruel, and stupid, is hunting them to near extinction or not using all of the useable parts.
And what about pets? I think to be able to keep any pets should require a licence the difficulty in obtaining a licence should be proportional to the difficulty in keeping the pets properly. I also think all hunting should be strictly controlled and not allowed if someone justs wants to have a stuffed head on their wall.
In the end animals are an extremely valuble commodity and should be treated as such but it all comes down to might makes right.
Tribesman doesn't think that animal rights should equal human rights, I disagree but have enough common sense to realise that it's never going to happen. My view is that if they aren't the same doesn't that mean that the only rights are the ones you take? Which makes a mockery of human rights as a whole, which I find a laughable concept anyway so who knows.
I don't believe that animals should be used for testing anything, partly because it is legalised torture and partly because there are enough people who are willing to be tested on if they are paid and if not there are always paedo's.
Should we eat animals? Of course we should, they taste great and that is how we are designed, if we decide eating animals is cruel would we then have to forcibly convert lions to eating grass? Therefore is whaling cruel? Not in the generic sense, poeple have been hunting and eating whales since they figured out how to do so, what is cruel, and stupid, is hunting them to near extinction or not using all of the useable parts.
And what about pets? I think to be able to keep any pets should require a licence the difficulty in obtaining a licence should be proportional to the difficulty in keeping the pets properly. I also think all hunting should be strictly controlled and not allowed if someone justs wants to have a stuffed head on their wall.
In the end animals are an extremely valuble commodity and should be treated as such but it all comes down to might makes right.
Surprising as it may be, I agree wholeheartedly that animals have rights that need to be respected.
I am not a vegetarian (although I did think about it), however animals should never, never be treated in a cruel manner when they are being prepared for the slaughterhouse. I had previously been of the "if we eat them then why does it matter" school of thought, however having seen the way these animals are treated I realise how horrific it can be. Every chicken or whatever animal should have plenty of space to walk around so its limbs are not deformed, and should get to see outside of a factory, and run around like animals should. To cause them a life of misery and pain just so we (presuming most here are in the developed world) can grow obese is shameful.
Hunting is another sick matter. I don't care if its a tradition, animals shouldn't die for our sport. And as for eating the animals you hunt, that seems pretty pointless since its not like you can't just buy the food like anyone else.
Using animals for testing in laboritories is the most horrific of them all. I don't think I need to go into that to explain why.
Endangered species are the matter I'm not so much on the side of the activists with. If there was one panda left in the world, I would rather it died than two common brown bears. Disproportionate attention shouldn't be given to endangered species - are their lives really more important than another creatures?
I am not a vegetarian (although I did think about it), however animals should never, never be treated in a cruel manner when they are being prepared for the slaughterhouse. I had previously been of the "if we eat them then why does it matter" school of thought, however having seen the way these animals are treated I realise how horrific it can be. Every chicken or whatever animal should have plenty of space to walk around so its limbs are not deformed, and should get to see outside of a factory, and run around like animals should. To cause them a life of misery and pain just so we (presuming most here are in the developed world) can grow obese is shameful.
Hunting is another sick matter. I don't care if its a tradition, animals shouldn't die for our sport. And as for eating the animals you hunt, that seems pretty pointless since its not like you can't just buy the food like anyone else.
Using animals for testing in laboritories is the most horrific of them all. I don't think I need to go into that to explain why.
Endangered species are the matter I'm not so much on the side of the activists with. If there was one panda left in the world, I would rather it died than two common brown bears. Disproportionate attention shouldn't be given to endangered species - are their lives really more important than another creatures?
I agree entirely with Frag's take on the issue. I have only one thing to add.
Originally Posted by Tribesman:
Well straight away we see a problem with the animal rights thing
Then....
but thats discrimination against the poor fluffy bunnies
yet....
Ah the poor fluffy wolves , they are fluffier than bunnies so are special .
So if wolves are special does that mean I shouldn't shoot a fox ? what about mink ? should I poison rats ? should I squash a midge ?
Animal rights are as important as human rights ......what a load of bollox
Tell that to Noah , greenpeace were very angry about the way he was cramming animals into his boat , they were going to protest but like all the other humans they didn't have boats to launch their protest from
Actually you cut very carefully and then pull , if you don't you can damage your merchandise .
Other livestock is a lot easier and can be done in many different ways , but pigs is different .
So Pizza what are your views on docking and de-horning ?
What about tagging ? thats really cruel , you put holes in the poor animals ears
wow. tribesman and i actually agree on something! ...kinda....Well straight away we see a problem with the animal rights thing
Then....
but thats discrimination against the poor fluffy bunnies
yet....
Ah the poor fluffy wolves , they are fluffier than bunnies so are special .
So if wolves are special does that mean I shouldn't shoot a fox ? what about mink ? should I poison rats ? should I squash a midge ?
Animal rights are as important as human rights ......what a load of bollox
Tell that to Noah , greenpeace were very angry about the way he was cramming animals into his boat , they were going to protest but like all the other humans they didn't have boats to launch their protest from
Actually you cut very carefully and then pull , if you don't you can damage your merchandise .
Other livestock is a lot easier and can be done in many different ways , but pigs is different .
So Pizza what are your views on docking and de-horning ?
What about tagging ? thats really cruel , you put holes in the poor animals ears
IMO, protect animals, but not when doing so gets in the way of important things.... like banning the navy from using sonar in practices
Originally Posted by seireikhaan:
Animals have the right to remain tasty...
Animals have the right to remain tasty...
That reminds me of a bumper sticker:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Originally Posted by Tribesman:
Animal rights are as important as human rights ......what a load of bollox
Gotta agree there. Animal rights are as important as human rights ......what a load of bollox
In fact, I don't know that I'd be prepared to say that animals have any rights at all (other than the right to being tasty
). However, that doesn't mean it's ok for wanton brutal treatment of animals. We can and should be humane towards animals when possible- it's one of the things that separates us from them. A lion doesn't care if the zebra it's eating suffers, we do."Cruelty is the tantrum of frustrated power." -- R.G.H. Siu
I eat meat. I spend enough so that other people do most of the yucky part for me. If I had to, I would do it myself. My continued life involves the destruction of other lives -- circle of life and all that.
I don't think cruelty to animals is ever justified -- it demeans the humans involved and inflicts unnecessary harm on the animals.
Tribesman is perfectly correct on his "rights" assessment.
I eat meat. I spend enough so that other people do most of the yucky part for me. If I had to, I would do it myself. My continued life involves the destruction of other lives -- circle of life and all that.
I don't think cruelty to animals is ever justified -- it demeans the humans involved and inflicts unnecessary harm on the animals.
Tribesman is perfectly correct on his "rights" assessment.
Who here has ever gutted something or been in a butchers shop? Just asking.
i have. a kosher one, so it wasnt that gross.....
less gross than mpost horror movies....
less gross than mpost horror movies....
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr:
Hunting is another sick matter. I don't care if its a tradition, animals shouldn't die for our sport. And as for eating the animals you hunt, that seems pretty pointless since its not like you can't just buy the food like anyone else.
This I must strongly disagree with. I'm sure somebody else will debate it, but hunting is certainly not sick.Hunting is another sick matter. I don't care if its a tradition, animals shouldn't die for our sport. And as for eating the animals you hunt, that seems pretty pointless since its not like you can't just buy the food like anyone else.
Well, I don't agree with all hunting, but I see that it is necessary for many around the world. I'd rather people eat animals instead of starving.
However, hunting for sport is cruel for the following reasons;
1. Target practice can easily be done against stationary and moving objects that can be shot over and over without harming anything or causing suffering.
2. A good game of paintball with some friends should satisfy the need for sport, hunt, and competition, without wounding/killing the innocent.
3. If a person goes around killing animals, or wounding them, then leaving them to rot or mounting them on a wall, merely for the thrill and fun of it, doesn't that strike you as unnecessarily destructive, cruel, and inhumane? Perhaps if you've done it before, you must defend yourself and nothing I say could convince you, but objectively speaking; why cause death and suffering merely for sport or pleasure?
These reasons are incomplete, but they are a good start.
However, hunting for sport is cruel for the following reasons;
1. Target practice can easily be done against stationary and moving objects that can be shot over and over without harming anything or causing suffering.
2. A good game of paintball with some friends should satisfy the need for sport, hunt, and competition, without wounding/killing the innocent.
3. If a person goes around killing animals, or wounding them, then leaving them to rot or mounting them on a wall, merely for the thrill and fun of it, doesn't that strike you as unnecessarily destructive, cruel, and inhumane? Perhaps if you've done it before, you must defend yourself and nothing I say could convince you, but objectively speaking; why cause death and suffering merely for sport or pleasure?
These reasons are incomplete, but they are a good start.
Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy:
However, hunting for sport is cruel for the following reasons
Hunting for sport is unnecessary and waste - but he didn't talk just about hunting for sport, but also about hunting and eating the meat, which is - and should be - considered perfectly acceptable and normal.However, hunting for sport is cruel for the following reasons
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars:
Hunting for sport is unnecessary and waste - but he didn't talk just about hunting for sport, but also about hunting and eating the meat, which is - and should be - considered perfectly acceptable and normal.
Much agreed.Hunting for sport is unnecessary and waste - but he didn't talk just about hunting for sport, but also about hunting and eating the meat, which is - and should be - considered perfectly acceptable and normal.
I think any introduction of "animal rights" as such would be a joke. It would be more practical to forbid mistreatment and develop standards for each sort of lifestock what is reasonable and what's necessary. It would be funny to see a prosecutor argue "you forced these animals to live in crampy quarters before you butchered them, you violated their rights!"
To be honest I think that most people like the idea of animal welfare in theory but wouldn't like paying 25-50% more for fish and meat to ensure a happy life for animals before they're dragged to the abatoir.
To be honest I think that most people like the idea of animal welfare in theory but wouldn't like paying 25-50% more for fish and meat to ensure a happy life for animals before they're dragged to the abatoir.
You have a right to be eaten.
Anything you say can be used against you in a pot or in a pan.
You have a right to barbecue sauce.
I you request barbecue sauce with will be properly grilled.
You have a right to be delicious.
And I will make you so to the best of my abilities and years of training.
Anything you say can be used against you in a pot or in a pan.
You have a right to barbecue sauce.
I you request barbecue sauce with will be properly grilled.
You have a right to be delicious.
And I will make you so to the best of my abilities and years of training.
Originally Posted by Strike For The South:
Who here has ever gutted something or been in a butchers shop? Just asking.
Yes to both.Who here has ever gutted something or been in a butchers shop? Just asking.
*reluctantly applies can-opener to large tin of worms*
Let me start out by saying I agree with Tribesman's assessment of animal "rights".
However, at the risk of steering this off at a tangent, hunting for "sport" should be examined more carefully. Not all creatures that are hunted are necessarily edible. In rural areas, animals may be hunted to protect far more valuable livestock. This activity has evolved in some places into a community tradition, which creates valuable bonds between people.
I hunt, shoot and fish. By hunting, I mean fox-hunting (yes, the "unspeakable in pursuit of the inedible"). This activity is a very important community action, and more to the point, the most effective method of pest control. It is also a lot of fun and great sport. Hunting like this is practical and preserves a natural balance - it is very hard to over-impact the fox population by chasing it. They banned it in the UK and now farmers there have to hire clowns with guns to wound the animal so it can bleed to death in a hole for hours whilst the urban middle-class sit smugly over their "freedom farmed" eggs at breakfast.
Shooting (mainly grouse and pheasant) has an additional benefit in the conservation of large tracts of land that would otherwise not be stewarded - or a burden on tax-payers to maintain. The result of a day's shooting can of course, be eaten.
Fishing of course, never gets a bad press.
Strangely enough, in many parts of the world, controlled hunting is the best way to conserve wild areas. The income generated gives local peoples a stake in conserving species and habitats that otherwise would be a nuisance or prospective farmland.
It has always amused me that many of those who scream cruelty at the chasing and killing of a fox (which when caught, dies immediately) happily go home to feast on their economy chicken burgers made out of long-tortured fowl.
Let me start out by saying I agree with Tribesman's assessment of animal "rights".
However, at the risk of steering this off at a tangent, hunting for "sport" should be examined more carefully. Not all creatures that are hunted are necessarily edible. In rural areas, animals may be hunted to protect far more valuable livestock. This activity has evolved in some places into a community tradition, which creates valuable bonds between people.
I hunt, shoot and fish. By hunting, I mean fox-hunting (yes, the "unspeakable in pursuit of the inedible"). This activity is a very important community action, and more to the point, the most effective method of pest control. It is also a lot of fun and great sport. Hunting like this is practical and preserves a natural balance - it is very hard to over-impact the fox population by chasing it. They banned it in the UK and now farmers there have to hire clowns with guns to wound the animal so it can bleed to death in a hole for hours whilst the urban middle-class sit smugly over their "freedom farmed" eggs at breakfast.
Shooting (mainly grouse and pheasant) has an additional benefit in the conservation of large tracts of land that would otherwise not be stewarded - or a burden on tax-payers to maintain. The result of a day's shooting can of course, be eaten.
Fishing of course, never gets a bad press.
Strangely enough, in many parts of the world, controlled hunting is the best way to conserve wild areas. The income generated gives local peoples a stake in conserving species and habitats that otherwise would be a nuisance or prospective farmland.
It has always amused me that many of those who scream cruelty at the chasing and killing of a fox (which when caught, dies immediately) happily go home to feast on their economy chicken burgers made out of long-tortured fowl.
I should point out, I meant hunting for sport, naturally native populations still rely on hunting to survive.
I would however be somewhat hesitant about someone in the developed world hunting for food, although technically it is acceptable.
I wouldn't delve into the animal rights debate though. At the end of the day no creature has inalienable rights - even human rights are made up and our ideas of them can change all the time.
I would however be somewhat hesitant about someone in the developed world hunting for food, although technically it is acceptable.
I wouldn't delve into the animal rights debate though. At the end of the day no creature has inalienable rights - even human rights are made up and our ideas of them can change all the time.
Originally Posted by Fenring:
I think any introduction of "animal rights" as such would be a joke. It would be more practical to forbid mistreatment and develop standards for each sort of lifestock what is reasonable and what's necessary. It would be funny to see a prosecutor argue "you forced these animals to live in crampy quarters before you butchered them, you violated their rights!"
Come to think of it, I agree.I think any introduction of "animal rights" as such would be a joke. It would be more practical to forbid mistreatment and develop standards for each sort of lifestock what is reasonable and what's necessary. It would be funny to see a prosecutor argue "you forced these animals to live in crampy quarters before you butchered them, you violated their rights!"
Who here has ever gutted something or been in a butchers shop? Just asking.
Ya, normal and halal, not nearly as traumatising as what atpg has seen. With an able halal butcher it's not that bad, and a regular slaughter is completily painless.
Originally Posted by Fragony:
Come to think of it, I agree.
Who here has ever gutted something or been in a butchers shop? Just asking.
Ya, normal and halal, not nearly as traumatising as what atpg has seen. With an able halal butcher it's not that bad, and a regular slaughter is completily painless.
Been working in chicken and pig slaughterhouses some years ago. Only a few weeks, just more than enough to hate factory farming. I advice anyone who denies animal suffering (many do....) to spend a few nights in such places. The smell of death and fear. I was also part of a few pig and sheep "homemade" slaughters (both Hallal -for the sheep!!- and not) and it's definitely much better if the butcher knows his job. Hallal is still disturbing since you can't hammer the beast.Come to think of it, I agree.
Who here has ever gutted something or been in a butchers shop? Just asking.
Ya, normal and halal, not nearly as traumatising as what atpg has seen. With an able halal butcher it's not that bad, and a regular slaughter is completily painless.
OT, I almost bled myself to death with a chainsaw when I was still a lumberjack, so I can say that dying bleeding is... well... not so bad.
If you love meat (I don't), try to buy it straight from the farmer. Or have your own poultry. Or practice hunting.
Originally Posted by Tristuskhan:
If you love meat (I don't), try to buy it straight from the farmer. Or have your own poultry.
Thats impractial and pretty impossible for most people though.If you love meat (I don't), try to buy it straight from the farmer. Or have your own poultry.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO