Free-range pigs -- not so happy

  • Thread starter Thread starter spencelo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
spencelo said:
I take charges of misrepresentation seriously. Please point to a specific example where I did this.
Click to expand...
For instance:

I say “I think eating meat is good,” and you say: “So you think needless cruelty to animals is good?”

I say “hunting is good,” and you say, “So killing sensitive animals is good.”

You are always adding your little twist to what is said, and so misrepresenting other’s points of view.
 
triumphguy said:
For instance:

I say “I think eating meat is good,” and you say: “So you think needless cruelty to animals is good?”

I say “hunting is good,” and you say, “So killing sensitive animals is good.”

You are always adding your little twist to what is said, and so misrepresenting other’s points of view.
Click to expand...
No, I don’t do any of what you ascribe to me. I know you don’t believe needless suffering and cruelty to animals is good or moral – in fact, you believe the opposite. All I’m saying is that, given your beliefs, you ought to be against hunting and meat consumption because those practices involve needless suffering and cruelty to animals.
 
spencelo said:
No, I don’t do any of what you ascribe to me. I know you don’t believe needless suffering and cruelty to animals is good or moral – in fact, you believe the opposite. All I’m saying is that, given your beliefs, you ought to be against hunting and meat consumption because those practices involve needless suffering and cruelty to animals.
Click to expand...
Hmmm, I would distinguish between “needless” and “purposeless”.

I don’t technically “need” to eat animals, no. But killing animals does serve a purpose-to feed people. I don’t see a problem with using animals for such a purpose.

Obviously, a distinction needs to be drawn at some point on where “purposeful” becomes “cruel and unusual”, but I’m not sure where exactly.
 
Marc_Anthony said:
I don’t technically “need” to eat animals, no. But killing animals does serve a purpose-to feed people. I don’t see a problem with using animals for such a purpose.
Click to expand...
A meat-based diet always involves inflicting suffering and death on animals (in the vast majority of cases, such as in factory farms, the suffering is extreme), whereas a plant-based diet does not. Why not choose the path that inflicts minimal harm?
 
BlueEyedLady said:
I hear this a lot but I have never heard a rational basis (or any basis, for that matter) for that assertion. Why would caring about the welfare of animals automatically mean that someone cares less about children? That’s kind of a random and cruel thing to say about someone.
Click to expand...
👍👍👍

I totally agree. I love animals and care very much about their treatment of them. I do not believe they were solely put here “for our use” . And even if they were, they have a right to respectful and pain free treatment until such a time that we would have use for them.

And it doesnt make me like kids or humans any less. The only time when I care less for a human is when that person cares nothing for the treatment of an innocent animal. Animals feel pain and depression too. They may not be able to communicate that to us in a way we understand, but they do have feelings.
 
spencelo said:
A meat-based diet always involves inflicting suffering and death on animals (in the vast majority of cases, such as in factory farms, the suffering is extreme), whereas a plant-based diet does not. Why not choose the path that inflicts minimal harm?
Click to expand...
Killing an animal for meat is not “causing harm.”

On the other hand monoculture grain, or soy, or bean farms cause harm.
 
 
spencelo said:
A meat-based diet always involves inflicting suffering and death on animals (in the vast majority of cases, such as in factory farms, the suffering is extreme), whereas a plant-based diet does not. Why not choose the path that inflicts minimal harm?
Click to expand...
Because unlike you I think that humans are vastly superior to animals and as long as the animals serve a purpose (and I will say again that reservations should be placed here, but food is so fundamental it should not be one of them) I have no trouble killing and eating them.

Why?

It is food, and I like the taste of meat. I’m not going to feel guilty about it.
 
spencelo said:
And killing an animal deprives him or her of possible future pleasant experiences, and those experiences do not outweigh the human interests gained.
Click to expand...
Unless we put possible animal experiences at a lower level than possible human interests. Which in certain cases I do.
 
spencelo said:
And killing an animal deprives him or her of possible future pleasant experiences, and those experiences do not outweigh the human interests gained.
Click to expand...
You have a right to your opinion but that is all it is an opinion. No matter how many threads you start on this subject, all it boils down to is your opinion.
 
Marc_Anthony said:
Because unlike you I think that humans are vastly superior to animals and as long as the animals serve a purpose (and I will say again that reservations should be placed here, but food is so fundamental it should not be one of them) I have no trouble killing and eating them.

Why?

It is food, and I like the taste of meat. I’m not going to feel guilty about it.
Click to expand...
It appears you’re saying that animals hardly matter morally, so we are free to use them as mere tools even at the cost of inflicting extreme suffering and death on them.
 
Marc_Anthony said:
Unless we put possible animal experiences at a lower level than possible human interests. Which in certain cases I do.
Click to expand...
In the case of meat consumption, you are putting the pleasure of a tasty meal above the numerous pleasures of an animal that he or she would experience if not killed.
 
spencelo said:
It appears you’re saying that animals hardly matter morally, so we are free to use them as mere tools even at the cost of inflicting extreme suffering and death on them.
Click to expand...
Not quite that extreme, but actually not too far off. I am saying that the moral duty owed to animals is very real but in the end using them for our convenience is is perfectly fine in certain circumstances (like farming, say, or even horseback riding, if not the highly dangerous horse racing); in that sense we can use them as tools to some extent, yes.

As to the “inflicting severe suffering and even death”-yes, I’d kill an animal for food. I would consider it horrible abuse, however, if an animal was killed in the context of bullfighting, for example, where the bull and horse’s only purpose was being forced to receive pain merely for other people to watch and cheer at the misery.
 
spencelo said:
In the case of meat consumption, you are putting the pleasure of a tasty meal above the numerous pleasures of an animal that he or she would experience if not killed.
Click to expand...
Indeed, although the way you’re wording it kind of poisons the well against me. Meat is a natural part of the human diet-that an animal is killed to be used as food is not something I find objectionable, no.
 
Marc_Anthony said:
Not quite that extreme, but actually not too far off. I am saying that the moral duty owed to animals is very real but in the end using them for our convenience is is perfectly fine in certain circumstances (like farming, say, or even horseback riding, if not the highly dangerous horse racing); in that sense we can use them as tools to some extent, yes.

As to the “inflicting severe suffering and even death”-yes, I’d kill an animal for food. I would consider it horrible abuse, however, if an animal was killed in the context of bullfighting, for example, where the bull and horse’s only purpose was being forced to receive pain merely for other people to watch and cheer at the misery.
Click to expand...
What’s the difference between bullfighting and raising animals for food? In particular, what’s the difference between the pleasure of a tasty meal and the pleasure of visual entertainment? Both involve immense cruelty, and in the case of animals raised and killed for food (over 9 billion in U.S.), they actually suffer a whole lot more than bulls in bullfights.
  1. gan.ca/campaigns/factory+…/index.en.html
  2. idausa.org/facts/factoryfarmfacts.html
  3. animalfreedom.org/english…fofarming.html
  4. aspca.org/fight-animal-cr…nimal-cruelty/
  5. peta.org/issues/animals-u…d/default.aspx
  6. animalrights.about.com/od/ani…FarmingFAQ.htm
 
Marc_Anthony said:
Indeed, although the way you’re wording it kind of poisons the well against me. Meat is a natural part of the human diet-that an animal is killed to be used as food is not something I find objectionable, no.
Click to expand...
I don’t believe I’m poisoning any wells. I’m simply pointing out that, on your view, you must maintain that the pleasure of a tasty meal outweighs all the future pleasures than the animal would have had if not killed, which strikes me as obviously implausible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top