Conquer Club

They do the job don't they?

Neoteny wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:

strike wolf wrote:It's natural to kill animals for their meat. Every predator on the planet does it. Are we supposed to go up to lions and tell them they can't kill other animals anymore because they have rights too? Now this is not to say I support hunting just for sport. Quite the opposite. If you are hunting, you should be taking more than just a head to put above your fireplace.

Natural does not equal moral.

Nor does unnatural.

Either God designed me to be able to be carnivorous, or my ancestors evolved that way for good reason. Either way it's good enough for me.

Cruelty is another matter, and as a species we treat our food-providing animals (both those we eat and those we milk or take eggs from) very badly in most cases. But this is a different question.

As an avid meat eater I agree.

As do I.

Animal have the right to life (unless I'm hungry), liberty (unless I want its products), and property (unless I want that too). But that doesn't mean I advocate animal cruelty. One instance of this was a few years back when I was deer hunting. I took a shot at a deer, but it was high and I severed its spine. I saw it trying to get away but unable to move its rear legs so I shot it two more times untill I knew it was dead. I ruined the tenderloin in the process, but at least I saved it from additional suffering.

MeDeFe wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:

strike wolf wrote:It's natural to kill animals for their meat. Every predator on the planet does it. Are we supposed to go up to lions and tell them they can't kill other animals anymore because they have rights too? Now this is not to say I support hunting just for sport. Quite the opposite. If you are hunting, you should be taking more than just a head to put above your fireplace.

Natural does not equal moral.

Nor does unnatural.

Either God designed me to be able to be carnivorous, or my ancestors evolved that way for good reason. Either way it's good enough for me.

Cruelty is another matter, and as a species we treat our food-providing animals (both those we eat and those we milk or take eggs from) very badly in most cases. But this is a different question.

Have you taken a good look at your teeth? Not much carnivorous to speak of there.

That's funny, and I thought that I had canines all this time.

Animals serve many purposes on this planet. Some of them (us) serve to create societies, build (and destroy) things. Some animals (deer) serve as a part of the food chain. It is the natural order of things.

Unless you're one of those wing-nut fundamental Christians who think that animals and people were made by God to be friends, like as in Eden. If that is the case, I'd like to introduce you to my friend, Mr. Viper.

strike wolf wrote:Have you taken a look at what tastes good to us. Not much herbivorous there.

I disagree. And last I heard apples, pears, citrus fruits, bananas, lots of different kinds of berries and nuts, to name but a few, are quite popular for flavouring anything between juice and ice-cream. So do come up with something better, would you? I know you can. And in any case "I get this urge to kill people at times and feel really good when I do it" wouldn't hold up in court nor would the gist of it ("I like it, therefore it's good") stand as the basis for a moral principle.


And BES, would you care to elaborate on these "purposes", for example, what's the purpose of the common cold virus(es)? Or the purpose of elephants that hardly get eaten at all? Please refrain from using metaphysical or supernatural concepts in your explanation because then I will have to tell you that as an atheist I can't accept god (whatever you choose to call him/her/it/them) and his/her/its/their whimsies as basis for any moral principle.



Really, can't you people come up with anything other than "it's ok to imprison and/or kill animals other than humans because I say so"?

MeDeFe wrote:

strike wolf wrote:Have you taken a look at what tastes good to us. Not much herbivorous there.

I disagree. And last I heard apples, pears, citrus fruits, bananas, lots of different kinds of berries and nuts, to name but a few, are quite popular for flavouring anything between juice and ice-cream. So do come up with something better, would you? I know you can. And in any case "I get this urge to kill people at times and feel really good when I do it" wouldn't hold up in court nor would the gist of it ("I like it, therefore it's good") stand as the basis for a moral principle.


And BES, would you care to elaborate on these "purposes", for example, what's the purpose of the common cold virus(es)? Or the purpose of elephants that hardly get eaten at all? Please refrain from using metaphysical or supernatural concepts in your explanation because then I will have to tell you that as an atheist I can't accept god (whatever you choose to call him/her/it/them) and his/her/its/their whimsies as basis for any moral principle.



Really, can't you people come up with anything other than "it's ok to imprison and/or kill animals other than humans because I say so"?

No. Why do we need to? (I don't want to imprison them. But I do like eating them. Animals, that is.)

I think all animals should be slaughtered, that way it would make more room for plants! Plants are by far the most abused living organisms on the planet, and it is high time that we did something about it!

FREE PLANTS!

Neoteny wrote:No. Why do we need to? (I don't want to imprison them. But I do like eating them)

Why you need to? Well, unless you're preared to accept that it's moral to kill humans if you feel like it or want them for food you should come up with a damn good reason why it's ok to kill all but one species on this planet. As for imprisoning, cows grazing on vast pastures and pigs happily rolling in muck practically don't exist anymore, factory farming is in vogue now. Try to keep humans in those conditions and tell us what happened, would you?

MeDeFe wrote:

Neoteny wrote:No. Why do we need to? (I don't want to imprison them. But I do like eating them)

Why you need to? Well, unless you're preared to accept that it's moral to kill humans if you feel like it or want them for food you should come up with a damn good reason why it's ok to kill all but one species on this planet. As for imprisoning, cows grazing on vast pastures and pigs happily rolling in muck practically don't exist anymore, factory farming is in vogue now. Try to keep humans in those conditions and tell us what happened, would you?

But, there is a difference between humans and cows. I agree that the current systems for producing meat and other animal products are vile, but the basic predator/prey interaction between humans and other species are not condemnable. I think you'd be hard pressed to prove that animals (particularly lesser ones, for lack of a better phrase) feel pain in the same way we do. Pain in these animals should still be avoided, but I don't see a moral dilemma in killing animals humanely, and for the purpose of sustenance.

MeDeFe wrote:

Neoteny wrote:No. Why do we need to? (I don't want to imprison them. But I do like eating them)

Why you need to? Well, unless you're preared to accept that it's moral to kill humans if you feel like it or want them for food you should come up with a damn good reason why it's ok to kill all but one species on this planet. As for imprisoning, cows grazing on vast pastures and pigs happily rolling in muck practically don't exist anymore, factory farming is in vogue now. Try to keep humans in those conditions and tell us what happened, would you?

Where does your moral imperative come from - "It's not all right to kill animals because I said so."

For the record, I live in dairy/farm country, and we do have vast feilds full of lazy/stupid cattle. But let me tell you a story, that might give you some fresh perspective...

When I was in high school my friend worked at a slaughter house. A truck would back off to his gate, and it was his job to get the cattle to walk through it and into the guys with the hammers(hammer=brain tazer gun). The cows would then be strung up with chains by their back legs. Then a conveyer would take them to get slaughtered.
He was there for about a week when he told me that he was thinking about quitting, cauze he was having nightmares. He said about one in ten cows was only stunned, and they'd string it up anyway.
A couple days later, sure enough, he quit. I really thought that he was gonna make it, so I asked him what it was that convinced him to quit; was it really the nightmares? He said the night before a truck came to the gate, and the cows wouldn't come out. He said he could tell that they "knew." He couldn't get the cows to budge, even beating them wasn't doing it. So he went to get his boss for help. His boss read one of the cows names off of their eartag... and called the cow by NAME throught the gate. Sure enough, the cow came trotting. My friend had to do this with every cow. That was the night he quit.
In memory of that cow, "Rocket."

MeDeFe wrote: Well, unless you're preared to accept that it's moral to kill humans if you feel like it or want them for food you should come up with a damn good reason why it's ok to kill all but one species on this planet.

Because they're mostly delicious.

And killing humans for their meat sort of messes with society.

MeDeFe wrote:

strike wolf wrote:Have you taken a look at what tastes good to us. Not much herbivorous there.

I disagree. And last I heard apples, pears, citrus fruits, bananas, lots of different kinds of berries and nuts, to name but a few, are quite popular for flavouring anything between juice and ice-cream. So do come up with something better, would you? I know you can. And in any case "I get this urge to kill people at times and feel really good when I do it" wouldn't hold up in court nor would the gist of it ("I like it, therefore it's good") stand as the basis for a moral principle.


And BES, would you care to elaborate on these "purposes", for example, what's the purpose of the common cold virus(es)? Or the purpose of elephants that hardly get eaten at all? Please refrain from using metaphysical or supernatural concepts in your explanation because then I will have to tell you that as an atheist I can't accept god (whatever you choose to call him/her/it/them) and his/her/its/their whimsies as basis for any moral principle.



Really, can't you people come up with anything other than "it's ok to imprison and/or kill animals other than humans because I say so"?

Actually we have. For one, our teeth aren't the same as those of herbivores there is a pretty big difference. Second, if we were never meant to eat meat then why do we have a taste for it?

strike wolf wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:

strike wolf wrote:Have you taken a look at what tastes good to us. Not much herbivorous there.

I disagree. And last I heard apples, pears, citrus fruits, bananas, lots of different kinds of berries and nuts, to name but a few, are quite popular for flavouring anything between juice and ice-cream. So do come up with something better, would you? I know you can. And in any case "I get this urge to kill people at times and feel really good when I do it" wouldn't hold up in court nor would the gist of it ("I like it, therefore it's good") stand as the basis for a moral principle.


And BES, would you care to elaborate on these "purposes", for example, what's the purpose of the common cold virus(es)? Or the purpose of elephants that hardly get eaten at all? Please refrain from using metaphysical or supernatural concepts in your explanation because then I will have to tell you that as an atheist I can't accept god (whatever you choose to call him/her/it/them) and his/her/its/their whimsies as basis for any moral principle.



Really, can't you people come up with anything other than "it's ok to imprison and/or kill animals other than humans because I say so"?

Actually we have. For one, our teeth aren't the same as those of herbivores there is a pretty big difference. Second, if we were never meant to eat meat then why do we have a taste for it?

Actually, the very fact that we can digest meat and take things from it basically says we're omnivores. Meat has been a big part of our diet since we've started hunting animals and other humanoids, and it's not likely to change any time soon.

Snorri1234 wrote:Actually, the very fact that we can digest meat and take things from it basically says we're omnivores.

Nice point!

I grew up on a working ranch. It's a place where the cows have tons of pasture and are only bred once a year. We also have quarter horses and border collies. It's also a place where hunting is a favorite fall pastime. Perhaps an outsider (aka city folk) might find it paradoxical that people who work so hard to make a living raising animals would hunt them for sport. Well, its not. People who were raised in this environment are the ones who truly understand the cycle of life and the purpose of animals on our planet.

So let me offer rebuttals to some of your comments:

MeDeFe wrote:So far there are no arguments from the side that would deny animals their rights, it all boils down to "because I say so", at least jay was honest enough to openly state that it was his opinion that the life of a human is more valuable than the life of an animal.

But why is that? What're your reasons for thinking like that, jay and others?

The first rule is that we (humans) are the top of the food chain. Why? Because we have opposable thumbs. These allow us to create and use tools and establish societies. We are also very smart. Only very smart animals have leeway to do anything that doesn't expressly relate to meeting the most basic of needs. For example, ants are very hard workers, but they must continually work for food, shelter, and reproduction. In contrast, porpoises are often seen playing with one another or cruising aimlessly alongside vessels. We are more in the latter group. Our thumbs and brains give us the ability to sit around and debate moral/social issues rather than spending every moment seeking food or shelter.

MeDeFe wrote:And BES, would you care to elaborate on these "purposes", for example, what's the purpose of the common cold virus(es)? Or the purpose of elephants that hardly get eaten at all? Please refrain from using metaphysical or supernatural concepts in your explanation because then I will have to tell you that as an atheist I can't accept god (whatever you choose to call him/her/it/them) and his/her/its/their whimsies as basis for any moral principle.

Really, can't you people come up with anything other than "it's ok to imprison and/or kill animals other than humans because I say so"?

To whom much is given, much is expected. That's a quote I've heard often throughout my life. As the rulers of the food chain, it is our responsibility to maintain harmony with nature. The situations you are thinking of (i.e., poaching elephant tusks and others) are unconscionable in my opinion. Yet, I don't find sport hunting of free roaming wildlife (within the confines permitted by the local Fish & Game office) objectionable. Though pretty and fuzzy, deer can quickly become overpopulated which leads to them being killed illegally because they are a nuisance or to a malnourished population. We must find a balance that promotes healthy lives of the most animals possible. It is true that humans have expanded carelessly into wildlife habitat. But its also true that, if animals become a nuisance in these areas, the killing of these animals will be assured.

MeDeFe wrote:Well, unless you're prepared to accept that it's moral to kill humans if you feel like it or want them for food you should come up with a damn good reason why it's ok to kill all but one species on this planet. As for imprisoning, cows grazing on vast pastures and pigs happily rolling in muck practically don't exist anymore, factory farming is in vogue now. Try to keep humans in those conditions and tell us what happened, would you?

As I mentioned, I believe we are the top of the food chain because we evolved into that capacity. These factory farms and other atrocities should be stopped. Regulations can only go so far though. The real pressure must come from those who understand the laws of supply and demand. Supporting small, family-run farms is one of the most important things we can do for our economy. This goes for farmers of vegetables and grains as well as ranchers who provide cattle, goats, and chickens. I know most of us can't afford to always buy these homegrown goods, but, if the masses make small increases in these purchases and decreases in purchases of factory-processed foods, the price will begin to shift downward making them more affordable.

In sum, I'm going to continue eating steak, but, instead of picking up a pair of steaks at the grocery, I've purchased a deep freeze. When needed I purchase half a side of beef from a local rancher who raised his cow on open pasture. The meat is better, cheaper, and my conscious is clear.

Best,
L

Neoteny wrote:but I don't see a moral dilemma in killing animals humanely, and for the purpose of sustenance.

I think MeDeFe isn't just concerned with the killing of the animals...I think it is also the way they are treated their entire lives right up until they are killed.

I think North Americans (I don't know enough about eating habits elsewhere) could stand to eat less meat. I know I eat way too much. If we all ate less meat, the need for such a high quantity of meat would lessen. Maybe a plan could be implemented to afford a better life to our farm animals.

Juan_Bottom wrote:For the record, I live in dairy/farm country, and we do have vast feilds full of lazy/stupid cattle. But let me tell you a story, that might give you some fresh perspective...

When I was in high school my friend worked at a slaughter house. A truck would back off to his gate, and it was his job to get the cattle to walk through it and into the guys with the hammers(hammer=brain tazer gun). The cows would then be strung up with chains by their back legs. Then a conveyer would take them to get slaughtered.
He was there for about a week when he told me that he was thinking about quitting, cauze he was having nightmares. He said about one in ten cows was only stunned, and they'd string it up anyway.
A couple days later, sure enough, he quit. I really thought that he was gonna make it, so I asked him what it was that convinced him to quit; was it really the nightmares? He said the night before a truck came to the gate, and the cows wouldn't come out. He said he could tell that they "knew." He couldn't get the cows to budge, even beating them wasn't doing it. So he went to get his boss for help. His boss read one of the cows names off of their eartag... and called the cow by NAME throught the gate. Sure enough, the cow came trotting. My friend had to do this with every cow. That was the night he quit.
In memory of that cow, "Rocket."

There is a huge slaughterhouse in a nearby city from where I live. The smell of death is in the air. The cows do know.

I think there is a relatively high percentage of psychopaths and sociopaths that work at slaughterhouses. Most people can't handle the death - or at least don't want to cope with it, so they quit.

That story of your friend is quite powerful. It shows that cows do have feelings of fear. And of trust.

MeDeFe wrote:

strike wolf wrote:It's natural to kill animals for their meat. Every predator on the planet does it. Are we supposed to go up to lions and tell them they can't kill other animals anymore because they have rights too? Now this is not to say I support hunting just for sport. Quite the opposite. If you are hunting, you should be taking more than just a head to put above your fireplace.

Natural does not equal moral.

So tell me, what animals have you found that are concerned with morals? As far as what separates us from animals, wouldn't that be a good place to start?

Animal rights is an emotional issue (which is why far more women champion it than men) and not based on logic. I don't believe in unnecessary cruelty to animals, but only cow eyed, pampered white yuppie larvae jump on the animal rights bandwagon.

Hell, if you want to do something about animal rights, you could start by saving the assprowler's pugs from further molestation.


Honibaz

laci_mae wrote:As I mentioned, I believe we are the top of the food chain because we evolved into that capacity. These factory farms and other atrocities should be stopped. Regulations can only go so far though. The real pressure must come from those who understand the laws of supply and demand. Supporting small, family-run farms is one of the most important things we can do for our economy. This goes for farmers of vegetables and grains as well as ranchers who provide cattle, goats, and chickens. I know most of us can't afford to always buy these homegrown goods, but, if the masses make small increases in these purchases and decreases in purchases of factory-processed foods, the price will begin to shift downward making them more affordable.

That is not enough to make a significant change. Your own conscious might be clear, but you are not making a big difference.

Similarly, simply becoming a vegetarian only makes a very small difference.

Sorry, but that is a fact.

I'm not saying that a very small difference isn't worthwhile, but statistically speaking, it is not really having a significant effect on the situation.

I think that as a whole society, our meat consumption would have to go way down if we want to decrease or eliminate the need for factory farms.

Unfortunately, I don't have any bright ideas that would actually be feasibly implementable.

MeDeFe wrote:So far there are no arguments from the side that would deny animals their rights, it all boils down to "because I say so", at least jay was honest enough to openly state that it was his opinion that the life of a human is more valuable than the life of an animal.

But why is that? What're your reasons for thinking like that, jay and others?

If a 2 year old child and a squirrel where caught on train tracks and you had time to save only one, who would you save?

I believe humans have souls and animals do not.

I believe that God gave man dominion over animals.... (to eat them...er some of them)


My big problem with animal rights activists is that most of the time, they are the same ones who defend abortion. They scream "Save the spotted owl!" then cross the street to get an abortion. Priorities screwed a bit? I think so.

jay_a2j wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:So far there are no arguments from the side that would deny animals their rights, it all boils down to "because I say so", at least jay was honest enough to openly state that it was his opinion that the life of a human is more valuable than the life of an animal.

But why is that? What're your reasons for thinking like that, jay and others?

If a 2 year old child and a squirrel where caught on train tracks and you had time to save only one, who would you save?

I believe humans have souls and animals do not.

I believe that God gave man dominion over animals.... (to eat them...er some of them)


My big problem with animal rights activists is that most of the time, they are the same ones who defend abortion. They scream "Save the spotted owl!" then cross the street to get an abortion. Priorities screwed a bit? I think so.

You were good until the second sentence.

Let's see if I can get the main points of the last page nicely summed up.

Two questions to ponder for all of you who don't see a problem with killing animals and then eating their meat: What's the difference between killing a human and eating their meat, and killing any other animal and eating their meat? Why's one of them ok and the other not?


"Might makes right" - laci_mae
So because we are a species that is capable of killing any other animal because we have used our wits and don't rely on pure strength and sharp claws and teeth (we are very lacking in that department, I must say), we have the right to do so. Does that mean because I'm smart enough to plan a murder and get away with it I may do so?
And where does this mystical imperative to maintain "harmony with nature" come from?


Prowler, you're not quite correct, what I am concerned with is that most of these people have never had a single thought about whether it is moral or not to imprison and exploit as well as kill and eat animals other than humans. If a factory owner in some far-away country has bought a hundred kids from their respective parents/orphanages and keeps them as his workforce there's international outrage. Keep several tenthousand hens and chickens in far worse conditions and there will be an overwhelming "meh".


jay, 2-year old children are loud and messy and might grow up to be the next Hitler. A squirrel is small enough to fit under the train and suffer no more than an impairment to its hearing. What I would do is not the question here. The question is why it's considered to be moral to save the kid and immoral not to save the kid while the squirrel never even enters the equation.

jay_a2j wrote:

My big problem with animal rights activists is that most of the time, they are the same ones who defend abortion. They scream "Save the spotted owl!" then cross the street to get an abortion. Priorities screwed a bit? I think so.

so the owl killers live right across the road from the arbotion clinic? It's certainly convenient.

MeDeFe wrote:Let's see if I can get the main points of the last page nicely summed up.

What's the difference between killing a human and eating their meat, and killing any other animal and eating their meat? Why's one of them ok and the other not?

"Might makes right" - laci_mae
So because we are a species that is capable of killing any other animal . . .

And where does this mystical imperative to maintain "harmony with nature" come from?

what I am concerned with is that most of these people have never had a single thought about whether it is moral or not to imprison and exploit as well as kill and eat animals other than humans.

The question is why it's considered to be moral to save the kid and immoral not to save the kid while the squirrel never even enters the equation.

I see you're rather selective in your response, i.e. you seemed to have missed my point on "morals" lacking in animals, which definitely separates them from us and puts them in a different category altogether. You have a lot to say about morals - why is it that you ignore the fact that animals have no conception of them?

The "mystical imperative to maintain harmony with nature" does not preclude killing and eating animals btw, as the Indians maintained such a balance and ate them regularly. They also used them for clothing and tools.

You also selectively choose to ignore others comments on the food chain. "Might makes right" sounds like you're trying to dismiss the fact of natural life that the big ones do, in fact, eat the little ones.

So no, you have not "nicely summed up" anything here. You have been extremely selective and biased in your answers, thereby proving my point that animal rights issues are emotionally charge indulgences for the doting, capricious feminine members of our society, and cannot be defended with logic. Now if you'll excuse me, all this talk about the food chain has made me hungry, and the neighbor's little fufu dog is yipping and squealing in one of my snares. Mmmm.


Honibaz