Vegitarianism And The Slaughter Of Animals For Human Use

Feel free to debate any issues you wish here. Warning: The topics discussed and their content may on occassion offend some.

Re: Vegitarianism And The Slaughter Of Animals For Human Use

Postby Brian » Sun Jan 24, 2010 8:22 pm

Dino wrote:I have noticed that throughout this thread you have repeatedly dismissed America's gun and hunting culture as seemingly unimportant and that it doesn't have an influence. I assure you that on that point you are very badly misinformed. In the American Constitution (which is also taken very seriously in America) all people are given the "right to bear arms". This means that virtually all American citizens can purchase a firearm without any restrictions, and thus gun culture has always been deeply imbedded in Americans, and the issue of gun control is much more sensitive in the USA than in the UK, not least because the Constitution explicitly gives all citizens the right to bear arms.

This also directly links in with hunting, and hunting animals is deeply ingrained in American culture and has a huge influence on the American people and the amount of hunting that goes on in America. To say it doesn't shows that you are misinformed. Many Americans, especially those from Southern states such as Texas and Midwestern states such as Wyoming and Montana are taken on hunts by their parents and relatives at young ages, and they come into contact with guns and hunting very early in in life when they are small children, and many American families from these regions have been passionate hunters for many generations. Thus they are bought up with the notion that guns and hunting (and of course, killing) animals is perfectly normal and it is simply a way of life for them, and nothing will change their minds about it. And they will never understand why people such as yourself make such a huge fuss over hunting, because to them it is simply another hobby or tradition which they have no desire to relinquish and they have full intention of passing it onto future generations and teaching their own children to hunt and that hunting is normal and a way of life, as well as part of culture.

In addition, hunting receives huge support from the American public, and pressure groups such as the National Rifle Association have massive influence in this regard. The leader of the NRA famously said "If you want to take away my hunting rights and my rifle from me, you'l have to wrench it from my cold dead hands". When you consider the fact that the National Rifle Association and other similar groups have literally millions of members in them, you start to get an idea how deeply ingrained gun culture and hunting is in American society and culture. My Politics teacher was telling me about when they had a family friend's son from Montana come to visit them in England, and one of the first things he said to her was "So ma'am, where abouts do you go hunting then?" To him and many millions of other Americans, hunting is completely normal and it will stay that way in the foreseable future.

I also find it alarming how you say that you find no difference between culling animal populations because a particular species has gone rampant due to a lack of predators and killing animals to extinction. A species which has gone out of control because of their huge numbers poses major problems for the environment and for the population as a whole. For example, a huge population of deer which is out of control will consume plant and tree saplings en masse to the point that no vegetation can grow and there will not be enough food for all the deer, resulting in many of them suffering and dying slow and painful deaths. This means that other creatures who share the habitat will suffer and die as a result. Out of control animal species who's predators have been wiped out are a huge problem worldwide and are also a large environmental issue which poses a serious threat. I suggest that you read up on the subject a bit more and maybe then you would see the bigger picture rather than reffering to all killing as "barbaric killing". However, I am astonished that you have not explored these issues already seeing as you are on course which is supposed to teach you everything about animals.

Lastly, please don't claim that killing a certain number of animals from a large population is the same as genocide. I have personally witnessed the effects of genocide firsthand, including the fact that me and my entire family had to flee from our home due to genocide that was being committed, and I can tell you that the two things are worlds apart.


Finally we have someone who knows exactly what he is talking about.

Remus, I am starting to believe that even though you are a very nice guy that you are stuck up your own backside when it comes to animals and animal welfare. I also believe you have not researched Halal or Koscher [Jewish but very similar] methods of slaughtering and are judging your opinion on hear say. Finally to dismiss the culture aspect the way you did is very childish and reiterates my first point of this paragraph and to say it was not on topic aswell is very stupid because I specifically used the words I did to prevent this topic from being a narrow minded topic and to allow alot of issues being brought up in this that in some way has a bearing on animals being killed.
Last edited by Brian on Sun Jan 24, 2010 8:34 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Talking is a sign of strength and not weakness

Help is always available and can be found here: http://www.dyspraxicteens.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=8414
Brian
Splendiferous Member
 
Posts: 603
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 12:25 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: Vegitarianism And The Slaughter Of Animals For Human Use

Postby Dan » Sun Jan 24, 2010 8:26 pm

Remus is not "stuck up his own backside". He's debating about something he believes in. That's anyones right and he has not once been flippant as you have been.
Image
Dan
The Cat's Pajamas !!
 
Posts: 1711
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 9:48 pm
Location: UK, England, Watford

Re: Vegitarianism And The Slaughter Of Animals For Human Use

Postby Brian » Sun Jan 24, 2010 8:39 pm

Dan wrote:Remus is not "stuck up his own backside". He's debating about something he believes in. That's anyones right and he has not once been flippant as you have been.


Dan, I couldn't care less what you are saying because If I was to write a direct response to that statement I would probably get banned for the use of words and slurs I would use in it.
Talking is a sign of strength and not weakness

Help is always available and can be found here: http://www.dyspraxicteens.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=8414
Brian
Splendiferous Member
 
Posts: 603
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 12:25 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: Vegitarianism And The Slaughter Of Animals For Human Use

Postby Remus » Sun Jan 24, 2010 9:08 pm

Brian, if you going to attack me personally at least have the decency to do whilst I'm actually here and not a break which I was on but luckily I decided to come back early.

You know what Brian, I would rather have my head up my backside anyday then to allow myself to be bullied and threatened into not defending my beliefs and swap them for anybody else.

I'm not a religious person like you and many others on this forum but I have always considered myself to have good morals and most importantly I value life whether human or animal which you clearly don't.

I could respond really nasty back but I'm not going to and never will. I wouldn't dare give you the satisfaction.

You have your opinions and I have mine and whilst I will always disagree with them, I've not once told you get over them or that's bull.
Image
User avatar
Remus
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5395
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm
Location: Luxvia, Austria, The Machine, lol! :D

Re: Vegitarianism And The Slaughter Of Animals For Human Use

Postby Dino » Sun Jan 24, 2010 9:24 pm

Remus, I think what Brian was trying to tell you (albeit impolitely and rudely) was that you need to look at all the factors and look at things from all viewpoints rather than just one, which is what you have been doing. You also didn't back up all your claims with evidence and you completely dismissed hunting in culture as a factor (and just completely dismissing factors without evidence for it isn't something that should be done in a debate) and that wound up Brian even more. That said, I don't think Brian should have been that rude and I certainly don't agree with all the things he says-the "pets are for losers" comment is one of them.

From your last post and "defending all life" comment, I can tell that you still aren't looking at all the factors. What about the plight of the Australian mammals? Since the introduction of European rabbits and foxes, 60% of Australian mammals have become extinct from Australia. (Though many continue to survive on the surrounding islands where foxes and rabbits havn't been introduced, including Tazmania). And that is a conservative estimate-some sources give a figuire as high as 80%. This is chiefly because the rabbits gorge on all the abailable vegetation at breakneck speed, and much faster than the native Australian mammals can, leaving the herbivores there nothing to eat, while the foxes can kill them with minimal effort as Australian mammals havn't adapted to deal with threats from predators such as foxes. And nor have the plants-wild plant species in Australia have also been hit hard by the rabbits, as they havn't adapted to regenerate and regrow as fast as the rabbits are eating them, simply because they have never had to deal with such a threat in their evolutionary history. As a result, many acres of grassland have been wiped out completely by the rabbits and have turned to desert. And those areas will not recover for many years.

So the Australian government have had to make a choice: do they leave things as they are and let every single Australian mammal die, or do they intervene and attempt to control the numbers of rabbits and foxes through hunting? They have chosen to hunt them and to try and control their numbers. If they didn't make that choice, many more Australian mammals would have become extinct by now and catastrophic damage would have been done to the environment.

So you see, the argument "all animals must not be killed" doesn't usually hold water. Is it justifiable to let animals which have become pests and are killing and eating everything in sight run around loose with no restrictions, thus causing untold environmental damage including killing thousands of other animals which can't defend themselves because one doesn't feel comfortable about hunting them? Personally, I don't think it is, and pest species need to be culled for not only the environment as a whole but because of the animals which are going to face extinction because of those pests. And if you do become a Zookeeper, you will no doubt hear about the plight of rare Australian mammals in much greater detail and you will probably end up working with some Australian mammal species too. Perhaps then you will see the bigger picture rather then the one sided view which you are advocating now.
Dino
Member
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 8:50 pm

Re: Vegitarianism And The Slaughter Of Animals For Human Use

Postby Brian » Sun Jan 24, 2010 11:14 pm

Remus wrote:Brian, if you going to attack me personally at least have the decency to do whilst I'm actually here and not a break which I was on but luckily I decided to come back early.


Wait until you are online before posting. Good luck you might be away and so I should wait and probably forget the post.

Remus wrote:You know what Brian, I would rather have my head up my backside anyday then to allow myself to be bullied and threatened into not defending my beliefs and swap them for anybody else.


I don't accept your beliefs because you keep dismissing people who are in favour of cruelty / slaughtering methods to animals. Its very hard to take someone like you seriously and Dan aswell because he contributes f**k all aswell.

Remus wrote:I'm not a religious person like you and many others on this forum but I have always considered myself to have good morals and most importantly I value life whether human or animal which you clearly don't.


I am going to make this point clear. I am NOT a religious person but I respect that I'm a Catholic and I am proud to be a Catholic and respect that is apart of my life in someway that is not related to do with going to church and/ or mass with the school I go to and the sports I follow and with the heritage of country.

Remus wrote:I could respond really nasty back but I'm not going to and never will. I wouldn't dare give you the satisfaction.


Please do because I couldn't care what you think about me.

Remus wrote:You have your opinions and I have mine and whilst I will always disagree with them, I've not once told you get over them or that's bull.


Remus wrote: dont bring culture into this


Do you realise that you can talk some pure s**t at times.
Talking is a sign of strength and not weakness

Help is always available and can be found here: http://www.dyspraxicteens.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=8414
Brian
Splendiferous Member
 
Posts: 603
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 12:25 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: Vegitarianism And The Slaughter Of Animals For Human Use

Postby parnassus » Sun Jan 24, 2010 11:37 pm

I don't think that Remus did dismiss the cultural aspect of hunting. All he did was try to point out that culture isn't uniform, and that just because an idea or a pasttime happens to be prevalent in a particular country does not mean that everyone in that country will subscribe to it.

Supporters of foxhunting in this country argue that it is part of British culture to hunt. That's certainly true - the hunt and all the quaint customs that go with it are part of our national heritage. But even when foxhunting was permitted, British people everywhere did not leap on their horses and go after a fox at the weekend. Just because something is part of your nation's culture and history does not mean that you are bound to agree with it and participate in it. And just because something is cultural doesn't make it right, or even permanent - culture does change over time.

I don't agree with everything Remus has said, but his points about culture are definitely worth thinking about. I also think that the phrase 'up your own backside' is badly chosen, not just because it's rude, but because it isn't accurate. To be up your own backside is to be arrogant and overconfident, and Remus has always come across as the opposite to me - a lot of his posts on DT are modest to the point of timidity. It's important to try and be fair to people even in your criticisms.

The same goes for the way people treat Brian. He has been extremely rude, but his posts haven't always been like this and I do not think that unkind behaviour is usual for him. It might be, but I doubt it. Right now I am a lot more short-tempered than I used to be because of difficulties in my personal life, and if provoked enough I can become quite nasty. In my experience, when people are repeatedly rude it is rarely because of what you've done, but because of how they happen to feel at the time.
"This above all, to thine own self be true." - Polonius, Hamlet.
parnassus
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5883
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 8:10 pm
Location: Over here

Re: Vegitarianism And The Slaughter Of Animals For Human Use

Postby Dino » Mon Jan 25, 2010 12:22 am

But you see, I still don't think you get it. In America things are very different to here. In this country, hunting has always been sporadically practised. It was mainly the wealthy who went on hunts regularly-in other words, the upper and upper middle classes. This is one of the reasons why the Conservative Party defends foxhunting, for they are historically the party of the rich and socially better off, and those are the groups that hunted regularly. The working classes and lower-mid middle classes generally did not. In other words, hunting was always sporadically practised here and the majority of the population certainly did not practise it.

However, in America in certain states it is not unusual to find whole towns, villages and communities that go on for many miles where virtually everyone hunts-the rich, the poor, the young and the old. These are chefly the states from the Midwest and Southern regions of the USA. Class, age and beliefs go out of the window-whoever you are and what you are, you hunt. It's not the minority of people who have traditionally done it, like it is the case in the UK. Over there, virtually everyone has always done it and continues to do it. And as I've said before, most Americans are taken hunting at a very young age and thus they grow up with it as being a normal activity. Going on weekly hunts for them is as normal as going tot he cinema every Saturday night is for people here. This is so deeply ingrained in the American people that it will be impossible to change in the near future. They will never understand people who steam in and say "Hunting is wrong, you're killing poor animals!" And every time that legislation is proposed in Congress to introduce further gun control and controls on hunting, these states send their powerful pressure groups-such as the National Rifle Association-to lobby Congress and do everything in their power to ensure that such laws don't get through. And so far, they have nearly always succeeded.

Of course, there are people who reject hunting. They come mainly from the large cities on the East and West coasts of the USA where people are generally more liberal minded. (New York is a good example). Most people from those regions have probably never been on a hunt, or have only gone on one a few times. But that just shows how significant the impact of culture can be. If I lived in an area of the US where hunting was a normal activity for everyone in the community, and had that notion drummed into me from my earliest childhood days I would probably be a hunter and think of it as a perfectly normal weekly activity too. On the other hand, this country is self styled as "a nation of animal lovers" (which isn't completely true, as people here do still abuse their pets) and it is not in our culture to hunt or be cruel to animals. (At least not for the majority of people here). And we are constantly bombarded with animal charity appeals and appeals from the RSPCA so most children here grow up with a notion that hunting and hurting animals is wrong.

Another good example is China. Our word for animals comes from the word "anima", which means "alive". But the Chinese word for "animals", when translated literally, means "moving things". Thus animals in Chinese culture are just things that move-they do not have thoughts or feelings. They are not "alive". This explains why China has such an awful reputation for mistreating animals, as most Chinese people simply still do not understand that animals think and feel in much the same way as humans do. Most Westerners who travel to China are appalled at how very widespread mistreatement of animals is-things like skinning rabbits alive, for example, are extemely common and no one in China frowns upon such practises as they genuinly see nothing wrong with it because of their culture and what it teaches about animals.Thus the the greatest challenge of Western animal rights agencies and charities has been to challange this notion and to educate Chinese people that animals are alive and have feelings. But progress has been slow, as this cultural notion has been rammed into the heads of Chinese people for well over 2000 years, and thus it won't change anytime soon-if ever. Same with hunting in America and its hunting and gun culture-neither of these things will change overnight, if they ever do change that is.
Dino
Member
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 8:50 pm

Re: Vegitarianism And The Slaughter Of Animals For Human Use

Postby parnassus » Mon Jan 25, 2010 1:22 am

Dino wrote:But you see, I still don't think you get it. In America things are very different to here. In this country, hunting has always been sporadically practised. It was mainly the wealthy who went on hunts regularly-in other words, the upper and upper middle classes. This is one of the reasons why the Conservative Party defends foxhunting, for they are historically the party of the rich and socially better off, and those are the groups that hunted regularly. The working classes and lower-mid middle classes generally did not. In other words, hunting was always sporadically practised here and the majority of the population certainly did not practise it.


Foxhunting was a sport for the rich, but this does not take away from the fact that many opponents of the ban have never hunted. They support foxhunting simply because they see it as an expression of Britishness. But there are other types of hunting that remain quite common - both legal and illegal. In rural communities, for example, poaching was once the norm and is still prevalent today. During my dad's childhood it was still seen as fair game for villagers to hunt pheasants and rabbits on estates belonging to the local gentry. This was just a part of village life, yet it wasn't something that everybody accepted without any forethought or criticism, simply because it was a cultural norm.

However, in America in certain states it is not unusual to find whole towns, villages and communities that go on for many miles where virtually everyone hunts-the rich, the poor, the young and the old. These are chefly the states from the Midwest and Southern regions of the USA. Class, age and beliefs go out of the window-whoever you are and what you are, you hunt. It's not the minority of people who have traditionally done it, like it is the case in the UK. Over there, virtually everyone has always done it and continues to do it. And as I've said before, most Americans are taken hunting at a very young age and thus they grow up with it as being a normal activity.


This is definitely not true. It's the myth of the great rural township. The majority of Americans do not hunt and have never hunted, because the majority of Americans live in an urban setting. Of course, this doesn't mean that only a minority of people support hunting - it's quite possible to support something that you have never done yourself, in much the same way that so many suburban readers of the Daily Mail wrote in to protest about the introduction of the British ban on foxhunting. From what I've read, the American population as a whole is generally supportive of hunting. But I don't think this can solely be ascribed to culture, and that's my point.

Another good example is China. Our word for animals comes from the word "anima", which means "alive". But the Chinese word for "animals", when translated literally, means "moving things". Thus animals in Chinese culture are just things that move-they do not have thoughts or feelings. They are not "alive". This explains why China has such an awful reputation for mistreating animals, as most Chinese people simply still do not understand that animals think and feel in much the same way as humans do.


Chinese is a very rich language, and there are several different words for animals. The one that you give ('moving things') would only be used when writing in traditional Chinese script. When speaking, you would have to use more specific words for the distinct categories of animal, and these specific words are often imbued with respect - one traditional Chinese greeting is, "May you have the power and prestige of the tiger." So many of the traditional Chinese stories and myths are built around animals, and animal welfare is integral to the two widely practiced religions in China (Buddhism and Confucianism). None of this sits well with your interpretation of that one word. Some other Chinese characters sound peculiar to my ears, but this is because I don't speak the language and have little insight into its etymology. If we are going down the etymological route, then we should be aware that the Latin 'anima' refers to life in a much broader sense, and can also be applied to plants. Yet plants aren't sentient. This doesn't mean that most speakers of Latinate languages are incapable of understanding that animals have a nervous system and feel pain.

Most Westerners who travel to China are appalled at how very widespread mistreatement of animals is-things like skinning rabbits alive, for example, are extemely common and no one in China frowns upon such practises as they genuinly see nothing wrong with it because of their culture and what it teaches about animals.


Rabbits are skinned alive in rural French markets (often while you wait). Lobsters and crabs are boiled alive in restaurants all over Britain, home of the RSPCA. Britain and France definitely have a better standard of animal welfare than China, but I doubt that this is because of culture alone. My experiences in Nepal would seem to support that. I was startled by the widespread maltreatment of animals in this predominantly Hindu country, where most people believe that all animals have souls, that they themselves may be reincarnated as animals, and that vegetarianism is a religious duty. There seemed to be a big contradiction between these beliefs and the basic standard of animal welfare on farms and in the marketplace. I don't think that this had anything to do with culture and belief, but more to do with the poverty of local people.

My point is that culture is very nuanced, and that it is not possible to make such definitive pronouncements about it.
"This above all, to thine own self be true." - Polonius, Hamlet.
parnassus
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5883
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 8:10 pm
Location: Over here

Re: Vegitarianism And The Slaughter Of Animals For Human Use

Postby Dino » Mon Jan 25, 2010 2:33 am

parnassus wrote:Foxhunting was a sport for the rich, but this does not take away from the fact that many opponents of the ban have never hunted. They support foxhunting simply because they see it as an expression of Britishness. But there are other types of hunting that remain quite common - both legal and illegal. In rural communities, for example, poaching was once the norm and is still prevalent today. During my dad's childhood it was still seen as fair game for villagers to hunt pheasants and rabbits on estates belonging to the local gentry. This was just a part of village life, yet it wasn't something that everybody accepted without any forethought or criticism, simply because it was a cultural norm.


Many people also opposed the ban because they thought it was very badly worded and not technically enforceable. (Which has proven true). The House of Lords delayed the bill for that same reason in the hope that it would make the Labour government realise how badly worded it was (and significantly amend it), but the HoL doesn't have the power to stop legislation so it got through anyway. I personally oppose fox hunting, because I think that fox hunting is nothing more than just a bloody, cruel sport which hunters get a pure kick out of doing, but I also oppose the bill which was passed in the form it was simply because it is one of the trashiest and most badly worded bills ever passed. If you ask me, it should be revoked and written out all over again to make it well worded and, more importantly, enforceable.

This is definitely not true. It's the myth of the great rural township. The majority of Americans do not hunt and have never hunted, because the majority of Americans live in an urban setting. Of course, this doesn't mean that only a minority of people support hunting - it's quite possible to support something that you have never done yourself, in much the same way that so many suburban readers of the Daily Mail wrote in to protest about the introduction of the British ban on foxhunting. From what I've read, the American population as a whole is generally supportive of hunting. But I don't think this can solely be ascribed to culture, and that's my point.


Perhaps I worded myself wrongly. If you look at the crude numbers of the population in America who do not regularly hunt, then yes, there are more people who have not hunted than have. And as I said in my post, these are chiefly in the big cities on the two coasts. BUT, if you look at it in terms of geography, the number of "hunting" states where gun ownership is very high (e.g. Texas, Wyoming, Montana, North and South Dakota) outnumber the states on the two coasts where people have not hunted, or at least do not hunt regularly. Thus hunters have a far larger geographic distribution than non-hunters. And in a lot of these "hunting" states, almost every community there will be hunters, not least because most of them are largely rural and the towns which do exist are usually not particularly large. It is perfectly possible to travel for many miles accross these states and not come accross a single community which does not hunt, regardless of whether a community is working class or middle class. In Britain this would n ot be possible to achieve, for hunters have a scattered and sporadic distribution accross the country and there is not a huge block of a predominantly hunting region like there is in America where almost everyone hunts.

And here's the other problem: the Congressmen (and Congresswomen) from those states will always vote against any legislation which puts further controls on hunting or on firearms. This means that such legislation will fail to get through every time. So far this has worked-all anti-firearm and hunting control legislation has failed. This is particularly true in the Senate, where every state is equally represented. (2 Senators per state). Thus the Senators who are opposed to any sort of hunting bans or firearm regulations outnumber those who favour it, and getting the required 2/3 majority in favour of such legislation will never happen as a result.

Chinese is a very rich language, and there are several different words for animals. The one that you give ('moving things') would only be used when writing in traditional Chinese script. When speaking, you would have to use more specific words for the distinct categories of animal, and these specific words are often imbued with respect - one traditional Chinese greeting is, "May you have the power and prestige of the tiger." So many of the traditional Chinese stories and myths are built around animals, and animal welfare is integral to the two widely practiced religions in China (Buddhism and Confucianism). None of this sits well with your interpretation of that one word. Some other Chinese characters sound peculiar to my ears, but this is because I don't speak the language and have little insight into its etymology. If we are going down the etymological route, then we should be aware that the Latin 'anima' refers to life in a much broader sense, and can also be applied to plants. Yet plants aren't sentient. This doesn't mean that most speakers of Latinate languages are incapable of understanding that animals have a nervous system and feel pain.


You forget that culture also influences the religion in it. For example, the reason almost all Buddhist monks in China are vegetarian is because in China begging of any sort is considered unacceptable. And Buddhists taking food donations from the public (which is the standard practise elswhere for Buddhism) was 9and is still) seen as begging and has meant that Chinese Buddhist monks were forced to grow their own food. And this had to be vegetables, for Buddhist monks do not kill any living creatures. Eveyrhwere else, Buddhists are not vegetarian-when I visited Thailand, the most devout Buddhist country in the world, I saw Buddhist monks cooking and eating meat at their monastery.

And the Chinese ideas about animals far predate the ideas which Buddhism and Taoism imported with them. Thus no amount of religious teaching will make the Chinese attitude towards animals any different. If you would like to read more about Chinese traditions and culture, and the way they think, I reccomend a book called "Shark Fin and Sichuan Pepper" by Fuchsia Dunlop. She is a fluent Chinese speaker who lived in China for a few years, and one of the chapters in the book is totally devoted to the Chinese attitude towards animals. She also points out that the majority of Chinese people still think of and refer to animals as "moving things" (and therefore not something which is really "alive"), which shows that this concept has definitely not died out and doesn't look to die out anytime soon, despite the influences of Confuciaonism and Buddhism.

Rabbits are skinned alive in rural French markets (often while you wait). Lobsters and crabs are boiled alive in restaurants all over Britain, home of the RSPCA. Britain and France definitely have a better standard of animal welfare than China, but I doubt that this is because of culture alone. My experiences in Nepal would seem to support that. I was startled by the widespread maltreatment of animals in this predominantly Hindu country, where most people believe that all animals have souls, that they themselves may be reincarnated as animals, and that vegetarianism is a religious duty. There seemed to be a big contradiction between these beliefs and the basic standard of animal welfare on farms and in the marketplace. I don't think that this had anything to do with culture and belief, but more to do with the poverty of local people.


I suspect it is both because of the poverty and because this is what animals in that part of the world have always been treated like long before Hinduism arrived there. I was appalled by the mistreatement of elephants in Thailand, even though the elephant is a holy animal in Buddhism, but when poverty and the idea of making money come into play (for example, letting tourists ride elephants in exchange for money) it seems that religious values go out of the window.
Dino
Member
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 8:50 pm

Re: Vegitarianism And The Slaughter Of Animals For Human Use

Postby Remus » Mon Jan 25, 2010 8:20 pm

This is exactly why I don't like involving culture, the debate spins off and majorly go off topic. We supposed to be debating about vegitarianism and slaughter of animals, not chinese greetings. Same thing happened with Homosexuality, religion was brought in and it just turned into carnage.

This is one of these debates which will go on forever because no one can win it or lose it. We will just keep disagreeing until we are blue in the face.

Dino wrote:I suggest that you read up on the subject a bit more and maybe then you would see the bigger picture rather than reffering to all killing as "barbaric killing". However, I am astonished that you have not explored these issues already seeing as you are on course which is supposed to teach you everything about animals.


Firstly can I say I find this quite rude and very rich from someone who about to do a history degree. If it one thing I absolutely hate it when others question the knowledge of people when they not in the field. I've studied Ecology. I've done population growth, natality, mortality, immigration and emigration rates, fecundity, carrying capacity, evolution, extinction, genetics, taxonomy and all the rest. So yeah, when it comes to matters such as overpopulation, it's safe to say I know what I'm on about. It's called the natural order and yes, it's cruel to let a population starve but that's nature for you and we should not intervene into systems which already work perfectly. Sure, we can go ahead and meddle into the natural system but if there is one thing that is part of human nature and that is to make mistakes and we can't afford to make mistakes when it comes dealing with natural world because certain mistakes we can't undo. We should only intervene when it is most vital when a species is under severe effect of extinction.

Dino wrote: Lastly, please don't claim that killing a certain number of animals from a large population is the same as genocide. I have personally witnessed the effects of genocide firsthand, including the fact that me and my entire family had to flee from our home due to genocide that was being committed, and I can tell you that the two things are worlds apart.


I am sorry that happened to you and your family but sorry to me, genocide is massing killing regardless of species. I will claim and so will anybody else if they wish to as it is our right as an opinion.

Dino wrote: You also didn't back up all your claims with evidence and you completely dismissed hunting in culture as a factor (and just completely dismissing factors without evidence for it isn't something that should be done in a debate) and that wound up Brian even more.


I dismissed the hunting in culture for one because it totally drags the debate into off topic world and two if I talk about hunting, I have talk about guns and then I have to talk about psychopaths going into schools and killing a bunch of kids which is hardly a subject I like to talk about. I feel like I'm getting questioned by the debate police. I find debating extremely difficult as I'm not good with expressing my opinions as well as I would like but I have try to be fair and polite towards members in this debate and that's what counts so apologizes if my debating skills aren't up to scratch. Most of the time I stay away from this forum but when it comes to animals, I'm afraid I just have to get involve.

Dino wrote:So the Australian government have had to make a choice: do they leave things as they are and let every single Australian mammal die, or do they intervene and attempt to control the numbers of rabbits and foxes through hunting? They have chosen to hunt them and to try and control their numbers. If they didn't make that choice, many more Australian mammals would have become extinct by now and catastrophic damage would have been done to the environment.


But human intervention caused that situation in the first place! If we humans hadn't of messed with those animals, those animals wouldn't never have been introduced to that island and the Australian mammals would be fine. But no, humans being dumb have to meddle and because of that, species are under risk of extinction. I suppose the Australian Government have no choice but to hunt those animals down but you know what I feel sorry for those animals because they didn't nothing wrong. That situation was caused because humans made a simple but terrible mistake.

Dino wrote: So you see, the argument "all animals must not be killed" doesn't usually hold water.


Okay, tell me when did I ever support such an impossible argument? I'm a meat eater myself and I'm okay with people eating meat as long as it is in excess. I'm okay with hunting as long as it just for food. Fishing I'm okay with as long as it done in excess and humanly done as possible. I know we can't save all animals but hell, we should at least try to save as many as we can.

Dino wrote: And if you do become a Zookeeper, you will no doubt hear about the plight of rare Australian mammals in much greater detail and you will probably end up working with some Australian mammal species too. Perhaps then you will see the bigger picture rather then the one sided view which you are advocating now.


Note, change the "if you do" to "you will" because there is no way I'm giving up after coming this far. If you do just sounds so negative and that is one thing I'm trying not to do.

Trust me, I have seen the other side. I've seen pigs throats slit, deers and gooses shot, sheeps being electrocuted, cows prodded, dogs being forced to fight, cats being chucked from balconies, foxes ripped to pieces, bears chained and forced to dance, tigers chopped up for medicine, chimps with metal clamps on their heads. Believe me I have seen the dark side of animal welfare and if you want know why I can't see the other point of view, simply because I physically can't justify any of their reasons for doing such warped acts.
Image
User avatar
Remus
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5395
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm
Location: Luxvia, Austria, The Machine, lol! :D

Re: Vegitarianism And The Slaughter Of Animals For Human Use

Postby k9ruby » Mon Jan 25, 2010 8:40 pm

Oh dear.

Here goes. *Ruby dips her toe into the now volcanic debating room

Remus: I completely agree with you that the killing of animals for no reason/unethically for food is wrong, as I already said. I support you with the points you have made. You seem very knowledgeable on your topic- and that is something I respect as a fellow animal lover, and have took the time to draw from your own experience and state fact when contributing to a debate.

Brian: Please, please, please stop being rude. You may not realise it (I have problems myself trying to keep myself relatively composed when I don't believe in others views and unfortunately I will freely admit have made it very obvious). I am not attacking you for voicing your opinion, I am simply asking you to think about how you come across. Remus has strong views on his topic, and qualifies them with his extensive knowledge on the topic. People who are passionate enough about this topic will vent their views quite openly in a debate, and I don't call it childish to stick with your own point of view. What I do find childish is attacking someone because you don't agree with their opinion on the topic.

Remember guys, its the topic we are arguing about at, not with the people. When I first joined DT/Matts hideout, (which has to be around 10 years ago now), there was such a community that everyone respected eachother, it was the only forum I felt I could log on to without people being attacked. Unfortunately, due to this debate, I'm not sure I can say that anymore. But, however I do not believe in 'gagging' people with locked topics.

Brian, I appreciate you have experienced the effects of mass genocide first hand, but Remus is only comparing what honestly happens in two animal kingdoms (us) and (humans) which is fair. We do stupid things to other people, because we are selfish. We eat non domestic farm animals because although, yes we are killing a large number of them, they are at a lower part of the food chain, that has been that way for centuries. Animals kill eachother to survive.
Image
User avatar
k9ruby
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2379
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2004 4:00 pm

Re: Vegitarianism And The Slaughter Of Animals For Human Use

Postby Dino » Mon Jan 25, 2010 10:01 pm

Remus wrote:Firstly can I say I find this quite rude and very rich from someone who about to do a history degree. If it one thing I absolutely hate it when others question the knowledge of people when they not in the field. I've studied Ecology. I've done population growth, natality, mortality, immigration and emigration rates, fecundity, carrying capacity, evolution, extinction, genetics, taxonomy and all the rest. So yeah, when it comes to matters such as overpopulation, it's safe to say I know what I'm on about. It's called the natural order and yes, it's cruel to let a population starve but that's nature for you and we should not intervene into systems which already work perfectly. Sure, we can go ahead and meddle into the natural system but if there is one thing that is part of human nature and that is to make mistakes and we can't afford to make mistakes when it comes dealing with natural world because certain mistakes we can't undo. We should only intervene when it is most vital when a species is under severe effect of extinction.


How do you know I'm not in "your field"? Don't ever presume anything. I have been a member of the Bristol and South West England Orchid Society for over 5 years and have a collection of over 400 Orchids and Carnivorous plants. I am also training to be an international Orchid Judge (a process which takes over 4 years to complete) and conservation is one of the topics which I am expected to know about. In addition, conservation is always discussed in all the plant circles I am involved with because we, as a plant growing community on the whole, are extremely concerned about the state of the environment, particularly in tropical areas. Admittedly, the area I specialise in is plant conservation, but I also do know some things about animals. It is also a topic which is of a personal interest so I have read up on it in my own spare time. In fact, after my degree I hope to get involved in the plant world and conservation full time.

Also, from your paragraph I think you have missed the point that what both me and Brian have been trying to say. In both cases which we've mentioned (Brian about certain animals being pests and me about deer and the Australian mammals) are examples of where the natural order has been severly disrupted because either the natural predator has been removed, letting populations explode uncontrolled, or foreign species have been introduced in areas where there are no natural predators to control their population sizes, so they end up completely devastating the environment around them and driving other species of plants and animals into extinction. No one was talking about areas where the food chain hasn't been disrupted and things are in the order that they should be in. But in disrupted food chains, human intervention is necessary otherwise the entire ecological system could collapse. One of these interventions is to control the population of speciehich have spun out of control as there is no natural predator around to control them naturally. Humans are merely playing the role that a natural predator would, and are decreasing the populations in a controlled manner and not killing them all off completely, so what's the difference between doing that and those animals having natural predators? It's very different to wading into balanced and undisrupted food chains and killing the animals there, which I agree is not a good road to go down.

Remus wrote:I am sorry that happened to you and your family but sorry to me, genocide is massing killing regardless of species. I will claim and so will anybody else if they wish to as it is our right as an opinion.


Your definition of genocide is wrong. Genocide is not just "mass killing". It is the extermination of every single member of a particular group either completely or in one or more particular areas. It also includes forced deportation and forcing all members of a particular group to leave their homes through threats, torture, forced detentions and intimidation. Humans controlling animals populations which are out of control and unbalanced due to a complete lack of natural predators is a completely different issue and concept.

Remus wrote:I dismissed the hunting in culture for one because it totally drags the debate into off topic world and two if I talk about hunting, I have talk about guns and then I have to talk about psychopaths going into schools and killing a bunch of kids which is hardly a subject I like to talk about. I feel like I'm getting questioned by the debate police. I find debating extremely difficult as I'm not good with expressing my opinions as well as I would like but I have try to be fair and polite towards members in this debate and that's what counts so apologizes if my debating skills aren't up to scratch. Most of the time I stay away from this forum but when it comes to animals, I'm afraid I just have to get involve.


It doesn't have to and hasn't made the topic of hunting animals go off topic. If you didn't read mine and Vicky's posts, we managed to keep culture on the topic of hunting animals. Talking about psycopaths going into schools with guns is a completely different and irrelevant topic, so it isn't mentioned. Simple as that. Also, no one here is the "debate police", but if you post something anywhere on a public place (so not just on this forum) it is perfectly natural to get people who will challange you on certain issues, like I have. It's all part of a debate.

Remus wrote:But human intervention caused that situation in the first place! If we humans hadn't of messed with those animals, those animals wouldn't never have been introduced to that island and the Australian mammals would be fine. But no, humans being dumb have to meddle and because of that, species are under risk of extinction. I suppose the Australian Government have no choice but to hunt those animals down but you know what I feel sorry for those animals because they didn't nothing wrong. That situation was caused because humans made a simple but terrible mistake.


Yes, human intervention did cause that situation. But we made the mistake so we have to go and fix it. And that includes culling the fox and rabbit populations in Australia. That is an excellent example where hunting is necessary and not a choice.

Remus wrote:Okay, tell me when did I ever support such an impossible argument? I'm a meat eater myself and I'm okay with people eating meat as long as it is in excess. I'm okay with hunting as long as it just for food. Fishing I'm okay with as long as it done in excess and humanly done as possible. I know we can't save all animals but hell, we should at least try to save as many as we can.


Earlier you claimed that you "defend all animal life" and that "all hunting is wrong". Also, seeing as you eat meat, does that meat come from free range or organic farms? All the meat which is eaten in my house is either organic or free range because we do not agree with how animals are treated in mass produced commercial farms. (Think battery hen farms here).

Remus wrote:Note, change the "if you do" to "you will" because there is no way I'm giving up after coming this far. If you do just sounds so negative and that is one thing I'm trying not to do.

Trust me, I have seen the other side. I've seen pigs throats slit, deers and gooses shot, sheeps being electrocuted, cows prodded, dogs being forced to fight, cats being chucked from balconies, foxes ripped to pieces, bears chained and forced to dance, tigers chopped up for medicine, chimps with metal clamps on their heads. Believe me I have seen the dark side of animal welfare and if you want know why I can't see the other point of view, simply because I physically can't justify any of their reasons for doing such warped acts.


Until you get a particular job then it is an "if". I'm certain you will end up doing something with animals. But you may later change your mind and decide to do something like full time conservation of animals, for example.

All the examples you list are valid. But there is a difference in torturing animals in that way (which is what all your examples are) and hunting animals and killing them with a single shot to the head to minimise the suffering, as is the norm among many hunters. (Not in fox hunting, though). I actually remember speaking to a hunter in America who goes hunting regularly and he said him and his family, as well as many of his hunting friends, hate seeing animals suffer so they always kill the animal with a single gunshot to the head. To me, that is not animal cruelty, but chaining animals up in a tiny space for their whole lives or skinning them alive/ripping them apart while still alive is.
Dino
Member
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 8:50 pm

Re: Vegitarianism And The Slaughter Of Animals For Human Use

Postby Brian » Mon Jan 25, 2010 11:05 pm

Remus wrote:This is exactly why I don't like involving culture, the debate spins off and majorly go off topic. We supposed to be debating about vegitarianism and slaughter of animals, not chinese greetings. Same thing happened with Homosexuality, religion was brought in and it just turned into carnage.


Like I have said many times I purposely created that thread to allow leeway and prevent the thread from going off topic. In the homosexuality thread, Fortnox did not realise that there were plenty of people who knew a far more about religion in terms of the homosexuality aspect to religion and he got backed into a corner in that way and failed to realised he was going to brought up on most things he said relating to religion.

Alot of us know what we are talking except [one person]. We so not much of a fuss will be made about this thread compared to the homosexuality thread.
Talking is a sign of strength and not weakness

Help is always available and can be found here: http://www.dyspraxicteens.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=8414
Brian
Splendiferous Member
 
Posts: 603
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 12:25 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: Vegitarianism And The Slaughter Of Animals For Human Use

Postby k9ruby » Mon Jan 25, 2010 11:07 pm

Remus wrote:
Okay, tell me when did I ever support such an impossible argument? I'm a meat eater myself and I'm okay with people eating meat as long as it is in excess. I'm okay with hunting as long as it just for food. Fishing I'm okay with as long as it done in excess and humanly done as possible. I know we can't save all animals but hell, we should at least try to save as many as we can.


Earlier you claimed that you "defend all animal life" and that "all hunting is wrong". Also, seeing as you eat meat, does that meat come from free range or organic farms? All the meat which is eaten in my house is either organic or free range because we do not agree with how animals are treated in mass produced commercial farms. (Think battery hen farms here).


Both Remus and I, dispute being students do. Read the rest of the thread and you should find that bit somewhere :)
Image
User avatar
k9ruby
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2379
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2004 4:00 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Debate Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest