The PETA (Yes, it's time to talk about them)

[Kyorisu]

Besides just saying I'm for better treatment is not enough

So all my effort has been for nothing? Hot damn I better stop buying cheap arse shoes too, even though I'm against the human factories in China and other nations. Yeah it's a catch 22 but what are you going to do? Actually if you have the money could you buy me some nice humanely made shoes? That would help my cause a lot, thanks! Point is by myself I cannot afford to change the situation but I can sure try and convince those who have the money and power to try and change.

The thing is people are willing to pay for meat if it means animals can be treated in a fair manner. The problem is the greens don't want a nice transition into such an environment they want it NOW! Doing so would **** the economy of the world upside down. I would go so far to say it would rock the very foundations of said economy. People need/want/(shutup I won't argue this point) meat to live. Suddenly doubling/tripling (Way higher if you think about the logistics) the price of meat and proclaiming all animals must be treated like human being, is not the way to do it.

 

[Gray Fox]

No, you failed to explain why there should be a dissolving of ethical distinctions between man and animal. You even went so far as to say that you "understood" why more radical proponents for animal rights use violence against meat eaters.

At that point, you became a joke. You're not worth conversing with if you think fire-bombing animal labs to save chickens is hunky-dory.



Haha! You say PETA acts insane and pots calling kettles black, yet you are obviously worse since you outright admit that you view violence as a valid solution to people who have different diets. You're a fucking socipath.

Let's look at this objectively here. You want to hurt and possibly even kill people who eat chickens and cows. You're stupid.



I don't see how, and you've failed to explain. Talk out of your ass more.

First of all the fact you have chosen to selectively quote is proof enough who here is incapable of defending once stance.
And there is enough proof in the previous threads of that, I had many arguments and you simply did not respond, and no one except Pvt.Ryan was even capable of defending. And even he was only capable of defending the killing, not the torture necessary to ensure meat is cheap.

And you still need to explain why you support the torture and killing of animals for you pleasure.

Secondly the fact you have chosen to not only focus on me condoning violence against meat eaters like it in itself says something, but also make up shit up to make an ad hominem attack makes you worthless piece of humans waste. But seeing as I am infinitely patient and nice. I'm going to explain to you why it's wrong. I just hope you can stop sucking your mantits for a minute to read it carefully.


Now me condoning violence against meat eaters in itself doesn't say anything, because for it to be a bad thing. You have to actually explain why it is a bad thing. 200 years ago you could have used the same ad hominim attack to discredit someone who thought violance should be used to free the slaves. Just imagine the idea that it's OK to use violance against a WHITE person for something as lowly as a Black person. I mean it's ok to be against it, but using violance. Goddam, your a piece of shit. At least in those times.

Now as far as me condoning violence go's. I do not condone what PETA does, this cannot be said enough.

So why do I condone violence? Very simple I believe there should be a law against torturing and killing animals for your pleasure, and it's support. To uphold that law I would condone violence, locking up in jail, and monetary penalties, by the authorities. Hence I condone violence against meat eaters.

Well to be more precise, only the ones that do it out of pleasure. Now that does not mean I condone bombing of labs, or any of the shit PETA does. But I still basically condone violence, like everyone else that wants law against the cruel treatment and killing of animals, no matter how nice they seem.

To use that as an argument you have to explain why it should be OK to kill animals and torture animals for pleasure.

Sure, but what does that have to do with a discussion on the meat industry?

Here in the west we do not need to eat meat to survive comfortably. We can get sufficient nutritions without resorting to eating meat. Therefore you support the torture and killing of animals for your pleasure when you buy meat.

 

[mastag]

Don't kill animals. If you kill an animal i will ****ING KILL YOU RAAAAWR

Does that worry anyone else?

 

[Kyorisu]

So why do I condone violence? Very simple I believe there should be a law against torturing and killing animals for your pleasure, and it's support. To uphold that law I would condone violence, locking up in jail, and monetary penalties, by the authorities. Hence I condone violence against meat eaters.

So why is it only the Greenies/PETA think violence is okay if it's going to fix the situation? I come from the industry I think violence is bad period. Violence means people get hurt and getting hurt isn't good for anyone. After all your goal is to stop the hurt that animals feel in their current situation.

This is why I think your batshit insane, condoning violence in any form is just silly and a waste of energy.

 

[Tyguy]

I stopped taking him seriously a while ago...

 

[Kyorisu]

I explained why I think he's not quite right upstairs, I'm happy. Arguably I'm not quite right myself but at least I don't think hurting people is the answer.

 

[Gray Fox]

So why is it only the Greenies/PETA think violence is okay if it's going to fix the situation? I come from the industry I think violence is bad period. Violence means people get hurt and getting hurt isn't good for anyone. After all your goal is to stop the hurt that animals feel in their current situation.

This is why I think your batshit insane, condoning violence in any form is just silly and a waste of energy.

I'm not a Greenie or PETA. And wether or not you condone violence in itself does not say anything about your sanity. I bet you condone violence for plenty shit. To explain why PETA and the Greenies are insane you have to explain why killing and torturing animals for pleasure is not that big of a deal, why it's perpetrators should not face the penalties of violence.

 

[No Limit]

What you've said here is totally irrelevant to what I was saying so I'm not going to address it as such.
It has nothing to do with efficiency in this case - the government has no place dictating what is and is not acceptable to free citizens. The only time they have legitimate cause to interfere in people's lives is to stop one person/organisation from infringing upon another's freedom to do as they please.
We do not need to be told what to do by any politician, we are capable adults.

Furthermore, if the will of the people is that we should produce meat humanely, that will be reflected in the free market. Again, nothing to do with efficiency - it's pure democracy. You're trying to dictate.

So what you are saying is I have the right to go and torture animals for the hell of it? The government has no right to intervine, correct?

You should join Michael Vick's defense team.

I guess by your logic I should also be allowed to produce meth in my apartment. Afterall, if my neighbor with 2 little kids doesn't like deadly chemicals in their air they can tell people to stop buying meth or they can simply move. I love this flawless, free market, logic.

 

[Absinthe]

First of all the fact you have chosen to selectively quote is proof enough who here is incapable of defending once stance.
And there is enough proof in the previous threads of that, I had many arguments and you simply did not respond, and no one except Pvt.Ryan was even capable of defending. And even he was only capable of defending the killing, not the torture necessary to ensure meat is cheap.

Selectively quote what? You think violence is okay against meat eaters. That's all that needs to be said. It's a bad thing because animals are not morally or ethically comparable to humans.

I drop debates with you because you become so venomous and extreme with each concurrent post, and I'm saying this as a person that loves calling people names in every second post. The difference is that while I'm just bitchy, you exhibit a deep-rooted thirst for blood. MiccyNarc says "I love eating meat" and your response is "RAWWR IT WOULD BE SO COOL IF A VEGAN KILLED YOU, SCUMBAG". You go off the deep end to the point where it's just unpleasant and futile to talk with somebody so kooky.

You also have a nasty habit of bringing out straw-man arguments. PvtRyan couldn't defend the torture of animals? Oh, that's nice. Because I don't think anybody was defending that. Tip: Stop acting like we have torture labs in our basements. Maybe then you won't look like such an insane dipshit.

(Also: LAWL "sucking my mantis")

 

[Kyorisu]

To explain why PETA and the Greenies are insane you have to explain why killing and torturing animals for pleasure is not that big of a deal

It is a big deal, but and wait for it. The issue at hand is not as bad in every circumstance as they make it out to be. I don't like PETA/GreenPeace because they blow the whole thing out of proportion. I am in support of groups who have a better understanding of the subject matter, and routinely are in contact with the industry itself. This is where we have to be careful because I'm talking about Australia and what I'm saying is rather valid, but may not apply to other countries.

PETA/Greenpeace make a tad more sense in those other countries. Just the same I still don't support they way they try and get their point across. Freeing animals to have them run off and starve to death is not a good way to handle the situation. I'm all for animal welfare it's a good thing. I'm against nutjob organization that pull stupid stunts that inadvertently kill innocent animals on the other hand, that is where I draw the line. PETA and Greenpeace or any other group that has done something stupid which ended up with poor animals dead will not receive my support. They can disband and form a new group with rational goals and rational ways to achieve those goals, then they will receive my support.


I'm right in thinking pleasure means enjoying meat yeah? It's been bugging me.

/Edit Due note how I try to take what you say seriously and try to understand your viewpoint. If you could do the same for me that would be great.

 

[repiV]

So what you are saying is I have the right to go and torture animals for the hell of it? The government has no right to intervine, correct?

You should join Michael Vick's defense team.

Yes! Oh, wait...no. Your freedom to torture animals for the hell of it would be overridden by the freedom of the animals not to be tortured for no reason.

I guess by your logic I should also be allowed to produce meth in my apartment. Afterall, if my neighbor with 2 little kids doesn't like deadly chemicals in their air they can tell people to stop buying meth or they can simply move. I love this flawless, free market, logic.

Yes! Oh, wait...no. Your freedom to produce meth would be overridden by your neighbours' freedom to exist.

Did you even read my post? You're arguing against the essence of the US constitution for ****'s sake, not only that, you're talking down to me in the process. Stop being a twat.

 

[MTGunNut]

PETA are just crazy people.

 

[mastag]

PETA are just crazy people.

7 pages summed up.

 

[Kyorisu]

Right it's 3:45AM and I know it's only my fault for staying up but some things needed to be laid out before I let this thread go flying out the window, and give people the wrong impression about my thoughts on Greens/PETA. I mean come on I couldn't just let you guys bash them without at least formulating a decent counter argument against said groups.

7 pages summed up.

3 for me, up your posts per page.

 

[No Limit]

Yes! Oh, wait...no. Your freedom to torture animals for the hell of it would be overridden by the freedom of the animals not to be tortured for no reason.

So where does the free market play in to that? Your original argument if I understand it was that the free market should decide how animals are treated. What am I missing?

Yes! Oh, wait...no. Your freedom to produce meth would be overridden by your neighbours' freedom to exist.

So what you are saying is certain things should be regulated to ensure my safety? Such as regulating how much pollution an industry produces? Or what chemicals are found in kids toys? Not sure your free market buddies would agree with that.

Did you even read my post? You're arguing against the essence of the US constitution for ****'s sake, not only that, you're talking down to me in the process. Stop being a twat.

Don't be so sensitive. I am not talking down to you, I simply think you applying the free market argument to a discussion about animal torture and inhumane treatment is completely idiotic. :cheers:

 

[Kyorisu]

I'm indifferent but No Limit is correct. Certian things do need to be regulated and one of those things is animal welfare, a free market would have none of our current guidelines. Unless people as a whole chose not to buy meat from farms which harm animals. However, people are people and I cannot see that happening.

Go my year 12 economic skills.

/Edit Right goodnight everyone, don't make me comeback and think "Ah crap they screwed up the thread."

 

[repiV]

So where does the free market play in to that? Your original argument if I understand it was that the free market should decide how animals are treated. What am I missing?

Yes, when it comes to the production of meat. There is no economic application for the senseless torture of animals, that's a different discussion altogether.

So what you are saying is certain things should be regulated to ensure my safety? Such as regulating how much pollution an industry produces? Or what chemicals are found in kids toys? Not sure your free market buddies would agree with that.

Only insofar as to stop you from being unduly affected by the actions of others without your consent. Obviously with more complicated issues like pollution that involves more than just a guy and his neighbour, there has to be some common sense used. We can't exactly ban anything that consumes petrol because others will suffer from the pollution and noise.

It's just the principle of a free country - do what you like so long as it doesn't bother anyone else. For example, I don't see what right the government has to tell me how fast I can ride my motorcycle on the road unless my riding is actually endangering other road users.

Don't be so sensitive. I am not talking down to you, I simply think you applying the free market argument to a discussion about animal torture and inhumane treatment is completely idiotic. :cheers:

It's not about animal torture and inhumane treatment though, it's about the production of meat. Inhumane treatment and, erm, torture, if you can call it that, are (forgive the pun) byproducts of the industry.
The free market does decide how meat is produced, of course it does. There is a large demand for cheap shitty meat, hence there is also a large supply of it. Simple.

McDonald's are making small and hilarious concessions to healthy eating now because it's the new fad. They're serving the market wisely.

 

[Gray Fox]

Selectively quote what? You think violence is okay against meat eaters. That's all that needs to be said. It's a bad thing because animals are not morally or ethically comparable to humans.

They are not the same but are certainly comparable since they share many traits with us, one of them being the ability to feel pain. And again you have failed to answer my post properly. I have made it perfectly clear why simply pointing out to me supporting violence against people who eat meat for pleasure doesn't say enough in itself.

I drop debates with you because you become so venomous and extreme with each concurrent post, and I'm saying this as a person that loves calling people names in every second post. The difference is that while I'm just bitchy, you exhibit a deep-rooted thirst for blood. MiccyNarc says "I love eating meat" and your response is "RAWWR IT WOULD BE SO COOL IF A VEGAN KILLED YOU, SCUMBAG". You go off the deep end to the point where it's just unpleasant and futile to talk with somebody so kooky.

You also have a nasty habit of bringing out straw-man arguments. PvtRyan couldn't defend the torture of animals? Oh, that's nice. Because I don't think anybody was defending that. Tip: Stop acting like we have torture labs in our basements. Maybe then you won't look like such an insane dipshit.

(Also: LAWL "sucking my mantits")

I called him a scumbag because that is despicable and ignorant reason to justify something. What if he had said " I love having slaves do all the work for me". Anyone that shows that kind of ignorance, stupidity deserves to be insulted. There is not excuse for such behavior. How someone can even show that kind of pleasure and indifference when talking about such a serious issue is beyond me. And being confronted by that kind of behavior rightfully pisses me off. You are no different when concerning creationist.

And as far as straw man arguments go. I never said Pvt.Ryan defended torturing. But the simple fact remains that you do in fact support the torture of animals if you buy a steak. I was just pointing out that even his reasoning which go's a long way to justify killing animals does not defend the current state of the meat industry. And you choose to actively call out PETA for their idiocy while not only remaining indifferent but also supporting something you cannot even justify, something that involves the killing of millions of sentient beings capable of though, pleasure, and pain. I cannot ignore that kind of moral schizophrenia.

 

[Tyguy]

You are no different when concerning creationist.

Second time I heard you mention this. Are you a creationist? If so, surely god created animals and made them delicious, so is it his fault?

 

[Gray Fox]

Second time I heard you mention this. Are you a creationist? If so, surely god created animals and made them delicious, so is it his fault?

No off course I'm not. Why would you think such a horrible thing of me.

 

[Absinthe]

They are not the same but are certainly comparable since they share many traits with us, one of them being the ability to feel pain. And again you have failed to answer my post properly. I have made it perfectly clear why simply pointing out to me supporting violence against people who eat meat for pleasure doesn't say enough in itself.

Yes, animals can feel pleasure and pain. In fact, they could feel pleasure and pain back when we were hunting them thousands of years ago. They still feel pleasure and pain when they are killed in the wild. Things die. You've made some cutoff point in regards to "necessity", but that doesn't change the fact that animals are killed and eaten and it is often a painful, gruesome experience.

Here's what we know. Eating meat has been a staple of the human diet since forever. A number of essential nutrients are more easily obtainable from meat than a strictly vegetarian diet. Our own biology and digestive system is tailored for eating meat. Currently, consumption of meat is the most efficient way of feeding the world. We have every reason to eat meat and no serious reasons why not to outside of personal preference.

For those reasons, I'd say you're homicidal if you want to kill others for eating meat. Animals do not approach the levels of intelligence, sentience, and moral awareness that humans exhibit. They are lesser species, and I want to emphasize that I'm using that term factually before you drum out another tired comparison to slavery.

I called him a scumbag because that is despicable and ignorant reason to justify something. What if he had said " I love having slaves do all the work for me". Anyone that shows that kind of ignorance, stupidity deserves to be insulted. There is not excuse for such behavior. How someone can even show that kind of pleasure and indifference when talking about such a serious issue is beyond me. And being confronted by that kind of behavior rightfully pisses me off. You are no different when concerning creationist.

This is the second time you've compared me to a creationist and I still have not figured out where you're coming from with this.

I suggest you start explaining yourself. It might help.

And as far as straw man arguments go. I never said Pvt.Ryan defended torturing. But the simple fact remains that you do in fact support the torture of animals if you buy a steak. I was just pointing out that even his reasoning which go's a long way to justify killing animals does not defend the current state of the meat industry. And you choose to actively call out PETA for their idiocy while not only remaining indifferent but also supporting something you cannot even justify, something that involves the killing of millions of sentient beings capable of though, pleasure, and pain. I cannot ignore that kind of moral schizophrenia.

I just did justify eating meat. If we can use animals for medical science, then we can eat them. You can argue that I can live without meat, but then you could also argue that I could live without vaccinations. That's stupid.

I also don't like America's dependence on foreign oil, but that doesn't stop me from filling up my gas tank.

 

[No Limit]

Yes, when it comes to the production of meat. There is no economic application for the senseless torture of animals, that's a different discussion altogether.

Ok. I see your point. You can only torture animals if its for economic gain, right? So Michael Vick was just in what he was doing since his dog fighting scheme was for profit. Again letting the free market decide and the free market decided that as long as there are sick psychopaths out there that will pay to see animals die then that's perfectly ok.

And lets go back to the example of me selling meth. Clearly this is for profit. In your argument you say people have the right to smoke meth, correct? If not please explain to me how your argument for letting adults do what they wish doesn't apply here. For now I will assume you think meth should be legal. So are you saying that home business should not be covered under free trade? What difference does it make if I am producing these deadly chemicals in an apartment next to people or in a warehouse next to people? If people don't like what I do they can get everyone to stop buying meth, democracy in action, no?

 

[MTGunNut]

They are not the same but are certainly comparable since they share many traits with us, one of them being the ability to feel pain. And again you have failed to answer my post properly. I have made it perfectly clear why simply pointing out to me supporting violence against people who eat meat for pleasure doesn't say enough in itself.




I called him a scumbag because that is despicable and ignorant reason to justify something. What if he had said " I love having slaves do all the work for me". Anyone that shows that kind of ignorance, stupidity deserves to be insulted. There is not excuse for such behavior. How someone can even show that kind of pleasure and indifference when talking about such a serious issue is beyond me. And being confronted by that kind of behavior rightfully pisses me off. You are no different when concerning creationist.

And as far as straw man arguments go. I never said Pvt.Ryan defended torturing. But the simple fact remains that you do in fact support the torture of animals if you buy a steak. I was just pointing out that even his reasoning which go's a long way to justify killing animals does not defend the current state of the meat industry. And you choose to actively call out PETA for their idiocy while not only remaining indifferent but also supporting something you cannot even justify, something that involves the killing of millions of sentient beings capable of though, pleasure, and pain. I cannot ignore that kind of moral schizophrenia.

I happen to like steak very much.:smoking:

 

[repiV]

Ok. I see your point. You can only torture animals if its for economic gain, right? So Michael Vick was just in what he was doing since his dog fighting scheme was for profit. Again letting the free market decide and the free market decided that as long as there are sick psychopaths out there that will pay to see animals die then that's perfectly ok.

Efficient production methods which have the side effect of being a horrible experience for the animals really doesn't count as torture.
With regards to your dog fighting comparison, yes, the free market is a representation of the will of the people. Good and bad.
All you are saying in essence is that the will of the people should sometimes be suppressed in order to do the "right thing".
Which again comes back to democracy vs. dictatorship. How far exactly should any one person's rights to dictate how others lead their lives extend?

And lets go back to the example of me selling meth. Clearly this is for profit. In your argument you say people have the right to smoke meth, correct? If not please explain to me how your argument for letting adults do what they wish doesn't apply here. For now I will assume you think meth should be legal. So are you saying that home business should not be covered under free trade? What difference does it make if I am producing these deadly chemicals in an apartment next to people or in a warehouse next to people? If people don't like what I do they can get everyone to stop buying meth, democracy in action, no?

As I already outlined, you would be endangering them and thus breaching one of their fundamental freedoms which overrides your freedom to produce meth in your home.

 

[PvtRyan]

Gray Fox, you spin the story by yelling "TORTURE TORTURE TORTURE" as if that is the intention of it all, to intentionally cause as much pain as possible (because well, that's what torture means). It isn't malice but necessity. Either necessity to protect animals like Kyo pointed out (because pigs are not carebears) or practicality and economics. The last two can be worked on, so lets do that. But what you're suggesting - and I'll go with the slavery example - is to do away with cotton because OMG THERE'S BLACK PEOPLE SUFFERING IN COTTON FIELDS. I'd say improve and not abolish. Not that you even could abolish it, a lot more depends on animals than just juicy, juicy steaks. You daily contribute to "animal torture" by using anything that has milk or eggs in it (read: everything), as well as stuff like leather, gelatin and dog food. Unless you manage to buy absolutely everything biologically in which case: props to you.

You have a problem with the recognizing different intentions. You equate a meat eater to a psychopath torturing puppies. But are their intentions equal? A psychopath like that gets off to doing that, he is in no way emotionally hurt by it testifying a very twisted personality, a meat eater just wants some meat. Accuse them of ignorance, but not maliciousness. If you hit a cat with your car, is it the same as torturing one to death because the outcome is the same (a very dead cat)? Intention is everything.

Anyway, farmers are not spawns of Satan and they're not out to intentionally cause harm. Because as Kyo pointed out, even if there were all assholes, causing stress to the animals degrades meat quality. There's plenty that do care about animals, but at the same time they recognize that they're animals. Not that I'm saying "lulz its just animals dude", but I'm saying that animals experience the world quite differently from us (generalization, some like the primates are like us in every way) and the confined conditions they're in are not by definition experienced as torture like we would see it. Stop anthropomorphizing animals too much. Not hurting them is one thing, but don't try to make it seem as if they need a 5 star resort with personal trainer to have a decent life.

 

[Gray Fox]

Yes, animals can feel pleasure and pain. In fact, they could feel pleasure and pain back when we were hunting them thousands of years ago. They still feel pleasure and pain when they are killed in the wild. Things die. You've made some cutoff point in regards to "necessity", but that doesn't change the fact that animals are killed and eaten and it is often a painful, gruesome experience.

So, how is that an argument for the meat industry. You've just stated a fact. How does us hunting for our survival, and or animals hunting for survival, condone the meat industry. We have evolved byond that, we have evolved to a point where we can base our society on justice. We have giving many rights to animals who we are forced to see, like our pets, the reason we do not extend those to farm animals is because we are not forced to see their suffering, we are not forced to take responsibility for our action, or even commit them. Make everyone kill the animals they want to eat and you'll see many will chose to simply go veggie.
How come it is ok to have meat commercials in the morning between cartoons, but it's illegal to show video's how that meat is gotten. Doesn't that strike you as weird.

And the cutoff point is exactly what is important here. I'm not arguing animals are not lesser then US. I argue that they are not so much less deserving of live that it's ok for us to kill them for pleasure.
We share a lot of common characteristics with them, we base a lot of our laws and responsibilities on characteristics, since we share a lot of them it is not stupid to argue that therefore some rights should be extended to them. Arguing just because they are animals they have no rights is as arbitrary as arguing someone does not deserve the same rights on the basic of their colour. It does not matter what species you are or what race, what matters are all your characteristics combined. You simply refuse to give them rights because they are not us. But seeing as I am a human I am fully able to recognize animals can feel pain just as I do, and as many animals can do too actually. I can relate to them. I understand that causing pain is a bad thing, I can understand that killing is a bad thing. I can understand that living is in itself a reason enough to justify it. I can recognize worth, I can argue worth. It is not wrong for me to argue that the pain caused to so many animals is morally wrong seeing as the benefits to the human race are negligible.

Here's what we know. Eating meat has been a staple of the human diet since forever. A number of essential nutrients are more easily obtainable from meat than a strictly vegetarian diet. Our own biology and digestive system is tailored for eating meat. Currently, consumption of meat is the most efficient way of feeding the world. We have every reason to eat meat and no serious reasons why not to outside of personal preference.

No it isn't. That is simply a blatant lie, flesh was and still is in many parts of the world a luxury. Simply because it is a very inefficient way of getting nutritions out of the soil. We are not carnivores, we are omnivores we are perfectly capable of surviving without meat. In fact we can get more nutritions from the same amount of ground by planting plants we can eat then from animals. And we do not have every reason to eat meat outside of our personal preference just like we do not have every reason not to rape outside of our personal preference. The meat industrie does not give us anything we cannot comfortable get anywhere else without the need to resort to such cruel measures.

For those reasons, I'd say you're homicidal if you want to kill others for eating meat. Animals do not approach the levels of intelligence, sentience, and moral awareness that humans exhibit. They are lesser species, and I want to emphasize that I'm using that term factually before you drum out another tired comparison to slavery.

What I have mostly done is put arguments to defend the meat industry in a different context that you can't so easily ignore to show their fallacy, in this case the slave industry. It's aperfectly reasonable way to argue.
Also by your reasoning we should not lock up murderers or rapist.
Our intelligence and sentience isn't the only thing that we use to determine how someone should be treated. It's exactly because you are so sentient, and so intelligent that I have every reason to demand and a higher standard of behavior from you. Or else what is the point of giving you more rights then other animals, if you cannot behave better then they. Not only that the fact that you choose to kill for pleasure while you are perfectly capable of understanding the amount of hurt you cause makes you evil. You can be as smart, as strong, as talented as you want. When you are so evil, you deserve to be jailed, fined, and violance should be an option to make sure that happens.

This is the second time you've compared me to a creationist and I still have not figured out where you're coming from with this.

I suggest you start explaining yourself. It might help.

You quote selectively, you fail to respond properly to many arguments, you keep using the same old tiring arguments that never made sense in the first place. And it gets your attention

I just did justify eating meat. If we can use animals for medical science, then we can eat them. You can argue that I can live without meat, but then you could also argue that I could live without vaccinations. That's stupid.

I also don't like America's dependence on foreign oil, but that doesn't stop me from filling up my gas tank.

Do we have anything that can give us the same benefit as vaccines but that doesn't cost as much. No we don't. The same cannot be said for the meat industry, in fact we can get more benefits for less the cost. Hence stupid argument.

 

[No Limit]

With regards to your dog fighting comparison, yes, the free market is a representation of the will of the people. Good and bad.
All you are saying in essence is that the will of the people should sometimes be suppressed in order to do the "right thing".
Which again comes back to democracy vs. dictatorship.

But again I don't see how the free market fits into that picture. In one sentence you are saying the free market should apply in another you are saying it shouldn't. So who gets to pick where the free market applies and where it doesn't apply? How is that different than the system we have now (well used to have) with limited, but necessary, regulation. Then again "free market" is a talking point and not really a concept anymore, at least not what it was originally meant to be.

As I already outlined, you would be endangering them and thus breaching one of their fundamental freedoms which overrides your freedom to produce meth in your home.

But that contradicts the basic meaning of what free market is defined by now. Making rubber, using led for assembly and paint, dumping in to lakes all endangers people. To control this you need regulation, government regulation. That is not a free market. So I don't see how you can say free market is good while also saying government regulation is good, it is totally contradictory.

 

[Gray Fox]

Gray Fox, you spin the story by yelling "TORTURE TORTURE TORTURE" as if that is the intention of it all, to intentionally cause as much pain as possible (because well, that's what torture means). It isn't malice but necessity. Either necessity to protect animals like Kyo pointed out (because pigs are not carebears) or practicality and economics. The last two can be worked on, so lets do that. But what you're suggesting - and I'll go with the slavery example - is to do away with cotton because OMG THERE'S BLACK PEOPLE SUFFERING IN COTTON FIELDS. I'd say improve and not abolish. Not that you even could abolish it, a lot more depends on animals than just juicy, juicy steaks. You daily contribute to "animal torture" by using anything that has milk or eggs in it (read: everything), as well as stuff like leather, gelatin and dog food. Unless you manage to buy absolutely everything biologically in which case: props to you.

I would be for abolishing using cotton if, and only if cotton could only be gotten by slaves. You simply have to kill animals to get their meat. And you have to make them live in cramped conditions, feed them crappy food if you are to compete on our market.

I would be for not buying or even embargo on the import of cotton until the condition improved if slaves were not a necessity but simply an economic benefit.

Just as I chose to not eat some chocolate because I am aware that the cacao beans have been imported from countries which use slaves to get them.

But the nature of the meat industry is different from the one of the cotton industry.

And it is true that I contribute to animal torture to a certain extent, that is why I pressure my politicians to support industry that can replace the meat industry. But even as a vegetarian I contribute a lot less to the suffering of animals then meat eaters, and the times I do contribute it is because of necessity or ignorance, not pleasure. But I am working my way towards veganism as much as I can. And if you think I am hypocritical, remember my hypocrisy just makes me an asshole, it does not mean my arguments are flawed. The founding fathers of the US all had slaves, yet it does not invalidate them saying. All men are born equal.

You have a problem with the recognizing different intentions. You equate a meat eater to a psychopath torturing puppies. But are their intentions equal? A psychopath like that gets off to doing that, he is in no way emotionally hurt by it testifying a very twisted personality, a meat eater just wants some meat. Accuse them of ignorance, but not maliciousness. If you hit a cat with your car, is it the same as torturing one to death because the outcome is the same (a very dead cat)? Intention is everything.

The intentions are equal, they are both for pleasure. The difference is one does it by proxy. Off course a psychopath is more dangerous but the effect he has is equal to a meat eater.

Anyway, farmers are not spawns of Satan and they're not out to intentionally cause harm. Because as Kyo pointed out, even if there were all assholes, causing stress to the animals degrades meat quality. There's plenty that do care about animals, but at the same time they recognize that they're animals. Not that I'm saying "lulz its just animals dude", but I'm saying that animals experience the world quite differently from us (generalization, some like the primates are like us in every way) and the confined conditions they're in are not by definition experienced as torture like we would see it. Stop anthropomorphizing animals too much. Not hurting them is one thing, but don't try to make it seem as if they need a 5 star resort with personal trainer to have a decent life.

Meat quality isn't so important as long as it tastes good. Plus the degradation of meat by their stress if offset by the economic benefits. And I should remind you we are animals to, we are not a separate form of live. But what you mean off course is that animals are less then us, and indeed I agree. I simply do not agree on how much and how much deserving of live it makes them.
And indeed they do not experience torture or confinement as we do, but it's dammed similar, you can see and hear that from their behavior when they are hurt and or locked up.

 

[Absinthe]

So, how is that an argument for the meat industry. You've just stated a fact. How does us hunting for our survival, and or animals hunting for survival, condone the meat industry. We have evolved byond that, we have evolved to a point where we can base our society on justice. We have giving many rights to animals who we are forced to see, like our pets, the reason we do not extend those to farm animals is because we are not forced to see their suffering, we are not forced to take responsibility for our action, or even commit them. Make everyone kill the animals they want to eat and you'll see many will chose to simply go veggie.

None of this changes the fact that meat consumption is efficient not only in terms of diet, but also in supplying food.

Maybe you are right that many would go vegetarian if they saw how animals are slaughtered for food. That doesn't lessen my argument at all.

How come it is ok to have meat commercials in the morning between cartoons, but it's illegal to show video's how that meat is gotten. Doesn't that strike you as weird.

No. It really doesn't. No more weird than a refusal to show beheading videos from Iraq.

I know you really want to scream something like "YOU DON'T WANT TO SHOW KIDS THE ANIMALS BEING SLAUGHTERED BECAUSE THEY'LL TURN VEGGIE" or something, but let's drop that right here. I'd be against that because young children do not yet have the intellectual capacity to form reasoned, rational opinions. Showing them a pig having his throat cut is just an appeal to emotion which children as particularly susceptive to. You're just needlessly frightening - and possibly traumatizing - kids who simply don't know any better.

And the cutoff point is exactly what is important here. I'm not arguing animals are not lesser then US. I argue that they are not so much less deserving of live that it's ok for us to kill them for pleasure.

I'm not arguing for pleasure. Well, maybe to a certain degree. But such pleasure is primarily a byproduct of efficiency. We are capable of eating meat (and many would argue biologically predisposed to it), we have good dietary reasons for eating meat, and it is one of the most plentiful sources of nutrition to the world.

We share a lot of common characteristics with them, we base a lot of our laws and responsibilities on characteristics, since we share a lot of them it is not stupid to argue that therefore some rights should be extended to them. Arguing just because they are animals they have no rights is as arbitrary as arguing someone does not deserve the same rights on the basic of their colour. It does not matter what species you are or what race, what matters are all your characteristics combined.

Being a different color is not the same as being a different species with a completely different level of sentience and intellectual/moral capacity.

You simply refuse to give them rights because they are not us. But seeing as I am a human I am fully able to recognize animals can feel pain just as I do, and as many animals can do too actually. I can relate to them. I understand that causing pain is a bad thing, I can understand that killing is a bad thing. I can understand that living is in itself a reason enough to justify it. I can recognize worth, I can argue worth. It is not wrong for me to argue that the pain caused to so many animals is morally wrong seeing as the benefits to the human race are negligible.

I value humans more than animals.

If we took up your proposal of mass vegetarianism, millions around the world would fucking starve.

No it isn't. That is simply a blatant lie, flesh was and still is in many parts of the world a luxury. Simply because it is a very inefficient way of getting nutritions out of the soil. We are not carnivores, we are omnivores we are perfectly capable of surviving without meat. In fact we can get more nutritions from the same amount of ground by planting plants we can eat then from animals. And we do not have every reason to eat meat outside of our personal preference just like we do not have every reason not to rape outside of our personal preference. The meat industrie does not give us anything we cannot comfortable get anywhere else without the need to resort to such cruel measures.

Omnivores, eh? So we should be able to eat meat! Thanks for settling that. Both vegetables and meat have their respective nutritional values, and eating one is more efficient than eating the other depending on the nutrients in question. If you think vegetables are superior in every way, you've been duped.

You keep talking about cruelty, and I assume this is in reference to slaughterhouses. I've already established that cruelty is pretty much inevitable when anything kills anything, so it's just getting tired. Once again, things die and it's not pretty. You can either accept it or you can choose not to be a part of it. Just don't be an ass and hurt me because I accept it (and I'm sure you'd love to).

What I have mostly done is put arguments to defend the meat industry in a different context that you can't so easily ignore to show their fallacy, in this case the slave industry. It's aperfectly reasonable way to argue.

Except animals aren't humans. It's not the same. Thanks for missing the clue boat.

Also by your reasoning we should not lock up murderers or rapist.

You really need to start explaining these kinds of statements instead of just throwing them out there.

I've already established that I do not view animals as deserving of the same moral and ethical standards that humans receive. So when you try to draw some parallel to cases of rape and murder as they pertain to humans, you're just being retarded.

Our intelligence and sentience isn't the only thing that we use to determine how someone should be treated. It's exactly because you are so sentient, and so intelligent that I have every reason to demand and a higher standard of behavior from you. Or else what is the point of giving you more rights then other animals, if you cannot behave better then they. Not only that the fact that you choose to kill for pleasure while you are perfectly capable of understanding the amount of hurt you cause makes you evil. You can be as smart, as strong, as talented as you want. When you are so evil, you deserve to be jailed, fined, and violance should be an option to make sure that happens.

Yes, I am evil. I am evil for taking part in the natural process of eating lesser species that by default have inherently less freedom and rights than I do. I am evil because, out of the multitude of other things we use animals for that require their demises, I also happen to use them as a source of nutrition.

Bad, bad, baaaad Absinthe.

You quote selectively, you fail to respond properly to many arguments, you keep using the same old tiring arguments that never made sense in the first place. And it gets your attention

Yeah... you keep saying these kinds of things, but (incoming surprise) you don't explain them. Work on that. I mean, I'd really like some clear examples.

Do we have anything that can give us the same benefit as vaccines but that doesn't cost as much. No we don't. The same cannot be said for the meat industry, in fact we can get more benefits for less the cost. Hence stupid argument.

It still stands that meat is a practical and efficient source for nutrition. I really don't care if the animals being eaten are sentient, because they are a lesser species and are subject to our own laws in absence of their own.

Don't like it? That's really tough shit for you. Although I guess I risk you burning my house down.

 

[Tick]

how can any sane person defend this group?
Im all for a certain amount of animal protection,but bees and chickens?
Stern how can you refute a video like that? The leader of that group said those things there is nothing to refute.




Its like saying "well I like how Nazis take care of their old people,but I dont believe in the other stuff they do."


There is nothing to refute get off your high horse.


for all the people comparing slavery of Africans to this issue I hope you get beat up by a 7 foot tall black dude.
Thats a ****ing disgrace comparing it to things like that.

We are humans we earned our right to live at the top of the food chain.

 

[Nemesis6]

Yeah, all I really saw was him calling me an idiot. Oh, by the way, filthy Democrat! (A thing between me and Stern)

 

[Gray Fox]

What the hell is wrong with you Absinthe, read my ****ing post again. It's like arguing with a wall. The very same text you quote literally disproves what you say as a response. Not only that you compare a beheading, something exceptionally cruel and illegal, to animal slaughter, something you consider perfectly fine and legal. And gist of you argument comes down to natural selection, nothing more. I have to wonder if you have any sense of morality and justice.

how can any sane person defend this group?
Im all for a certain amount of animal protection,but bees and chickens?
Stern how can you refute a video like that? The leader of that group said those things there is nothing to refute.




Its like saying "well I like how Nazis take care of their old people,but I dont believe in the other stuff they do."


There is nothing to refute get off your high horse.


for all the people comparing slavery of Africans to this issue I hope you get beat up by a 7 foot tall black dude.
Thats a ****ing disgrace comparing it to things like that.

We are humans we earned our right to live at the top of the food chain.

You do understand that comparing=! equating. And you are able to recognize the difference between comparing something and just putting an argument in a different context. For that matter do you suffer from dyslexia or vote republican.

 

[MTGunNut]

better than voting for some DUMB-o-crat.

 

[Tick]

What the hell is wrong with you Absinthe, read my ****ing post again. It's like arguing with a wall. The very same text you quote literally disproves what you say as a response. Not only that you compare a beheading, something exceptionally cruel and illegal, to animal slaughter, something you consider perfectly fine and legal. And gist of you argument comes down to natural selection, nothing more. I have to wonder if you have any sense of morality and justice.



You do understand that comparing=! equating. And you are able to recognize the difference between comparing something and just putting an argument in a different context. For that matter do you suffer from dyslexia or vote republican.

Thats great attack the person not the argument,to equate especially in this case is even worse,iirc people in Holland even kill for animal rights so much for that.Humans are more then animals they do not have the same rights as we do,if you don't get that to ****ing bad. go chew on a carrot.

 

[repiV]

But again I don't see how the free market fits into that picture. In one sentence you are saying the free market should apply in another you are saying it shouldn't. So who gets to pick where the free market applies and where it doesn't apply? How is that different than the system we have now (well used to have) with limited, but necessary, regulation. Then again "free market" is a talking point and not really a concept anymore, at least not what it was originally meant to be.

But that contradicts the basic meaning of what free market is defined by now. Making rubber, using led for assembly and paint, dumping in to lakes all endangers people. To control this you need regulation, government regulation. That is not a free market. So I don't see how you can say free market is good while also saying government regulation is good, it is totally contradictory.

Stopping someone from poisoning his unwilling neighbours with meth has nothing to do with the free market and everything to do with everyday law and order.
I didn't say anything about dumping into lakes etc., but since you brought it up, perhaps a widespread environmental disaster is actually reasonable justification for the government to get involved.
The plight of some chickens is not. It's a moral issue, not an issue of survival like not destroying the planet. And morals are subjective.

 

[repiV]

By the way, "evil" is an entirely human concept. It's utterly ridiculous to say it's evil to eat meat when animals will rip other animals (including cutie ickle babies) limb from limb and eat them while they're still alive.
Nature is cruel - by our prissified, 21st century standards of decency anyway. Deal with it.

 

[Absinthe]

What the hell is wrong with you Absinthe, read my ****ing post again. It's like arguing with a wall. The very same text you quote literally disproves what you say as a response.

Likewise.

Done with you and this topic. It's particularly frustrating when I have to respond to somebody who writes with all the clarity of a twelve year-old.

 

[Kyorisu]

Gray pigs and the like are animals not people. I'll quote this once more for the hell of it and leave it at that.

"What we're talking about is pigs, not pets," she says. "We are not putting emotional anthropomorphism into play, we are actually growing the pigs for food according to a well-regulated code of practice. Pig farmers care about their animals. If you don't look after your animals, your product is inferior, so it is in the interest of farmers to look after their animals."

 

[Gray Fox]

Likewise.

Done with you and this topic. It's particularly frustrating when I have to respond to somebody who writes with all the clarity of a twelve year-old.

Likewise?

You haven't even taken the time to read what I said, for that matter have you even read what you yourself wrote.

You ****ing justified eating meat on the account of us being omnivores.

Do you have any idea how morally disgusting that is on so many levels.

The fact that we are omnivores just says you can eat meat, it says you can eat plants. It doesn't say anything about it being morally justified
Just like me having arms means I can make a tool, I can choke someone. It doesn't say that it's moral to make tool, that it's moral to choke someone.
I have a dick, which means I can have sex, I can dick slap someone, I can rape someone. It doesn't say It's moral to have sex, to dick slap, to rape.

You are using natural selection as your moral judge in the context of our modern society.
So again I ask you, do you have any sense of justice?

Oh and my English is perfectly fine, certainly for someone who has to juggle between 3 distinctly different languages every day.

Gray pigs and the like are animals not people. I'll quote this once more for the hell of it and leave it at that.

People are animals!! That is not up to discussion, that is a fact. Look it up in your biology book. And your quote is as meaningless as the oil industry en car industry saying it cares for the environment. The simple fact of the matter is that it's not profitable. It cheaper for the farmer to to not sue anesthetic when the cut the tails or beaks. It's cheaper to bunch animals up in small confined space. And in the case of veal the baby cows are chained and not allowed to walk so their meat stays tender.

Thats great attack the person not the argument,to equate especially in this case is even worse,iirc people in Holland even kill for animal rights so much for that.Humans are more then animals they do not have the same rights as we do,if you don't get that to ****ing bad. go chew on a carrot.

The whole point was that i wasn't equating the suffering of humans and farm animals. Not only was I not equating, in many cases I wasn't even comparing. I was just putting an argument in a different context. How ****ing hard is it to understand that. And for that matter you were the one who began the attack first when you said I should be hurt by a tall black guy.

 

[Kyorisu]

People are animals!! That is not up to discussion, that is a fact. Look it up in your biology book

Newsflash we are sentient. People i.e. a Sentient group of animals. So Animals in this case pigs are not people, but people are indeed animals. This is my way of thinking.

Aren't we forgetting something people, the key to a healthy lifestyle is a balanced diet, so eat both.

http://forums.fevergaming.com/off-topic/pub/128138-vegansexuals-2.html#post1831029

You ****ing justified eating meat on the account of us being omnivores.

Do you have any idea how morally disgusting that is on so many levels.

Oh please your morals are different to his and mine, you cannot argue that your morals are better than ours.

It cheaper for the farmer to to not sue anesthetic when the cut the tails or beaks. It's cheaper to bunch animals up in small confined space. And in the case of veal the baby cows are chained and not allowed to walk so their meat stays tender.

Once again proving you don't know shit. Sure it's cheap but it's also faster, a pig farm is trying to pump out as many animals as it possibly can as there is a huge demand for pig meat. Again as for the case of pigs it's incredibly dangerous for workers and animals to have such amounts of pigs in open style pens. Also could you develop a system to quickly apply an anesthetic that a common workers can use and make sure it's 100% effective in all cases?

Fact is the demand for meat far outweighs the animal rights parties push for better welfare of said animals (many of which I'm a member of). You have to understand both parties which clearly you don't, you keep pushing the same old "it's cheaper" bullshit.

I'd love to hear your ideas about stopping female Sows killing one another and their children without using small cages which restrict their movement. I'll read any more posts by you but I'm not going to bother replying, you cannot seem to see my point of view at all. If you can't do that I don't know why I should bother debating with you.