Recently I was witness to an act of severe animal cruelty, i came home and found my neigbour beating his dog to death with a shovel, i jumped the fence and went nutts.

I stopped him hitting the dog,
The dog had apparently been digging holes under the fence and barking all the time and ruining his sleep.
He raved on about the dog just being a dumb mutt etc and that I should get a life and mind my own business.

The dog (a Boxer Cross) lay on the ground, completely masacred yet still alive, my neigbour finaly told me to mind my own business and went to hit the animal again, so I stopped him and a fight broke out after he tried to club me with his shovel aswell.

Now I'm no small guy and I kicked the living Poop outta this idiot then as carefully as I could picked the dog up and took it to the vetenarian clinic up the road,

The dog was immediately put down, due to its injuries etc,
I paid for the injection and the vets time out of my own pocket.

When I returned home I found my neigbour chatting with police,
Can you believe it, he was attempting to have me charged with assult and tresspass.

A long story short..... he got away with only a warning for his cruelty after committing this disgusting crime because the police couldnt be bothered following it all up properly with the vet and other witnesses.
.................................................. .................................................. .
I want to know how many of you feel this idiot was within his rights to treat his dog how he did?

If this had been a persons life, how serious would it have been treated?

what values do you place on an animals life?

what rights does an animal have ?
.................................................. .................................................. ...
I see and hear people every day treating animals so cruely that it almost makes me cry.

Animals feel every emotion you and i feel, they have all our senses and in the case of my own dog, i know he needs lots of love and cuddles, id never beat him or starve him or abuse him in anyway.

I see my dog as my child, he loves me nomatter what.

So it annoys me to think people can have attitudes like,
"it doesnt matter, its just a dumb animal."


Id like to see major penalties applied to offenders caught abusing animals.
Id like to see these pathetic fines that most countries apply to these subhuman monsters abolished and real punishments like those imposed on people who commit crimes against human

Id like to hear what others think about my opinions.

Technically, you did commit trespass and possibly assault. Instead of 'can you
believe it' you should be thankful that the Police realized he was an arsehole
and didn't go along with it.

The bummer part was the by not calling '911' and letting the Police handle it
you prevented them from charging him without bringing charges against you.

Sorry, no 'hero's medal' as well meaning as your actions were. Think about
that before taking personal action if you are ever faced with a similar situation.

Take care (and consider becoming a Police Officer) ;)

Chagur,
Remind me NOT to jump your fence and help you if you are ever getting beaten to death, technically I'd be breaking the law to and I wouldnt wanna do that in an attempt to save a life. lmao


And you missed the point of the post, but hey thats ok.
Im sure other wont make the same mistake

Ps: showing a lill humanity has nothing to do with being a hero,
Doing the right thing should just be part of your morality.

Cheers

It makes me wonder why this guy had a dog in the first place.

People need to realise that an animal is not just for Christmas. It's for life. A pet is totally reliant on its owner to feed it, look after it and treat it as the sentient creature it is.

The other thing to realise is that humans are just one more animal. We're not special.

This guy should be prosecuted. Did you report him to the SPCA, or whatever equivalent you have where you are?

I think you're a little confused. You didn't jump the dog's fence to help the
dog who was being attacked - You jumped the neighbor's fence who was
attacking the dog.

And, I think you missed my point completely. I take back the suggestion that
you consider becoming a Police Officer - You're too irrational IMHO.

Take care.

Hey James

Yes mate i reported it to a few RSPCA, unfortunately, they are understaffed, under resourced and undermanaged, they told me there wasnt much they could do at the present time.

cheers


PS: Chagur, please check your humour in at the door to Sciforums next time.... because its just not funny mate.

have a lovely sunshiney day. :D

No humor intended. Don't know what the laws are in your neck of the woods,
I imagine Australia or England, but I was trying to point out that, difficult though
it might seem, your chosen course of action was not the best m8.

Suggest that if you get the chance, discuss the situation with one of the Officers
who responded and find out what the law is where you're at.

Take care.

Dearest Chagur

Tis not that I do not understand the laws on tresspass,
I fully understand them , and the point you are trying to make.

However I would have broken the law a million times over to do the right thing.
To end up in trouble with the law for saving a life or decreasing suffering is a small price to pay in my books.
I was of the thinking that the life of the poor animal, wich could have just as easily been a child, was of more worth than my own personal welfare at the time.

If i had waited for police, the animal would have suffered for no good reason while waiting for them to turn up.

I believe its attitudes like yours that see countless crimes committed against humanity and its entirety.

If a woman was being raped, next door to you on the attackers Property , I can just imagine you being the kind of guy to do nothing except call police and wait for them to turn up!

After all trespass is a crime.

Cheers

OK on this subject as a animal trainer and a breeder, personally chagur ya have ya morals back to front or maybe ya just too much of a whimp and would prefer to have someone else do the right thing whether it causes death or not. I would kill another person for hurting a animal or child
:eek: OOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHH no chagur i just broke the law but hey least i would sleep at night knowing i am a good person and did the right thing damn the laws Laws are meant to be broken, I get the feeling ya one of these do gooders that obeys every law thinks ya right and never wrong let me in on a secret ya just made a huge wanker of yaself,IMHO u being a corrections officer would have a more balls but hey i have been mistaken before Have a lovely day and life :)

Well Chagur:D,

aren't you the role model for the morality and human decency brigade. Anyone with an ounce of human decency and morality would have jumped that fence. Anyone who mistreats an animal is probably the type of person to mistreat a child or anyone else who is in a weaker position than he or she is.

What is sadder is when you have someone who would be willing to stand there and do nothing in case they themselves got into trouble. The laws state that you may enter someone's property if you feel that you have reasonable grounds to do so. I think that knowing that someone was killing an animal would classify as reasonable grounds. But in a case like this or in any case of abuse, most people wouldn't care about what the law stated.

Tell me Chagur, if you see a child getting raped inside a house, would you stop and think of what could happen to you if you helped the child out or would you just go in there and help that child? I think your answer to that question says a lot about yourself. Unfortunately, your answer would probably differ to the rest of us. Hmmmmm I wonder who sleeps better at night, the rest of us or you?

I can appreciate the concern expressed but aren't you all going a little overboard equating the situation to one of protecting a human life? Every example given as a 'wouldn't you' had to do with protecting a human who was in danger - which is not what razz attempted to do.

The ironic part is that by interferring, the suffering of the animal was possibly extended ... and, it had to be put down anyway. Can't really believe any purpose was served by the action taken other than to satisfy an individuals sense of what's 'right' even if it includes trespass and assault.

Also, having been in Corrections for some thirty-eight years and not doubt having been in more altercations than anyone of you will possibly experience in your lifetime, I still have a respect for the law. The comment "... damn the laws Laws are meant to be broken ..." is exactly the mind-set of many, if not most, of the people I've had to deal with during my career and I do not appreciate it.

And I do find it rather ironic that the outpouring of sentiment no doubt comes from people who have no problem enjoying a decent steak or wouldn't think of beating the hell out of a kid who was blowing up anthills with firecrackers.

Come off of it! Get real!

And have a g'day m8s. :rolleyes:

And welcome to Sciforums where diversity of opinion is respected.

Take care ;)

Thankyou for finally answering my question by focusing on my original post, its muchly appreciated.

Your latest reply finaly gives a clear understanding of exactly what i wanted to know.

It is clear that by your opening statement, you do not value animals as having the same rights or value as that of a human life.

I believe a life is a life, and life demands respect nomatter what the species.

This being so you made it clear that I should have stood by and watched the animal be beaten violently with a shovel, while i waited for the police to turn up.
My what great humanity skills you have. ;)

However...I did not know to what extent the animal was injured until i committed as you put it "TECHNICAL TRESSPASS".

I could have just as easily saved the dogs life, this certainly would not have happened if I waited for police assistance.

What if My neigbour had just left the dog lieing there in his back yard, seriously injured and mutilated for hours in agony before it died? But hey its only a dog right?

Once again i did not know the extent of the injury, i will not apologise for trying to save this animals life.
.................................................. .................................................. .
You say :
" I do find it rather ironic that the outpouring of sentiment no doubt comes from people who have no problem enjoying a decent steak"
..................................................
I say:
" The cows i eat, arent beaten to death by my neigbour with a shovel ..while i watch.
.................................................. .................................................
After being a Screw for so many years, you cant honestly tell me that my crime of "TECHNICAL TRESPASS" while trying to save a life of any species, puts me in the same catagory as these thugs you so graciously devoted your life to for 38 years.


Oh and as for your statement that the posts were a :

"little overboard equating the situation to one of protecting a human life?"

Ill give you a new situation....
You come home to find your daughters much loved pet doggy... "fluffy" ...being savagely beaten to death with a shovel by your neigbour because it dug a whole under the fence and wrecked his prize roses, .......do you:

A) Pull up a chair, share a "Budwieser" and maybe take turns?

B) Call the police then wait 30 mins for them to arrive?
Meanwhile your neigbour is exhausted from a hard day of animal cruelty, and fluffy ....well fluffy has been recycled as rose compost.

OR.......

C) Jump the fence, committing "TECHNICAL TRESSPASS "and stop the beating, then rush the dog to a vetinary clinic, thus, giving the dog a fighting chance and putting someone or something else ahead of yourself for two seconds?
.................................................. .................................................. .

"welcome to Sciforums where diversity of opinion is respected."
You may pick any option you like, Im an open minded kinda fella.

Have a lovely day,
(and concider becoming real human being)

You apparently do not comprehend that I have been trying to get across to you the seriousness of what you did, regardless of your motives.

The fact of the matter is: The law does not place equal value on the life of an animal.

Okay, I'll get into the 'what if' game also: What if the guy you assaulted would have fallen, hit his head on something and died? Or even had a heart attack and died? Do you really think you'd be walking around scot free with a pat on your back because your motives were so noble?

Again, get real!

'Screw' 'graciously devoted' etc. makes me wonder what your run-ins with the law have already been. Why don't you get yourself a little 'Fluffy' and go play with it.

Cheers m8 :rolleyes:

It's true, and as much as I hate to admit it (and nothing personal, Chagur, it's just that I side with the dog, of sorts).

Specifically, he has you on the point of decency, Razz. Decency is not a guarantee of the law. On the one hand, no, I'm not going to ask you to apologize for defending the dog; in fact, next time you're in Seattle, we'll hoist a couple Guinnesses to the dog and to decency.

However, decency is too expensive to be practical, and to impractical to be the law. It's a shame, of a sort, but it's what people want. I'd love for decency to be the law, but even before I get to my concerns about how badly that would f--k up the way we look at each other, I'm frightened by the possibilities of what codified decency could become.

Just as a for-instance ....

* What if someone unfamiliar to you is entering your neighbor's car--in the driveway--with a screwdriver?

* Incidentally, our neighbors once called the police because someone was "breaking and entering"our house. It isn't just the "simple mistake", since she later admitted she recognized the car my father arrived in before realizing he had left the house keys inside. She honestly projected that some thug had hurt my father and had stolen his car and driven it from the airport and tried to break into our house.

* A trucker once pulled to the side of the road in Pennsylvania, thinking there was an accident to attend to: the gathered crowd of rubberneckers was alarming, to say the least, along this section of highway. When he worked his way to the center of the crowd, he found a man raping a three year-old in the backseat of a car. Nobody had a cel-phone (rural PA in 1994), so nobody called the police. Fearing for the repercussions of the law (assault and battery, perhaps? by whatever interpretation?) none chose to intervene until the trucker arrived. The trucker didn't wait for the police. He smashed through the window, hauled the guy out, and restrained himself from killing anyone at the scene until the police got there and sent him on his way. None of the bystanders were charged for their complicity.

I would daresay that Decency is too pinko for most: it requires them to consider other people and ideas. The law can only hold you responsible for your own actions.

That it's a dog? Hey, nobody charged my college girlfriend's mother for beating her husband. One of the cats pissed in his toolbox, so he hauled to the garage, tightened its head in a vise grip, returned to the living room, retrieved a 30.06, and then put a round through the cat's skull. The woman waited until her husband came in and put the gun away, and then proceeded to beat him senseless with several objects, mostly from the kitchen and the nearby toolbench. (Frying pans, wrenches ... she even did the shattered-bottle trick. It was impressive, from what I hear.)

The police could only write the guy a ticket for animal cruelty. The wife was not charged for her domestic assault because she was responding to a crime.

This was in Oregon, and only seven years ago. Life hasn't changed that much ....

Razz, take heart. Decency is a noble cause, but unfortunately the problem we encounter is that we sometimes have to let the evil win a round. Two steps forward, one step back ... the cha-cha is the best working efficiency you'll find among human decency. Personally? I wouldn't have jumped the fence; I would have videotaped the incident and mailed it to his employer, his mother, and his pastor. That as well as calling the police. Remember that you can hurt someone far worse without ever firing a shot, striking a blow, or swinging that big stick.

Of course, if I thought I could save the dog .... okay, it's a tough call.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

The bummer is that I side with the dog too.

Oh well, the madness of it all.

Take care. ;)

My take on animal cruelty is this....

There are many organizations out there that will respond to animal cruelty, you just have to find them, (like ASPC or Humane Society, etc.).

As far as stepping in to save the animals life, hurray for you Razz, not enough people stick up for the animals rights, just know you have to face the consequences of your actions when you things like that (i.e. being ticketed for tresspassing).

Animal abuse is only a catalyst for a much deeper issue, if someone can kill an animal with a shovel, there is a hugh possibilty the can do it to other people, so keep up the fight, I am right there with you!

On the subject of cruelty to animals, it seems to be left mostly up to us how we each choose to define "cruelty". Laws exist for the most grievous cases, such as the madman with his shovel. But the law (along with patriotism) is indeed the last refuge of scoundrels.

I've never given much thought to laws. By the time a man gets to the point where he is worrying about the law, he can forget about his own personal honor. Look down on the law! A politician or a lawyer stands on the level of the law. A criminal looks up at the law. If society hauls you into court anyway, at least you can argue your own case from a moral high ground. Laws do not exist to protect good and honest men from each other.

"The wise man need not submit to the law, because he is already just and charitable: reason and love make him so." Andre` Comte-Sponville

And in the words of Thomas Hobbes,
"Auctoritas, non veritas, facit legem."
"Authority, not truth, makes the law."

By the way, I think Razz and Chagur are on the same side. Chagur was simply reminding us (drawing from his experience in law enforcement) that situations have a way of getting complicated. But I think if they were both sitting over coffee instead of over a keyboard, they would find an easy agreement. Even using those little emoticons, we miss so much by not having the person across from us in our conversations. By reading a good many of Chagur's posts, I'm of the opinion that he is a true gentleman (of course we don't always agree). Judging from what Razz wrote about his jumping over the fence, I'd also say his heart is in exactly the right place.

Once in Boston's Chinatown, I waded into a gang of Asians kids who were beating the snot out of one of their own. Luckily for me, they didn't seem to want the blood of a Vermonter on their hands that afternoon. I walked with the bleeding kid up the block a bit. Only afterwards did I realize how stupid my actions were, both for me and for the kid. They probably caught up with him later and finished the job. Who knows? But I do think Razz would have been there along side me.

I'm a vegetarian because I can live very well without meat. The meat industry produces suffering which I don't have to be a part of. If I had to eat meat to survive, I'd do it even if it caused animals to suffer. If I were a rugby player stranded on a mountain in South America, I'd also have ten tasty ways to cook a dead rugby player. I just want to get through this life producing as little suffering to others as possible.

I don't keep pets for the same reason. We are guilty of loving our pets to death. We incinerate them by the millions each year. Many more millions reproduce unwanted and die of starvation. The entire pet business is very nasty in my eyes. I'm sociable enough that I fulfil my needs for companionship with other humans. Everything you look for in a pet may be found many times over in a human: friendship, loyalty, trust, etc. The catch is that we must be loyal and trustworthy ourselves to find it in other humans. A pet doesn't care if you are Jack-The-Ripper, as long as you are not ripping on them. Sure, I think a puppy is cute. But I believe I can best love it by not needing to own it. I realize that I'm much in the minority with this view. I don't criticize my friends that own pets. I just live in a way that allows me to live with myself. It's worked well thus far.

Michael

I'm stepping in a little late here, but my feelings are this:

All lives are equal, be they human or not. I would act to save the life of an animal as surely as I would act to save the life of another human being. I have beaten the crap out of people who were being cruel to animals. I have beaten the crap out of animals who were being cruel to people. I have beaten the crap out of animals who were being cruel to animals. I have beaten the crap out of people who were being cruel to people.

I don't even try to justify it, morally or otherwise. I just don't like bullies. I've dealt with my share of them when I was younger. I know what it's like to be on the receiving end. I know what it's like when someone feels they have the right to take the life of another being for some minor trespass. If the dog was keeping him awake, why not sell the dog? Why did it merit the death sentence? If that b*st*rd was worth a sh*t, he would have found a less violent way to deal with the issue. Since violence was apparently the only language he could speak, I say bravo, razz. I trust you are "bilingual" enough to speak non-violence as well.

Except for the taking or attempted taking of another life or lives, I can't think of anything worth killing another being over. Not even digging in a garden or barking all night. You own a dog, it comes with the territory. Try training, not murder.

I don't think razz was trying to assault this creep, nor was razz trying to kill him. Razz was just trying to stop the viciousness of the initial attack. If it took superior firepower, then it took superior firepower.

I salute you, razz. The world needs more people like you who do more than gape on in horror when something bad is happening.

ok back to the original topic LOL chagur ya a wanker and ya know it so stop wasting ppl's time.


Razz ya a legend and we all salute u keep up the good work in the same situation we all do the same thing ohhh with the exception of our superior wanker LOL but he dun count so there ya go the Law still sucks and we will and always be right with out current way of thinking:cool:

Tiassa, i applaud the trucker in your example and condemn the rest to hell for their actions as for the perp in this situation he should be castrated and left to die but such is life and the law these days , makes ya wonder where humanity will be when our children grow up.
Just to plz the anti human in the above situation i would not have controlled myself i would have killed the bastard there and the poor child will always carry scars. Again the laws sucks.

Take care all ohhhhhhhh been fun chagur next time actually get a point of view


Byeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee :)

Staffy

makes ya wonder where humanity will be when our children grow up.

I guess that all depends on what we allow it to become. It's in our hands to either clean it up or blow it up. What's it gonna be? Do we raise our children to believe that things happen and there's nothing you can do about it but bend over and hope someone grabs the vaseline? Or do we teach them that there is a right and wrong, and how to tell the difference. I feel that nobody did that for my generation, that the only good in the world was mindless consumerism and being hip and fashionable, but I don't see a need to pass that legacy on to our children. Let's try to point 'em in the right direction this time. Maybe we can get it right.

This type of behaviour should not be allowed to happen,any one who steps in to help should be rewarded,but are not, as i know,i work on a farm and have seen a fox riped apart by dogs, i think there where about seven, and the owners where just laughing,but it did not happep a second time,i was working in on of the fields,and saw two dogs running after a young female fox, so i got a potato and threw it it hit one of the dog on the head,did not kill it mores the pity, and i threw a stone at the other one which hit in on the side,it distracted them doth and the fox got away, another time we where all in a field harvesting corn, when shooters came shooting phesents, one chap got a shoot off and killed a bird, it fell into the near by lake, the dog would not go in after it, he tried and tried to get the dog in to get the bird, but it would not go, so in the end he said he was going to shoot the dog,to say the least that it was not the dog that was shoot or throwen into the lake but it was him, and i would do it again, his dog was taken off him and he was not allowed a gun again, as i also reported him the the game keeper,as he was a very good friend of mine, justice for one dog.:)

Razz---good for you. Only I hope you are around the next time this guy decides to use deadly force, because you can bet your @ss this isn't some isolated behavioral pattern.

Will it be a child that brings home an F on their report card and receives a lashing with a broken-off broom handle? Or a wife that talks back and ends up with a blow to the head?

Will he be on the freeway and become enraged by another driver, force him off the road, smash up the car and beat the driver with a baseball bat he has been keeping in his trunk for just an occasion? Or will his boss make an untoward comment to him, and he return the next day with a few guns and blow his bosses head off???

No, hopefully it won't go that far, right? The sad part is that most likely it will be some other defenseless creature living in secret agony because people who choose violence---choose violence as a way of life.

***

On a side note, you might want to do some research into violence and brutality amongst law enforcement officials. Maybe the people involved were apathetic and desensitized from their own experiences. It seems to be rampant in the US. :)

you know i love to see how that guy would feel if someone beat HIM death with a shovel. that makes me sick man. ithink you did the right thing and youre a good person for doing it. to answer you question, i put a LOT of value on an animals life. they feel everything you and i do, like you said...and yeah shit man im just so sorry that happened. it really sadens me.

A long story short..... he got away with only a warning for his cruelty after committing this disgusting crime because the police couldnt be bothered following it all up properly with the vet and other witnesses.


Now I don't know for certain because I was not there when it happened, but with that said, I think the guy got off with a warning because the police had no way of proving that HE actually did the beating. There is no denying that the dog was beat, but there's no proving that HE did the beating.

You failed to mention if there was anyone else who saw this or not. If there were other people who would admit to seeing this guy beat his dog, then there might have been some more avenues that one could have pursued. But if it was just you and him, it's your word against his.

As far as prosecution goes, there are a few things that you could have done differently which may have helped your cause. However, I don't think many people are going to fault you for interveing immediately like you did.

But afterall, this is just one mans thoughts on things.

-Kooter

Major thread bump by the guy above me, but I'd like to state that I ate parts of 6 different animals yesterday.

Recently I was witness to an act of severe animal cruelty, i came home and found my neigbour beating his dog to death with a shovel, i jumped the fence and went nutts.

I stopped him hitting the dog,
The dog had apparently been digging holes under the fence and barking all the time and ruining his sleep.
He raved on about the dog just being a dumb mutt etc and that I should get a life and mind my own business.

The dog (a Boxer Cross) lay on the ground, completely masacred yet still alive, my neigbour finaly told me to mind my own business and went to hit the animal again, so I stopped him and a fight broke out after he tried to club me with his shovel aswell.

Now I'm no small guy and I kicked the living Poop outta this idiot then as carefully as I could picked the dog up and took it to the vetenarian clinic up the road,

The dog was immediately put down, due to its injuries etc,
I paid for the injection and the vets time out of my own pocket.

When I returned home I found my neigbour chatting with police,
Can you believe it, he was attempting to have me charged with assult and tresspass.

A long story short..... he got away with only a warning for his cruelty after committing this disgusting crime because the police couldnt be bothered following it all up properly with the vet and other witnesses.
.................................................. .................................................. .
I want to know how many of you feel this idiot was within his rights to treat his dog how he did?

If this had been a persons life, how serious would it have been treated?

what values do you place on an animals life?

what rights does an animal have ?
.................................................. .................................................. ...
I see and hear people every day treating animals so cruely that it almost makes me cry.

Animals feel every emotion you and i feel, they have all our senses and in the case of my own dog, i know he needs lots of love and cuddles, id never beat him or starve him or abuse him in anyway.

I see my dog as my child, he loves me nomatter what.

So it annoys me to think people can have attitudes like,
"it doesnt matter, its just a dumb animal."


Id like to see major penalties applied to offenders caught abusing animals.
Id like to see these pathetic fines that most countries apply to these subhuman monsters abolished and real punishments like those imposed on people who commit crimes against human

Id like to hear what others think about my opinions.
RAZZ, I think you're a hero!

Major thread bump by the guy above me, but I'd like to state that I ate parts of 6 different animals yesterday.

And that is important because ...

Because I wanted to annoy vegetarians.

SOD the law i have been there done the same thing and got the same treatment only i spent the night in the cells, it was worth it the shit got the kicking he deserved, the animal was not put down but went to a better home, mine, well done.

Communist Hamster:

Because I wanted to annoy vegetarians.

So, you're proud of being immoral. Interesting.

Communist Hamster:



So, you're proud of being immoral. Interesting.

I don't know about him, but whenever I eat meat, I am proud I just gained a ton of nutrients. Meat is quite healthy, and it tastes good. *drool*

Anyone up for some steak? Perhaps some chicken breasts? Wow, now I'm hungry. :m:

James,

Do you really feel it is immoral for humans to eat non-human animals? I raised this issue a long while back. Never actually got anywhere with it though.

Communist Hamster:

I don't know about him, but whenever I eat meat, I am proud I just gained a ton of nutrients. Meat is quite healthy, and it tastes good. *drool*

Did you know you can get all the same nutrients from vegetarian foods? Probably not.

What it comes down to is that you're proud you can kill sentient creatures on a whim, just because you like the taste of their flesh. You have no moral qualms about that. It says a lot about you.


superluminal

Do you really feel it is immoral for humans to eat non-human animals? I raised this issue a long while back. Never actually got anywhere with it though.

Can you give me ANY ethical argument which justifies killing sentient non-human animals for food, in the ordinary course of life?

Did you know you can get all the same nutrients from vegetarian foods? Probably not.


False.

"There are only animal, but no vegetarian sources of Vitamin B12, which is why herbivores (i.e. rabbits) meet their Vitamin B12 requirements by eating plants that are infested with insects, or by eating their own feces."
"It may also be advisable to supplement a very small amount (DRI/RDA) of the active form of Vitamin B6 (pyridoxal-5-phosphate), since vegetarian sources of Vit B6 only supply the inactive form (pyridoxine), which will have to be converted to the active form by the liver, however the efficiency of the liver to do so may be compromised with certain types of liver diseases."

And get off your moral high ground, I'll stop eating meat when you stop wearing leather shoes. I'll stop eating meat when you no longer eat or use any of the products on this list: http://www.vnv.org.au/AnimalProducts.htm

Oh, and there is another reason why I eat meat, it tastes good! :m:

Can you give me ANY ethical argument which justifies killing sentient non-human animals for food, in the ordinary course of life?

I just wanted to know for sure your position on this. Now I do.

So, ethical arguments? I have difficulty supporting my meat-eating habit ethically. No argument.

Having said that, predation is just as much a fundamental part of nature as is grazing and browsing. At this level I find it morally and ethically neutral. For humans who now (only recently) largely recognize the sentience of other creatures, it becomes a problem, dosen't it?

I have a question. Do other creatures value life? I don't mean "do they care for their young and other family members". Do they value life on it's merits alone? As some humans do? I would argue that it is unlikely. Advanced ethics are probably a human invention with little survival value in the wild.

So, it appears that humans have a natural desire (requirement?) to eat meat as do many other omnivores. In a natural condition (i.e. sans grocery stores) it is probably essential given the energy needs of our naturally evolved style of existence. We are not ruminants. We are not bears. We are high-energy social animals. In that condition, could anyone argue against the moral neutrality of eating meat?

Ok, so what. It seems then that the ethics of eating meat are a function of an advanced society with the means to provide concentrated, nutritionally varied, high-energy vegetable matter to eat. The morals of vegetarianism then seem to be relative and at odds with normal human existence. I would conclude this: I can't fault a human for eating meat. I also can't argue for it on a ethical basis. Ethically, we should all now start eating Boca burgers and Morningstar soy "chicken" patties. Why don't we? I've tried, and failed. Am I a bad person? Damned if I know.

Quarkmoon:

"There are only animal, but no vegetarian sources of Vitamin B12, which is why herbivores (i.e. rabbits) meet their Vitamin B12 requirements by eating plants that are infested with insects, or by eating their own feces."

No, you're confused, Quarky. Vegetarians eat eggs and dairy products, which contain abundant Vitamin B12. So vegetarians can obtain abudant Vit. B12 from their diet.

Vegan's don't eat eggs or dairy products, but the food they eat has Vit. B12 supplements.


And get off your moral high ground, I'll stop eating meat when you stop wearing leather shoes. I'll stop eating meat when you no longer eat or use any of the products on this list:

I thought that it would be a cold day in hell when I would rush to the defense of James, but I seriously doubt that he would knowingly wear leather shoes. And most of the products on that list come from eggs and dairy products.

You may scream 'AHA, hypocrite!', but you are just demonstrating your ignorance of the beliefs of most vegetarians. Vegetarians don't aim to 'abolish' suffering. Almost everything we do to survive hurts animals (and humans) in some way. Vegetarians aim to minimize UNNECESSARY animal suffering as much as possible. Bread and other such products made from eggs are needed to survive. Meat is not. You can survive quite well without consuming meat, and cause no harm to your health, so why make animals suffer unnecessarily? Because you enjoy eating meat? What happens if someone enjoys watching dog or cock fights... should we allow that too? Hell, let's bring back the gladiators, I'd enjoy watching a fight or two to the death.


I know that Razz's post is very old, but I find the entire incident nauseating. How can anyone claim that what Razz did was wrong, or 'against the law'. Aren't you justified in using a proportional amount of violence in self-defence, the defence of another, or to prevent a crime from being committed? If I ever saw a grown man abusing a dog (or any sentient animal, such as a cat, bird, rat, etc) in such a way, I would bash the bastard to a pulp, no questions asked. If the cops ever asked questions, I'd just claim that he came at me first, and that I was defending myself. No witnesses. What can the cops do?

Quarkmoon:

No, you're confused, Quarky. Vegetarians eat eggs and dairy products, which contain abundant Vitamin B12. So vegetarians can obtain abudant Vit. B12 from their diet.

What are eggs? James R's position is that killing sentient beings is wrong. That belief lends itself to many hypocritical scenarios, including wearing leather shoes, using any product that contains animal parts, and especially eating eggs and dairy products.

but I seriously doubt that he would knowingly wear leather shoes. And most of the products on that list come from eggs and dairy products.

How can you accidently wear leather shoes? Are you not able to recognize leather when you see it?

You may scream 'AHA, hypocrite!', but you are just demonstrating your ignorance of the beliefs of most vegetarians. Vegetarians don't aim to 'abolish' suffering. Almost everything we do to survive hurts animals (and humans) in some way. Vegetarians aim to minimize UNNECESSARY animal suffering as much as possible.

Again, that is not James R's position. If that were the case, I wouldn't give two shits if he doesn't want to eat meat. But when he castigates people for eating meat because he feels he is on a higher moral plane, I'll continue to point out his hypocrisy.

Quarkmoon:

What are eggs?

Not sentient beings. James R's entire contention is that we should not kill/torture animals unnecessarily because they are SENTIENT BEINGS. The last time I checked, the yolk inside an egg doesn't have a brain, or a CNS.


That belief lends itself to many hypocritical scenarios,

Ahh, the hypocrite statement so commonly used by meat-loving fanatics. 'You eat eggs, so that gives us the right to slaughter sentient beings!'

'You kill animals, so don't condemn us when we murder human beings, hypocrite!'

My my, the 'you're a hypocrite' statement is just soooo effective at justifying immoral behaviour. Boy, is that the best anti-vegetarian ilk can conjure up?


including wearing leather shoes,

Vegetarians generally don't wear leather shoes, because it involves the unnecessary killing of sentient beings.


using any product that contains animal parts,

If it involves the unnecessary killing and/or torture of sentient beings, then vegetarians won't support it.

An example of necessary killing is obtaining anti-venom from a horse in order to save a human life.


and especially eating eggs and dairy products.

1. Eggs and dairy products aren't sentient beings, nor do sentient beings need to be killed/tortured to obtain them.

2. Eggs and dairy products are necessary in order to obtain B-12, and remain healthy. Once again, vegetarians do not seek to eliminate ALL suffering, but only unnecessary suffering. Just because you hit a person unintentionally with a car, does not give you the right to engage in vehicular homicide.


How can you accidently wear leather shoes? Are you not able to recognize leather when you see it?

Have you heard of imitation leather?


But when he castigates people for eating meat because he feels he is on a higher moral plane, I'll continue to point out his hypocrisy.

And while you continue to eat meat and gloat, vegetarians on here will point out that you are condoning the unnecessary torture and murder of sentient beings. I'm sorry that you don't like such facts pointed out to you, but that's the way it is. People who are engaging in immoral acts often don't like to be challenged.

I see and hear people every day treating animals so cruely that it almost makes me cry.

Animals feel every emotion you and i feel, they have all our senses and in the case of my own dog, i know he needs lots of love and cuddles, id never beat him or starve him or abuse him in anyway.

I see my dog as my child, he loves me nomatter what.

So it annoys me to think people can have attitudes like,
"it doesnt matter, its just a dumb animal."


Id like to see major penalties applied to offenders caught abusing animals.
Id like to see these pathetic fines that most countries apply to these subhuman monsters abolished and real punishments like those imposed on people who commit crimes against human

Id like to hear what others think about my opinions.
I agree 100%
I'm glad you "beat the poop" out of that guy.
... idiots... i wish they would all suddenly die.

Quarkmoon:

People often brand PETA as 'nutcases' and 'extremists'. I find this to be absolute bullshit. Their FAQ gives a very calm, rational and logical overview of why they support animal rights.

http://www.peta.org/about/faq.asp

Please read this before attempting to attack the position of vegetarians.

The last time I checked, the yolk inside an egg doesn't have a brain, or a CNS.


Check again:

http://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/OtherEmb/Images/Chick56h.gif


disclaimer: only if the egg is fertilized of course.

Not sentient beings. James R's entire contention is that we should not kill/torture animals unnecessarily because they are SENTIENT BEINGS. The last time I checked, the yolk inside an egg doesn't have a brain, or a CNS.

Eggs are future chickens that are stored in refrigerators in order to prevent it from developing into a chick. Technically, it is not a sentient being. And technically a human fetus isn't a sentient being, so I guess it's okay to eat an aborted fetus? To bring animals to the same level as humans lends itself to disgusting conclusions, vegetarians who chastise people for eating meat are exactly the same as people who chastise others for not believing in their messiah. They pick and choose what to oppose and what to support, ignoring the consequences of it.

'You kill animals, so don't condemn us when we murder human beings, hypocrite!'

That argument only works in your mind, because you raise an animals worth to the same level of humans. There is a difference between animal cruelty and realizing that animals are not equal. Again, it lends itself to bizarre conclusions when you do that.

Vegetarians generally don't wear leather shoes, because it involves the unnecessary killing of sentient beings.

All sneakers and boots contain leather. If he wears either kind of shoe, he has worn leather, and that goes against his "moral standards". Hypocrite.

If it involves the unnecessary killing and/or torture of sentient beings, then vegetarians won't support it.

And how do you define necessary and unnecessary? You are picking and choosing what you want to argue because you realize your position lends itself to hypocrisy in every sense of the word.

I call the nutrients I recieve from eating meat (ever heard of the Food Pyramid?) as necessary, but than it all becomes arbitrary which leaves your position on incredibly weak grounds.

1. Eggs and dairy products aren't sentient beings, nor do sentient beings need to be killed/tortured to obtain them.

Do you know how eggs are harvested? Do you know why chickens even lay eggs? Most of the eggs we eat (at least here in U.S.) are harvested by chickens who have done nothing but lay eggs since maturity, many have never even set foot on the ground.

2. Eggs and dairy products are necessary in order to obtain B-12, and remain healthy. Once again, vegetarians do not seek to eliminate ALL suffering, but only unnecessary suffering. Just because you hit a person unintentionally with a car, does not give you the right to engage in vehicular homicide.

Again, picking and choosing parts of your position. I can do the same, I find it necessary to eat meat for many nutrients, who are you to tell me it isn't? As you can see, it is necessary to consume animal products in order to get a suffecient amount of Vitamin B12.

Oh, and you missed this part of my post: "It may also be advisable to supplement a very small amount (DRI/RDA) of the active form of Vitamin B6 (pyridoxal-5-phosphate), since vegetarian sources of Vit B6 only supply the inactive form (pyridoxine), which will have to be converted to the active form by the liver, however the efficiency of the liver to do so may be compromised with certain types of liver diseases."


And while you continue to eat meat and gloat, vegetarians on here will point out that you are condoning the unnecessary torture and murder of sentient beings. I'm sorry that you don't like such facts pointed out to you, but that's the way it is. People who are engaging in immoral acts often don't like to be challenged.

"Necessary", "unnecessary", "immoral", who are you to say your interpretation of such things is the right way while everyone else is wrong? Animals are not equal to Humans, animal products are a part of many things in our lives including tooth brushes, and their meat provides and abundant amount of nutrients. Sorry, but your views aren't very solid.

Quarkmoon:

People often brand PETA as 'nutcases' and 'extremists'. I find this to be absolute bullshit. Their FAQ gives a very calm, rational and logical overview of why they support animal rights.

http://www.peta.org/about/faq.asp

Please read this before attempting to attack the position of vegetarians.


I have no problems with PETA, mainly because I choose not to acknowledge their existence. But as soon as they try to invade my personal life like the religious "nutcases" out there, that's when I will oppose them.

Eggs are future chickens that are stored in refrigerators in order to prevent it from developing into a chick.

The eggs we eat aren't fertilized. They will never develop into a chicken.

Quarkmoon:

Eggs are future chickens that are stored in refrigerators in order to prevent it from developing into a chick. Technically, it is not a sentient being.

Congratulations. You just strengthed James and my arguments.


And technically a human fetus isn't a sentient being,

While the human fetus doesn't have a brain, no. However, once a human fetus develops a brain, then whether it is a sentient being becomes questionable. I prefer to err on the side of caution, and say 'Yes, it probably does, hence we shouldn't kill it.'


so I guess it's okay to eat an aborted fetus?

If it doesn't have a brain, then there would be nothing morally reprehensible about it. Although I find it physically disgusting. You would be much better off using its stem cells for research.


To bring animals to the same level as humans lends itself to disgusting conclusions,

Which is funny, since I don't bring animals up to the same level as humans. I clearly stated in my previous post that if the death of an animal is required to save the life of a human, then it is morally justified. If two humans are trapped on a deserted island with no food, then cannibalism is morally justified. If you need to kill an animal or human in order to survive, then that act of killing is justified.


vegetarians who chastise people for eating meat are exactly the same as people who chastise others for not believing in their messiah.

People who chastise people for eating meat are exactly the same as people who used to chastise others for keeping slaves.


They pick and choose what to oppose and what to support,

Yes, that's called 'forming an opinion', Quarkmoon. Morality is a little more complex then people like you would have us believe. I 'pick and choose' because I realize that there is a huge difference between 'sentient beings' and 'non-sentient beings'. Sentient beings can experience pain and discomfort, and experience basic emotions. Non-sentient beings cannot. So it would be absurd for me to defend the rights of a non-sentient being.


And how do you define necessary and unnecessary?

A necessary animal death is one which is required to rectify serious physical or mental ailments in a human being, IF no other 'less cruel' alternatives are available.


You are picking and choosing what you want to argue

Once again, it's called 'realizing that the world is complex.', and 'realizing that there is a huge difference between sentience and non-sentience'. And it's interesting to note that you 'pick and choose' when you condone the murder of animals for human consumption, but not of human beings for human consumption. Why?


because you realize your position lends itself to hypocrisy in every sense of the word.

1. There is no hypocrisy in a vegetarian's position. I made my position quite clear. Please demonstrate where I am engaging in hypocrisy. I never claimed that I defended ALL life, but merely SENTIENT life.

2. Even if I am being hypocritical, that does not immediately make your immoral actions moral. If a paedophile priest claims that the rape of an innocent woman is immoral, is his claim of immorality immediately nullified? Is rape suddenly moral, because the priest is engaging in hypocrisy?

Your claim that I am 'hypocritical' is nothing more than a whopping red herring.


Do you know how eggs are harvested? Do you know why chickens even lay eggs? Most of the eggs we eat (at least here in U.S.) are harvested by chickens who have done nothing but lay eggs since maturity, many have never even set foot on the ground.

Factory farming is deplorable, which is why I buy eggs from free range chickens.


As you can see, it is necessary to consume animal products in order to get a suffecient amount of Vitamin B12.

And as I have explained, eggs and milk aren't sentient beings. You can't give a 'right to not suffer' to a 'being' which cannot suffer, can you now?


Necessary", "unnecessary", "immoral", who are you to say your interpretation of such things is the right way while everyone else is wrong?

Who are you to say that the murder of another human being is wrong? The value of an opinion is judged by the merit of the arguments in its favour. So far, you have failed to provide any arguments to justify your unnecessary murder of sentient beings. Instead, you resort to ad hominem attacks, red herrings and strawmen, while screaming 'HYPOCRITE!'

spurious:

The last time I checked, the yolk inside an egg doesn't have a brain, or a CNS.

I was talking about the chicken eggs that we eat. I guess I was a little vague, although I thought it was obvious that I was talking about supermarket chicken eggs, given the context of the debate.

I know there are humans that are truly animals inside and there are animals that are more sentient inside. The animalistic humans degrade the real sentient humans and try to 'dehumanize' them, their focus is not on animals since they are not seen as a 'threat' or competition though they are not above the abuse of animals if need be. These vicious beings use their brutality and projection of their lower nature and immoral violence to justify their actions and may believe they are sentient and you are not through a type of transference, a manipulation to dump on or scapegoat another, an identity theft. A refusal to take responsibility for who and what they are based upon their personal values and actions. This is a very grave, sick and horrific situation when it occurs. It is done in a most devious, soul-wrenching and heinous way. These humans are not sentient. I've had pets more sentient than them. Life here is not fair but insane as well.

what values do you place on an animals life?
Depends. On cats, and other predators, quite a bit. One everything else, not as much.

what rights does an animal have ?
When they evolve the ability to use thier vocal cords to articulate speech, then we'll talk.

While the human fetus doesn't have a brain, no. However, once a human fetus develops a brain, then whether it is a sentient being becomes questionable. I prefer to err on the side of caution, and say 'Yes, it probably does, hence we shouldn't kill it.'

You would have no problems eating an aborted Human fetus as long as it "doesn't have a brain"? That's a great example of the mindset of a lot of vegetarians.

Which is funny, since I don't bring animals up to the same level as humans.

You don't? Than explain why you constantly compare acts against Humans with acts against animals: 'You kill animals, so don't condemn us when we murder human beings, hypocrite!'Just because you hit a person unintentionally with a car, does not give you the right to engage in vehicular homicide.People who chastise people for eating meat are exactly the same as people who used to chastise others for keeping slaves.If a paedophile priest claims that the rape of an innocent woman is immoral, is his claim of immorality immediately nullified? Is rape suddenly moral, because the priest is engaging in hypocrisy?Who are you to say that the murder of another human being is wrong?
Hmmm...sounds like you are putting animals on the same pedestal as Humans. But that's just me using my reading comprehension abilities, perhaps I shouldn't when dealing with irrational arguments.

Once again, it's called 'realizing that the world is complex.', and 'realizing that there is a huge difference between sentience and non-sentience'. And it's interesting to note that you 'pick and choose' when you condone the murder of animals for human consumption, but not of human beings for human consumption. Why?

Very simple, I don't place animals on the same level as Humans. You claim the samething, and yet you felt it necessary to ask that question while continuosly comparing Human on Human acts with Human on animal acts.

And again, how are you to say eating meat is not necessary? Tell me, why is it that vegetarians on average have more health problems than non-vegitarians? Why is it that doctors reccommend a balanced diet of both meat and vegetables? Why is it that the Food Pyramid we grew up with contains a "meats" section if it was totally unnecessary to eat meat?

And as for picking and choosing, you are using technicalities to justify the consumption of egg and dairy products. They are both animal products, eggs are the result of chickens laying eggs thinking it will result in a chick but instead we take it and make sure it will never develop. But since it isn't technically a sentient being, it's okay to eat it. Like I said, I can do the samething in regards to morality. Animals are not on the same level as us, so technically there is nothing immoral about it, plus it provides important nutrients for me. I can play the technicality game too. :cool:

I have nothing against vegetarians, I just think they are depriving themselves of delicious food by not eating meat. I am against such animal cruelty as was in the first post.

Exactly, I really don't care about vegetarians. The only reason I'm even responding is because they have the nerve to chastise others for eating meat. If you want to deprive yourself of highly nutritional and just plain delicious foods, you're the one missing out, not me. :cool:

Quarkmoon:

(It is interesting that you dropped out of our abortion discussion. I wonder how long it will take you to run away from this new animal rights discussion...)

"There are only animal, but no vegetarian sources of Vitamin B12, which is why herbivores (i.e. rabbits) meet their Vitamin B12 requirements by eating plants that are infested with insects, or by eating their own feces."

This has already been addressed by others.

And get off your moral high ground, I'll stop eating meat when you stop wearing leather shoes. I'll stop eating meat when you no longer eat or use any of the products on this list: http://www.vnv.org.au/AnimalProducts.htm

Interesting. You refuse to act morally until I am a paragon of virtue. How does what I do affect your actions? Should you not take responsibility for yourself, to act in an ethically blameless fashion?

You're quite transparent. You obviously know that what you are doing is wrong, at some deep level, but you're clutching at any straw to try to absolve yourself of acting on your moral responsibility.

Even your enthuiasm to trumpet your own immorality is a dead give away. You hope that if you shout loudly enough, others will come to your rallying cry. There is safety in numbers, and if you gather enough meat eaters in one place you can all enjoy the solidarity of being equally blameworthy. Then you will be better able to ignore that niggling conscience inside.

Oh, and there is another reason why I eat meat, it tastes good!

Rapists probably enjoy raping, too. Do you really think the fact that you enjoy your depravity makes it better, on ethical grounds?

What are eggs? James R's position is that killing sentient beings is wrong. That belief lends itself to many hypocritical scenarios, including wearing leather shoes, using any product that contains animal parts, and especially eating eggs and dairy products.

I know mountainhare has already commented on this, so I won't repeat what he said.

But I will point out that you are actually making an argument here that everybody ought to be vegan. So, who is the bigger hypocrit, Quarkmoon? You, who says people should be vegan, yet eats meat and uses animal products, or the vegetarians who at least have gone part-way to the level of morality you say you advocate?

But when [James] castigates people for eating meat because he feels he is on a higher moral plane, I'll continue to point out his hypocrisy.

I may well be hypocritical, Quarkmoon. Let's assume I am. Are you then willing to concede that my argument that it is morally right to be vegetarian is correct? That is, leaving my personal actions out of the equation, do you agree with the inevitability of my ethical argument? And if not, why not?

That argument only works in your mind, because you raise an animals worth to the same level of humans.

Is it necessary to say that animals are equal to humans to recognise that animals suffer unnecessarily when used for food?

Or, perhaps you're so naive as to believe that the steak you ate last night did not involve any animal suffering. Fact: an innocent animal was bred, raised and killed just because you love the taste of steak. No other reason. I doubt you know much about the details of how the cow that died for your pleasure was raised or killed, or much about the conditions and treatment it had to endure in its brief life. If I'm right, then maybe you should stop trying to justify yourself so loudly and get an education.

I call the nutrients I recieve from eating meat (ever heard of the Food Pyramid?) as necessary, but than it all becomes arbitrary which leaves your position on incredibly weak grounds.

As has been pointed out, there are vegetable and other sources available for all the nutrients you get from meat.

But why so defensive all of a sudden, Quarkmoon? I thought you were proud that you eat meat just because you like the taste. Why not just say "To hell with morality! I eat meat and I don't care that I'm evil!" Be honest with yourself.

Or, is your conscience niggling just a little? Maybe you're flailing around and trying to find another reason for eating meat which sounds more righteous. If so, we can discuss nutrition in more depth, if you like.

Or, do you want to try some other supposed justification? Or just change the subject?

o you know how eggs are harvested? Do you know why chickens even lay eggs? Most of the eggs we eat (at least here in U.S.) are harvested by chickens who have done nothing but lay eggs since maturity, many have never even set foot on the ground.

Correct. So, do you eat eggs as well as meat? If so, why? Do you condone battery farming? Do you think it is a good thing? Do you want to defend it?

Before you start, let me make it clear that I am totally against battery farming of chickens. And I'm against the cattle feedlots which produce your steaks. And the killing of lambs because you won't eat mutton (ever thought about why it's called "lamb"? Yes, you eat baby animals, whose lives are cut tragically short because you like the taste of their flesh).

I can do the same, I find it necessary to eat meat for many nutrients, who are you to tell me it isn't? As you can see, it is necessary to consume animal products in order to get a suffecient amount of Vitamin B12.

For a start, let's assume you're right here. Do you then agree that eating of adult animals and baby animals (as opposed to unborn animals) is unnecessary? Or do you think you need to eat your lamb, too?

"Necessary", "unnecessary", "immoral", who are you to say your interpretation of such things is the right way while everyone else is wrong?

Ah, the moral relativism argument. What's right for you is good enough for you, and nobody can be "more moral" than you, because everybody has their "own morality".

I'm sure rapists think rape is fun, or at least justifiable, by their own standards. Do you have any problem with indiscriminate rape, on ethical grounds? I assume not, if you want to be consistent with your moral relativism argument. Please clarify your position for me.

Animals are not equal to Humans...

I'm not sure what you mean by "equal". Do you mean just "not the same species"? That's obvious, but provides no grounds for arbitrary cruelty, as far as I can see.

Or maybe you really mean "not worthy of moral consideration"; but you've given no reason for anyone to adopt that position, yet. Please tell me if you actually believe this.

Maybe you mean "animals are not sentient". All the obvious evidence says they are, but let me know if you want to argue that point.

Or maybe you mean "animals are just property, not worth of rights such as the right not to be eaten, so humans are morally justified in treating them as consumables". If that's the case, I want to hear your moral argument.

So, you have some explaining to do.

...animal products are a part of many things in our lives including tooth brushes, and their meat provides and abundant amount of nutrients.

Are you arguing that we should maintain the status quo just for reasons of "tradition" here? Humans have always eaten meat, so that makes it ok? Please clarify. Or is this just a repeat of your "nutrition" argument?

I must say, your views on abortion seem to be morally inconsistent with your views on vegetarianism, Quarkmoon. On the one hand, you say a human foetus is entitled to all the rights of a human child, while on the other hand you say animals have essentially no rights at all. (Note: a "right to be killed humanely for food" is not the kind of right I'm talking about.)

Hapsburg:

what values do you place on an animals life?

Depends. On cats, and other predators, quite a bit. One everything else, not as much.

Why?

what rights does an animal have ?

When they evolve the ability to use thier vocal cords to articulate speech, then we'll talk.

Why is speech relevant?

Communist Hamster:

I have nothing against vegetarians, I just think they are depriving themselves of delicious food by not eating meat. I am against such animal cruelty as was in the first post.

Now, you just have to progress to the ethical stage where you start to recognise that killing animals just because you like the taste of their flesh is "animal cruelty".

The animals you eat are bred and live out their (usually) short and miserably lives solely so you can chow down on their tasty flesh. And yet you claim to be against animal cruelty. How do you reconcile those two facts?

(It is interesting that you dropped out of our abortion discussion. I wonder how long it will take you to run away from this new animal rights discussion...)

Were you actually following that discussion, or just responding to the new posts and ignoring everything that came before it? The discussion was going in circles, argument points being repeated on numerous occasions only to have them ignored and repeated again. I wouldn't even call it a discussion, just pointless post count multipliers and a huge waste of time.

Interesting. You refuse to act morally until I am a paragon of virtue. How does what I do affect your actions? Should you not take responsibility for yourself, to act in an ethically blameless fashion?

It has nothing to do with my acting immorally or not. It has everything to do with the hypocrisy of calling other people immoral for partaking in acts you do yourself but in different ways. Hypocrisy is the only thing I was arguing.

You're quite transparent. You obviously know that what you are doing is wrong, at some deep level, but you're clutching at any straw to try to absolve yourself of acting on your moral responsibility.

Huh? How did you come to this conclusion? I see nothing wrong with eating meat, all I see is nutritional benefits and hunger satisfaction (not to mention it tastes good!). I enjoy eating meat any chance I get, and I savor every bite of a juicy steak. Damn it, now I'm hungry again.

Even your enthuiasm to trumpet your own immorality is a dead give away. You hope that if you shout loudly enough, others will come to your rallying cry. There is safety in numbers, and if you gather enough meat eaters in one place you can all enjoy the solidarity of being equally blameworthy. Then you will be better able to ignore that niggling conscience inside.

Again, you make the fatal assumption that everyone is a crackpot. No one except vegetarians such as yourself care about eating meat, we do it because it makes us healthy and we are omnivores by nature. We think nothing of it, there is no guilty conscience or some imaginary moral responsibility granted to animals.

Rapists probably enjoy raping, too. Do you really think the fact that you enjoy your depravity makes it better, on ethical grounds?

Again, comparisons to Human on Human acts. Like I've said many times, I do not consider animals equal to Humans, your comparisons are moot.

But I will point out that you are actually making an argument here that everybody ought to be vegan. So, who is the bigger hypocrit, Quarkmoon? You, who says people should be vegan, yet eats meat and uses animal products, or the vegetarians who at least have gone part-way to the level of morality you say you advocate?

No, I am making the argument that your position is highly hypocritical, and that to alleviate that hypocrisy you would have to be a vegan, or just a person who abstains from the use of any animal products. If you continue to preach morality about consuming or using animal products, than you continue to be a hypocrite.

I may well be hypocritical, Quarkmoon. Let's assume I am. Are you then willing to concede that my argument that it is morally right to be vegetarian is correct? That is, leaving my personal actions out of the equation, do you agree with the inevitability of my ethical argument? And if not, why not?

I concede nothing, because eating and using animal products is not immoral. I see nothing but benefits to the Human race. The leather on my shoes protects me, the bristles on my tooth brush clean my teeth, the meat, dairy products and eggs provide nutrients as well as satisfaction of hunger. On the contrary, I believe everyone should be eating meat, and plan to feed my children as much meat as required for proper health and growth.

Is it necessary to say that animals are equal to humans to recognise that animals suffer unnecessarily when used for food?

No, because they do not suffer unnecessarily, and their "suffering" doesn't concern me. I need to get my B12 and B6 somehow. :cool:

Or, perhaps you're so naive as to believe that the steak you ate last night did not involve any animal suffering. Fact: an innocent animal was bred, raised and killed just because you love the taste of steak. No other reason. I doubt you know much about the details of how the cow that died for your pleasure was raised or killed, or much about the conditions and treatment it had to endure in its brief life. If I'm right, then maybe you should stop trying to justify yourself so loudly and get an education.

No, that cow also provided more leather to make shoes, it's hairs provided more bristles for tooth brushes, it's meat provided valuable nutrients, it's milk provided me calcium, same with the cheese made from it's milk. That cow helped a great many ways, not just for the steak. I would say that cow died for a very good cause, and if it were intelligent in anyway, it would be proud of itself (which it is not so who cares).

As has been pointed out, there are vegetable and other sources available for all the nutrients you get from meat.

Again, there are some nutrients only found in meat. And the nutrients that are present in meat are more abundant within meat than a jar of nuts, and products made from the parts of animals make my life more convinient, safe and healthy. I love animals!:D

But why so defensive all of a sudden, Quarkmoon? I thought you were proud that you eat meat just because you like the taste. Why not just say "To hell with morality! I eat meat and I don't care that I'm evil!" Be honest with yourself.

Not just because of the taste, read my comments above.

And about getting defensive, you misunderstand. I am just annoyed at the casitgation toward meat eaters because you feel you are on a higher moral plane. The castigation and insuing hypocrisy is my only contention.

Do you condone battery farming? Do you think it is a good thing? Do you want to defend it?

Now who said that? If there is a better way to farm animals, than I'm all for it. I have nothing against animals dieing to make me healthy, safe, and to satisfy my hunger, but I do sometimes have a problem with how they are killed. A more humane way is certainly a good thing.

I'm not sure what you mean by "equal". Do you mean just "not the same species"? That's obvious, but provides no grounds for arbitrary cruelty, as far as I can see.

Or maybe you really mean "not worthy of moral consideration"; but you've given no reason for anyone to adopt that position, yet. Please tell me if you actually believe this.

Not equal, as in not worthy of the same moral consideration I would give toward a Human. That's why the Human on Human acts you guys like to use don't work here, unless animals were on our moral plane. They are not, they are beneath us, therefore they are not granted the same moral consideration.

However, that does not exclude animal cruelty. Cruelty of any life is wrong, however eating meat is not cruel, it's quite necessary for our health and well-being.

I must say, your views on abortion seem to be morally inconsistent with your views on vegetarianism, Quarkmoon.

Nope, because animals are not equal. That's where your argument falls through the floor.

but I do sometimes have a problem with how they are killed. A more humane way is certainly a good thing.

What is a humane way to kill an animal?

well the way the do it in slaughter houses they guide the animal
into a stall and a mechanical device lifts their head
then a knife cuts their throat
the above applies to cattle

Now, you just have to progress to the ethical stage where you start to recognise that killing animals just because you like the taste of their flesh is "animal cruelty".

The animals you eat are bred and live out their (usually) short and miserably lives solely so you can chow down on their tasty flesh. And yet you claim to be against animal cruelty. How do you reconcile those two facts?

Maybe I don't want to reconcile those two facts. Maybe I'd rather keep eating lesser lifeforms.

we could just hit them in the head with a hammer

well the way the do it in slaughter houses they guide the animal
into a stall and a mechanical device lifts their head
then a knife cuts their throat
the above applies to cattle

Is that a humane way?

if you ever venture into a slaughter house you'll barf and never eat meat again
you will come out saying thats the most disgusting thing i ever saw

factories dedicated to the wholesale slaughter of animals
mechanized and ruthlessly efficient

See your problem was that you beat the man AFTER you got him to stop hitting the dog. If you had just used a baseball bat upside the head once while he was in mid swing you'd have been golden.

if you ever venture into a slaughter house you'll barf and never eat meat again
you will come out saying thats the most disgusting thing i ever saw

factories dedicated to the wholesale slaughter of animals
mechanized and ruthlessly efficient

Doubt I'll barf. I also kill animals for a living.

you . . .you . . you bambi killer !

aw don't feel bad spurious
there is nothing tastier than bald eagle stew
served up with spotted owl breasts !

Why?
Because I like cats and I like things that kill other things. Fascinates me. Herbivores are the prison bitches of nature.

Why is speech relevant?
Because that is what led to civilization. Speech and the written word.

Yummy, marmoset

or octopus testicles (funny how one letter changes the whole meaning)

What is a humane way to kill an animal?

Kill the animal as quickly as possible. I've seen video where they will hang cows upside-down on conveyors by their hind-legs and than slit their throat. That is the very definition of animal cruelty, and that kind of slaughter is not necessary.

the cows moving on a conveyor with their heads cut off, skinned, and still twitching
cows in one end, nice little slabs out the other

Personally i'm not as much against as the way they kill the animals, although it SHOULD be humane, but I'm against how they treat them before. I mean, having them in small dirty cages all crowded together, not being able to do anything but stand there and eat, being fed all this crap from hormones to grounded up animals of their same species, etc is just cruel.
At least killing them only takes a couple of minutes at the most, but they are in horrible inhumane situations since they are born. That is what makes me sick.

Yeah, feeding herbivores ground up animal parts and blood is not inly inhumane toward the animal, but is also not very healthy to us. That's why I stick with organic meat and dairy products. Organic farmers should be supported more, the farmers that feed their animals blood-meal should be jailed.

QuarkMoon:

There's probably little point in continuing with this, since your moral development has obviously stalled at some point, and you won't understand any arguments I'm likely to make on that front. I can only hope that at some stage you'll grow up. There's hope, because you're still very young. If certain forms of basic morality aren't self-evident in a person's makeup, talking along will not change them. As with serial killers, so it is with you.

(It is interesting that you dropped out of our abortion discussion. I wonder how long it will take you to run away from this new animal rights discussion...)

The discussion was going in circles, argument points being repeated on numerous occasions only to have them ignored and repeated again.

That's a weak rationalisation, Quarkmoon, and you know it.

Should you not take responsibility for yourself, to act in an ethically blameless fashion?

It has nothing to do with my acting immorally or not. It has everything to do with the hypocrisy of calling other people immoral for partaking in acts you do yourself but in different ways. Hypocrisy is the only thing I was arguing.

You avoided my question. Clearly, from your later comments, you choose not to act morally, as a deliberate, cold-blooded decision.

I see nothing wrong with eating meat, all I see is nutritional benefits and hunger satisfaction (not to mention it tastes good!). I enjoy eating meat any chance I get, and I savor every bite of a juicy steak.

If you really saw nothing wrong with eating meat, you wouldn't be in such a rush to defend your selfish, immoral actions. Yet, you felt the need to jump into this discussion, and to continue with your weak rationalisations.

This will probably go over your head, but the fact that you like the taste of meat is useless as an attempt at an ethical justification. I have already made the point that any nutritional benefits you obtain from meat are obtainable from other sources, which do not require the kind of animal cruelty you so unthinkingly advocate.

Again, you make the fatal assumption that everyone is a crackpot.

No. I make the deduction that your sense of morality is badly stunted.

No one except vegetarians such as yourself care about eating meat, we do it because it makes us healthy and we are omnivores by nature.

There's that safety in numbers thing again. Because you are one of many immoral people, your immoral actions are somehow justified? Sorry, Quarkmoon, but that argument, too, is worthless.

We think nothing of it, there is no guilty conscience or some imaginary moral responsibility granted to animals.

I know you think nothing of it. That's entirely my point. You've never started to actually consider the ethical impact of your actions, or probably any other impact, beyond immediate self-gratification. Really, you are low.

Like I've said many times, I do not consider animals equal to Humans, your comparisons are moot.

Do you really think that because animals are not the same as humans, you have no moral responsibility towards them? And yet you claim to feel a moral responsibility to a human embryo, which is also "not equal" to you, an adult human being.

Do you feel no duty at all to protect the weak and helpless? It seems not. I actually feel sorry for you that you are so emotionally stunted. What caused that?

No, I am making the argument that your position is highly hypocritical, and that to alleviate that hypocrisy you would have to be a vegan, or just a person who abstains from the use of any animal products. If you continue to preach morality about consuming or using animal products, than you continue to be a hypocrite.

Didn't you get the point the first time? Pointing out the hypocrisy of others doesn't absolve you of whatever ethical duties you have as a person. If others are hypocritical, then it is up to you to set an example and be better than them. Can't you even agree to this simple argument?

I concede nothing, because eating and using animal products is not immoral. I see nothing but benefits to the Human race.

A telling comment indeed. Why do you consider only the benefits and detriments to "the Human race"? Answer: because you're human, and you're special, and therefore all humans are special. Once again, you show how underdeveloped your ethical sense is.

Do you think any animals have any interests worth protecting at all? At first, it seems not, but below you contradict yourself. Can you not even be consistent with your own beliefs?

On the contrary, I believe everyone should be eating meat, and plan to feed my children as much meat as required for proper health and growth.

That would be zero meat, by the way.

Is it necessary to say that animals are equal to humans to recognise that animals suffer unnecessarily when used for food?

No, because they do not suffer unnecessarily, and their "suffering" doesn't concern me. I need to get my B12 and B6 somehow.

Did you forget that you can get B12 and B6 from eggs and other dairy products, rather than by killing animals? How convenient for you.

Face it: all your talk about "nutrition" is just a front. The bottom line for you is "their suffering doesn't concern me" and "there is no guilty conscience or some imaginary moral responsibility granted to animals". For you, that is. Because you're actually amoral.

No, that cow also provided more leather to make shoes, it's hairs provided more bristles for tooth brushes, it's meat provided valuable nutrients, it's milk provided me calcium, same with the cheese made from it's milk.

You did not need to kill the cow to make shoes. Most toothbrushes, by the way, are made from polymers, except maybe yours. All nutrients from the meat are available from alternative sources. You did not need to kill the cow to get milk or cheese.

I would say that cow died for a very good cause, and if it were intelligent in anyway, it would be proud of itself (which it is not so who cares).

The "very good cause" is, of course, your selfish, momentary pleasure. Heh? It's you. You're the most important thing, right? Me me me! How noble of you.

You've also obviously never met a cow, or you wouldn't say cows aren't intelligent. I bet you live in a big city, and have never lived on a farm. Really, you're making an embarassment of yourself with these repeated displays of ignorance.

Again, there are some nutrients only found in meat.

Name them.

And the nutrients that are present in meat are more abundant within meat than a jar of nuts, and products made from the parts of animals make my life more convinient, safe and healthy. I love animals!

"Convenience" is your bottom line, isn't it? Me me me.

I am just annoyed at the casitgation toward meat eaters because you feel you are on a higher moral plane.

Clearly, I am on a higher moral plane than you. I can justify, on ethical grounds, not eating meat. But you cannot come up with a single ethical argument which stands up to the smallest scrutiny.

Now who said that? If there is a better way to farm animals, than I'm all for it. I have nothing against animals dieing to make me healthy, safe, and to satisfy my hunger, but I do sometimes have a problem with how they are killed. A more humane way is certainly a good thing.

This is just a front. Be honest. How does this statement mesh with "their suffering doesn't concern me" and "there is no guilty conscience or some imaginary moral responsibility granted to animals".

You're inconsistent. Tell us what you really think. Do you feel guilty, or don't you? Does suffering concern you, or doesn't it?

I already know the real answers. You don't feel guilty, and the above is just talk for you. And unnecessary suffering of non-humans is of no concern to you, as long as you are comfortable and well fed. Right? (Because killing animals just to feed you indisputably causes unnecessary suffering, though I am sure you will soon attempt to deny this with some new rationalisation.)

Not equal, as in not worthy of the same moral consideration I would give toward a Human. That's why the Human on Human acts you guys like to use don't work here, unless animals were on our moral plane. They are not, they are beneath us, therefore they are not granted the same moral consideration.

Are you religious? You sound like you've been indoctrinated into the common belief that humans are at the top of some kind of ladder of creation, with all the other animals having no function except to serve the pleasure of human beings such as yourself. It is fabulously ironic that you regard yourself as above the animals, on a higher moral plane, when everything you've written on this subject shows that you have no moral plane to speak of.

Really, the reason you don't grant animals moral consideration is because that might inconvenience you. Me me me! That's all that really matters.

However, that does not exclude animal cruelty. Cruelty of any life is wrong, however eating meat is not cruel, it's quite necessary for our health and well-being.

Killing animals for food is cruel and unnecessary.

What is a humane way to kill an animal?

Kill the animal as quickly as possible.

Do you own any pets? (Probably not, I'm guessing.) Let's suppose you own a dog. Would you kill it and eat it? Would you be happy for me to come to your house, kill and eat your dog, if I killed it "humanely"? If not, why not?

I've seen video where they will hang cows upside-down on conveyors by their hind-legs and than slit their throat. That is the very definition of animal cruelty, and that kind of slaughter is not necessary.

Guess what the most common slaughter method for cows is. Or, better, look it up. Ever been to an abatoir? Of course you haven't. You have no idea what happens to a cow before it reaches your plate, and you don't care. Caring would be "inconvenient".

Hapsburg:

Because I like cats and I like things that kill other things. Fascinates me. Herbivores are the prison bitches of nature.

What is it that fascinates you? Killing? Violence? Why?

Have you ever visited an abattoir? Maybe you should. Especially if you think you like killing.

Why is speech relevant?

Because that is what led to civilization. Speech and the written word.

In your opinion, would a more civilised society give more or fewer rights to sentient animals than our society does now?

or octopus testicles (funny how one letter changes the whole meaning)
According to Robin Williams, they have 8 legs so that means 4 sets of balls.
At least you won't go hungry.

Personally i'm not as much against as the way they kill the animals, although it SHOULD be humane, but I'm against how they treat them before.
i worked at a "chicken farm" where they raised nothing but chickens
the cages they were kept in was clean
the cages were arranged in such a way that the feces fell into a pit
the eggs would roll out onto a conveyor belt
a pretty effecient operation. and relatively clean

as for cows, hogs and other animals, i don't know

worked at a "chicken farm" where they raised nothing but chickens
the cages they were kept in was clean

How many chickens in what space?
Define "clean"
and relatively clean
That's my point.

and of course, each place is different. Sure, some places are clean and humane and everything, but many others are so inhumane and dirty that it makes you sick.... the real question is, what's the norm?
I'm thinking most of them don't meet my standards of being clean and humane.

How many chickens in what space?

the cages themselves were like two foot cubes of chicken wire
there was nothing to get dirty
there were between 2 and 3 birds per cage

as a rough guess there were about 600 cages per row
there were 4 rows in each building

QuarkMoon:

There's probably little point in continuing with this, since your moral development has obviously stalled at some point, and you won't understand any arguments I'm likely to make on that front. I can only hope that at some stage you'll grow up. There's hope, because you're still very young. If certain forms of basic morality aren't self-evident in a person's makeup, talking along will not change them. As with serial killers, so it is with you.

This reminds me of something, I know I've read something like that before. Oh yeah, the abortion thread: Chances are you'll come round to my way of thinking once you've grown up a bit. I don't expect to convince you now, but at least I can plant some seeds.

I'm no psychology major but you seem to have a severe superiority complex. And it seems to be your only claim to a discussion. My advice? Seek help.

Moving onto your ad-hominem and hypocritical "points"...Do you really think that because animals are not the same as humans, you have no moral responsibility towards them? And yet you claim to feel a moral responsibility to a human embryo, which is also "not equal" to you, an adult human being.

The key word when you say "human embryo" is the word Human. In my opinion, it is just another developmental stage of a Human being, therefore it is granted the basic rights of a Human being.

Didn't you get the point the first time?

There is no valid point to "get". You are a hypocrite, you claim it is immoral and yet you partake in the same immoral actions but in different ways. So, admit that your argument lends itself to hypocrisy and than maybe we can continue the discussion. My argument is that animals contain nutrients and provide many products that both you and I use on a daily basis, they are quite necessary for our well-being, therefore it is not immoral to farm animals, no more immoral than farming plants.

P.S. As for B12 and B6, B12 is only found in animal products, and the active form of B6 is only found in animal products. Also, the amount of nutrients I get from a single steak would equal an entire bucket of alternative means of obtaining the same nutrients. So, not only does it give me many different nutrients in a single portion, it also helps me regulate my food portions allowing me to stay at a healthy weight.

Oh, and if you research the health effects of vegetarianism vs non-vegetarianism, on average vegetarians have more health problems than everyone else.

G'day! :m:

Quarkmoon:

Your response is more interesting for the parts you didn't respond to than for the parts you did respond to. I asked you many, probing questions, but you chose to ignore them - I guess because they are "inconvenient" points you'd rather not face. So, you pretend they weren't made.

You're still not being true to your own purported moral code. The first step to being moral is recognising what you believe, and why. Avoiding the issues won't work.

I'm no psychology major but you seem to have a severe superiority complex.

As I pointed out before, I am superior to you in a moral sense. I also explained why. If my claim is true, then it is not a "superiority complex", but a simple fact of life. Deal with it.

Do you really think that because animals are not the same as humans, you have no moral responsibility towards them? And yet you claim to feel a moral responsibility to a human embryo, which is also "not equal" to you, an adult human being.

The key word when you say "human embryo" is the word Human. In my opinion, it is just another developmental stage of a Human being, therefore it is granted the basic rights of a Human being.

Another attempt to dodge the issue. Why won't you face the first question here? "Do you really think that because animals are not the same as humans, you have no moral responsibility towards them?"

Or are you happy to stand by your previous response of "[animal] suffering doesn't concern me" and "there is no guilty conscience or some imaginary moral responsibility granted to animals"?

Why don't you at least attempt to mount an ethical argument for these statements? Is it because you know there isn't one? Or is it because you'd rather try to distract from the issues by making silly ad hominem attacks on me?

There is no valid point to "get". You are a hypocrite, you claim it is immoral and yet you partake in the same immoral actions but in different ways. So, admit that your argument lends itself to hypocrisy and than maybe we can continue the discussion.

I did that a couple of posts back. Didn't you bother reading? I asked you why my potential hypocrisy stops you from acting ethically.

You had no answer, of course. Instead, you chose to ignore the question.

My argument is that animals contain nutrients and provide many products that both you and I use on a daily basis, they are quite necessary for our well-being, therefore it is not immoral to farm animals, no more immoral than farming plants.

Taking your last point first: plants are not sentient creatures; animals are. It is a simple distinction that most humans can make, but apparently you can't. Why not? Maybe you've just had no contact with non-human animals in your life. I'm betting I'm right about you never having seen a cow up close. I notice you carefully avoided responding to that point before.

Secondly, what do you think the animals you consume eat? Answer: plants. If you think farming plants is immoral, then farming food animals is approximately 11 times as immoral, because for every kilogram of meat produced by a cow, for example, the cow must eat 10 kilograms of plants. So, by eating meat, not only are you killing defenseless, sentient creaures, but you are also contributing to the cutting down of forests for the farmland necessary to raise the animals you eat, and effectively wasting nine tenths of the plant food you could have eaten directly.

P.S. As for B12 and B6, B12 is only found in animal products, and the active form of B6 is only found in animal products.

B12 is found in dairy foods, eggs, breakfast cereals and soy milk, among other things.
B6 is found in brewer's yeast, eggs, carrots, peas, wheat germ, and walnuts, among other things. (What is this "active form" you refer to?)

Note that the production of none of the foods on these lists requires the killing of sentient beings.

Also, the amount of nutrients I get from a single steak would equal an entire bucket of alternative means of obtaining the same nutrients.

Laziness is not a good ethical argument either, Quarkmoon. (Not to mention that your claim is greatly exagerated.)

Oh, and if you research the health effects of vegetarianism vs non-vegetarianism, on average vegetarians have more health problems than everyone else.

Come now, Quarkmoon. Now you're just telling lies. You don't really expect me to believe you've spent any time researching the health effects of vegetarianism vs. meat consumption, do you?

The key word when you say "human embryo" is the word Human. In my opinion, it is just another developmental stage of a Human being, therefore it is granted the basic rights of a Human being.

Oh, by the way, you can take this one back to the abortion thread. Essentially, your argument is just speciesism. At least you're consistent in not applying any valid moral framework to your arguments.

As I pointed out before, I am superior to you in a moral sense.

I agree with Nietzsche: morality is for the weak to revenge themselves on the strong. Not saying whatshisname is "the strong," but as a general principle, morality does nothing for society.

I agree with Nietzsche: morality is for the weak to revenge themselves on the strong. Not saying whatshisname is "the strong," but as a general principle, morality does nothing for society.

You are dumb and so was Nietzche. Weakness or strength has nothing to do with it. Its also universal laws. In another universe, things could play out differently. Its not that simple. The strong(weak) can come out sitting pretty here but its delusional if you think its just by strength alone, its also circumstantial and how the cookie crumbles. It takes more work to build up than to tear down. A brute that steals ideas or work is not strong, just strong in one aspect. The jerk boss who steals his employees ideas and presents them as his own is obviously not strong. There are different strengths. That is one type of strength. If the 'strong' you were talking of were truly strong, then the weak would need no reason for revenge. I CANNOT BELIEVE THIS. THIS WORLD IS GOING TO HELL IN A HANDBASKET. LISTEN VERY CLOSELY. IT IS BECAUSE OF THE SO-LABELED WEAK(STRONG) THAT LIFE GOES ON. THE STRONG(WEAK) HERE ARE THE TRUE LOSERS. THAT IS WHY THEY *PAY ATTENTION* RESORT TO BULLYING, CONNIVING, PRIMITIVE TACTICS. IT IS THE THIEVERY OF WHAT ANOTHER HAS. THE WEAK ARE LACKING. TO MAKE UP FOR THIS, THEY LEARN TO OVERPOWER THAT WHICH THEY CANNOT COMPETE AGAINST DIRECTLY. THATS STRENGTH OF ONE KIND AND WEAKNESS OF ANOTHER. IS THE GLASS HALF EMPTY OR HALF FULL? I GUESS ITS HOW ONE DECIDES TO PERCIEVE IT. LIFE IS DECEPTIVE.

IF HYPOTHETICALLY, ONE COULD DRAW UP TWO SEPARATED WORLDS. ONE IN WHICH ARE THROWN IN RAPISTS, MURDERERS, LIARS, THIEVES, AND ALL THOSE WHICH OVERPOWER THE *WEAKER* AND THEN PUT THOSE THAT WERE NOT OF THIS STOCK INTO THE OTHER. I CAN GUARANTEE YOU WHO WOULD BE SHOWN TO TRULY BE THE STRONG AND WHERE ONE WOULD CHOOSE TO LIVE. THE FIRST GROUP ARE THAT WAY BECAUSE THEY ARE *INCAPABLE* OF PRODUCING, OF COMING UP WITH IDEAS, ETC,...THAT IS WHY THEY STEAL AND DEPEND, IN ORDER TO COMPENSATE AND MEET THIS COMPETITION IT DEVELOPS MORE AGGRESSIVE PREDATORIAL BEHAVIOR. THE OTHER REALLY DO NOT NEED THEM. PUT THEM TOGETHER. THE BALANCE SHEET IS READ THIS WAY, AT LEAST IN THIS UNIVERSE. THOSE WHO ARE THE MOST LACKING, GET THE MOST. THOSE WHO HAVE THE MOST MUST GIVE THE MOST. WHO IS STRONG AND WHO IS WEAK? HOW CAN ONE TRULY TELL?

I always wonder why people are unable to see what real strength is, that the results are not always an indicator. Just because something has power DOES NOT NECESSARILY means its truly strong. Let me give a few mindteases.

Is an adult who overpowers a child strong or a coward?
Is an adult who molests a child in favor of adult women because then he would be challenged strong or a coward?
Is someone who takes his anger out on a defenseless but more importantly an animal that trusts you weak or strong? WEAK!
If I'm armed and you're unarmed and I pulverize you, What have I proven? I've proven I've pulverized you thats all, STRENGTH HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!!!!! GET IT!!!! I JUST HAPPENED TO HAVE AN ADVANTAGE NOT IN MY CONTROL, THIS WAS NOT A TRUE TEST OF MY STRENGTH!! GEEZ

DO I HAVE TO TEACH EVERYTHING????

I agree that that is cruel. Just don't try and stop me eating meat.

the cages themselves were like two foot cubes of chicken wire
there was nothing to get dirty
there were between 2 and 3 birds per cage
I'd say that's very small and crowded for a chicken. I mean, chickens are "big" birds. having 2-3 of those big birds in that space is inhumane if you ask me.

I agree that that is cruel. Just don't try and stop me eating meat.

Why are you happy to continue being cruel?

Is it just a matter of laziness and your personal convenience, like in Quarkmoon's case?

I mean, chickens are "big" birds. having 2-3 of those big birds in that space is inhumane if you ask me.

Not to mention the fact that those chickens probably don't have enough room to even turn around in their cages. Or the fact that they never get to walk around, in their whole lives. Or that they never see the outside of a shed, or are exposed to natural light.

I'd say that's very small and crowded for a chicken. I mean, chickens are "big" birds. having 2-3 of those big birds in that space is inhumane if you ask me.
you might be thinking about roosters, the male chicken
the hen is smaller

you are correct though, these birds live their entire life in a cage
lay their eggs then when they are too old they are shipped off to campbells soup

as far as clean goes, the place didn't reek of chicken shit
and the birds were taken care of

i only worked in the layer house
so i really don't know how the birds were treated before they got there
i assume that they are raised from chicks

as far as humane
i remember seeing some video of rough treatment by workers
if anything like that happened where i worked you would be fired for it

Not to mention the fact that those chickens probably don't have enough room to even turn around in their cages. Or the fact that they never get to walk around, in their whole lives. Or that they never see the outside of a shed, or are exposed to natural light.
this is true
there were millions of these birds at the farm i worked at
and they were kept in cages the whole time

you might be thinking about roosters, the male chicken
the hen is smaller
Oh no, I know what hens look like and they are relatively big.
as far as humane
i remember seeing some video of rough treatment by workers
if anything like that happened where i worked you would be fired for it
Yeah, it drives me crazy when I see people grab them by the feet and treat them like they're boxes.
this is true
there were millions of these birds at the farm i worked at
and they were kept in cages the whole time
You think that's humane?
Like I said, some factories are better than others, but I think most of them are inhumane.
Maybe they were clean where you worked, but they were crowded, didn't get to exercise, etc.
What were they fed anyway?

Has anyone mentioned the fact that this is conditional "morality" based on the availability of mass-produced non-meat products? That for a human to survive in the wild on vegetable matter alone would probably occupy his entire waking life, if possible at all???

oh, and speaking of roosters... do you know what they do with male chicks?
They hatch, and the vast majority of them are immediately killed... according to some people (I can't say I know for sure this), they're either put in dumpsters and just let suffocate, or they're ground up alive into animal feed or fertilizer, etc.
Keep in mind that one half of all eggs are male.
Why do they kill them? because one, roosters are aggressive, and two, roosters don't lay eggs. The only reason they let a very small percentage of those born live is to keep making hens.
and speaking of aggressiveness, since chickens are so crowded and stuff, they also cut (half of) their beaks off (I think this is for meat chickens). They do this because crowded conditions make them stab each other with their beaks, which is of course bad for business.
And that's supposed to hurt... also, I think they use a hot thing to cut their beaks off, so that they don't bleed too much... does anyone know more about beaks? hmm... I'll make a new thread.

What were they fed anyway?
i am not sure
the feed ran on a conveyor belt

edit
the entire purpose of the farm was to produce eggs
and of course the chicken for kfc and campbells

You think that's humane?
Like I said, some factories are better than others, but I think most of them are inhumane.
The base word of "humane" is "human".
Last time I checked, chickens aren't humans.

It has nothing to do with wh