I should have told you that I don't accept that definition. It is an unacceptable definition in mainstream human society. You gave me the definition that the idea degrades to, not the right definition.
Why are animal rights suporters so intolerant?
- Thread starter Fenrisulven
- Start date
I should have told you that I don't accept that definition. It is an unacceptable definition in mainstream human society. You gave me the definition that the idea degrades to, not the right definition.
Here is what you said:
This is pretty much the definition that the animal rights organizations like the SPCA want to use. "Offensive" is a really good one because it is possible to contrive to take offense at literally anything. Thus a little bit of dirt becomes a felony, even if that dirt doesn't exist. Since dirt might be there, we have a prosecution. Too many judges are too lazy to think.
Harmful and injurious are the same thing. The SPCA, the RSPCA, the HSUS, PETA, and other animal rights groups want humans to inflict no injury on animals. The actual rule is "no unnecessary harm or injury" to use the redundant wording. "Necessary" is a subjective measure. What you think is necessary is not what I think is necessary. If the organization doing the persecution keeps their exact definition of the term "necessary" close to their chest and the judge lets them get away with dissembling, the court can be persuaded to act as if no injury or pain can be seen as necessary, even without declaring that principle. This is very important to know.
There is also the problem that if the RSPCA decides to kill an animal, even by the torturous method of gunshot, by default it is deemed necessary. They have been wrongly allowed to decide what is necessary as if they are the judiciary and something seems to allow them to get away with it.
Fur, leather, meat, and other animal products are generally necessities. When an organization declares them unnecessary that declaration is in contempt of humanity. It also abuses the definition of "necessary" and uses it as a tool to establish dominance. Every person who has gone vegetarian or vegan for PETA's sake has helped establish PETA's dominance. By PETA I mean PETA, the HSUS, API, Born Free USA, the anti-vivisection societies, Friends of Animals, and the whole ugly list. The only thing that inspires these people to say that meat is unnecessary is their contempt for humanity. Many of them have also said that they have no particular affection for animals.
We know that food, clothing, and medicine are necessities. I don't even think that I can grant the idea that fur is not necessary. Petroleum derived substitutes aren't all that good even after more than sixty years of trying to make better patent leather and fake fur.
The food, clothing, and medicines that are made from animals are necessities. I myself look forward to when I can have a transplanted heart or pancreas from a chimera.
And?
There are some hypothetical possibilities that a vegan diet might provide all essential nutrients, but that kind of diet must be thoroughly medically tested AND if it actually works, it can't just be "not meat." Something is going to have to provide the cholesterol and B-12 and everything else, and since plant sources are often mildly toxic and the molecules aren't exactly the same, it's going to be a poor fit. The so-called ethical vegans don't seem to care how many can't make it on a vegan diet and for that matter I don't think they do that well on it either and they probably cheat.
speak for yourself.
i am more than an animal. i don't hike my leg and piss all over peoples feet.
i don't defecate in the middle of the yard. my sex is a private matter.
the lions and tigers and most other animals are screwed then.
how so? because they are MEAT EATERS.
i have no clue as to what a cow would say.
i CAN say they have a basic survival instinct.
for that culture? yes. of course that wouldn't necessarily make it right for mine.
to be honest i'm not into all this animal rights stuff. i consider it a load of BS and i find it very hard to carry on an objective discussion about it.
i wouldn't claw someones face off because they wanted to take my picture.
i've seen the aftermath of a lion doing just that.
think the lion felt any remorse?
Public Opinion
Registered Member
Rspca Not Vetted By Cps
Let me make this perfectly clear, The RSPCA do not have to refer a prosecution to the CPS or anyone else, this is why their appeal rate and the susequent acquital rate is so high compared to CPS cases.
Combine this with witness coaching, paid witnesses and the conflict of interest because of the revenue the RSPCA generate from publicity around prosecutions and you have a massive problem, oh and did I mention that the RSPCA have a conviction for the perversion of justice !!! Bet the CPS dont !!!
Let me make this perfectly clear, The RSPCA do not have to refer a prosecution to the CPS or anyone else, this is why their appeal rate and the susequent acquital rate is so high compared to CPS cases.
Combine this with witness coaching, paid witnesses and the conflict of interest because of the revenue the RSPCA generate from publicity around prosecutions and you have a massive problem, oh and did I mention that the RSPCA have a conviction for the perversion of justice !!! Bet the CPS dont !!!
The RSPCA makes a lot of money when it publicizes its cases. When its victims tell their stories I don't know how the new donations balance against the donations that people decide never to send to them again. I think that when I read about a case concerning "dog fighting paraphernalia" in Omaha was when I decided never to donate to a humane society. I cannot trust people who even think of "equipment that might be used to train fighting dogs" as a prosecutable item, let along people who gut-shoot cattle for the fun of it.
voyager:
No, you're not. The human species belongs to the biological kingdom of animalia. Which makes you an animal. Like it or not.
You have no clue whether or not a cow wants to be eaten?
Seriously?
My advice: stay away from these threads then.
We can discuss lion ethics as a separate topic later if you like. Let's get human ethics right first.
No, you're not. The human species belongs to the biological kingdom of animalia. Which makes you an animal. Like it or not.
You have no clue whether or not a cow wants to be eaten?
Seriously?
My advice: stay away from these threads then.
We can discuss lion ethics as a separate topic later if you like. Let's get human ethics right first.
I don't really have all that much to say, I have no idea where I fit on the scale of things.
Don't kill what you're not willing to eat.
Don't eat what you're not willing to kill.
I can honestly say I have killed at least one of all of the meats that I eat, and been involved in it's processing.
Personally, I see it as a natural function, meat may not be a neccessity, I'm willing to accept that, I know some perfectly healthy vegans.
They've made their choice, and i've made mine.
At the same time, I'm (ironically enough) pro animal rights.
I don't believe that making animals suffer is right.
I do accept that medical research has to be conducted some how, but that doesn't neccessarily have to involve suffering.
I also believe that if some farmer doesn't have the resources to look after their animals, some (or all) of them should be taken away from them, because if you make a commitment to care for the animals, then you've made that commitment, and if you don't know enough to know your limitations (including resources) then you're obviously not fit.
Don't sweat it, I'd say the same about people that choose to have a dozen children on CYFS, I believe that anybody who chooses to bring a child into this world without first having the resources to nourish and sustain that child, is behaving in a criminal fashion.
The stupid thing (IMO) is that all it takes is a little common sense and moderation.
For the record, every time I have hunted, i've eaten what i've killed, and I can honestly say that I have done my utmost to kill the animal with the cleanest shot possible, so the animal doesn't have to suffer to satisfy my appetite.
Don't kill what you're not willing to eat.
Don't eat what you're not willing to kill.
I can honestly say I have killed at least one of all of the meats that I eat, and been involved in it's processing.
Personally, I see it as a natural function, meat may not be a neccessity, I'm willing to accept that, I know some perfectly healthy vegans.
They've made their choice, and i've made mine.
At the same time, I'm (ironically enough) pro animal rights.
I don't believe that making animals suffer is right.
I do accept that medical research has to be conducted some how, but that doesn't neccessarily have to involve suffering.
I also believe that if some farmer doesn't have the resources to look after their animals, some (or all) of them should be taken away from them, because if you make a commitment to care for the animals, then you've made that commitment, and if you don't know enough to know your limitations (including resources) then you're obviously not fit.
Don't sweat it, I'd say the same about people that choose to have a dozen children on CYFS, I believe that anybody who chooses to bring a child into this world without first having the resources to nourish and sustain that child, is behaving in a criminal fashion.
The stupid thing (IMO) is that all it takes is a little common sense and moderation.
For the record, every time I have hunted, i've eaten what i've killed, and I can honestly say that I have done my utmost to kill the animal with the cleanest shot possible, so the animal doesn't have to suffer to satisfy my appetite.
Not as phrased, no.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Rephrase it then.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Uh.. that's a bit obvious isn't it ?
uh . . . no.