Oh good lord.
Oh good lord.
SkodaMart
SkodaMart
OP
I find it offensive that people can be so upset over the death of 43 dogs.
how many badgers are about to be slaughtered needlessly?
How about Fox hunting?
How about the illegal invasion and murder in Iraqi?
43 dogs is trivial in comparison.
Wow I missed that post, that really is quite special!
Put simply a vast majority of the population care more for the desire to consume animal products than they do for the suffering it causes. Why on earth people are so reluctant to admit this is beyond me.
This is made easy by the fact it's considered socially acceptable & in society we are shielded from the processes that go on to get the meat on the table.You can love companion animals & eat meat yes, but you can't claim to be against animal suffering as a whole.
To pose a question, from the perspective of the animal.
How exactly is being killed by a 15 year old kid and a lighter for his amusement or being killed (coupled with a lifetime of misery in most cases) for another kid because he likes burgers - really that different when examining the suffering caused & the end result?.
What most people actually mean when they say they are against the mistreatment of animals is "I'm in favour of mistreatment of animals when it directly benefits me & against the mistreatment of animals when it's a hobby or food I have no interest in".
This is made easy by the fact it's considered socially acceptable & in society we are shielded from the processes that go on to get the meat on the table.You can love companion animals & eat meat yes, but you can't claim to be against animal suffering as a whole.
To pose a question, from the perspective of the animal.
How exactly is being killed by a 15 year old kid and a lighter for his amusement or being killed (coupled with a lifetime of misery in most cases) for another kid because he likes burgers - really that different when examining the suffering caused & the end result?.
What most people actually mean when they say they are against the mistreatment of animals is "I'm in favour of mistreatment of animals when it directly benefits me & against the mistreatment of animals when it's a hobby or food I have no interest in".
If I was trying to behave like the stereotypical meat-eating savage you make us to be I might say something like:
"I find it offensive that 43 dogs died and no-one ate them!"
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 4,906
Haha indeed it is! 
?
Humans don't generally have an affinity with badgers, or foxes. They are wild animals. It is obvious that many will feel more compassion towards domesticated animals.
You find it offensive that people are more upset at the deaths of animals/humans that they can relate to, rather than animals and humans that they cannot?
That doesn't mean any of it isn't any less awful or wrong, but jesus, if we all mourned for every bit of awfulness in this world we would all be hanging by a noose off of the nearest tree .
So it's only right to be upset about only the worst situation in the world we have at any one time? By your logic all of the above situations you mentioned are mutually exclusive.
So 43 dogs are trivial in comparison to 7000 badgers, don't be upset or you condone the death of the badgers.
As has been pointed out in this thread previously and also demonstrated by your very selective responses, you've neither the intelligence nor the debating skills to put forth a reasoned, logical argument. If that's not the case then respond to the many valid points Spoffle etc have put forward which you've pretended to miss.
It is HUGELY different.
This thread is so full of stupid I don't even know where to begin.
Oh dear me, I assume you are referring to yourself in that?.
Perhaps reading the actual text & not quote-mining may be something to try for the future.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context
"To pose a question, from the perspective of the animal.
How exactly is being killed by a 15 year old kid and a lighter for his amusement or being killed (coupled with a lifetime of misery in most cases) for another kid because he likes burgers - really that different when examining the suffering caused & the end result?."
Last edited:
Hang on, quick motors search suggests the OP Drives a Skoda Octavia "Laurin & Klement" which if I'm not mistaken has a nice full leather interior. So he won't eat cow but it's perfectly fine to kill a few and skin them so he can have a nice interior?
Most people are unhealthy, meat eater, vegetarian or vegan.
It's entirely possible to have a well balanced diet eating any combination of food, it just requires a little more effort for vegans - for vegetarians it's just as easy as meat eaters.
On a full vegan diet I'm hitting well over 100g of protein a day, all the key vitamins & nutrients & enjoy a varied mix of foods & flavours. It just requires more effort comparatively & is more expensive.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 5,482
That is fine. You are entitled to your opinions. But to start a new thread over what you saw as hypocrisy and then exhibit the same trait in your arguments undermines your opinions on the issues that you claim to care so much about.
That said, it is a valid observation that there is hypocrisy between our care for dogs on the one hand, but an emotional disconnect from animal cruelty in other forms. It is an interesting juxtaposition how we view ourselves as a nation of animal lovers but then also exhibit a varacious appetite for meat. I think the core comes down to emotional connection, and personal benefits. As a nation we do not have that connection with our food animals. But crucially, we would still be a nation of meat lovers if we did. It is in our genes. As such, balance and informed decision making is the best we can hope for with regard to animal welfare and as this thread demonstrates, people have differing views on how they feel about animal slaughter.
But you started this thread with a very 'holier than thou' tone, then fell flat on your face because you don't know enough about the subject (that you claim to care about) to defend your position when it comes under scrutiny. As such you revealed your own hypocrisy, which is what I basically said several pages ago.
That is not a personal dig, because I think everyone is a hypocrite in some form or another, including me.
Last edited:
That's just...
I put it to you that the illegal invasion of Iraq was worse than cows getting killed to make burgers. By your own logic you shouldn't be upset about meat farming because it is trivial compared to the Iraq war. And actually the Iraq war was trivial compared to World War Two, so you shouldn't care about that either.
I said as much several pages ago. AND THE BABOONS!
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2004
- Posts
- 17,115
- Location
- Shepley
I'll preface this by saying I'm an animal lover but I do feel some of the reactions in the dog thread were totally disproportionate. That's more to do with people getting overexcited and having some sort of griefgasm though.
Carrying on, I have no problem with people wanting to be vegetarian, but I do get tired of people trying to shove it down other people's throats or get on their high horse about how their lifestyle choice is better than my lifestyle choice.
Much like religion; if you believe in it, more power to you, but I couldn't care less either way so keep it to yourself. I won't tell you about how much I enjoy eating meat.
Carrying on, I have no problem with people wanting to be vegetarian, but I do get tired of people trying to shove it down other people's throats or get on their high horse about how their lifestyle choice is better than my lifestyle choice.
Much like religion; if you believe in it, more power to you, but I couldn't care less either way so keep it to yourself. I won't tell you about how much I enjoy eating meat.
Last edited:
They are actually not comparable.
Eating animals explicitly involves the killing of a third party (namely the animal) those against meat eaters wish to prevent occurring. Simply having a personal religion doesn't have to impact on any third party.
People are not trying to convince you to change you, but to attempt to save the life of another life-form.
Personally I don't bother trying to persuade people because mostly it's pointless, I'll point out the facts if they ask or flaws in their logic - but aside from that food is a too personal topic to engage in meaningful debates in (much like religion & politics).
You are correct in the latter, really vegetarians/vegans need to step back a bit & try a more rational approach - less anger & emotion as it simply doesn't work.
Last edited:
You know, it's odd: lots of people claiming to be animal lovers are defending the meat industry, and here's me highlighting its cruelty. And I really don't like animals much at all.
That's not meant to be enlightening. I just find it interesting
