SkodaMart
SkodaMart
OP
I'm not lecturing anyone?
Just confused why there is so much sympathy for a few dogs?
I've got my answer it seems.
Because they are intelligent.
I'm not lecturing anyone?
Just confused why there is so much sympathy for a few dogs?
I've got my answer it seems.
Because they are intelligent.
The act of killing a person you know is imoral but killing a stranger, not so much. That's an odd, dare I say dangerous, moral compass or you need to work on your analogy.[/QUOTE]
I wouldnt read much into that exceot that he has more emotional ties to the single person rather than the masses. Both would be bad events but one has more "meaning" that the other.
Domesticate any animal and it sits on the human favoured animal list, eat it and well more people dont want to know as long as its there on the shelf to buy.
I wouldnt read much into that exceot that he has more emotional ties to the single person rather than the masses. Both would be bad events but one has more "meaning" that the other.
Domesticate any animal and it sits on the human favoured animal list, eat it and well more people dont want to know as long as its there on the shelf to buy.
No because they have become domesticated and treated as part of the family (much like other animal) hence why people have an affection for them.
Farm animals get eaten and wild animals well live in the wild and people dont really interact with those these days
Caporegime
- Joined
- 12 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 26,779
Last time I checked the average slaughterhouse doesn't lock the animals in cages and then let them slowly burn to death...
SkodaMart
SkodaMart
OP
Do me a favour?
Don't insult me with drivel like that.
Watch a few videos on the 'humane' slaughter of animals.
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 5,230
- Location
- North East England
You really still don't see it do you? You have now admitted that you wear leather but still comment on morality. In your own views the way in which we kill live stock is immoral but you chose to wear leather and use products tested on them. You are an immoral hypocrite. You are in no position to be questioning others morals on this matter.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 5,365
- Location
- West Sussex
Worked in one part time as teen when I went to college. It was very strict and very quick. The animals were unloaded and the process was fast and efficient and done in a way so as little stress was put on the livestock as possible.
Stress actually effects quality which is another reason why standards are set very high.
I personally can see no comparison between slaughter an animal quickly and humanly for the purpose of consumption as food, to some silly oik burning them to death, trapped inside kennels for no other reason than cruelty/stupidity.
5 pages kills my browser in music and television. Especially the NP thread.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 12 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 26,779
Nice deflection of my point. Why don't you go back to the first page of the thread and answer some of the posts which you conveniently skimmed over.
So... has the OP admitted yet that burning dogs in a dogs home is different than eating meat?
I eat meat. I like it. I am aware that there are things about the meat industry I don't like and I'd prefer it if things were different. However, there are some positive points about the meat industry. It's provides jobs and lots of lovely meat to eat. It's existence is not borne from savagery or sadism. It exists because rightly or wrongly, people like to eat meat. Any cruelty is a side-effect.
I don't like someone burning down a dogs home. I don't see any positives in that. The act borne out of sadism with cruelty the raison d'etre.
I would have thought this distinction quite obvious.
I eat meat. I like it. I am aware that there are things about the meat industry I don't like and I'd prefer it if things were different. However, there are some positive points about the meat industry. It's provides jobs and lots of lovely meat to eat. It's existence is not borne from savagery or sadism. It exists because rightly or wrongly, people like to eat meat. Any cruelty is a side-effect.
I don't like someone burning down a dogs home. I don't see any positives in that. The act borne out of sadism with cruelty the raison d'etre.
I would have thought this distinction quite obvious.
OK, read the thread (mostly).
Failed to see how eating meat justifies the arson and killing of all those dogs, or why we shouldn't think badly of the bloke who did it.
Of course it would be different had he invited a bunch of mates round, got in some beers, and called it a barbecue.
Anyway, cattle are a meat producing resource. We try to look after their well-being while they are alive, but in death they provide us with meat for ourselves and our pets.
Cats and dogs in this country are not a meat producing resource. Burning them alive is not common practice, and invokes a strong feeling of revulsion from normal people.
Failed to see how eating meat justifies the arson and killing of all those dogs, or why we shouldn't think badly of the bloke who did it.
Of course it would be different had he invited a bunch of mates round, got in some beers, and called it a barbecue.
Anyway, cattle are a meat producing resource. We try to look after their well-being while they are alive, but in death they provide us with meat for ourselves and our pets.
Cats and dogs in this country are not a meat producing resource. Burning them alive is not common practice, and invokes a strong feeling of revulsion from normal people.
It's quite obvious that you're the one not seeing "it" as your argument has already been adressed, did you miss that or did you ignore it? Causing animal suffering is immoral, taking steps to lower it (by, say, avoiding to eat meat) is a good thing, even if the suffering isn't totally prevented (using products which were tested on animals).
Thread descends into I AM VEGAN/VEGETARIAN I AM HOLIER THAN THOU moral highground non-shocker.
I eat animals.
The news of the dogs bothered me.
I did not know of any news about the badgers.
I now do know news about the badgers.
The news about the badgers now bothers me also.
I feel that I am not as bothered about the badgers as I am the dogs.
I still eat animals.
I like turtles.
So what?
I eat animals.
The news of the dogs bothered me.
I did not know of any news about the badgers.
I now do know news about the badgers.
The news about the badgers now bothers me also.
I feel that I am not as bothered about the badgers as I am the dogs.
I still eat animals.
I like turtles.
So what?
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,353
wow, thread has derailed quite a bit since my last post.
this is another interesting phenomenon, people caring what other people's opinions are and fighting them about it.
whilst animal cruelty is a good cause to worry about, to quote terry pratchett "you've got one life, you can pick up a dozen causes on any street corner"
the short version is: why argue? cant see this as being good for anyone's blood pressure at this rate.
this is another interesting phenomenon, people caring what other people's opinions are and fighting them about it.
whilst animal cruelty is a good cause to worry about, to quote terry pratchett "you've got one life, you can pick up a dozen causes on any street corner"
the short version is: why argue? cant see this as being good for anyone's blood pressure at this rate.
The thing i find the most incredible about this whole thing is people choose not to eat meat due to videos posted on the internet.
Where these videos recorded in the UK or in a foreign country with different laws and regulations?!
As I have stated time and time again in this thread, the UK has the worlds highest animal welfare and laws with regards to food.
If people shopped local and supported local farmers or at least where more aware of what they picked up in the shop and its origin then they would be doing more for animal welfare by financially supporting this type of farming and therefore securing its future.
Where these videos recorded in the UK or in a foreign country with different laws and regulations?!
As I have stated time and time again in this thread, the UK has the worlds highest animal welfare and laws with regards to food.
If people shopped local and supported local farmers or at least where more aware of what they picked up in the shop and its origin then they would be doing more for animal welfare by financially supporting this type of farming and therefore securing its future.
But British regulations for animal husbandry and farming are about not causing animal suffering. There's very stringent rules which livestock farmers have to follow for very little reward.
Cheap meat brought in from other countries is not so controlled.