| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, easy, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member, please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Meet Your Meat (on animal cruelty) | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jul 19 2008, 02:02 AM (947 Views) | |
| Post #31 Jul 26 2008, 08:19 PM | Joe E. Holman |
You answered your own question: go so far as to inflict as little pain as possible. Any being (animal or bug) in which pain can be felt should (ideally) not be eaten. But then there are survival concerns, and nature has shown us that we have every right to survive. But industrial farming and these slaughterhouses are torture facilities still. I see a difference here.
Oh yeah. Couldn't agree more.
Right, and this is why I say we just haven't evolved far enough past meat-consumption yet. Think about it; what if we could "convert" all carnivorous animals in nature to be grain-eaters? Well, that would cause chaos in the food chain, but also, it wouldn't be feasible or thinkable yet. But someday, it may! So, you see, it depends upon what mankind is ready for, if you ask me.
I see a difference here; the issue is not "do we have the power to give and take life?" but "should we inflict pain when we can avoid it?" We can choose to bring life to term or not to based on our estimation of choice and personhood, but industrial farming is torture in return for profit. it's not grandma and grandpa's farm where animals are killed for sustenance. So the issue is not one of taking life, but of how and in what capacity.
We agree.
Well, "now," yes, that's true. But things won't be that way forever. |
 
|
 
|
 |
| Post #32 Jul 26 2008, 10:24 PM | Bonzolee |
|
Joe, real quick: You really didn't destroy the abortion argument. I already said some style of animal rights would make perfect sense. As did you. The problem arises when the "we should eat NO meat, period" mindset jumps into the scene. In that case, grandma and grandpa would be a hell of a problem. To further that, you'd really have to define "pain" so there are no loopholes. Because, I may directly be causing no pain whatsoever, but the effects my action may have on society can surely lead to pain. Lay off a bunch of workers so the people on top make more, and that's a form of pain. When you have that mindset in corporations, society, and govt., you wind up crushing other classes. And you can bet your ass that pain would be felt from those actions. Tons of it. You know that those firings did not have to occur. Under that scenario, they occurred because of greed. Refusing to accuse those who made the call of inflicting pain is nothing but a a bunch of sociological bullshit. The definition would favor them, a class. This quest for some grand society may as well be the quest to talk to the holy spirit. It won't ever succeed, because it doesn't exist. Sure, slavery was done away with but that doesn't mean the master-slave style relationship and mindset is gone. Let's just take advantage of people in a different way and make up a nice sounding word for it! Those being taken advantage of would turn around and do the same in a heartbeat, so it doesn't make much of a difference. It's not like there's some small, elite group of people who are the problem. And just to clarify, that last statement was class, not race based. Yet, we're talking about not eating other animals. About not inflicting pain or suffering into the lives of others if we can avoid it. Some sort of future where things are magically bliss. I call bullshit: it doesn't exist. We'll make some improvements, yes. But you can't change the nature of things. The nature of things isn't fair. It's both "good" and "evil". Animal Rights does sound like something we will improve upon. Hopefully, anyway. And we should set out to achieve some clear, realistic goals regarding the issue. Because, it can be done. And sooner, then some might think. First, we need to make some improvements regarding the lives of humans. But yeah, I do think we can and should improve on animal rights. But it will never be some grand thing. It will never be "fixed". Just like society. The idea of no meat I just kind of shrug off. It doesn't sound like a realistic thing to me. To achieve that level of care for other things, we must first be able to show it towards each other. That, my friend, will never happen. |
|
|
"Brain disorders, like madness, are themselves contagious. The frequency of madness among doctors who are specialists for the mad is notorious." – Gustave Le Bon "The fact that audiences would rather go to Wonderland than face Iraq speaks volumes." – Random Youtube Poster | |
|
|
|
| Post #33 Jul 26 2008, 10:31 PM | Bonzolee |
|
Perry, awesome link. We drummers (the good ones, anyway), have to do quite a bit. My metabolism already is rather quick, and you wouldn't believe all the energy you use if you play at full capacity on a drum kit. Certainly helps keep me in shape. Drumming also helps with all sorts of other things. I could probably turn this into a full on advertisement for drumming, but I'll stop there. I will take the time to stop and say drumming rules, though. |
|
|
"Brain disorders, like madness, are themselves contagious. The frequency of madness among doctors who are specialists for the mad is notorious." – Gustave Le Bon "The fact that audiences would rather go to Wonderland than face Iraq speaks volumes." – Random Youtube Poster | |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · The Science Forum · Next Topic » |
4:49 PM Jul 31
