Moderator: ArcWolf
/agreedvalerio wrote:My opinion is similar to Sleet's: killing animals out of need is acceptable, but since the miracles of our modern society allow us to eat and clothe and embellish oursevels WITHOUT animal sufference, then we can avoid animal sufference as our ethical duty.
Hunting animals to cull their numbers is OK with me too, as long as it is done professionally and as humanely as possible (no poisoning, traps, etc. A clean shot will do), but there is no 'sport' in hunting and I find it offensive that someone could call 'fun' killing an innocent.
So I say.
hmm... i guess this is where i would align myself.Private Elliot wrote:/agreedvalerio wrote:My opinion is similar to Sleet's: killing animals out of need is acceptable, but since the miracles of our modern society allow us to eat and clothe and embellish oursevels WITHOUT animal sufference, then we can avoid animal sufference as our ethical duty.
Hunting animals to cull their numbers is OK with me too, as long as it is done professionally and as humanely as possible (no poisoning, traps, etc. A clean shot will do), but there is no 'sport' in hunting and I find it offensive that someone could call 'fun' killing an innocent.
So I say.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by targeting their meat. And no, there isn't a direct link between pain and taste.Hypergenesis wrote:Well I can't think of anywhere I oppose Sleet's view, so I'll just add a new question.
Is it the skinning process the one that's causing all the fuss or is it the respect to the animals? Since from what I see, targeting the skin of the animal would mean they would get a quick death as to offer less resistance, whereas in targeting their meat would normally cause them pain as I heard that the flavor of the meat comes from the animal juices.
(Again agreeing with Sleet, I think might have crossed the line again, but it is educational right?)
Well here in the Philippines there's something called the pinikpikan or "binugbog na manok" (translated literally as "Battered Chicken"). Most people I know who ordered this say it is one of the best tasting chicken they ever had only to be horrified with the preparation of it. I heard of other preparations for other animals that involve cruelty to the animal though I can't give the names since I myself am unfamiliar with the name itself, but they get really positive feedbacks as long as they keep the secret of the preparation from the diners.Sleet wrote:I'm not sure exactly what you mean by targeting their meat. And no, there isn't a direct link between pain and taste.Hypergenesis wrote:Well I can't think of anywhere I oppose Sleet's view, so I'll just add a new question.
Is it the skinning process the one that's causing all the fuss or is it the respect to the animals? Since from what I see, targeting the skin of the animal would mean they would get a quick death as to offer less resistance, whereas in targeting their meat would normally cause them pain as I heard that the flavor of the meat comes from the animal juices.
(Again agreeing with Sleet, I think might have crossed the line again, but it is educational right?)
buh... th.... well then... ?Hypergenesis wrote:Well here in the Philippines there's something called the pinikpikan or "binugbog na manok" (translated literally as "Battered Chicken"). Most people I know who ordered this say it is one of the best tasting chicken they ever had only to be horrified with the preparation of it. I heard of other preparations for other animals that involve cruelty to the animal though I can't give the names since I myself am unfamiliar with the name itself, but they get really positive feedbacks as long as they keep the secret of the preparation from the diners.Sleet wrote:I'm not sure exactly what you mean by targeting their meat. And no, there isn't a direct link between pain and taste.Hypergenesis wrote:Well I can't think of anywhere I oppose Sleet's view, so I'll just add a new question.
Is it the skinning process the one that's causing all the fuss or is it the respect to the animals? Since from what I see, targeting the skin of the animal would mean they would get a quick death as to offer less resistance, whereas in targeting their meat would normally cause them pain as I heard that the flavor of the meat comes from the animal juices.
(Again agreeing with Sleet, I think might have crossed the line again, but it is educational right?)
By targeting their meat, I meant slaughtering. I saw some older slaughterhouses which still practice "Pummeling" as a mode of killing the animal. Usually with a large heavy object swung like a pendulum (though not as high). There are other methods as well but I don't think all of them are that painless still.
Well, I agree but in their defense:Sleet wrote:Well I think that's bad. The animals should be killed as painlessly as is feasible. I don't mean they have to go all the way and do a potassium chloride injection (which would ruin the meat anyway), but bludgeoning them to death is not the best way.
That's an admirable quality to value human life, but humans can take care of their own problems, animals have no such power of their own.TheDXM wrote:I'm a furry, and I don't like the idea of animals suffering (for any reason) any more than the next reasonable person.
But if you'll pardon the oddly ironic colloquialism, I think there are bigger fish to fry. Like say, all the pointless human suffering that occurs because certain other human beings are greedy, self-centered, and or ignorant.
Here Comes The FuzzSinder wrote: Max can't snort catnip off Grape's chest?
Yes, everything is used up from farmed animal carcasses including; skin, fat, eye lashes, organs, feet and the list goes on. All this low grade 'meat' is processed and turned into cheap food such as sausages, burgers, and meat pies.Sketcherofstuff wrote:For me it all depends on whether or not the animal's carcass is not completely wasted and whether or not the animal was of an endangered species. I mean, there are countless amounts of things that contain animal bi-products that we never even think of. Clothes are only one of them. What about the gelatin in gummy bears, the lard that used to be used in almost everything. Were those pigs' carcasses wasted? I don't know, you tell me.
Not just for clothing, but food. Too. Like cows.Private Elliot wrote:/Shrug
But I say killing animals for clothing is stupid...
*Elliot is a hpyrocrite, since he has a leather jacket.*
Well of course, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily right to do anything at all to them. Hence why we all have our opinions on what differentiates a legitimate exercise of human supremacy from animal abuse.Senator_Sunburst wrote:I have no opinion. Animals aren't people.
I don't understand this sentence. What do you mean?Sleet wrote:Well of course, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily right to do anything at all to them.
It probably means that even though they are animals, what gives us the right to judge what would happen to them? Who gave us the freedom to choose what their fates would be.Senator_Sunburst wrote:I don't understand this sentence. What do you mean?Sleet wrote:Well of course, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily right to do anything at all to them.
If animals are not people, then they don't have "fates."Hypergenesis wrote: It probably means that even though they are animals, what gives us the right to judge what would happen to them? Who gave us the freedom to choose what their fates would be.
I agree with Senator, animals are not like humans (they do not value each other in community like we do, they have no sense of right and wrong like we do, they do not show love or mercy like we do. Animals are creatures of nature and nothing that we can reason or agree with) and therefore have a different place in the world to us, we look after animals in exchange for their meat and that arrangement has lasted for thousands of years.Senator_Sunburst wrote:If animals are not people, then they don't have "fates."Hypergenesis wrote: It probably means that even though they are animals, what gives us the right to judge what would happen to them? Who gave us the freedom to choose what their fates would be.
I mean to say that while animals are not people, it doesn't mean that every little thing you decide to do to them is justifiable. If I walked up to a random stray animal and started kicking the crap out of it for no good reason, that would be wrong. It wouldn't be the same as doing it to, say, a homeless person, but it would still be wrong. Animals aren't people, but they're not inanimate objects, either. They belong somewhere in between.Senator_Sunburst wrote:I don't understand this sentence. What do you mean?Sleet wrote:Well of course, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily right to do anything at all to them.
Unfortunately, that "inferior" mindset is what the killers use to justify to themselves that it's not wrong, same as what slave owners did. They were "property", and some have passed that torch on to animals, which, as a future Vet, is just sickening.Sleet wrote:I mean to say that while animals are not people, it doesn't mean that every little thing you decide to do to them is justifiable. If I walked up to a random stray animal and started kicking the crap out of it for no good reason, that would be wrong. It wouldn't be the same as doing it to, say, a homeless person, but it would still be wrong. Animals aren't people, but they're not inanimate objects, either. They belong somewhere in between.Senator_Sunburst wrote:I don't understand this sentence. What do you mean?Sleet wrote:Well of course, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily right to do anything at all to them.
That's already judgemental. They just don't possess the same mental faculties as we do, but that doesn't mean there's an universal hierarchy based on the entirely human view of "being better".Sleet wrote:But animals actually are below us
Depends on the synapse count. Cows and minks have counts of dog, cats and beyond, but they get slaughtered for meat and fur nonetheless.Sleet wrote:Actually, I read something that's suggesting that we actually should consider giving dolphins at least some "human" rights. It wasn't even any of the typical PETA nonsense but actually a somewhat scientific article. But those are dolphins that are capable of complex social structures, not all animals.
Wanderer wrote:You don't need a job, you need money.
Well, not exactly in the simplest sense, but they still aren't sapient, so they don't have the moral status of a fully reasoning species. That's why there are now some questions about dolphins, because it's being hypothesized that they actually could be sapient.Liam wrote:That's already judgemental. They just don't possess the same mental faculties as we do, but that doesn't mean there's an universal hierarchy based on the entirely human view of "being better".
And there lies the crux of the matter: They don't have a higher moral status because we don't give them. Moral is something entirely human anyway, so only humans can award statuses based on it. Just because we regard animals who don't share our unique (or at least rare) extra set of mental faculties as inferior, less precious and worth of protecting doesn't mean it's ultima ratio. From the perspective of nature I would even dare to say it's counter-intuitive since there's no goal in evolution, meaning we have the high computing power of our brain because that's our optimal adaptation to our ecological niche.Sleet wrote:Well, not exactly in the simplest sense, but they still aren't sapient, so they don't have the moral status of a fully reasoning species. That's why there are now some questions about dolphins, because it's being hypothesized that they actually could be sapient.
Wanderer wrote:You don't need a job, you need money.
That emotion mentioned therein is generally the loving need to protect their young. But sometimes it's also territory issues. How would you like it if somebody broke into your house, stayed there, ate all of your food, and still continued to mooch off of you? It's the same concept.MilesKingford wrote: If it was true that animals are emotional creatures than why are they always hostile to us, animals are not emotional creatures but creatures of instinct, they do what they do because they are driven to do it to survive. And pet owners see human traits in their animal companions as a form of self-preservation, it does not mean those traits exist.
You pretty much described a family member of mineTha Housedog wrote:That emotion mentioned therein is generally the loving need to protect their young. But sometimes it's also territory issues. How would you like it if somebody broke into your house, stayed there, ate all of your food, and still continued to mooch off of you? It's the same concept.MilesKingford wrote: If it was true that animals are emotional creatures than why are they always hostile to us, animals are not emotional creatures but creatures of instinct, they do what they do because they are driven to do it to survive. And pet owners see human traits in their animal companions as a form of self-preservation, it does not mean those traits exist.
