Animal rights

AndrewB said:

I'm vegetarian except for the fact that I do eat meat. What's the word for that?

Hypocrite? :-D

Animals are yummy yummy yummy in my tummy.

Thread split. The drug-related branch of this thread can now be found in Blogs.

Oh no, not drugs. We can't have any of that now.

I was trying to steer it back on topic anyhow.

Anyway, mushrooms own, meat owns though I don't like steaks, chops, or ribs very much. Personally, I'm into ground or diced meat that is put into cassaroles, pizzas, and soups. Or sliced meat in sandwiches. I like shellfish, though the only fish I like is tuna and smoked salmon.

I once bit the head off of a live bat in front of a huge crowd.

m0l0t0v said:

We eat balls of pig, yes.
They are called "gehaktballen".[/b]
:-/

dsm said:

Iirc, Belgians who speak this Dutch-like language speak Flemish.

So...that would make you a liar...sorta ;-)

Just to clear this up:
I think m0l0 was making a joke here;
"gehakt" is made of grinded meat. Meat of pigs can be used for it. This grinded meat is rolled into balls, hence the term "gehaktballen", which are eaten.
gehalt = grinded meat
ballen = balls
so m0 was right to say we eat "balls of pig". But this of course is something completely different as eating the testicles of pigs.

So you see m0 was just fooling around with the multiple use of the word "balls" (hence the :-/).

[edit]
Further:
Piglets younger than 7 days can be castrated without anesthesia anywhere in Europe. So the Netherlands is not breaking any Europian laws and you can't just point the finger at the Netherlands alone.
In the Netherlands it is stricly forbidden to castrate animals without anesthesia. Castrating a cat this way would be seen as a heavy form of animal cruelty. For pigs however an exception is made. The only reason for this is to save money. It's to expensive to castrate these properly.
I must admit I didn't know this before this thread.
[/edit]

I've always felt that messing with animals was wrong. Though I do like a good medium rare steak as many people, I am strongly against torture and experimentation on animals.

Some people may argue that using animals is a good way to find out about diseases and crap, but really it highly depends on the species. Either way, I've always believed that if you want something done right, experiment on fellow humans. =/ (Heh, I know I'm going to get stuff for that, but that's how I feel.)

just eat some damn bacon.

They should experiment on furries.

Psyonisis said:

They should experiment on furries.

I heard from a friend that there are folks in Italy that are experimenting with genetic therapy to turn folks into furries. I wonder if it works?

/me wants to be a fox

And as for animal rights? Hmm... hard to say. Okay. I don't like animals dying for pointless reasons (hunting for sport and not for meat, Killing animals for their fur as decorations (using fur for warm clothing in the far north is fine, just use the rest of the bloody animal too), etc.) But castrating young piglets.... hmm.... I really don't know where to stand on this issue. wait! okay! The dumbasses should have used anesthetics. Pigs are nice intelligent animals who don't deserve such treatment.

Hmmm.. yet neutering our pets is fine? Mutilating animals to make them fit into our lifestyle...hmmm.

Meat is my favorite food.

I don't think animals should be treated the way they are in some places. They're going to be killed eventually and packaged into nice frozen patties, so I say they should have a nice life while they are here. Let em roam around, dont keep them chained up, clean up their shit daily, etc, that sort of thing. Its the least we can do since we are eating them.

To be honest I don't much care for meat... don't like the chew...

Hopefully this will add something to the discussion (for those of you who have not read the articles in question).

http://www.pulpless.com/jneil/aniright.html - "The Illogic of Animal Rights"
http://www.pulpless.com/jneil/fifty.html - Follow-up to the above article.

Kristian Ronge said:

Hopefully this will add something to the discussion (for those of you who have not read the articles in question).

http://www.pulpless.com/jneil/aniright.html - "The Illogic of Animal Rights"
http://www.pulpless.com/jneil/fifty.html - Follow-up to the above article.

Each sentence he writes can be argued against. This guy is dumb and therefor evil. But mostly dumb. Why did you refer to his texts?

Zoost said:
Why did you refer to his texts?

Because I've seen numerous discussions like this one in other discussion forums where these articles have appeared and contributed in a positive way to the debate. Apparently, they are well-known and controversial. So I figured I'd throw them in to let people discuss them.

*throws in a dicitonary. There.. the meaning's in there... guess this conversation is over....yup

Silverwyvern said:

Hmmm.. yet neutering our pets is fine? Mutilating animals to make them fit into our lifestyle...hmmm.

That is a difficult one, IMO. I find the idea of neutering pets repugnant in itself, but the effects of lots of (e.g.) cats being left unneutered are well known: lots of unwanted kittens left to fend for themselves without adequate food sources or medical attention. We are interfering with nature by taking on pets, and this has its consequences. What alternatives are there?

Personally, I'd rather kill and eat something that can at least fight back(animal) than something which can't even move (plant).

Silverwyvern said:

Hmmm.. yet neutering our pets is fine? Mutilating animals to make them fit into our lifestyle...hmmm.

Blah, Bonzai Kittens. Now that has to be the worst thing ever.

Arckra said:

Blah, Bonzai Kittens. Now that has to be the worst thing ever.

Just an old joke... As Ellen says, pickle juice in the eye is much worse.

If God didn't want us to eat animals, he wouldn't have made them out of meat.

Me kill animal for food... Me cook on fire. Grrr!!! Then, me put head on stick and use as weapon!
I have never seen an animal with a right, but I have seen them with a left. Ah haha...

This forum isn't so bad, but lots of people have the "We [as a species] are dominant, therefore we deserve more" attitude. You know, the attitude that suffering and unbearable living conditions is OK for non-human creatures because, well, we're not them. This "we're superior and therefore we deserve more" attitude is exactly the same as what breeds racism, and in all moral conscience, is no different.

When you think about it, the only reason non-human suffering is socially acceptable is because animals don't grieve in a way that is famaliar to us and naturally guilt-inducing (I.E. crying).

This is the best argument I've ever heard against vegetarianism, despite the fact that Maddox is an asshole. Note: link might be a little graphic.

That Maddox guy seems to have his head on straight. Now let's see if that unique and concrete vision of his can GET HIM SOMEWHERE in life.

Oh, and another anti-veggie argument I like to make:

Vegetarians like to eat plants all day. Plants do many things for the environment, such as providing oxygen. Meat eaters eat mostly beef from cows. What do cows contribute to the ecosystem? Mostly methane.

Vegetarians, amongst other things, are depriving the rest of us of our precious oxygen and allowing noxious-gas-producing livestock to thrive.

Silverwyvern said:
To be honest I don't much care for meat... don't like the chew...

I'm afraid I must say I don't like its digestion; from the chewing (and even getting stuck between teeth and whatnot) all the way down to the shitting, with the worst in between. Plus since I got rid of it I've never ever had any digestive problems other than perhaps quite rarely a light form of diarrhea or something like that. No belly aches, for certain. Plus the taste and feel is too greasy or too strong in a meaty way.

Don't like.

But I'm just picky.

Fodders said:

If God didn't want us to eat animals, he wouldn't have made them out of meat.

He people! Fodders is made out of meat too!

Danarchy said:

This is the best argument I've ever heard against vegetarianism, despite the fact that Maddox is an asshole. Note: link might be a little graphic.

Well in my opinion. And this is why I started this thread. I'm against the way our meat is produced (and maybe our wheat too). Not against eating meat. I would like to see all animals (like cats and dogs) have the right to not being tortured (cut off parts of their bodies or being hold in a far too small cage etc.)

Do you have any argument againt that?

Numbermind said:

Oh, and another anti-veggie argument I like to make:

Vegetarians like to eat plants all day. Plants do many things for the environment, such as providing oxygen. Meat eaters eat mostly beef from cows. What do cows contribute to the ecosystem? Mostly methane.

Vegetarians, amongst other things, are depriving the rest of us of our precious oxygen and allowing noxious-gas-producing livestock to thrive.

Ohhhh. Now I understand. Lets saw off all the legs of all animals.

AndrewB said:

This forum isn't so bad, but lots of people have the "We [as a species] are dominant, therefore we deserve more" attitude. You know, the attitude that suffering and unbearable living conditions is OK for non-human creatures because, well, we're not them. This "we're superior and therefore we deserve more" attitude is exactly the same as what breeds racism, and in all moral conscience, is no different.

When you think about it, the only reason non-human suffering is socially acceptable is because animals don't grieve in a way that is famaliar to us and naturally guilt-inducing (I.E. crying).

Never heard a puppy cry? That's a heartbreaker.

Zoost said:

Well in my opinion. And this is why I started this thread. I'm against the way our meat is produced (and maybe our wheat too). Not against eating meat. I would like to see all animals (like cats and dogs) have the right to not being tortured (cut off parts of their bodies or being hold in a far too small cage etc.)

Do you have any argument againt that?

You'd like to see animals have the right not to [etc]. That's interesting. Don't rights imply the need for choice and knowledge of consequence? If an animal had a means of pressing a yes-or-no button when asked if they would like to undergo a lifesaving, yet painful surgery, the animal would follow direct instinct and press the no button, avoiding pain, because... duh. Same with small children. One who doesn't understand the consequence will not endure pain to save their life. Now, whereas humans can be taught about things like consequence, they are capable of making informed decisions -- immediate pain versus future premature gruesome death.

Being held in small cages is the equivalent of being stuffed in the back seat among a bunch of excess baggage and your sister on a road trip, nothing more. Temporary and harmless. I won't deny that some sick fucks out there will intentionally keep animals in nearly bonzai-kitten sized boxes and/or cut parts off of them, as you said you want animals to have the right not to have happen to them, but THEY ARE PROTECTED AGAINST THAT BY LAW, while living at least. The law does have standards for them, and they've got it pretty good.

Think about it, dead humans and dead animals have the same rights. Some dead humans even get autopsied and have all their organs systematically removed for inspection or distribution to the sick.

Think about this: Japanese beef is EXTREMELY comfortable while alive. They actually even MASSAGE IT so it'll be tender. Good meat implies good living conditions.

Silver: I think AndrewB means long-term grief, not immediate response to pain or begging for food.

Zoost said:

He people! Fodders is made out of meat too!

Bite me :P