Animal cruelty

[C Elegans]

Oh. That. Yes, yes it does. I don't recall the video stream URL, but it was through Kentucky Fried Cruelty where the workers were listening to blaring rock music and slamming the chickens against the wall.

And you know that was true and for real because everything you see on the internet is true?

I happen to think the question of what we human eat and consume and how that affects the rest of our planet, is an important question. Far to important to be decided by fantasy stories. I also think interesting moral discussions can arise from that question. Simply stating beliefs funded on something you read or saw on the internet that may or may not be correct is not a sound, valid base for any opinions. If I said "I am eating meat, because for every 10th vegetable that is producesd, the head of a child in Bangladesh explodes", do you think that's a good reason for me to eat meat?

I tried to eat a burger yesterday and like threw up, I didn't even think of the animal...:speech:

It sounds like you may have some kind of problem with eating?

[jklinders]

I lol'd at this. You're sort of right

No, wait, you ARE right. But still...I tried to eat a burger yesterday and like threw up, I didn't even think of the animal...:speech:

Seems you have already at least somewhat adapted to a vegetarian diet. The beauty of the human biology is that if you want to do so, fine. Though it seems you may benefit from thinking a bit about the source of your disgust at eating that burger came from. Is it because you don't like meat, or because you think meat SHOULD be gross. Perception does play a role here.

In any event within certain limits(cannibalism for example) people should eat what makes them happy and healthy, not what others tell them they should eat. The core of my personal outrage at PETA and other militant vegan groups is that they have the nerve to tell me what to eat. That and their propaganda campaigns. Let them eat what they want to, and let me eat what I want to. As long as I don't eat them,they should not care about my diet.

[dragon wench]

The core of my personal outrage at PETA and other militant vegan groups is that they have the nerve to tell me what to eat. That and their propaganda campaigns. Let them eat what they want to, and let me eat what I want to. As long as I don't eat them,they should not care about my diet.

I could not agree more with this statement. Eating, just like may other lifestyle decisions, is a personal choice. I choose to eat a certain way, one that accords with my particular preferences and core values. However, I recognise fully that what works for me might not work for somebody else. I find self-righteous, fanatical vegetarians to be as obnoxious as religious zealots.
Once, because of that, I pulled a rather evil prank on a woman I knew who was a bit sanctimonious about vegetarianism.. A group of us were in a pub drinking, and as is want to happen, hunger set in. So.. the server came by, and smiling sweetly at my vegan friend, I ordered a "veggie burger." She broke into a big smile, obviously thinking she had a "convert." Just as the server was about to leave, I said "Wait a sec, could I please have some bacon on my veggie burger."
The vegan woman went ashen.... :devil:

[Claudius]

thats the first thing I ate when I stopped being vegetarian - bacon. When I was vegetarian I never criticized others for eating meat. I am probably more critical now that I am eating meat too.

I believe in karma which is basicly to say that your good intentions lead to good results. How should I know what someone else's heart is? So they own their choices and the results and I own my own. Which interestingly enough my purpose is not exactly to save animals. Because I cannot possibly save every being. Which is to say that I am not rigidly attached to saving animals but I am just honoring the good intention. Which is why I need not impose it on someone else!

My system is to honor the good intention of my own which at one time in my life might be to spare animals suffering. Another persons intention might be to enjoy themselves and make their family happy. Both good intentions.

[Wajal]

Regarding the cannibalism taboo, I suspect it is as much biologically-based as it is cultural.... after all it doesn't exactly promote "survival of the species."

Well thats actually wrong - the biologically-based part. Cannibalism are not wrong by nature, its found in many cultures, mostly as religious rituals, to gain your enemies strength and so on.
Its first in modern culture that cannibalism is seen as wrong and even now in extreme "times" or when accidents occur cannibalism is viewed as something "necessary evil" or meens to survive <--- Flightcrash in the alps.

Cannibalism is a taboo by culture and is not by biology.

// Tha Wajj
and if you have problems with my gramma, english is not my first language
I hope you understand.

[penguin_king]

all of the previous arguements are completely dismissed by this one statement:

meat is tasty.

[Claudius]

So if your housecats would be tasty if you cooked them does that mean you should do it? What about your spouse. He or she might be tasty if you cooked them as well.

[Xandax]

So if your housecats would be tasty if you cooked them does that mean you should do it? What about your spouse. He or she might be tasty if you cooked them as well.

Well - cats are considered food in some countries.

[Claudius]

in some times and places people were put into ovens

[fable]

in some times and places people were put into ovens

Not as food, as I recall. It was a matter of religious, sexual, or national "character" that led to this being done to hundreds of thousands of people by the Nazis during WWII. And you might want to consider that for some who read this board, that kind of joke is remarkably tasteless.

I lost a great aunt in the ovens of Buchenwald.

[Dagoth_shel]

It sounds like you may have some kind of problem with eating?

Ha ha ha, I laughed so hard on this. No, I am a glutton, I take after my father, yay for high metabolism! No, I don't know why I wanted to be sick. It's proabably a psychological thing now...

[C Elegans]

No, I don't know why I wanted to be sick. It's proabably a psychological thing now...

Which is what I would define as a problem with eating. Eating problems must not necessarily be related to eating too much or too little, many eating problems can be related to psychological loadings that people attribute to certain items of food.

If you want to be a vegetarian I think it's a good choice, especially if you live in the US which is the world's worse overconsumers of meat. However, like I said before, I think it's important that your choice is well informed and that you research food production and nutrition well so you don't harm neither the environment nor yourself more than necesssary.

[Claudius]

Its not a joke. I was defeating the argument that because something is practiced in some time and place that it is acceptable. So therefore because cats are eaten in some countries that does not make it acceptable.

I could have made the same argument with slavery being practiced at one time and place. That was wrong even though in that culture it was considered acceptable. And if I had mentioned slavery I am sure I would push someone's buttons. I am sorry if I caused someone to become upset.

I don't see why you thought I was joking. Also animals suffer when they are killed just as much as people aside from the intelligence factor. I apologize for mentioning it but keep in mind that I am serious. If it is against decorum to compare animal slaughter to Buchenwald then I think THAT is what is wrong. Personally. Some of the same root motivations for killing the animals and the holocaust: greed (wanting more), ignorance. Probably anger is more involved with the holocaust. I don't think most people are actually angry at animals.

[fable]

Its not a joke. I was defeating the argument that because something is practiced in some time and place that it is acceptable. So therefore because cats are eaten in some countries that does not make it acceptable.

Then if I understand you correctly, you're stating that your argument was, "Because X is eaten by Y at a certain point in their history, doesn't make it proper." But there was absolutely no need to bring humans in ovens into the discussion. You could have chosen from hundreds of other bad examples of cultural conditioning, if that was your point. Mentioning humans in ovens as a response to a comment about eating cats is at best very thoughtless, and at worst a tasteless attempt at humor. I'll take your word for it that you meant it seriously--in which case, the "very thoughtless" part of my comment above, applies.

If it is against decorum to compare animal slaughter to Buchenwald then I think THAT is what is wrong. Personally. Some of the same root motivations for killing the animals and the holocaust: greed (wanting more), ignorance. Probably anger is more involved with the holocaust. I don't think most people are actually angry at animals.

No, people aren't angry at animals they eat. And the humans killed in ovens by the Nazis--anger doesn't begin to describe the kind of bestial hatred any cultural group may come to feel about smaller ones in its midst, on whom all their problems can be conveniently blamed. The two situations aren't analogous.

[Xandax]

Its not a joke. I was defeating the argument that because something is practiced in some time and place that it is acceptable. So therefore because cats are eaten in some countries that does not make it acceptable.<snip>

Well, one could argue that it makes it acceptable in those times and places.
I'm sure there are cultures which view our way of life as immoral, doesn't mean they are right in that observation just because they think so.

So just because some people eat cats in Asia for example, then it doesn't mean it is unacceptable - perhaps for you - but perhaps not for everybody.

It is a subjective opinion.

[Claudius]

Yes but then you must also accept that slavery and murder being wrong is a subjective opinion. Because by your argument if slavery and murder are acceptable to Bob, then that means they are acceptable to Bob. Which really isn't all that interesting to say is it? The fact that they are unacceptable to me would motivate me to work towards preventing Bob from holding slaves or murdering. The same would also be true if I felt eating meat or beating children was wrong. I would work towards ending those practices. The same if I felt music was wrong. I would work towards ending music.

Now personally I only try to make people think about what they are doing. Aside from things that I really cannot tolerate like violence. But some people believe that they should protest and organize with others to prevent something that they view (subjectively) as wrong. And it is also a subjective belief that they should attempt to influence others (rather than mind their own business).

[Vicsun]

Well, one could argue that it makes it acceptable in those times and places.
I'm sure there are cultures which view our way of life as immoral, doesn't mean they are right in that observation just because they think so.

So just because some people eat cats in Asia for example, then it doesn't mean it is unacceptable - perhaps for you - but perhaps not for everybody.

It is a subjective opinion.

I... actually have to agree with Claudius, which feels a little weird. At the risk of dragging the discussion into moral relativism, I have to ask, do you believe that an immoral act can be practiced by a culture different than your own in a time different than your own? If you do, than the fact that cats are considered food in some parts of the world has no bearing on the discussion, as it is fully possible for the act to be immoral while at the same time widely practiced.
in the unlikely event you are a hardcore moral-relativist, you'd have to tell me how you feel about human sacrifices

For the record, and I've given this some thought, I can't construct a solid argument which condemns the use of cute animals as food, but defends the use of farm animals. I've tried pretty hard too, because I feel that my moral outrage at eating kittens should be logically consistent with my love for pork chops, but so far I've decided I'll just have to live with my irrational beliefs and eat pork while feeling righteous indignation about morally inferior barbarians pressure cooking newly born siamese kittens.

edit: a picture of a siamese kitten to back up my point that they should not be eaten but should instead be cuddled

[Xandax]

Yes but then you must also accept that slavery and murder being wrong is a subjective opinion. Because by your argument if slavery and murder are acceptable to Bob, then that means they are acceptable to Bob. Which really isn't all that interesting to say is it? The fact that they are unacceptable to me would motivate me to work towards preventing Bob from holding slaves or murdering. The same would also be true if I felt eating meat or beating children was wrong. I would work towards ending those practices. The same if I felt music was wrong. I would work towards ending music.

Now personally I only try to make people think about what they are doing. Aside from things that I really cannot tolerate like violence. But some people believe that they should protest and organize with others to prevent something that they view (subjectively) as wrong. And it is also a subjective belief that they should attempt to influence others (rather than mind their own business).

No - not at all.
Just because "Bob" says slavery is okay - doesn't mean it is okay.
However just because you say eating cats aren't okay - doesn't mean it isn't okay.
Because A equals B under some circumstances, doesn't mean X equals Y under other circumstances.
So just because *you* believe something - doesn't mean it is that way.
That is what makes it an opinion.
If I look at a car, it doesn't become a bike just by me saying it is a bike.

I... actually have to agree with Claudius, which feels a little weird. At the risk of dragging the discussion into moral relativism, I have to ask, do you believe that an immoral act can be practiced by a culture different than your own in a time different than your own? If you do, than the fact that cats are considered food in some parts of the world has no bearing on the discussion, as it is fully possible for the act to be immoral while at the same time widely practiced.
in the unlikely event you are a hardcore moral-relativist, you'd have to tell me how you feel about human sacrifices
<snip>

It has nothing to do with moral relativism and it has everything to do with eating cats in some parts of the world.
It isn't some abstract issue, but simply saying that an act is immoral or unacceptable because it isn't practice in "<insert own culture here>" doesn't make it so by default.

What I'm saying is that an act - eating cats - isn't immoral or unacceptable, simply because "we" (claudius) says it is. Or because "we" (most of the western world) doesn't do it. It isn't human sacrafice, it isn't slavery, it isn't canibalism or any other extreeme. It is eating cats.
If that was so - then watching porn, listening to music, watching movies, reading books - anything basically - would be unacceptable and immoral if one culture (most likely ours from the look of it) somewhere said it was.
Because, if you deal in absolutes - then you must always deal in absolutes - regardless of who says what then.
Or it becomes the definition that what the western world views as acceptable is acceptable and what is unacceptable is unacceptable - simply because we say so. No margin for error on that one.

[Vicsun]

No - not at all.
It has nothing to do with moral relativism and it has everything to do with eating cats in some parts of the world.
It isn't some abstract issue, but simply saying that an act is immoral or unacceptable because it isn't practice in "<insert own culture here>" doesn't make it so by default.

And, conversely, just because it is a practice in "<insert different culture here>" doesn't make it ethical by default. Thus, your statement has no bearing on the discussion one way or another.

I think you're agreeing with me here. "Cats are considered food in some countries", doesn't mean it's okay, or not okay, so it has no bearing on the discussion. :

edit: I just saw your edit, and it seems that you're more or less on the same page I'm on. I'm not making a statement on the morality of cat eating, I'm making a statement on the irrelevance of the "cats are considered food in some countries" comment, which, to be fair, was probably offhand and I would have ignored had you not started defending it

[Xandax]

And, conversely, just because it is a practice in "<insert different culture here>" doesn't make it ethical by default. Thus, your statement has no bearing on the discussion one way or another.

I never claimed it was "ethical" by default.
But just like you say it isn't ethical by default - it isn't unethical by default either..... simply because "we" say it is.
And that was the point and thus the statement has bearing.