Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 174

Thread: Fighting Animal Exploitation/Cruelty

  1. #26
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan





    Quote Originally Posted by Tokis-Phoenix
    I think you ignore that fact though that many farm animals do not lead such lives of utter misery, life long suffering, and agnosing pain etc.
    From what i gathered your point was that ending all farming/consumption of animals would release all animals from pain etc.
    To begin with, not all farm raised animals live in suffering.
    hmmm...well, TP, not all slaves lived a life of suffering, but I still don`t agree with keeping them in a state of oppression. And I don`t think it would have been right had slave owners treated all their slaves right just until they became too old to work and then executed them or rendered them in a way so that their bodies could be made into products such as fertilizer or glue, or even feed, itself, to be fed back to the slaves.

    Qualifying something as "not all" in no way diminishes the wrongfulness of the system that the subjects are under.


    "Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet."
    --Albert Einstein

  2. #27
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by Tokis-Phoenix
    Secondly, for well treated farm animals its a very idealistic form of life- the animal is removed from the threat and fear of predators, it never has to worry about going hungry, it never dies of desease when it can be treated etc. I think you can somtimes over-rate the wonders of being wild- sure, you have plenty of space, the thats about as good as it gets for most animals in comparsion to well treated farm raised ones.
    Secondly, for well treated slaves it is a very idealistic form of life- the slave is removed from the threat and fear of unemployment, exploitation from other slave owners who may not be as kind, he/she never has to worry about going hungry, dieing from desiese when he/she can be treated etc. I think you can over-rate the wonders of being free- sure, you have freedom to walk around and to come and go when you want, but that`s about as good as it gets for most ex-slaves in comparison to well treated plantation raised ones. -- Now does that sound familiar to you?

  3. #28
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by Tokis-Phoenix
    The vast majority of animals in the wild do not live anywhere near to their natural life expectancy- many of them starve to death, die of desease/sickness, die while giving birth or get killed competing for a mate, get slaughtered by predaters and die through many other forms of miserable death etc.
    The natural life expectancy at a given time is determined by the mean/average of what most of the animals live to in the normal conditions of a natural environment. The natural life span does not mean living to the the maximum potential.

    I would gladly live to the average life span of about 80 in freedom and with pain and suffering in this society rather than in suffering and pain to the potential of 120.

    Likewise, man`s natural life span without medicine or treatment is usually stated to be between 40 and 50. I would rather live to 50 free of pain and suffering rather than 80 in exploitation, no freedom, and in suffering and pain.

  4. #29
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Tokis-Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-09-05
    Location
    England, Somerset
    Age
    34
    Posts
    290


    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    hmmm...well, TP, not all slaves lived a life of suffering, but I still don`t agree with keeping them in a state of oppression. And I don`t think it would have been right had slave owners treated all their slaves right just until they became too old to work and then executed them or rendered them in a way so that their bodies could be made into products such as fertilizer or glue, or even feed, itself, to be fed back to the slaves.
    Qualifying something as "not all" in no way diminishes the wrongfulness of the system that the subjects are under.
    Saying all farm animals live a life of opression is like saying you live a life of opression because you have to abide by laws.
    But you still didn't answer any of my questions or reply to my other other points though in my last post- im waiting for your reply as im interested to know your opinion :) .

  5. #30
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Tokis-Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-09-05
    Location
    England, Somerset
    Age
    34
    Posts
    290


    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    The natural life expectancy at a given time is determined by the mean/average of what most of the animals live to in the normal conditions of a natural environment. The natural life span does not mean living to the the maximum potential.
    I would gladly live to the average life span of about 80 in freedom and with pain and suffering in this society rather than in suffering and pain to the potential of 120.
    Likewise, man`s natural life span without medicine or treatment is usually stated to be between 40 and 50. I would rather live to 50 free of pain and suffering rather than 80 in exploitation, no freedom, and in suffering and pain.
    Health is just the rate at which you die at, i never stated that farm raised animals live to their full life expectancy, just much higher than their wild relatives because they live a life of far greater comforts because they are removed from so many of the fears and stresses that wild animals face.

  6. #31
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by Tokis-Phoenix
    The way i see it, if you want to do your best supporting animals you should not only support local wildlife/animal charitys/conservations, but also help incourage the good management and farming of animals, because when done properly, has many benefets for the animal in question.
    There are many pieces to the puzzle. I wish all those well who choose conservation and welfare as the problems and goals to focus on. I cannot do all at once. I choose the one that moves me to action.

    *However, I do support conservation through some avenues. But, that is not the thrust of my efforts.

    Realistically and not ideally, people are simply never going to stop eating animals, so the best you can do is support good animal husbandry/management/care etc to help incourage more people and farmers to take it up.
    We disagree. I don`t think that is the "best we can do." Sure, people may always (but not an absolute) eat animals but that is no reason to not be against it. People may always rape and murder but I would still hope that society would try to erase those things from us.

    *There are those animal husbandry/care groups and I wish them well. However, their philosophy is one of making the chain of the slave longer, not severing it. I would hate to think that abolitionists of the 19th century sought to just lengthen the chains and not sever them. I am glad they never succumbed to the idea of "the best we can do," and dance with the status quo.

  7. #32
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by Tokis-Phoenix
    Saying all farm animals live a life of opression is like saying you live a life of opression because you have to abide by laws.
    But you still didn't answer any of my questions or reply to my other other points though in my last post- im waiting for your reply as im interested to know your opinion :) .
    Why did you quote my analogy on slaves if you were not going to address it directly.

    I am in the process of catching up on your post. But, since you are quoting my posts, you should address them. That above didn't address the analogy.

    My life of abiding by laws as you have put forth is not oppression because I have representatives placed in lawmaking decisions that I, as a member of society in a democratic process, had put there. Animals have not voted for reps to stick them in cages and rip off their furs so your analogy of law and oppression do not fit.

  8. #33
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by Tokis-Phoenix
    Health is just the rate at which you die at, i never stated that farm raised animals live to their full life expectancy, just much higher than their wild relatives because they live a life of far greater comforts because they are removed from so many of the fears and stresses that wild animals face.
    And I addressed why length of life is not important in the face of oppression and suffering or exploitation. I think the slave would still rather be free rather than having the right to walk anywhere on the plantation, and then being rendered into product at some predetermined time that may not be anywhere near the natural end of its life.

  9. #34
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Tokis-Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-09-05
    Location
    England, Somerset
    Age
    34
    Posts
    290


    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    There are many pieces to the puzzle. I wish all those well who choose conservation and welfare as the problems and goals to focus on. I cannot do all at once. I choose the one that moves me to action.
    *However, I do support conservation through some avenues. But, that is not the thrust of my efforts.
    We disagree. I don`t think that is the "best we can do." Sure, people may always (but not an absolute) eat animals but that is no reason to not be against it. People may always rape and murder but I would still hope that society would try to erase those things from us.
    *There are those animal husbandry/care groups and I wish them well. However, their philosophy is one of making the chain of the slave longer, not severing it. I would hate to think that abolitionists of the 19th century sought to just lengthen the chains and not sever them. I am glad they never succumbed to the idea of "the best we can do," and dance with the status quo.

    Well i think its the best we can do for now.
    Right now though you are doing nothing to help give people a reason to act better than what we are.
    You cannot just say to everyone "dont do that because it is nasty" because people will always disagree with you because so much of topics concerning cruelty or morality is down to ones personal opinions -looking at things logically, the sooner animals get better treated, the better, but you need to have to do things effectively to do this. Small changes can grow into big actions- your point of view though seems to be "i dont like the way they do any of that, even if slowly changing the way they do things is the most efficient method".

    I hate to break it to you, but people didn't stop slavery because all of a sudden they became aware of the cruelty and morality of it, people stopped slavery because it was decided that getting rid of it would be better for the economy in a variety of ways.
    People only started becomming very gradually less rascist over time after slavery had been legally abolished/stopped.

    For example most people couldn't give a crap about the suffering battery chickens or pigs go through, they dont care the fact that a chicken is more intelligent than their beloved pet cat or that a pig is more intelligent than their pet dog or has the same learning capacity as their 4yr old child- but if people started keeping cats in cages so small they couldn't turn around and cutting off their lower jaws so they could be constantly force fed, or their dog was made to be raped by other dogs every month and fed chemicals that made it so obese that it smothered its own pups when it turned over in its cage etc, they would be in an uproar.

    People dont learn morality and then get a respect for animals, its often the other way around- people gradually show more and more respect to animals and the realise how much in common they have with them etc etc...

    People need solid non-emotional reasons to do things or change their ways- in this scenario, giving farmers a proper reason to take up less profitable methods of farming by incouraging the consumption of animal products farmed in morally correct mannors.

  10. #35
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by Tokis-Phoenix
    What are your opinions on the africa animal america hunting debate in one of the earlier links i gave you in this thread?
    That is canned hunting. Where is the sport in killing something that can`t escape? Something that gets fed by the ranch owners and become so tamed that they almost walk up to the hunter or its truck?

    It is exploitation.

    My point about the survival and prosperity of a species and the right to live being one of the most important rights of animal is this.
    You are confusing the "right for a species to survive" and the "right to live for an animal." How does an animal have "the right to live" if it is in a confined area for the purpose of being killed?

    Would you think I would be respecting your "right to live" if I put you in my yard and hunted you down? The "right to live" is a strange concept if it means only until someone decides you no longer have the right.

    Would you rather hunters dont shoot their prized antelope in the head so they can die instantly, but the species as a whole benefets because of the huge interest in financially suporting the hunts so the species can survive, or to stop people hunting these animals so the chances of the species going instinct drasticaly increases?
    First of all, if an animal is going to be killed, sure I would prefer it to be shot in the head and die instantly rather than the gut. Did I ever say or hinted such that a death from a sloppy shot is more preferable? I don`t know why you even mentioned that or if it were insinuating something?

    If the only way a species can survive is from canned hunts, well, then the echo system isn`t really working now -- is it? Those canned hunts are private property and fenced in. If those were the only animals left, kept to satiate blood junky sports, and not roaming wild to let us have some attatchement the our heritage of wildlife, then rather than be caught in a cycle of violent oppression, then they had go the way of the dodo bird.

    Do you think a specific racial group of people would want to be kept around for eternity just to satiate the violence of those who hold the keys to their cages?

  11. #36
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Tokis-Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-09-05
    Location
    England, Somerset
    Age
    34
    Posts
    290


    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    That is canned hunting. Where is the sport in killing something that can`t escape? Something that gets fed by the ranch owners and become so tamed that they almost walk up to the hunter or its truck?
    It is exploitation.
    You are confusing the "right for a species to survive" and the "right to live for an animal." How does an animal have "the right to live" if it is in a confined area for the purpose of being killed?
    Would you think I would be respecting your "right to live" if I put you in my yard and hunted you down? The "right to live" is a strange concept if it means only until someone decides you no longer have the right.
    First of all, if an animal is going to be killed, sure I would prefer it to be shot in the head and die instantly rather than the gut. Did I ever say or hinted such that a death from a sloppy shot is more preferable? I don`t know why you even mentioned that or if it were insinuating something?
    If the only way a species can survive is from canned hunts, well, then the echo system isn`t really working now -- is it? Those canned hunts are private property and fenced in. If those were the only animals left, kept to satiate blood junky sports, and not roaming wild to let us have some attatchement the our heritage of wildlife, then rather than be caught in a cycle of violent oppression, then they had go the way of the dodo bird.
    Do you think a specific racial group of people would want to be kept around for eternity just to satiate the violence of those who hold the keys to their cages?
    No you never said that a sloppy shot to the gut is more preferrable, but if you read the article, alot of the controversy has arose from the fact that many of the hunters are not shooting the animals in the head, thus giving them a quick death, because they dont want to ruin their prize(i.e when the animals head gets stuffed and hung up on a wall or whatever etc, not that i would personally ever want to do that to an animal).

    Nobody knows when they are going to die, the good thing though with the hunts is that the animals never get accustomed with having to live with the major stress of the threat of getting killed from every angle every waking and sleeping moment of its life like wild animals do- as you said, the animal was tame enough to come up to people.

    Surely its better living a life never fearing death than living a life in constant fear of it?

    And to be honest, i wouldn't really care if my only meaning of life was to be eventually shot when i got old if i never knew about it- so its a bit of a silly question IMO.

    The animals are happy and breeding better than anywhere else in the world, even than in their native homeland, they are happy and well-fed and never have to fear predators- and then when they get past their best breeding age they are shot. In the wild they would also be eaten when they got too old and slow- i honestly dont see the difference in whats best for the animal as far as this is concerned apart from the fact that in the hunting reserves the animal is far more likely to lead a happy life.

  12. #37
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by Tokis-Phoenix
    Well i think its the best we can do for now.
    We disagree. But, I will agree that it is a slow process to win rights for animals.

    Right now though you are doing nothing to help give people a reason to act better than what we are.
    Causing suffering and oppression is wrong. That message gets out and the AR Movement is growing by getting more and more supporters.

    You cannot just say to everyone "dont do that because it is nasty" because people will always disagree with you...
    Sure you can. Many people are open to that message. Not "all" people will "always" disagree with that message. I was moved to change by being told of and then learning more of the "nastiness" of it. I am sure I am not unique. The Movement is growing.

    ...because so much of topics concerning cruelty or morality is down to ones personal opinions...
    Yes, you are right. But, opinions change. People move on the spectrum. Sometimes that movement is done by individual recognition and research and sometimes people change after having been informed by others. I was of the latter. Again, I am not so unique on this point. Many have been changed through outreach programs.

    -looking at things logically, the sooner animals get better treated, the better,...
    I agree. Animal Welfare is welcomed by me. Animal Rightists help to push the industries toward making animal welfare improvements because industries having been targeted aggressively by AR would rather be seen to dealing with Animal Welfarists in an effort to discredit the need for Animal Rights. The industries look at it as having to deal with, "good cop/bad cop."

    PETA is not only an AR org but also an AW org and many of their campaigns are not AR oriented but rather AW oriented because they want to focus on short term gains, knowing that AR gains are far in the future -- but their core beliefs and ultimate goals are AR. They just are merely putting the foundation down before building the house.

    ...but you need to have to do things effectively to do this.
    Yes, Peta is very effective.

    Small changes can grow into big actions- your point of view though seems to be "i dont like the way they do any of that, even if slowly changing the way they do things is the most efficient method".
    Where did I ever say I didn`t embrace change of any kind -- be it slow or quick? I have always said things were slow and that it was a long war ahead. I surely don`t like what is going on, but my like slow change or fast change is irrelevant because all changes at alleviating animal oppression will definitely be slow. That is admitted. Whether one is better than the other is irrelevant because IT WILL BE SLOW.

  13. #38
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by Tokis-Phoenix
    I hate to break it to you, but people didn't stop slavery because all of a sudden they became aware of the cruelty and morality of it, people stopped slavery because it was decided that getting rid of it would be better for the economy in a variety of ways.
    Please provide me with some extensive material that shows a majority part of society believed this or that the majority of our politicians of that time did so. Also, the societies in the South surely did not hold that opinion.

    I am really waiting and looking forward to this because you have made me feel I have missed something in my educational upbringing.

    I have a feeling after I peruse your sources and info on this I will be saying to you, "I hate to break it to you, but ..."

    Remember, I want to see sources with a majority of decision makers or the populace having stated that reason like you said for abolishing slavery.

    They may have mused on that thought, but that was not the final impetus for deciding to sweep it away. In fact, the South worried that it would destroy their economies and way of life which was supported on cheap labor.

  14. #39
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by Tokis-Phoenix
    For example most people couldn't give a crap about the suffering battery chickens or pigs go through, they dont care the fact that a chicken is more intelligent than their beloved pet cat or that a pig is more intelligent than their pet dog or has the same learning capacity as their 4yr old child- but if people started keeping cats in cages so small they couldn't turn around and cutting off their lower jaws so they could be constantly force fed, or their dog was made to be raped by other dogs every month and fed chemicals that made it so obese that it smothered its own pups when it turned over in its cage etc, they would be in an uproar.
    Agreed. Many people are prejudiced to their own domesticated house pets and ignorant of factory farm methods.

    However, you use the word "most" people tells us that some do change. I changed when I learned about all those abuses. Some people do change when they hear about that. I am not unique in that regard. But, it does take time to seap in and cause one to change.

  15. #40
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Tokis-Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-09-05
    Location
    England, Somerset
    Age
    34
    Posts
    290


    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    We disagree. But, I will agree that it is a slow process to win rights for animals.
    Causing suffering and oppression is wrong. That message gets out and the AR Movement is growing by getting more and more supporters.
    Sure you can. Many people are open to that message. Not "all" people will "always" disagree with that message. I was moved to change by being told of and then learning more of the "nastiness" of it. I am sure I am not unique. The Movement is growing.
    Yes, you are right. But, opinions change. People move on the spectrum. Sometimes that movement is done by individual recognition and research and sometimes people change after having been informed by others. I was of the latter. Again, I am not so unique on this point. Many have been changed through outreach programs.
    I agree. Animal Welfare is welcomed by me. Animal Rightists help to push the industries toward making animal welfare improvements because industries having been targeted aggressively by AR would rather be seen to dealing with Animal Welfarists in an effort to discredit the need for Animal Rights. The industries look at it as having to deal with, "good cop/bad cop."
    PETA is not only an AR org but also an AW org and many of their campaigns are not AR oriented but rather AW oriented because they want to focus on short term gains, knowing that AR gains are far in the future -- but their core beliefs and ultimate goals are AR. They just are merely putting the foundation down before building the house.
    Yes, Peta is very effective.
    Where did I ever say I didn`t embrace change of any kind -- be it slow or quick? I have always said things were slow and that it was a long war ahead. I surely don`t like what is going on, but my like slow change or fast change is irrelevant because all changes at alleviating animal oppression will definitely be slow. That is admitted. Whether one is better than the other is irrelevant because IT WILL BE SLOW.

    You forget though that its our governments that legalise all this animal cruelty and its never going to stop it because it rakes in too much profit. The government is not suddenly going to become all emotional and start treating animals in a morally correct mannor- you could say, "yeah but we are the people and we have the power", but this is rarely ever the case- the most you could do is perhaps hold a protest, but protesting rarely ever does anything apart from raise and issue(which is usually already well known before the protest) and make it harder to protest next time.

    The government does things for power over the people and money, which are often closely related factors.
    You would be wrong to think any different of it in my honest opinion.

    The 3 ways i see things changing is;
    a. Carefully and politely help people become more aware of the basics animal morality.
    b. Help financially support better ways of treating animals.
    c. Get into politics -this is by far the most effective way you can change anything in this world, politics is every thing and if you want to start making the big changes you have to be a big player and not to be seen as another whining animal rights activist(not meaning that personally, but many people, especially those with power, will see you that way as you currently are).

    As it currently looks, we will and we wont agree on various aspects of animal morality- for example i think its fine to eat animals as long as they are raised in a morally correct manor and killed efficiently. Your opinion is that eating any animal is wrong, even if our species was evolved to do it and millions of other animals do it(its why the world evolved complex "food chains" after all).

    You are right the process is slow, but i believe it can be speeded up in many ways that you are unwilling to to take into consideration.

  16. #41
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by Tokis-Phoenix
    People dont learn morality and then get a respect for animals, its often the other way around- people gradually show more and more respect to animals and the realise how much in common they have with them etc etc...
    I am assuming that people in the AR and AW movement come on board from different paths. What you say is true. I think people come to AR or AW through ambassador animals such as dogs and cats and the respect they have for them and then one day many have an epiphany that the meat on their bun came from an animal just as capable as pain as from the dog that makes them laugh and cheer them up.

    I have seen these testimonies before and have been told so from people also.

    To say which way is more prevalant of the different avenues, I couldn`t be sure. Since you said "often," that makes me want to ask you if you have some knowledge or data you can share with us to back up a majority from what you seem to be proclaiming.

  17. #42
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by Tokis-Phoenix
    And to be honest, i wouldn't really care if my only meaning of life was to be eventually shot when i got old if i never knew about it- so its a bit of a silly question IMO.
    lol. You are assuming too much. What makes you think you would be allowed to get "old" if you were exploited and oppressed.

    It is only silly when you rewrite the situation so that you are not in the same situation as most oppressed animals. Be a little more fair when making parallels.

  18. #43
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by Tokis-Phoenix
    The animals are happy and breeding better than anywhere else in the world, even than in their native homeland, they are happy and well-fed and never have to fear predators- and then when they get past their best breeding age they are shot. In the wild they would also be eaten when they got too old and slow- i honestly dont see the difference in whats best for the animal as far as this is concerned apart from the fact that in the hunting reserves the animal is far more likely to lead a happy life.
    This goes back to the slave issue which you have still failed to address adequately. Slaves should still not be permitted just because we think they are being treated well and appear to be happy.

  19. #44
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Tokis-Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-09-05
    Location
    England, Somerset
    Age
    34
    Posts
    290


    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    Agreed. Many people are prejudiced to their own domesticated house pets and ignorant of factory farm methods.
    However, you use the word "most" people tells us that some do change. I changed when I learned about all those abuses. Some people do change when they hear about that. I am not unique in that regard. But, it does take time to seap in and cause one to change.
    I agree i say "most" because some people do change, but many simply dont want to acknowledge what they know about morality either way. You and i only reflect a very small amount of people that not only acknowledged animal cruelty but started to change our lives in various ways because of it.

    Its also difficult to give up foods simply in the name of morality, especially those you love. I dont know wether you actually liked any of the meats/animal products you were raised on, but i think asking somone to give up eating every species of animal or animal product is too much, and besides, it wouldn't be natural.

  20. #45
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by Tokis-Phoenix
    People need solid non-emotional reasons to do things or change their ways- in this scenario, giving farmers a proper reason to take up less profitable methods of farming by incouraging the consumption of animal products farmed in morally correct mannors.
    There is a place for reason, logic, and emotions. Emotions move people to act. I or any ARists and many AWists also would never jettison emotions. Some people are moved by them and make changes based on those. It is one of the tools at any movment`s disposal.

    Are you going to deny that emotions don`t have impact or cause change in people?

  21. #46
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by Tokis-Phoenix
    Its also difficult to give up foods simply in the name of morality, especially those you love. I dont know wether you actually liked any of the meats/animal products you were raised on, but i think asking somone to give up eating every species of animal or animal product is too much,...
    Oh, yes, I loved meat. I am sure I still do in some cases (however, the smell of McD`s makes me nausious now), but pleasure is no reason to indulge in an act that causes and perpetuates pain, suffering, exploitation, tyranny, and oppression.

    You just don`t ask someone to give up meat. I have never said to anyone, "Would you please give up meat because of all the bad things associated with it." There is no meaning to approaching someone like that. You talk about the miserable conditions they endure and ask them if they feel comfortable supporting an industry that does those things. The question about giving it up comes naturally to them if they carry the information in their head and think of it. Some are not moved by that. Some are. Some are partially moved. Some are moved by the health benefits of going vegetarian that seem to strike a cord with them.

    ... and besides, it wouldn't be natural.
    Well, ... it is not natural for me to defecate in the toilet but I do, controlling the urge to go in the woods like a bear or just whenever I like. I go against what nature is telling me and hold it in until I think there is an appropriate place and time to do so -- i.e. I have modified my natural feelings to let loose based on the construction of society and the rules that go with that. I control the urge.

  22. #47
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by Tokis-Phoenix
    Nobody knows when they are going to die, the good thing though with the hunts is that the animals never get accustomed with having to live with the major stress of the threat of getting killed from every angle every waking and sleeping moment of its life like wild animals do- as you said, the animal was tame enough to come up to people.

    Surely its better living a life never fearing death than living a life in constant fear of it?
    Again, all this does not support a reason for oppression, exploitation, and tyranny. Substitute the word slave above for all those that are animal and the construct of it is one that one who can empathise would not want to be in a position of. You would be laughed out and looked at as a piriah if you suggested that homeless people be put in a situation like that -- hey, they get fed and never know when the 'hit' would come.

    There is nothing natural about that scenario which you have described above. I point that out because you seem to value what is natural and what isn`t -- seemingly to not want to do something that is not natural:

    and besides, it wouldn't be natural.

  23. #48
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by Tokis-Phoenix
    You forget though that its our governments that legalise all this animal cruelty and its never going to stop it because it rakes in too much profit. The government is not suddenly going to become all emotional and start treating animals in a morally correct mannor- you could say, "yeah but we are the people and we have the power", but this is rarely ever the case- the most you could do is perhaps hold a protest, but protesting rarely ever does anything apart from raise and issue(which is usually already well known before the protest) and make it harder to protest next time.
    TP, what makes you think I have "forgotten" that about government? I am well aware of all the money the gov gets and have no illusions that the gov is going to all of a sudden get emotional and change overnight. I have no idea why you are stating this.

    And surely you are not suggesting I said or implied what your quote is above, are you? So, who are you addressing? Aren`t you addressing my points or are you having a conversation with a rhetorical muse in your head?

    You are right, protests as they have been traditionally done have not been very successful. I have addressed that in my replies to MeAndRoo above, or perhaps it is in the Animal Rights thread.

  24. #49
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by Tokis-Phoenix
    The 3 ways i see things changing is;
    a. Carefully and politely help people become more aware of the basics animal morality.
    b. Help financially support better ways of treating animals.
    c. Get into politics -this is by far the most effective way you can change anything in this world, politics is every thing and if you want to start making the big changes you have to be a big player and not to be seen as another whining animal rights activist(not meaning that personally, but many people, especially those with power, will see you that way as you currently are).
    Yes, those are all good. I have already addressed c. further above near the beginning of the thread or on the first page, I think.

    But, TP, those are all very given and obvious. I really don`t see why you felt the need to post them.

    But, there is also Direct Action and the championing of Animal Rights.

  25. #50
    The Hairy Wookie Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    Mycernius's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-02-05
    Location
    Hometown of George Eliot
    Age
    49
    Posts
    916
    Points
    21,649
    Level
    44
    Points: 21,649, Level: 44
    Level completed: 99%, Points required for next Level: 1
    Overall activity: 0%


    Ethnic group
    English
    Country: UK - England



    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    Oh, yes, I loved meat. I am sure I still do in some cases (however, the smell of McD`s makes me nausious now),
    Not the only one. IMO the packaging is probably more tasty than the food. I don't use McDs for a reason, but not about animals. They were a big contributor towards the IRA
    How do you feel about people on small holdings? The animals they keep are usually for their own consumption and are normally kept in very good conditions. Plenty of room, well fed and protected from predators. They are also subject to various animal welfare laws, in the UK at least anyway.

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Animal Rights
    By Tsuyoiko in forum Nature & Environment
    Replies: 138
    Last Post: 20-10-13, 23:41
  2. Animal testing, your feelings?
    By Tokis-Phoenix in forum Nature & Environment
    Replies: 155
    Last Post: 20-06-06, 08:03
  3. Animal speech
    By RockLee in forum Nature & Environment
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 22-05-06, 10:06
  4. status, drug treatment and fighting obesity
    By den4 in forum World News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 15-06-04, 21:03

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •