Animals Fighting Animal Exploitation/Cruelty

Tokis-Phoenix said:
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.
 
Tokis-Phoenix said:
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.
 
Tokis-Phoenix said:
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.
 
strongvoicesforward said:
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.
 
Tokis-Phoenix said:
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?
 
Tokis-Phoenix said:
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.
 
Tokis-Phoenix said:
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.
 
Tokis-Phoenix said:
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.
 
Tokis-Phoenix said:
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.
 
strongvoicesforward said:
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.
 
strongvoicesforward said:
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.

Im suprised that you have so much faith in your government education, if only as an animal rights activist considering that its the same government that legalises the crueltys you are so against.
Im not sure what country you were brought up in(please tell me), but theres a trend in government education of any country, for example;

The americans are brought up and told that they are the best country out there. The american government though is the same government that is currently killing tens of thousands of people in iraq, and told the american public that the vietnam war is right.

The english are brought up with the notion too, that they are the best country out there. The english government is the same government that expresses what a great man churchill was and how evil sadam is for killing the kurds, despite that fact it was churchill who first mentioned the idea of gassing the 5000 kurds.

The japanese are brought up with the notion that they are the best country out there, despite being reasponsable for the Nanking massacre and refusing to openly educate its youth about the facts.

etc etc etc...
Most people dont even know about their countrys attrocitys, crimes or acts of wrong, most countrys are more than willing to educate their people about other countrys negative actions. Most countrys only admit their own actions if it means that denying them will lose them power/populity on the whole/in the long term or in the situation that they actually sorted out their wrong doings in some way or another.
We are all educated about the slave trade in africa, and how we were wrong to do it.

Now for some info/facts on why a large part of the slave trade was ended because of economy issues(given that its difficult to sift through the giant bulk of slave trade info, which is why i may take a tad to get you your desired amount);

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4742049.stm

If you read carefully and look at things logically, you'll notice "Slavery was the world's first global industry but before globalism and corporations it was actually run by a few hundred families."
Slavery does not create many jobs, but we all know that jobs are good for the economy- the romans never abolished their slave trade because they actually believed it would be bad for the economy.
If the government had continued to legalise slavery it would have lost control of its people and its trading relations with other countrys would have been damaged- in essense, the government was forced to stop the slave trade- most of the people may have been against the slave trade due to reasons of morality, but morality was not even considered as far as the government was concerned, but rather control over its people and profits. As long as slavery was popular amoung the masses, it was worth the money, when it started to threaten the governments control over the people, i.e people started having mass riots, the financial and power benefets of slavery no longer warrented being worth the effort.
I guess one example of a government not dealing with its slave trade even if it has plenty of reasons concerning morality why it should deal with its slave trade even today is Niger;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4327497.stm

Why is it in denial? Because currently slavery is good for its economy with little or no resistance.

Im sure you were never told in your government education that there's more slavery now in the world than what there ever was during the height of the slave trade;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4204675.stm

Statistics that although we abolished the slave trade, we are in as much denial that it still goes on as the people in Niger are;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3589646.stm

_39992552_world_slavery3_map416.gif


(Slavery is a problem around the world and very difficult to measure. The following examples are listed in geographical order and not in terms of the magnitude of the problem.)

1. US: An estimated 20,000 people are trafficked into the US annually - many are forced into prostitution.
2. Dominican Republic: Campaigners say hundreds of thousands of Haitians are rounded up near the border and made to work on Dominican sugar plantations.
3. Brazil: Up to 25,000 people are said to be working as slave labourers - most of them clearing Amazonian forests.
4. Mauritania: Despite its abolition in 1981, chattel slavery is still strong - up to 1m people are allegedly held as "inheritable property".
5. Sudan: Campaigners say northern militias continue to take women and children in slave raids in the south.
6. Europe: Tens of thousands of women and girls are cheated, abducted and forced into prostitution right across Europe.
7. UAE: Every year hundreds of boys are reportedly trafficked from South Asia to the UAE and other Gulf states to race camels.
8. Pakistan: Men, women and children are bonded into forced labour in agriculture and industry, campaigners say.
9. Burma: Forced labour is reportedly used on a growing number infrastructure projects.
10. Thailand: Thousands of girls are sex slaves for tourists.
... .... .....
 
strongvoicesforward said:
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.
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.


Yeah i know its not natural to defecate in the toilet, but it is natural for you defecate- we evolved bums after all for that etc.
It is natural for us to eat meat, we evolved canine teeth and special molars, we evolved a stomache that was designed to cope with digesting meat, we evolved hunter instincts like the instinct to scan the horizon(left to right in the majority of cases for people) when looking for food/prey etc.
Yes you can control/supress an urge not to eat meat, but that doesn't mean its healthier or natural. Its well known that people do best on a diet of red and white meat, vegetables, fruit, fish/water critters and animal by products like milk etc- we have been living off this diet since the dawn of farming, which in most countrys, dates around 6000yrs ago more or less(although some countrys devoped it much earlier while others not at all or much later).

So, if people hunted for their food, would you still see that as animal opression?
 
Tokis-Phoenix said:
Im suprised that ....

TP, I asked you for some info that explicitly said "slavery was ended due to economic" reasons. Those links did not state that. In fact, the first one explicitly stated it was ended due to moral reasons.

I think you were trying to imply that destabilization of society through protests would cause economic loss and therefore that is why it was abolished. However, did it say that somewhere in the links? If so, please point it out. You are jumping on the wagon of "presumptionsim."

I would say that if slavery was ended out of fear of social unrest due to protests, that if the decision to end it was done on reasons other than moral grounds, it was then done so on grounds for the regime to survive. But, I will not state that forcefully. But, you have forcefully stated that it was done so out of "economic reasons." Now, please show that in very direct terms. If that were the reason and the main reason, it would not have to be drawn at through presumptions. It would have been stated quite clearly by very articulate persons of those times. Where are those statements in the majority of leaders and social activists?
 
Tokis-Phoenix said:
Yeah i know its not natural to defecate in the toilet, but it is natural for you defecate- we evolved bums after all for that etc.
It is natural for us to eat meat, we evolved canine teeth and special molars, we evolved a stomache that was designed to cope with digesting meat, we evolved hunter instincts like the instinct to scan the horizon(left to right in the majority of cases for people) when looking for food/prey etc.
Yes you can control/supress an urge not to eat meat, but that doesn't mean its healthier or natural. Its well known that people do best on a diet of red and white meat, vegetables, fruit, fish/water critters and animal by products like milk etc- we have been living off this diet since the dawn of farming, which in most countrys, dates around 6000yrs ago more or less(although some countrys devoped it much earlier while others not at all or much later).

My support for AR is one of being against oppression, exploitation and tyranny. One may say that is the moral argument. I am aware of the health benefit and environmental argument, but those are not the ones I champion.

Perhaps another ARist who is lurking in may want to put forth those reasons. Perhaps not. However, in modern society we do not need meat consumption to survive. If it were so, then all vegegtarians/vegans would never live too long.
 
Tokis-Phoenix said:
So, if people hunted for their food, would you still see that as animal opression?

I would see it as unecessary in today`s modern world. To cause pain and suffering to an animal, to violate its autonomy when it is not needed for survival for sustenance is cruel.
 
strongvoicesforward said:
TP, I asked you for some info that explicitly said "slavery was ended due to economic" reasons. Those links did not state that. In fact, the first one explicitly stated it was ended due to moral reasons.
I think you were trying to imply that destabilization of society through protests would cause economic loss and therefore that is why it was abolished. However, did it say that somewhere in the links? If so, please point it out. You are jumping on the wagon of "presumptionsim."
I would say that if slavery was ended out of fear of social unrest due to protests, that if the decision to end it was done on reasons other than moral grounds, it was then done so on grounds for the regime to survive. But, I will not state that forcefully. But, you have forcefully stated that it was done so out of "economic reasons." Now, please show that in very direct terms. If that were the reason and the main reason, it would not have to be drawn at through presumptions. It would have been stated quite clearly by very articulate persons of those times. Where are those statements in the majority of leaders and social activists?
I cannot give you links that explicitly say "slavery was ended due to economic" reasons just as much as i cannot give you links that say "slavery was ended due to moral reasons" because it says the slave trade was stopped mainly due to moral reasons- you cannot say slavery was entirely ended due to reasons of morality alone as you cannot say that president bush went to war with iraq entirely due to reasons of morality.
You are jumping on the wagon of "presumptionsim" just as much as you have accused me of doing- besides, we live in a politically correct world, it would be wrong to even suggest that slavery was ended partly due to economic reasons :relief: ?
Besides, i think we are seriously getting off-topic now; when it comes down to it, i think comparing the slave trade to farm animal oppression is a really bad example, that was my point.
Strongvoicesforward, i think your idea of hunting being cruel on the whole is wrong- you should re-examine your interperatation of what is "cruel".
Its not cruel to shoot a pheasant in the head, instantly blowing its brains out and killing it in seconds.
Honestly though, have you ever been to an organic free-range farm for any decent period of time or lived on one? Its just i have the feeling you are damning somthing you have never seen first hand or experienced.
 
Tokis-Phoenix said:
I cannot give you links that explicitly say "slavery was ended due to economic" reasons...

That`s right, you can`t. Thanks for admitting such but you threw it out to me as if you were schooling me on the subject. Such a brazen statement in the positive should be backed up with what you were basing it on. Since slavery was a major issue in the last 200 years when we have had a large press and personal biographies and recorded government speeches, such a statement or near statement should not be hard to find.

just as much as i cannot give you links that say "slavery was ended due to moral reasons" because it says the slave trade was stopped mainly due to moral reasons-

TP, you are reaching now. You are playing semantics. Is hair splitting going to be your defense against the fact that slavery was indeed ended because of moral reasons. You know, there will always be at least one person who does not agree with something -- does that then mean everything must be qualified with "mainly." If so, then skies the limit on what we state and always lead some room for doubt. "Mainly Jim Jones was responsible for killing the people of his cult in the jungle." I mean after all, he didn`t actually mix the kool aid himself. Come on, TP, stop playing with semantics and lay responsibility where it should be laid.

...you cannot say slavery was entirely ended due to reasons of morality alone as you cannot say that president bush went to war with iraq entirely due to reasons of morality.

Did I say there was no grey area? You were the one who said "slavery was ended due to economic reasons" without qualifying it. I never would say that about Bush's motives. Why are you rhetorically attributing that to me?

Just admit an honest mistake and accept that "slavery was ended on moral reasons." Whether you put "mainly" in there or not I don`t care. The point is it is a far cry from your unqualified statement on the matter as to why slavery was ended.

You are jumping on the wagon of "presumptionsim" just as much as you have accused me of doing- besides, we live in a politically correct world, it would be wrong to even suggest that slavery was ended partly due to economic reasons

Well, then why did you mention it? Besides, it is wrong! Outright wrong. You posted all those sights and made a presumption that governments ended slavery because of economic reasons based on the violence that may flare up. However, that was no way explicitly said. You jumped to that conclusion. I merely suggested that if it were not done out of morality, it may have been done so out of fear for the survival of the regime -- but, I clearly stated that I would not defend that idea for I believe it was done so out of morality. My suggestion about "regime survival" was merely showing you how your sources could be presumed to be another reason and not "economic."
 
strongvoicesforward said:
That`s right, you can`t. Thanks for admitting such but you threw it out to me as if you were schooling me on the subject. Such a brazen statement in the positive should be backed up with what you were basing it on. Since slavery was a major issue in the last 200 years when we have had a large press and personal biographies and recorded government speeches, such a statement or near statement should not be hard to find.
TP, you are reaching now. You are playing semantics. Is hair splitting going to be your defense against the fact that slavery was indeed ended because of moral reasons. You know, there will always be at least one person who does not agree with something -- does that then mean everything must be qualified with "mainly." If so, then skies the limit on what we state and always lead some room for doubt. "Mainly Jim Jones was responsible for killing the people of his cult in the jungle." I mean after all, he didn`t actually mix the kool aid himself. Come on, TP, stop playing with semantics and lay responsibility where it should be laid.
Did I say there was no grey area? You were the one who said "slavery was ended due to economic reasons" without qualifying it. I never would say that about Bush's motives. Why are you rhetorically attributing that to me?
Just admit an honest mistake and accept that "slavery was ended on moral reasons." Whether you put "mainly" in there or not I don`t care. The point is it is a far cry from your unqualified statement on the matter as to why slavery was ended.
Well, then why did you mention it? Besides, it is wrong! Outright wrong. You posted all those sights and made a presumption that governments ended slavery because of economic reasons based on the violence that may flare up. However, that was no way explicitly said. You jumped to that conclusion. I merely suggested that if it were not done out of morality, it may have been done so out of fear for the survival of the regime -- but, I clearly stated that I would not defend that idea for I believe it was done so out of morality. My suggestion about "regime survival" was merely showing you how your sources could be presumed to be another reason and not "economic."

("sigh" this is entirely off-topic since you didn't want to answer my other question by the way)
...Im sorry but you are asking me that i must be wrong just because you presume that all slavery was ended entirely out of morality? Can you find a reputable source that says all slavery was ended entirely out of moral reasons? Because that is what you were/are implying to me, i merely disagreed with you.
 
Tokis-Phoenix said:
Besides, i think we are seriously getting off-topic now; when it comes down to it, i think comparing the slave trade to farm animal oppression is a really bad example, that was my point.

Well, I don`t think it is a bad example and I will not embrace oppression in any of its ugly forms. Those against ARists want us to give up that but we won`t because when animals are shackled as a beast of burden or used to profit from, they are being oppressed as slaves were. They are being denied their freedom as slaves were. They are being forced to work for the profit of another as slaves were. Sorry, it will remain on the table unless you can explain why the slavery and oppression and tyranny and exploitation of humans is also good or acceptable.
 
Tokis-Phoenix said:
("sigh" this is entirely off-topic since you didn't want to answer my other question by the way)
...Im sorry but you are asking me that i must be wrong just because you presume that all slavery was ended entirely out of morality? Can you find a reputable source that says all slavery was ended entirely out of moral reasons? Because that is what you were/are implying to me, i merely disagreed with you.

Look at the 2nd para above where I address your hair splitting and semantics. I clearly said there will be some who do not agree on everything. However, that does not warrant the use of qualifying statements all the time with "mainly."

Yes, you disagreed with me, but you made a very bold statement as if you were schooling me. You did not qualify your statement. You were far from what is viewed by most. You said "slavery was ended due to economic reasons." You finally admitted to it was wrong. Or I am sorry, you haven`t ,have you? Will you retract that statement or not?
 

This thread has been viewed 154558 times.

Back
Top