Animals Fighting Animal Exploitation/Cruelty

[Tokis-Phoenix]

So you do not agree with killing animals for food consumption?
Well wether you like it or not, if people stopped eating animals tomorrow, thousands of species of animals(domesticated or semi domesticated) would go extinct. 'Tis true. Its already an issue that thousands of species of animals, which although most have been reared for hundreds, even thousands of years, are facing because they are no longer been reared by farmers because better animals have been bred that produce more of what the public desires(i.e more meat, more fat, more milk, more wool etc)- people want lower prices for their food you see.
So by your reasoning, you would be happy is thousands of species of animals went extinct because people no longer ate them?

Wether you like it or not, in the vast majority of cases, when an animal exceeds its uses for people, they no longer want it or care for its survival.
Take this article for example, right how hundreds of endangered species of african animals are thriving in america because of hunting programs, you cannot deny the fact though that thousands of the animals that have been bred under this program would no longer exist if they didn't have it;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4689428.stm

I dont agree with the animal cruelty side of it, but then again if it means drastically increasing the survival of a particular species, im with it. And you cannot deny that animals rarely ever kill other animals humanely by our modern day standards- that lion could be tucking into that zebras stomache before its even had its last breath. Animals kill other animals, and human being been just another animal thats evolved to kill other animals, we kill other animals like any other animal.
Of course though, we have the ability to do it humanely, and to also raise the animal in a morally correct mannor in the first place, which is what im on about, but otherwise i dont have a problem with killing most animals as long as they are not rare or endangered and have been bred/raised with the intention of being killed.
For example, although im against many of the aspects of whaling/killing whales, i also dont agree with whaling because the animals are not bred or raised to be killed and we do nothing to support the species by killing them. But for farm animals like many species of cows or pigs for example, their species simply wouldn't exist unlike whales if we no longer had a need to kill them as many species of them would not be able to survive without us if they were in the wild.
No farmer will want to have a wild herd of uncontrolable cows breaking down fences or mowing through his crops/trees if all they are going to do is inevitably put him into debt if he doesn't seriously reduce their numbers. Its said that a confined species of almost any species of animal needs at least 250 of its kind so it can breed and overcome the serious effects of desease, inbreeding and predators- if you are to have 250 wild cows on your land you will need an incredible amount of spare land for themselves to support themselves on, which the vast majority of farmers do not have.
So you see what i am saying, if we stopped consuming many of the thousands of semi domesticated/domesticated animals out there, they would simply go extinct? Would you really want to be responable for somthing like that?

Another example is fox hunting, its very similar to the endangered african animal in america hunting debate. While fox hunting was legal, many farmers encouraged foxs on their land because they had a logical reason too. There many "rules" to fox hunting as far as the farmer was concerned, for example no farmers killed fox's during their breeding and cub raising seasons so there would always be numerous large quantitys of foxs around.
No the government and animal activists have made fox hunting illegal over here, farmers no longer have a reason to have foxs around, so hundreds of thousand of them are being shot and poisened- overall, despite the animal activist intentions being honorable, they have vastly contributed to the killing of hundreds of thousands of foxs.

Foxs have far more to fear of cars than the hunter and his dogs. You could also say foxs have far more to fear of animal activists than cars.

Would you get your drivers liscense and drive a car in the knowledge that you will drastically increase the chances of you running over many species of animals in your car-driving life time?

 

[strongvoicesforward]

...if people stopped eating animals tomorrow, thousands of species of animals(domesticated or semi domesticated) would go extinct.

Life for the sake of life is worth very little. There is no suffering in extinction and it is not propelled forward to future generations.

I would rather die than be consigned to an existance of oppression, tyranny, no freedom, misery, suffering, and pain. I think many feel the same.

Many S./C./N. American Indians died under slavery inflicted upon them by the Spanish Conquistadors. Many slaves from the south risked their lives to escape their chains because they wanted more than just life. Many people of today have DNR orders for their hospitalizations. Many people seek out death when the pain and suffering becomes overwhelming -- sometimes traveling thousands of miles to a place that will let them die in dignity. One of our country`s partriot proclaimed, "give me freedom, or give me death."

It is not life that is valued. It is the quality of life and all the sum things of our will and urges that come together that make us want to live to experience things that satisfy those urges and desires that our biology seeks to engage in.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Life for the sake of life is worth very little. There is no suffering in extinction and it is not propelled forward to future generations.
I would rather die than be consigned to an existance of oppression, tyranny, no freedom, misery, suffering, and pain. I think many feel the same.
Many S./C./N. American Indians died under slavery inflicted upon them by the Spanish Conquistadors. Many slaves from the south risked their lives to escape their chains because they wanted more than just life. Many people of today have DNR orders for their hospitalizations. Many people seek out death when the pain and suffering becomes overwhelming -- sometimes traveling thousands of miles to a place that will let them die in dignity. One of our country`s partriot proclaimed, "give me freedom, or give me death."
It is not life that is valued. It is the quality of life and all the sum things of our will and urges that come together that make us want to live to experience things that satisfy those urges and desires that our biology seeks to engage in.

So are you essentially saying that you do not care for the survival of a species, but only wether it lives in comfort or not?

Then surely, what point is there of fighting for the rights of animal to live a happy life if you inevitably cause its species to go extinct? It will no longer be an animal with rights because it will no longer exist to have them.

Surely you have not taken into consideration, that most animals would prefer to live, even it it means suffering at certein points of life, rather than to die? The nature of survival and life, is to live. If you call yourself an activist for animal rights, then surely the right to live is the most important right of all to fight for in an animal?
Did you not take into consideration, that extinction is rarely a pleasant process, and for the last remaining members of a species going extinct, life is often pretty miserable? I think you believe too much in the notion that death is the end to all suffering. It isn't. Life goes on after death.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

So are you essentially saying that you do not care for the survival of a species, but only wether it lives in comfort or not?

Of course I care about the survival of a species. A healthy echo-system is a rewarding one for all. Cows on feedlots, chickens in windowless sheds, mink in small wired mesh cages however, do not interact as part of the echo system. If cows were slowly phased out or mink in mesh cages were not replaced once their supply was exhausted the world`s echo system would not be damaged. In fact, if feed lots were to disappear it could help the environment.

Then surely, what point is there of fighting for the rights of animal to live a happy life if you inevitably cause its species to go extinct? It will no longer be an animal with rights because it will no longer exist to have them.

Then you are putting forth the argument that life, even a suffering one purposely caused is one worth living. Is that right? If someone tied you up and took you to a basement to keep you alive for the remaining of your life to milk bile from your prostate or some other oozing thing your body could produce, and kept you in the worse conditions possible, in your own excrement, never seeing the sun, leaving your dental care and any lesions go untreated with no care for your sanity, -- you would prefer that existence for decades rather than the release of death? You would say, "Don`t kill me, I don`t want to die because I care about keeping the numbers of my species up just so that I can rest assured I know we are more numerous than just the person coming to milk my oozing juices from me. Please exploit me and cause me suffering and pain just so my inert existance can proclaim one more number for my species."

Am I getting you right? Is that what you would want?

You didn`t address anything I wrote about Indians, slaves, people going to hospitals and all the pain and choices those subgroups have chosen to release themselves from suffering.

Surely you have not taken into consideration, that most animals would prefer to live, even it it means suffering at certein points of life, rather than to die?

TP, you have cleverly inserted "certain pionts of life," and not seem to know that mink in farms suffer greatly at most points in their lives, the same with pigs factory produced, the same with chickens factory produced etc... It is not like just one day they have a little pain. They are raised and meat their end in virtually a non-stop world of suffering.

The nature of survival and life, is to live. If you call yourself an activist for animal rights, then surely the right to live is the most important right of all to fight for in an animal?

The nature of most animals is to move away from a state of pain. That is the starting point. I doubt any dogs in Korea, if their cages at the food market were to fling open, would refuse to run to freedom thinking that they will insure the survival of their species if they stay in the cage so that they can be eaten and hence keep the market for dog eating alive and hence keep it so that the people will keep making a profit and decide to keep breeding them.

Did you not take into consideration, that extinction is rarely a pleasant process, and for the last remaining members of a species going extinct, life is often pretty miserable?

How are you defining "miserable?" Do you mean in a state of pain or just frustrated at not being able to find a mate? Do you have a case study for me to look at that identifies a last animal in a state of "misery?"

I think you believe too much in the notion that death is the end to all suffering. It isn't. Life goes on after death.

It is an end to suffering to that one animal that has escaped the source of its suffering. The fact that life goes on after death is a given and just because it does go on does not mean that suffering in life cannot still be addressed.

Death is not the ONLY way to escape/prevent suffering. It is just the final way. Surely suffering can be prevented by making and passing more animal welfare laws which is what happens. Apparantly many lawmakers agree with me around the world or a good number of animal anti cruelty laws to prevent suffering would have never been passed. It seems that suffering is taken into account by many and the laws are beginning to reflect that. Are you going to deny this? If not, then what is your point? Are you going to say that those efforts at ending suffering should not be happening?

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Of course I care about the survival of a species. A healthy echo-system is a rewarding one for all. Cows on feedlots, chickens in windowless sheds, mink in small wired mesh cages however, do not interact as part of the echo system. If cows were slowly phased out or mink in mesh cages were not replaced once their supply was exhausted the world`s echo system would not be damaged. In fact, if feed lots were to disappear it could help the environment.
Then you are putting forth the argument that life, even a suffering one purposely caused is one worth living. Is that right? If someone tied you up and took you to a basement to keep you alive for the remaining of your life to milk bile from your prostate or some other oozing thing your body could produce, and kept you in the worse conditions possible, in your own excrement, never seeing the sun, leaving your dental care and any lesions go untreated with no care for your sanity, -- you would prefer that existence for decades rather than the release of death? You would say, "Don`t kill me, I don`t want to die because I care about keeping the numbers of my species up just so that I can rest assured I know we are more numerous than just the person coming to milk my oozing juices from me. Please exploit me and cause me suffering and pain just so my inert existance can proclaim one more number for my species."
Am I getting you right? Is that what you would want?
You didn`t address anything I wrote about Indians, slaves, people going to hospitals and all the pain and choices those subgroups have chosen to release themselves from suffering.
TP, you have cleverly inserted "certain pionts of life," and not seem to know that mink in farms suffer greatly at most points in their lives, the same with pigs factory produced, the same with chickens factory produced etc... It is not like just one day they have a little pain. They are raised and meat their end in virtually a non-stop world of suffering.
The nature of most animals is to move away from a state of pain. That is the starting point. I doubt any dogs in Korea, if their cages at the food market were to fling open, would refuse to run to freedom thinking that they will insure the survival of their species if they stay in the cage so that they can be eaten and hence keep the market for dog eating alive and hence keep it so that the people will keep making a profit and decide to keep breeding them.
How are you defining "miserable?" Do you mean in a state of pain or just frustrated at not being able to find a mate? Do you have a case study for me to look at that identifies a last animal in a state of "misery?"
It is an end to suffering to that one animal that has escaped the source of its suffering. The fact that life goes on after death is a given and just because it does go on does not mean that suffering in life cannot still be addressed.
Death is not the ONLY way to escape/prevent suffering. It is just the final way. Surely suffering can be prevented by making and passing more animal welfare laws which is what happens. Apparantly many lawmakers agree with me around the world or a good number of animal anti cruelty laws to prevent suffering would have never been passed. It seems that suffering is taken into account by many and the laws are beginning to reflect that. Are you going to deny this? If not, then what is your point? Are you going to say that those efforts at ending suffering should not be happening?

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.
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.
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 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.
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.

What are your opinions on the africa animal america hunting debate in one of the earlier links i gave you in this thread? 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. 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? This is an important debate because no matter how you look at it, africa is no state of any sort to support anymore wildlife as it is- it can barely support the people let alone the animals.

This world is not ideal, you have to look at things realistically.

The indian slavery thing is irrelevant to the debate as far as im concerned as you replied it to a point you thought i was making/indicating, but i wasn't. My point about the survival of species and stuff is the one i just wrote about above.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

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.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

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?

 

[strongvoicesforward]

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.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

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 .

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

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.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

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.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

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.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

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.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

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.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

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?

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

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.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

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.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

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.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

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.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

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.