OT: Purveyers of animal suffering 'fighting back'.

[Radio Man]

You are suggesting we stop feeding the 80 billion animals and let them die. That doesn?t sound very animal friendly.

[Robin]

My comment neither stated nor implied that it was a point of view unique to you. English doesn't work that way.

If you are not trying to convert others to your point of view I can only think you post so much on the subject so often as a way of pleasuring yourself.

[Fredxx]

He also wants them to live longer before being slaughtered, taking more food away from those he claims to be starving. He hasn't thought very deeply about this.

Actually I'm starving and need to raid the fridge, so one less than the overpopulation of 800m.

[Tim Lamb]

+1 I think there must be some *reward/gratification* motive to persist in repeating a personal lifestyle decision. I have previously linked this motivation to that felt by those of a religious conviction. Somehow advertising a belief and attempting to gain adherents in the face of opposition builds self esteem. Rather ludicrous in a non physical environment such as a newsgroup:-)

Best ignored I think. Much of the On Topic posting is relevant and useful.

[T i m]

That wasn't the point of my reply. It was that *facts* aren't anyone's POV, least of all mine.

As anyone else does who likes to 'vent' when they are affected by something. Shame you don't respond equally to them?

Cheers, T i m

[Robin]

Well put.

I usually do so but occasionally make the mistake of thinking rational debate may be possible.

[Fredxx]

Few are as fanatic as you, a sure sign of envy.

[Fredxx]

Have you not noticed that animal welfare never feature in his posts, just his obsession of stopping everyone else eating meat.

[John Rumm]

Well that is progress, you at least accept that until that point they are not being mistreated.

How exactly would I identify the cow giving up its life freely?

You understand the concept of a food chain I presume? Some animals eat vegetation, some other animals, some both. If Man were not present on the planet, that would still be the case - so it's an entirely "natural" process. Now in nature this of course all happens with much suffering at the point of an animal becoming dinner - there are probably not many painless ways to tear it limb from limb before tucking in.

As intelligent species we have found ways to participate in that food chain in far less brutal ways than the natural approach, however food is still food.

As for "exploitation" - what is that? Is riding a horse ok? Using one to plough a field? How about keeping and training a bird of pray to hunt small mammals for the pot? Some level of "exploitation" is a requirement for the survival of any species. I am content to live with that.

You may be reassured that I draw the line at eating slaves.

Chopsticks?

[Fredxx]

I see spite and resentment, two features of envy. YMMV

[Fredxx]

Then your definition is wide of that accepted

I'm not the on needing glasses

[The Natural Philosopher]

Oh god. Farming policy being written by woke 'creatives'

I'll put another art student on the fire.

[RJH]

snip

Yeahbut. As regards non-human animals, our intelligence metes out some pretty brutal variations on the theme of life and death. It's just a disgrace. It's also one of those 'how will history judge' in a few hundred (or maybe thousand) year's time - the era of industrial/mechanical animal farming will be looked on as plain barbaric. 'Farming' an animal to eat it - who were these people?!

We certainly don't need to eat animals/related in the UK - that argument has gone, surely? If you eat meat or cheese in the UK it's because you want to, not because you need to.

As for more symbiotic relationships - pets etc.? I think generally OK, common sense applied.

[Fred]

Bet it isnt.

Yes, but most of us prefer to eat animals than just plants.

Yes.

And most of us want to.

Why is it OK to keep birds in cages, keep cats inside their entire lives, never let dogs off a lead outside. keep fish in small tanks etc ?

[Robin]

Possibly. But you are at least there recognising that whether farming animals is cruel is not a "fact" that can be tested in a workshop or lab but a judgment that depends on societal norms and may - or may not - change over time.

[Spike]

WHS

[T i m]

Progress ... towards causing an animal to suffer because you like how it's flesh tastes?

Please don't put words into my mouth John, you are supposed to be better than that.

No, 1, most of these animals wouldn't exist if they weren't artificially inseminated (nothing 'natural' about that).

2) Most of these animals are kept in 'non natural' environments, aren't allowed to roam, find food and shelter, and live their lives as they would in the wild. They are packed into sheds / pens / cages in vast numbers and that's why the cut off the tails and teeth of pigs and de-beak birds, or they are likely to damage 'the product' before it's slaughtered at an early age.

It obviously wouldn't. You are *obviously* taking it's life against it's will. Poke it with a sharp stick on an open field and see if it stays there or runs away.

No such thing (you really ought to do more research before trying to prove black is white). ;-(

It's a 'food mesh' with all sorts of interdependencies in all sorts of directions.

Correct and few have the choice where they find that food.

Of course.

Correct?

No, animals only need to be 'food' when there are no other options, or until you can breed an animal that *want's* to die well before it's time.

Animals (in the wild) often also have the chance to escape, I saw a pack of lions on TV the other day who had recently eaten and a wild pig happened to wander past and apart from sitting up in surprise, the lions didn't even move. Deer often escape big cats, fish escape birds, lizards escape racer snakes etc. [1]

Pigs can't escape a painful death is a gas chamber (but try desperately to).

Look it up mate.

Nope, unless you think they evolved for us to ride?

Nope, unless you think they evolved to pull a plough?

Nope.

Except an advanced species that has the choice not to.

You are content to live using the morals and ethics of a wild animal or Neanderthal?

Why not though? They would be yours, you can and they are made of meat?

And of course you have 'a line', it's the logical inconsistency you are living with.

Cheers, T i m

[1] A cow jumps off a ship transporting it to slaughter, swims for 5 hours to be collected back up and slaughtered.

Cow breaks free of a handler, swims to another island. Farmer goes to that island to reclaim it and it swims on to another island. The locals have a fundraiser and buy the cow off the farmer and give it to a animal rescue. Then go home and eat cow.

[T i m]

Absolutely. And of course things are and have been changing (improving animal welfare) for years and so stopping the exploitation of animals completely will be the natural conclusion to that.

We consider gassing on sentient creatures to be horrific when they are people but consider it perfectly acceptable when they are (some) animals. I question how many pet owners would consider gassing of their beloved dog acceptable for example. If it's not 'humane' ('with compassion') for a dog, why is it for another animal that is even more intelligent?

Only by those of us who are willing to consider others over / with ourselves possibly?

Exactly ... and many people / cultures don't ever eat one / either. It's all to do with how you are brought up and the marketing and culture you are exposed to that allows a normalisation of what others often consider unacceptable or abhorrent.

The same applies for most pets of course, maybe with the last to go the domestic dog, given they have *chosen* to befriend man *because* in turn for protecting their livestock and family, they were given food and shelter. That was done as part of a mutually beneficial relationship, not because one was going to kill and eat the other, especially when there are alternatives (or you live in China etc). ;-(

'Man's best friend' is a dog' (not any other creature for mostly practical reasons).

However, We have *never* bought a dog from a breeder and have only taken on 'rescue' dogs to allow them to live out their lives as happily and comfortably as possible. This often includes spaying / castration (done in surgical conditions and with full anaesthetic and pain killers etc) because we don't want the problem of stray dogs to be compounded. We do not keep them knowing that even when old and terminally ill we would accept them being gassed to death, electrocuted and stunned before having their throats cut.

Cheers, T i m

[NY]

Maybe it will be the natural conclusion to it - or maybe it won't. When animals are kept in very bad conditions (battery hens, veal crates etc) there will be a lot of uproar and demands for improvements. Once things improve to a level that people regard as "good enough" (a threshold which will vary from one person to another!) then there will not be demands for further changes, so things will stay static.

[T i m]

<snip>

Like when you rescue an animal that is in pain or help a slave etc?

Of course you have, easy to do when you are (were) part of the whole purveyor of the pain and suffering.

Or in the case of veganism, to prevent animals from being exploited and killed for no justifiable reason. This isn't survival, this is choice, the choice not to take the life of an animal when you don't need to. Nothing whatsoever to do with the person trying to get others to do the same, other than knowing you may have prevented many more animals from having to suffer. It's perfectly natural for people to want to do good things.

Along with any discussion on factual information then?

But I bet you can't. You have to have your little say because of guilt. You were part of the process (and still are indirectly I believe re 'finishing' beef cattle on your land) so *of course* you will desperately try to come up with any FUD you can to defend your indefensible position.

And you have said many times how you don't want to read / consider anything to do with reducing the cruelty and suffering of animals yet you continue to do so?

Cheers, T i m