A legislative move to ban the consumption of dog meat is losing steam as rival parties have yet to reach a consensus over the issue amid fierce opposition from dog meat traders.
While I’m completely in favor of this, it doesn’t address the more significant problems. Factory farming and the consumption of beef and chicken cause far more animal suffering worldwide than eating dogs. Legislation needs to exist to prohibit the production and consumption of ALL meat products. What’s the point of banning dog meat when cows, chickens, goats, sheep, etc are all raised for meat? Banning dog is a good first step, but it’s insignificant. I see no difference in eating dogs va eating the normal “meat animals.”
Before anyone asks, no, I’m not vegan, but I’m in favor of coexisting with animals and using what they leave for us (like free range eggs), not murdering them for food.
I’m a meat eater, but your axioms are vegan. Fundamentally you cannot create an egg laying operation without culling male chicks. You cannot have milk without impregnating and taking the babies away from heifers. You cannot manage a herd/flock without culling animals in general. Animal husbandry explicitly denies the rights you ascribe to animals. As I said, though, I do not ascribe those rights to them.
If you believe animals have a fundamental right to life, you logically must be vegan. Full stop. I believe in preventing suffering of animals, but I don’t believe they have a fundamental right to life.
Edit: I want to give a side example of milk production without killing unproductive animals/males. In India, since BJP vigilantes will attack farmers transporting animals to slaughter, farmers instead abandon their cows, which usually die from dehydration or disease and sometimes wander the streets of the cities. There are consequently way more stay bulls attacking people at random as well. I honestly think that practice is worse than killing the cattle.
Surely you realize that you have constructed a logical argument around the conclusion that you wished to make? You can make life choices that best align with your principles and do your part to make a difference.
With reducing animal suffering, there’s is veganism on one end of the scale. It seems that you lean somewhere towards the opposite end by making no attempt to resolve this whatsoever. Vegetarianism and pescatarianism exist somewhere in the middle.
I don’t really understand. It’s not a position I hold so it’s not a conclusion I wish to make. If you believe killing animals for meat is a violation of a fundamental right, it’s also a violation of that right to use other animal products.
I find endorsement for more restrictive diets for environmental or utilitarian(reduce animal suffering) reasons to be fine. If, however, you believe that eating meat is murder because animals have a right to live, it’s disingenuous not to be vegan.
animals are killed all the time out of convenience or by accident or for profit. it’s so common that i think a justification must be made that it is immoral.
They are sentient beings, killing them without need is immoral since it’s causing pain for the sake of it.
I don’t think it’s wrong to kill an animal for sustenance but it should be done in the most humane way possible and factory farming is the complete opposite of that.
Just because they’re incapable of being moral agents, i.e. capable of understanding why murder is wrong, doesn’t make it OK to murder them. A toddler would happily push you off a cliff, but that doesn’t give you the right to push toddlers off cliffs.
I agree in part: you cannot create an egg laying operation without culling male chicks. That’s why factory farming of eggs should not exist. There’s a huge difference between someone having a few hens and roosters that happily live on their farm and a factory farming operation. One is providing a safe home for animals and receiving food in return; the other is exploitation.
What I’m saying is, even on a small farm, you need to cull male chicks and unproductive hens to feed yourself, not even considering feeding other people. That’s how it’s always worked since the domestication of the chicken.
Most small farmers buy chicks that are already sexed for this reason.
I agree but that issue is years away while something about this can be done right now, don’t sabotage your own movement by trying to get everything done at once, it never works.
You’re right. It’s just the double standard makes me angry. We have millions of cows and chickens tortured and slaughtered every year, and the vast majority of people don’t care. Yet dogs are seen as companion animals and not a source of food. Pigs are by far as intelligent as dogs and cats, yet everyone loves bacon.
I take back my “Shut up”. But I stand by everything else I wrote.
What makes you think that?
Because it is factually wrong. I’m informing myself about that industry for many years now. I’m not an activist vegan (because where I live that doesn’t take place), but I follow many activists and have seen a lot of videos, so I know what’s going on.
Isn’t it torture to confine mother-sows for month on hard wooden planks in spaces they can’t move at all, laying in their feces and involuntary suffocating their own piglets.
Or breeding chickens that have to give 20-30 times more eggs than their ancestors which leads to calcium deficiency and lets their backbones break.
Clipping teeth, tails and testicles of young piglets without anesthesia?
Shipping calves around the world in container ships in every weather condition without proper food and water supply, where a lot of them die and the ones surviving getting kosher butchered in Morocco?
I could go on an on. I’ve seen some shit. So sorry for being condescending but such takes just make me angry.
the intention of torture is to inflict pain or suffering, and for the subject to know why (usually punishment, to get information). the pain is the point and it is intentional.
if the practices you’re describing caused no pain or suffering, we would still do them. the pain is incidental, not intentional.
Yeah it seems my post got deleted for speaking the truth. Some can’t handle it as it seems.
Semantics and philosophy are nice and fine but don’t make a difference for the animals suffering. In lack of a better definition let’s call it violence. And it isn’t incidental but systematic.
Words like “murder” and “rape” only apply to non-human animals because for much of history, taking those actions on animals were necessary evils for us to survive. Our species has learned to evolve over time, and we no longer take many of the horrible actions that were commonplace centuries ago. We need to evolve as a culture away from eating meat, and our language needs to evolve with us.
Humans still do most of all these “horrible” actions. We have not changed. Some of us just are more empathetic and compassionate. Like we have always been.
We decide whom murder and rape apply to. You may decide differently, but an argument based on them not applying is begging the question. This is not to say that the first poster’s argument was sound, but you didn’t really address the argument, just reaffirmed existing definitions where the first poster was looking to expand them.
It’s like if someone compared aspirin and cannabis, in that many people use them regularly without developing addictions, and the rebuttal was that cannabis is an illegal drug, so it’s a different kind of drug.
Assuming you live in a democracy, then yes, we have decided and do still decide. We can change the laws at any time (I know this is idealistic in a lot of countries) and use a new definition, or we can determine on a jury that something is or is not punished. I’m not comparing slavery to animal husbandry, but the US (I assume other slaveholding countries were similar, but I don’t know) has changed the definition to include or exclude slaves at various points. Murder is a social concept, not an immutable truth about the world.
While I’m completely in favor of this, it doesn’t address the more significant problems. Factory farming and the consumption of beef and chicken cause far more animal suffering worldwide than eating dogs. Legislation needs to exist to prohibit the production and consumption of ALL meat products. What’s the point of banning dog meat when cows, chickens, goats, sheep, etc are all raised for meat? Banning dog is a good first step, but it’s insignificant. I see no difference in eating dogs va eating the normal “meat animals.”
Before anyone asks, no, I’m not vegan, but I’m in favor of coexisting with animals and using what they leave for us (like free range eggs), not murdering them for food.
I’m a meat eater, but your axioms are vegan. Fundamentally you cannot create an egg laying operation without culling male chicks. You cannot have milk without impregnating and taking the babies away from heifers. You cannot manage a herd/flock without culling animals in general. Animal husbandry explicitly denies the rights you ascribe to animals. As I said, though, I do not ascribe those rights to them.
No need to be vegan to acknowledge that animals are thinking and feeling beings who deserve rights.
Yours is the take of a person without empathy or conscience.
If you believe animals have a fundamental right to life, you logically must be vegan. Full stop. I believe in preventing suffering of animals, but I don’t believe they have a fundamental right to life.
Edit: I want to give a side example of milk production without killing unproductive animals/males. In India, since BJP vigilantes will attack farmers transporting animals to slaughter, farmers instead abandon their cows, which usually die from dehydration or disease and sometimes wander the streets of the cities. There are consequently way more stay bulls attacking people at random as well. I honestly think that practice is worse than killing the cattle.
Surely you realize that you have constructed a logical argument around the conclusion that you wished to make? You can make life choices that best align with your principles and do your part to make a difference.
With reducing animal suffering, there’s is veganism on one end of the scale. It seems that you lean somewhere towards the opposite end by making no attempt to resolve this whatsoever. Vegetarianism and pescatarianism exist somewhere in the middle.
I don’t really understand. It’s not a position I hold so it’s not a conclusion I wish to make. If you believe killing animals for meat is a violation of a fundamental right, it’s also a violation of that right to use other animal products.
I find endorsement for more restrictive diets for environmental or utilitarian(reduce animal suffering) reasons to be fine. If, however, you believe that eating meat is murder because animals have a right to live, it’s disingenuous not to be vegan.
what rights do you think animals deserve?
Forget rights.
What ethical foundation permits someone to kill animals when they don’t need to?
animals are killed all the time out of convenience or by accident or for profit. it’s so common that i think a justification must be made that it is immoral.
Something being common doesn’t mean it’s moral.
i think it’s amoral, actually. and a phenomenon being so ubiquitous is a good indicator of amorality, even if it is not a guarantee.
They are sentient beings, killing them without need is immoral since it’s causing pain for the sake of it.
I don’t think it’s wrong to kill an animal for sustenance but it should be done in the most humane way possible and factory farming is the complete opposite of that.
The right to life and freedom from harm.
do you think they would be willing to recognize that right for others? they certainly don’t act that way, now.
Just because they’re incapable of being moral agents, i.e. capable of understanding why murder is wrong, doesn’t make it OK to murder them. A toddler would happily push you off a cliff, but that doesn’t give you the right to push toddlers off cliffs.
right, but the thing that makes it wrong to push a toddler off a cliff may not apply to non-human animals.
Like what? What criteria would allow for toddlers to be given moral consideration that would exclude animals?
I agree in part: you cannot create an egg laying operation without culling male chicks. That’s why factory farming of eggs should not exist. There’s a huge difference between someone having a few hens and roosters that happily live on their farm and a factory farming operation. One is providing a safe home for animals and receiving food in return; the other is exploitation.
What I’m saying is, even on a small farm, you need to cull male chicks and unproductive hens to feed yourself, not even considering feeding other people. That’s how it’s always worked since the domestication of the chicken.
Most small farmers buy chicks that are already sexed for this reason.
Removed by mod
This guy is saying he doesn’t believe animals have rights and people are agreeing with him?
Not what I said.
it’s wild to see. it’s easy to forget that people are still actually thinking this way.
I agree but that issue is years away while something about this can be done right now, don’t sabotage your own movement by trying to get everything done at once, it never works.
You’re right. It’s just the double standard makes me angry. We have millions of cows and chickens tortured and slaughtered every year, and the vast majority of people don’t care. Yet dogs are seen as companion animals and not a source of food. Pigs are by far as intelligent as dogs and cats, yet everyone loves bacon.
If it were up to me, factory farming would be outright banned, but it’s years away still.
I think the best hope right now is factory grown meat, once that becomes more profitable than factory farming, it’s game over.
It’s called cultured meat, fyi.
no one is torturing cows and chickens.
Removed by mod
what makes you think that?
I take back my “Shut up”. But I stand by everything else I wrote.
Because it is factually wrong. I’m informing myself about that industry for many years now. I’m not an activist vegan (because where I live that doesn’t take place), but I follow many activists and have seen a lot of videos, so I know what’s going on.
Isn’t it torture to confine mother-sows for month on hard wooden planks in spaces they can’t move at all, laying in their feces and involuntary suffocating their own piglets.
Or breeding chickens that have to give 20-30 times more eggs than their ancestors which leads to calcium deficiency and lets their backbones break.
Clipping teeth, tails and testicles of young piglets without anesthesia?
Shipping calves around the world in container ships in every weather condition without proper food and water supply, where a lot of them die and the ones surviving getting kosher butchered in Morocco?
I could go on an on. I’ve seen some shit. So sorry for being condescending but such takes just make me angry.
the intention of torture is to inflict pain or suffering, and for the subject to know why (usually punishment, to get information). the pain is the point and it is intentional.
if the practices you’re describing caused no pain or suffering, we would still do them. the pain is incidental, not intentional.
Yeah it seems my post got deleted for speaking the truth. Some can’t handle it as it seems.
Semantics and philosophy are nice and fine but don’t make a difference for the animals suffering. In lack of a better definition let’s call it violence. And it isn’t incidental but systematic.
you’re being condescending.
The word “murder” only applies to human animals.
And cows are certainly not “raped” for dairy, when a farmer shoves his entire arm inside a cow to for her to become pregnant.
Why? Because the word “rape” only applies to human animals.
Words like “murder” and “rape” only apply to non-human animals because for much of history, taking those actions on animals were necessary evils for us to survive. Our species has learned to evolve over time, and we no longer take many of the horrible actions that were commonplace centuries ago. We need to evolve as a culture away from eating meat, and our language needs to evolve with us.
Nothing is horrible, but thinking makes it so.
Humans still do most of all these “horrible” actions. We have not changed. Some of us just are more empathetic and compassionate. Like we have always been.
We decide whom murder and rape apply to. You may decide differently, but an argument based on them not applying is begging the question. This is not to say that the first poster’s argument was sound, but you didn’t really address the argument, just reaffirmed existing definitions where the first poster was looking to expand them.
It’s like if someone compared aspirin and cannabis, in that many people use them regularly without developing addictions, and the rebuttal was that cannabis is an illegal drug, so it’s a different kind of drug.
Do we decide? We have already decided. That is my point. I reaffirm nothing. I only say, the word “murder” doesn’t apply.
The case has been decided, that non-human animal suffering is just not important. Not to the vast majority.
Hell, we can’t even agree that human suffering matters.
Assuming you live in a democracy, then yes, we have decided and do still decide. We can change the laws at any time (I know this is idealistic in a lot of countries) and use a new definition, or we can determine on a jury that something is or is not punished. I’m not comparing slavery to animal husbandry, but the US (I assume other slaveholding countries were similar, but I don’t know) has changed the definition to include or exclude slaves at various points. Murder is a social concept, not an immutable truth about the world.