Why are some people cruel to animals?

[Aurielius]

@Arcane 20

Frankly I am taken aback at the tenor or your reply, it is unnecessarily aggressive to what was a balanced counter post. You dismiss others opinions while pontificating yours. I treated you with civility that you evidently don't feel needs to be reciprocal.

"I don't care for your personal opinions."

 

You dismiss what you find inconvenient:

"Most of the higher life forms with the admitted exception of Elephants are carnivores, it provides a more calories in a more compact form than any form of grazing can possibly manage." "Completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter what other animals do in the slightest."

 

"Most primitive societal groups such as hunter gatherers were omnivores not vegetarians, submit that it is genetically part of our make up to be such also.'

Give me quotes from multiple experts saying we need meat to survive.

 

"Anyone who has not had the opportunity to live in a farming / ranching environment might tend to take a more removed view of raising food stock, with the exception of the mega corporate farms they tend to treat their animals with extreme care being that it's very valuable property and most livestock

need constant care to flourish.'

"So they don't suffer? ever. Is that what you're saying? Unless you are saying that. This is irrelevant."

 

Saying something is irrelevant is miles away from proving it, you want facts and multiple sources but provide none. That early man was an omnivore is established fact not conjecture, analysis of early hominid teeth have proved that their diet was all inclusive, aside from the fact that we have canines which are designed for carnivores and molars which are for herbivores..hence an omnivore. If you contend that he was solely a vegetarian then YOU prove it. BTW you might just want to try to do it civilly. Last but not least this thread is about cruelty to animals not your personal vegetarian soapbox.

Edited September 4, 2011 by Aurielius

[Ghogiel]

analysis of early hominid teeth have proved that their diet was all inclusive, aside from the fact that we have canines which are designed for carnivores and molars which are for herbivores..hence an omnivore.

Actually, that in itself doesn't imply omnivorous diet. They are used for defence and display primarily. The research I posted on gut morphology is much more convincing.

 

Oh and we don't really have canines any more, we call them that, but we also started to drop them over 2 million years ago.

Edited September 4, 2011 by Ghogiel

[Aurielius]

analysis of early hominid teeth have proved that their diet was all inclusive, aside from the fact that we have canines which are designed for carnivores and molars which are for herbivores..hence an omnivore.

Actually, that in itself doesn't imply omnivorous diet. They are used for defence and display primarily. The research I posted on gut morphology is much more convincing.

 

Oh and we don't really have canines any more, we call them that, but we also started to drop them over 2 million years ago.

Funny last time I went to the dentist I still had mine (canines)..The droll thing about your posts Ghogiel is trying to discern when you post from true belief or devil's advocacy, did he offer you tenure?

[arcane20]

@Arcane 20

Frankly I am taken aback at the tenor or your reply, it is unnecessarily aggressive to what was a balanced counter post. You dismiss others opinions while pontificating yours. I treated you with civility that you evidently don't feel needs to be reciprocal.

"I don't care for your personal opinions."

 

You dismiss what you find inconvenient:

"Most of the higher life forms with the admitted exception of Elephants are carnivores, it provides a more calories in a more compact form than any form of grazing can possibly manage." "Completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter what other animals do in the slightest."

 

"Most primitive societal groups such as hunter gatherers were omnivores not vegetarians, submit that it is genetically part of our make up to be such also.'

Give me quotes from multiple experts saying we need meat to survive.

 

"Anyone who has not had the opportunity to live in a farming / ranching environment might tend to take a more removed view of raising food stock, with the exception of the mega corporate farms they tend to treat their animals with extreme care being that it's very valuable property and most livestock

need constant care to flourish.'

"So they don't suffer? ever. Is that what you're saying? Unless you are saying that. This is irrelevant."

 

Saying something is irrelevant is miles away from proving it, you want facts and multiple sources but provide none. That early man was an omnivore is established fact not conjecture, analysis of early hominid teeth have proved that their diet was all inclusive, aside from the fact that we have canines which are designed for carnivores and molars which are for herbivores..hence an omnivore. If you contend that he was solely a vegetarian then YOU prove it. BTW you might just want to try to do it civilly.

 

It was a bit agressive. I will try.

That early man was an omnivore is established fact not conjecture,

:wallbash: See I'm annoyed already. Whether you're doing this on purpose you're mislabelling my position in ignorance this is frustrating. Quote me where I have said that no early human was an omnivore. Again I claimed that humans evolved to eat meat before they were omnivores; I'll provide a link that Ghogiel posted before which I'm about halfway through but you only have to read the first paragraph or 2 where It says;

Summary of the argument

Extant apes and humans are decended from a common plant eating ancestor.

http://nature.berkeley.edu/miltonlab/pdfs/meateating.pdf

 

And that was my original argument exactly and not that some early humans didn't eat meat. I made this argument to address the argument that it was in our genes to eat meat.

You can read the rest yourself.

 

Anyways.

We are NOT early humans, we are not lions and we are not anacondas. We do not need meat to suvive. You cannot provide evidence for this.

I don't need evidence to prove we are not anacondas or lions or early humans. You need to provide that modern day humans as in you and me need meat to suvive and since I am not dead that will be very difficult.

If you don't then eating meat is a selfish act.

I'm trying not to be mean here but It is far beyond me how our distant ancestors justify your position that eating meat isn't immoral.

 

I say that any suffering caused on an animal for the selfish desire of consuming animal products is immoral. No matter how good the conditions are there will always be suffering to some degree or another. The animals should not be bred for this purpose.

So let me ask you a question how much does an animal need to suffer for someone's own selfish desire to classify it as unethical?

And I want a real answer to that question.

 

Don't patronise me. I know perfectly well what an ad hominem statement is, and calling someone's comments inane - which is your OPINION, rather than an established fact, certainly falls in that category. Put it this way, it would get ruled out of order in any debating chamber that I know of. I have used no such insulting terms towards you personally, I have argued against your standpoint - the fact is that many militant vegetarians do use the term "Meat is murder" as a slogan, if that is what is winding you up. I have given instances where I feel that what seems to be cruelty may in fact be anything but, to try and illustrate the fact that the situation is not always as black and white as your argument tries to make it.

 

Firstly I'm pretty sure that I stated why your comments were inane before I called them inane. So I did justify my comment in my comment that I was commenting on when I made that comment.

 

Ad hominem: Attacking an opponent's motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain.

 

I didn't attack your motives as you did to me. Nor did I attack your character as you have done towards me. I attacked your position.

I said your comment was inane. I think I justified why it was. If you don't agree say why it wasn't.

 

And as for the latter part of your argument Yes you are winding me up by attacking an argument I haven't made. (which is also inane BTW) and as I previously stated:

I say that any suffering caused on an animal for the selfish desire of consuming animal products is immoral. No matter how good the conditions are there will always be suffering to some degree or another. The animals should not be bred for this purpose.

So let me ask you a question how much does an animal need to suffer for someone's own selfish desire to classify it as unethical?

 

I say non of it is ok. Unless the suffering you will face by not eating meat is greater than the suffering the animal will feel over its entire life (because remember it was bred for this purpose) an animal should not be bred.

In the majority of cases humans do not suffer by not eating meat. (there are exceptions as with anything). Meat is luxory that comes at the cost of the animal.

 

That last one was an ad hominem. What I should of said was: Provide evidence that these animals do not suffer.

 

This thread is actually about cruelty to animals,

I know and we are very on topic. Eating meat is cruel for the reasons I specified.

 

So to summarise my argument.

 

- Humans do not need meat in their diet.

- Any animal bred for food will suffer regardless of any conditions.

- If humans eat less meat these animals will not need to be bred.

- Animals will not suffer nor will humans. As opposed to now where animals suffer humans indulge.

 

It is this indulgence which I regard as immoral because an animal should not need to suffer for someone's indulgence.

Edited September 4, 2011 by arcane20

[Aurielius]

@Arcane 20

Lets cut to the chase, you think raising and killing animals is cruelty and I still like a good steak, in fact I like venison also and am quite willing to go into the woods and take my quota of deer every year to slate my lust for it. I sincerely doubt that I will convince you of a blessed thing and the likelihood of me retiring my gun dog and hunting permits is nil, so you have fun with your vegimite sandwich and I'll enjoy having a nicely braised duck in apricot sauce ( have five in the freezer right now, along with venison from last fall). Oh, and having tasted Ostrich only regret that they are not indigenous to America.

[ginnyfizz]

But we don't need to provide evidence that man needs meat to survive. This thread isn't about that per se, nor is it about promoting a vegetarian agenda. However since it keeps coming up...

 

"- Humans do not need meat in their diet."

That is arguable. True in the strictest sense, but there are very few people who would be able to nutritionally balance a totally vegetarian or vegan diet, for various reasons. Like it or not, there is nutritional value in meat, as well as health risks.

 

"- Any animal bred for food will suffer regardless of any conditions."

A very sweeping statement, how can anyone possibly know that? I have said myself that in certain conditions I would agree that animals bred for food will suffer. But in any conditions? That really is too much.

 

"- If humans eat less meat these animals will not need to be bred."

What then do you suppose will happen to the existing animals? That would actually create more potential for cruelty and neglect. If there is no market to sell them, then where are they going to go? Yup. Shipped abroad to places with lower welfare standards. Or knocked on the head and incinerated...or to the dog food factory. They would certainly not be left in their fields to live out their days.

 

- Animals will not suffer nor will humans. As opposed to now where animals suffer humans indulge.

Completely untrue, far too much gegeralisation.

 

Furthermore, Arcane20, the repeated use of the term inane is nothing but deliberate rudeness and being provocative. "Inane" is your opinion, not a fact, and you have also used some very uncivil,dismissive and sweeping terms to other posters;-

"This is irrelevant" "I don't care for your personal opinions."

 

@Aurelius...mmmm wild duck, got any to spare? I'll swap you for a nice leg of English lamb that once gambolled the fields a few miles from me, I will even give you my recipe that I use...

[Ghogiel]

Summary of the argument

Extant apes and humans are decended from a common plant eating ancestor.

http://nature.berkeley.edu/miltonlab/pdfs/meateating.pdf

 

And that was my original argument exactly and not that some early humans didn't eat meat. I made this argument to address the argument that it was in our genes to eat meat.

You can read the rest yourself.

We evolved the ability to eat meat before the Homo species line even existed yes.

Don't forget the conclusion of that paper though.

Anyways.

We are NOT early humans, we are not lions and we are not anacondas.

 

Nor are we those pre-hominids species which are the common ancestors to both apes and humans. Dude that's the Miocene epoch.

 

Although you'd be preaching to the wrong person about the actual necessity of eating meat today, especially in the quantity/proportion it is in a modern diet.

[arcane20]

@Arcane 20

Lets cut to the chase, you think raising and killing animals is cruelty and I still like a good steak, in fact I like venison also and am quite willing to go into the woods and take my quota of deer every year to slate my lust for it. I sincerely doubt that I will convince you of a blessed thing and the likelihood of me retiring my gun dog and hunting permits is nil, so you have fun with your vegimite sandwich and I'll enjoy having a nicely braised duck in apricot sauce ( have five in the freezer right now, along with venison from last fall). Oh, and having tasted Ostrich only regret that they are not indigenous to America.

 

I cannot respond to this properly with out getting banned. I think your comment is posted purely to get a reaction out of me. Post another comment like that and I'll see it as trolling.

 

 

Nor are we those pre-hominids species which are the common ancestors to both apes and humans. Dude that's the Miocene epoch.

 

Although you'd be preaching to the wrong person about the actual necessity of eating meat today, especially in the quantity/proportion it is in a modern diet.

 

That wasn't my point I was making. I wasn't saying our ancestors didn't eat meat therefore we shouldn't. the point I made was to further debunk the construct that it's in our genes to eat meat .

I did read that. The protein required can be attained through other foods and beverages such a soy milk to name one. Which is where I get most of my protein. However lentils, brocholi, etc. even rice has protein.

 

A very sweeping statement, how can anyone possibly know that? I have said myself that in certain conditions I would agree that animals bred for food will suffer. But in any conditions? That really is too much.

I stand by that. Name me one human who has never suffered. Why would you think animals are exempt from pain?

Animals feel pain as we do. They have pain receptors.

 

What then do you suppose will happen to the existing animals? That would actually create more potential for cruelty and neglect. If there is no market to sell them, then where are they going to go? Yup. Shipped abroad to places with lower welfare standards. Or knocked on the head and incinerated...or to the dog food factory. They would certainly not be left in their fields to live out their days.

Wherever the least amount of pain is.

 

Furthermore, Arcane20, the repeated use of the term inane is nothing but deliberate rudeness and being provocative. "Inane" is your opinion, not a fact, and you have also used some very uncivil,dismissive and sweeping terms to other posters;-

"This is irrelevant" "I don't care for your personal opinions."

 

@Aurelius...mmmm wild duck, got any to spare? I'll swap you for a nice leg of English lamb that once gambolled the fields a few miles from me, I will even give you my recipe that I use...

 

Personal opinions are irrelevant in a logical debate. You know it doesn't do your comment justice to go and deliberately make a provocative comment like that. Not to mention it was you who first made the "You're quite clearly from the meat is murder group" or whatever implying I'm some sort of terrorist or idiot. It's just ignorance because neither of you have an argument to make. I'm just going to assume you haven't got one and you're beaten. You've already admitted that humans don't need meat. So what you're really saying is "you're right but i'm too lazy to change my diet besides I like meat so i'll just rub it in your face". As I said to the other guy do that again and i'll see it as trolling.

 

Let's say that we raised some humans up in brilliant standards where they were treated very very well. And then we killed them for food in the same way we kill animals. Is it right or is it wrong?

[HeyYou]

A militant animal advocate, that has found a soapbox to stand on, so, is preaching his views of the human species. Ya know what? You don't wanna eat meat? Don't. Don't try and deprive me of my right to do so though, and do not assign motivations/assorted blames for my doing so. This particular line:

 

If you don't then eating meat is a selfish act.

 

Prompts me to completely ignore anything else you have to say. You are a fanatic. Therefore, your arguments are meaningless. I'm out.

[arcane20]

A militant animal advocate, that has found a soapbox to stand on, so, is preaching his views of the human species. Ya know what? You don't wanna eat meat? Don't. Don't try and deprive me of my right to do so though, and do not assign motivations/assorted blames for my doing so. This particular line:

 

If you don't then eating meat is a selfish act.

 

Prompts me to completely ignore anything else you have to say. You are a fanatic. Therefore, your arguments are meaningless. I'm out.

 

A militant anti animal advocate, that has found a soapbox to stand on, so, is preaching his views of the human species. Ya know what? You don't wanna stand up for the suffering of other sentient creatures? Don't. Don't try and deprive me of my right to do so though, and do not assign motivations/assorted blames for my doing so. This particular line:

 

I'm out.

 

Prompts me to completely ignore anything else you have to say. You have rage quit. Therefore, your arguments are meaningless.

 

edit: sarcasm asside can someone tell me how eating me isn't selfish? I mean I'm pretty sure animals don't that you for it.

Edited September 4, 2011 by arcane20