Something to ponder. Why do we as a society accept that animals are put down before their time naturally.
Because animals are property. That's why you can raise sheep and sell their lambs for food.
Some pets are just a different form of property, that can't be eaten, at least on commercial basis. I don't know about the laws here or there, so I don't know if you can eat your retriever if it's put down humanely.
I do know that most westerners find the taste of meat eaters to be less than desirable, but we have all seen what goes on in China.
The crux of my point was whatever side of this argument/debate you sit on whether that is your side, or someone such as JD.
The fact is we as humans are very controlling of animals lives.
My something to ponder is another case in point.
Yup. There are people that think having pets for companionship is unfair to the animals. All domestication is "unnatural". Something akin to slavery.
My dog must be the most indulged 'slave' that's ever been!
I imagine he's like a house negro. Well fed and well taken care of, based on his undying loyalty to his master.
I think it's a good deal, for animals anyway.
Maddog said
May 6 7:41 PM, 2021
We live with six rescued dogs. With the exception of one, who was born in a rescue for pregnant dogs, they all came from very sad situations, including circumstances of severe abuse. These dogs are non-human refugees with whom we share our home. Although we love them very much, we strongly believe that they should not have existed in the first place.
We oppose domestication and pet ownership because these violate the fundamental rights of animals.
These are not some kooks living down by the river.
These are college professors.
Syl said
May 6 7:43 PM, 2021
John Doe wrote:
Digger wrote:
Maddog wrote:
JP wrote:
Maddog wrote:
JP wrote:
Something to ponder. Why do we as a society accept that animals are put down before their time naturally.
Because animals are property. That's why you can raise sheep and sell their lambs for food.
Some pets are just a different form of property, that can't be eaten, at least on commercial basis. I don't know about the laws here or there, so I don't know if you can eat your retriever if it's put down humanely.
I do know that most westerners find the taste of meat eaters to be less than desirable, but we have all seen what goes on in China.
The crux of my point was whatever side of this argument/debate you sit on whether that is your side, or someone such as JD.
The fact is we as humans are very controlling of animals lives.
My something to ponder is another case in point.
Yup. There are people that think having pets for companionship is unfair to the animals. All domestication is "unnatural". Something akin to slavery.
My dog must be the most indulged 'slave' that's ever been!
Perhaps, but the poor sod has to look at you 24/7 - surely a fate worse than death!
-- Edited by John Doe on Thursday 6th of May 2021 07:26:21 PM
Non-human animals have a moral right not to be used exclusively as human resources, irrespective of whether the treatment is ‘humane’, and even if humans would enjoy desirable consequences if they treated non-humans exclusively as replaceable resources.
Yes, of course. Far better to let them roam wild and free to be shot by hunters.
Non-human animals have a moral right not to be used exclusively as human resources, irrespective of whether the treatment is ‘humane’, and even if humans would enjoy desirable consequences if they treated non-humans exclusively as replaceable resources.
Yes, of course. Far better to let them roam wild and free to be shot by hunters.
Their position is more about the domestication of animals, and how these animals shouldn't exist at all. In that case, they couldn't be shot as they would no longer exist. They would all be given birth control and that would be the end. No dogs, cats, pigs or cows.
I'm going to do more research on these weirdos and see how they feel about man being part of the food chain in terms of non domesticated animals.
Maddog said
May 6 11:20 PM, 2021
"Conventional wisdom about animals is that it is morally acceptable for humans to use and kill them but that we should not impose unnecessary suffering and death on animals. However we might understand the concept of necessity in this context, it cannot be understood as allowing any suffering or death for frivolous purposes. We recognise this clearly in particular contexts. For example, many people still have a strong negative reaction to the American football player Michael Vick, who was found to be involved in a dog-fighting operation in 2007. Why do we still resent Vick almost a decade later? The answer is clear: we recognise that what Vick did was wrong because his only justification was that he derived pleasure or amusement from harming those dogs, and pleasure and amusement cannot suffice as justifications.
Many – perhaps most – people object to bullfighting, and even most Tories in the UK oppose fox hunting. Why? Because those bloodsports, by definition, involve no necessity or compulsion that would justify imposing suffering and death on non-human animals. No one proposed that Vick would be less culpable if he were a more ‘humane’ dog fighter. No one who opposes bloodsports proposes that they be made more humane because they involve unnecessary suffering. They oppose the activities altogether, and advocate their abolition, because these activities are immoral, however they are conducted.
The problem is that 99.999 per cent of our uses of non-human animals are morally indistinguishable from the activities to which the overwhelming number of us object.
The only use of animals that we make that is not transparently frivolous is the use of animals in research to find cures for serious illnesses
Our most numerically significant use of animals is for food. We kill more than 60 billion animals for food annually, and this does not count the even larger number – estimated conservatively to be about a trillion – of sea animals. We don’t need to eat animals for optimal health. Indeed, an increasing number of mainstream healthcare authorities, including the National Institutes of Health in the US, the American Heart Association, the British National Health Service, and the British Dietetic Association, have stated that a sensible vegan diet can be just as nutritious as a diet that includes animal foods. Some authorities have gone further to say that a vegan diet can be healthier than an omnivorous diet. In any event, it cannot be credibly claimed that we need animal products for health reasons. And animal agriculture is an ecological disaster."
OK, it appears that they are pretty consistent.
It's not ethical to use animals for food, sport or companionship.
They are odd, but I sort of admire their consistency, as I do most vegans who have issues with me. I can't rebut their logic very well.
These are not some kooks living down by the river.
These are college professors.
And?
And the scale of what is ethical with animals has a lot of positions and a lot of disagreement.
I guess my point was that there are "educated teachers" professing a belief that animal "ownership" is ethically wrong.
Yeah, and history shows us that a lot of 'educated teachers' got it horribly wrong.
Digger said
May 7 10:17 AM, 2021
Anonymousrollup wrote:
What went wrong?
Why are you still here trying to stir up shit? You flounced off here in a tangle of outraged winceyette back to the place you slagged off because of some silly avatar, and still can't keep your nose off our window.
John Doe said
May 7 4:45 PM, 2021
Digger wrote:
Anonymousrollup wrote:
What went wrong?
Why are you still here trying to stir up shit? You flounced off here in a tangle of outraged winceyette back to the place you slagged off because of some silly avatar, and still can't keep your nose off our window.
These are not some kooks living down by the river.
These are college professors.
And?
And the scale of what is ethical with animals has a lot of positions and a lot of disagreement.
I guess my point was that there are "educated teachers" professing a belief that animal "ownership" is ethically wrong.
Yeah, and history shows us that a lot of 'educated teachers' got it horribly wrong.
No doubt.
A look around universities today shows they are still getting it wrong.
At least in my opinion.
Syl said
May 7 7:26 PM, 2021
Anonymousrollup wrote:
What went wrong?
In your case it was probably the booze and the drugs.
John Doe said
May 7 7:52 PM, 2021
Syl wrote:
Anonymousrollup wrote:
What went wrong?
In your case it was probably the booze and the drugs.
Ouch!
Digger said
May 7 8:58 PM, 2021
Syl wrote:
Anonymousrollup wrote:
What went wrong?
In your case it was probably the booze and the drugs.
John Doe said
May 8 12:44 AM, 2021
Well Brad Little has passed the bill.
Idaho's wolves (having been steadily increasing in numbers due to conservation measures costing many millions of dollars over decades) are now to be slaughtered by 90% in any way possible, some of the methods involved will be sickening.
Still the ranchers will be happy, after all the wolves killed a massive 1 in 28,000 of their livestock in 2020 - that's 0.003%.
So it's obviously justified because if a rancher owns 28,000 cattle losing one will undoubtedly bankrupt both him/her and their families for generations to come.
I imagine he's like a house negro. Well fed and well taken care of, based on his undying loyalty to his master.
I think it's a good deal, for animals anyway.
We oppose domestication and pet ownership because these violate the fundamental rights of animals.
https://aeon.co/essays/why-keeping-a-pet-is-fundamentally-unethical
These are not some kooks living down by the river.
These are college professors.
That dog is giving someone a real side eye.
Non-human animals have a moral right not to be used exclusively as human resources, irrespective of whether the treatment is ‘humane’, and even if humans would enjoy desirable consequences if they treated non-humans exclusively as replaceable resources.
Yes, of course. Far better to let them roam wild and free to be shot by hunters.
And?
And the scale of what is ethical with animals has a lot of positions and a lot of disagreement.
I guess my point was that there are "educated teachers" professing a belief that animal "ownership" is ethically wrong.
Their position is more about the domestication of animals, and how these animals shouldn't exist at all. In that case, they couldn't be shot as they would no longer exist. They would all be given birth control and that would be the end. No dogs, cats, pigs or cows.
I'm going to do more research on these weirdos and see how they feel about man being part of the food chain in terms of non domesticated animals.
"Conventional wisdom about animals is that it is morally acceptable for humans to use and kill them but that we should not impose unnecessary suffering and death on animals. However we might understand the concept of necessity in this context, it cannot be understood as allowing any suffering or death for frivolous purposes. We recognise this clearly in particular contexts. For example, many people still have a strong negative reaction to the American football player Michael Vick, who was found to be involved in a dog-fighting operation in 2007. Why do we still resent Vick almost a decade later? The answer is clear: we recognise that what Vick did was wrong because his only justification was that he derived pleasure or amusement from harming those dogs, and pleasure and amusement cannot suffice as justifications.
Many – perhaps most – people object to bullfighting, and even most Tories in the UK oppose fox hunting. Why? Because those bloodsports, by definition, involve no necessity or compulsion that would justify imposing suffering and death on non-human animals. No one proposed that Vick would be less culpable if he were a more ‘humane’ dog fighter. No one who opposes bloodsports proposes that they be made more humane because they involve unnecessary suffering. They oppose the activities altogether, and advocate their abolition, because these activities are immoral, however they are conducted.
The problem is that 99.999 per cent of our uses of non-human animals are morally indistinguishable from the activities to which the overwhelming number of us object.
The only use of animals that we make that is not transparently frivolous is the use of animals in research to find cures for serious illnesses
Our most numerically significant use of animals is for food. We kill more than 60 billion animals for food annually, and this does not count the even larger number – estimated conservatively to be about a trillion – of sea animals. We don’t need to eat animals for optimal health. Indeed, an increasing number of mainstream healthcare authorities, including the National Institutes of Health in the US, the American Heart Association, the British National Health Service, and the British Dietetic Association, have stated that a sensible vegan diet can be just as nutritious as a diet that includes animal foods. Some authorities have gone further to say that a vegan diet can be healthier than an omnivorous diet. In any event, it cannot be credibly claimed that we need animal products for health reasons. And animal agriculture is an ecological disaster."
OK, it appears that they are pretty consistent.
It's not ethical to use animals for food, sport or companionship.
They are odd, but I sort of admire their consistency, as I do most vegans who have issues with me. I can't rebut their logic very well.
What went wrong?
Yeah, and history shows us that a lot of 'educated teachers' got it horribly wrong.
Why are you still here trying to stir up shit? You flounced off here in a tangle of outraged winceyette back to the place you slagged off because of some silly avatar, and still can't keep your nose off our window.
No doubt.
A look around universities today shows they are still getting it wrong.
At least in my opinion.
In your case it was probably the booze and the drugs.
Ouch!
Well Brad Little has passed the bill.
Idaho's wolves (having been steadily increasing in numbers due to conservation measures costing many millions of dollars over decades) are now to be slaughtered by 90% in any way possible, some of the methods involved will be sickening.
Still the ranchers will be happy, after all the wolves killed a massive 1 in 28,000 of their livestock in 2020 - that's 0.003%.
So it's obviously justified because if a rancher owns 28,000 cattle losing one will undoubtedly bankrupt both him/her and their families for generations to come.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/idaho-bill-90-percent-of-wolves-to-be-killed
Interesting if nothing else?