Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
I can't comprehend the outrage greeting this statement- surely anyone who eats meat has already accepted the premise?

Well, for me there is a difference.

I eat meat, but I want my meat to be raised as humanely as possible. I try to source my meat locally, ideally from a place where I can go and visit the farm. Free range chickens, free range beef, etc. Same with slaughtering the animals. Just because I know the animal will die and end up on my plate doesn't mean that I can't care about the animal and so I try to avoid mass farmed meat.

Just because the animal dies for food doesn't mean it has to be treated like gak and live a misserable life while it waits for slaughter.

I agree with this d-usa, although living with my parents I have little choice over what I get for food other than a few recommendations.

Ideally, we should grow our meat, and only interfere with other species when it comes to preservation and replenishing the necessary genetical material to grow said meat.

Even "organic" cattle and so on suffer. They are slaughtered for food.

Hell, the truth is, people generally only care about the animals they can empathise with. If an animal doesn't have features we can easily apply human attributes to (like, say, an octopus, which are quite intelligent by animal standards), then we don't care about it so much.

As for "beating the gak out of someone" because they kicked a dog, that seems like the actions of someone who is emotionally unstable. I saw plenty of that sort of thinking in the UK though, so it doesn't surprise me.

All of that said, I don't condone needless cruelty to animals, I think bullfighting is weird and I wouldn't engage in it, go to watch it or approve of it at all. I don't approve of bloodsports in general. But I think as causes to get worked up about there are so many more that are more important, and I don't get the depth of emotion that people feel about these cases. Probably due to growing up in an agricultural setting and working in the fishing industry.

But animals obviously don't have a right to life or freedom. Anyone who is surprised by that is disconnected from reality.

 Da Boss wrote:


As for "beating the gak out of someone" because they kicked a dog, that seems like the actions of someone who is emotionally unstable. I saw plenty of that sort of thinking in the UK though, so it doesn't surprise me.

People in glass houses...

Hah! I feel like I should know what that refers to, but I have no idea what.

I'm sure I just got burned though.

EDIT: Actually, that's out of order.

 Da Boss wrote:
Hell, the truth is, people generally only care about the animals they can empathise with. If an animal doesn't have features we can easily apply human attributes to (like, say, an octopus, which are quite intelligent by animal standards), then we don't care about it so much.

Empathy also relates to actions. The more you see an animal performs acts you recognize, the more you will empathize with them. Just like kids don't have an immanent ability to empathize with animals, even those with relatively 'human' features.

As for "beating the gak out of someone" because they kicked a dog, that seems like the actions of someone who is emotionally unstable.

Why? We usually punish those that abuse others, especially more if they are in an asymmetrical relationship.

But animals obviously don't have a right to life or freedom. Anyone who is surprised by that is disconnected from reality.

No, they don't have one. Which is why we are discussing giving one (albeit limited) to them.

 Da Boss wrote:

As for "beating the gak out of someone" because they kicked a dog, that seems like the actions of someone who is emotionally unstable. I saw plenty of that sort of thinking in the UK though, so it doesn't surprise me.
But animals obviously don't have a right to life or freedom. Anyone who is surprised by that is disconnected from reality.

I have hunted and fished since infancy. I have killed a lot of things and eaten them. Throughout this, first taught by my father and then carried by me as a code to live by, is the idea that an animal should be subjected to as little suffering as possible. It is what marks us as beings capable of empathizing, of understanding pain and avoiding it. It is what makes us better human beings to one another. Compassion and mercy.

The infliction of needless pain to animals is akin to the abusing of our own young or elderly or infirm, it is malicious and illogical. It is the mark of a flawed and corrupt society. Interestingly I was going to say 'barbaric' but many 'primative' societies hold morals about the treatment of animals and the environment around them, rather than an idiot's ideal about mastery and dominion to abuse as we see fit.

If I saw a man kicking a dog, I would see a more powerful being inflicting needless suffering upon a vulnerable being, I would immediately make that stop. I would question the morality and mental well being of someone who was not angered and moved by it! If the man intended serious harm on the animal I would, as a pet owner, more than willing to employ physical violence on him if he wouldn't stop when ordered to do so.

Well, I was basically gonna run up and kick him as hard as I could, then say "how the feth do YOU like it?", but yeah MGS sums up my thoughts perfectly.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:


No, they don't have one. Which is why we are discussing giving one (albeit limited) to them.

Of course the question is why?


From a purely empirical point of view, there is nothing to be gained by giving animals any rights. They don't contribute to our social order, unless you consider food to be contributing to the social order. Which I could see as a reasonable view.

Of course that view only works if you eat meat. Vegetarians and Vegans cannot use that angle as the animals don't contribute towards them.


Ultimately, an animal is a posession of the person who owns it and is that person's to with as he pleases.

The way a man treats his animals is an indicator of that person's worth as a human being. You are free to adjust your treatment of him to suit if you care about that sort of thing, which will be the punishment in kind for his slight. Nothing more.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:


No, they don't have one. Which is why we are discussing giving one (albeit limited) to them.

Of course the question is why?


From a purely empirical point of view, there is nothing to be gained by giving animals any rights. They don't contribute to our social order, unless you consider food to be contributing to the social order.

They give us fur, transportation, companionship, plowing, fertilizer, leather, wool, silk, etc.

Some of those may not be the best examples.

The act of gathering Wool is itself a reciprocation to the sheep as you are removing what could be a dangerous amount of insulation in a hotter climate. It also helps the animals cleanliness.

Fertilizer would be a passive benifit.


The others are valid.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If animals have a right to life what are we supposed to do if they keep eating each other?

Having a right isn't identical to recognizing or being able to exercice that right.

I think you would be interested in the views of Baroness Warnock on the rights of animals.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 purplefood wrote:
A human could stockpile research relating to bulls, allowing him to understand the nature of bulls and therefore give him an edge in strategic play.

You mean, like, understanding that bulls are not a danger to any reasonnable human being and that we shouldn't try to engage them in combat?

Thats actually wrong. Bulls are VERY dangerous animals. The smaller the bull, the more dangerous. Dairy being the most agressive.

I said 'reasonnable human beings'. You know, the kind that develops skills that allow them to escape the tedious life of squeezing bovines mamaries at unspeakable hours of the day...

There's nothing unreasonable about developing a skillset and lifestyle that involves getting up early to milk cows or do other agriculture-related work. In some areas it's more unreasonable not to do these things.

 Grey Templar wrote:


Ultimately, an animal is a posession of the person who owns it and is that person's to with as he pleases.

No, you have an obligation under the law to maintain your animals, provide suitable conditions for them, feed them and ensure they are in healthy condition and free from needless suffering.

You can and should be punished by the law when you fail in your role as custodian of those animals. They are living things, not inanimate objects, they are capable of feeling pain, suffering through neglect and contracting illness through poor husbandry.

If you are incapable of caring for an animal according to it's needs, you should not keep one, whether as a pet or as a utility animal. They are living beings. You are most certainly not free to do 'as you please' with them.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Well, I guess Spain has no right to bailouts or economic assistance from the EU, if you catch my drift?

On a more on-topic note, so what if they don't have the right to freedom. You're still a complete fethwad for performing something like bull fighting. I don't really care if it's "part of their heritage", it was once part of Sweden's heritage to rape, burn and pillage Spanish coastal cities.

And shame on the Swedish for giving up such a long and glorious tradition.

But really, how is this any different than a big game hunting television show? Especially bow hunting, where the principle is the same, except that I think the Spanish way of doing it is more fair. They are all examples of animals who are being "tortured" or killed for human entertainment. One happens in an arena, the other happens on your television. I personally don't see much of a difference between the two sports.

Neither do I, which is why I think hunting because it's fun is dumb.

What about hunting for fun AND food?

Most people that hunt do it for fun, but they also eat the meat. Or someone eats the meat. It doesn't go to waste.

I can see a point in hunting for food; it's natural and unavoidable. I just don't get why anyone would want to go out and kill stuff because it's "fun". That's what video games are for!

 Ratbarf wrote:
Oh, well then, please trying stop taking away my fun when it doesn't hurt you directly. If one is so concerned about humanitarian acts that they start doing them for animals I suggest they move to Africa. Or actually Asia, I can't think of anything in Asia that I want to shoot for fun.

Wow, just... wow. If I'm beating up some random dude in the street and you pass by, would you then simply ignore it because it'd be taking away my fun from something that doesn't directly hurt you if you tried to stop me? I'm all for a live and let live society, but there are limits. When you start killing other living beings just because you can, you've crossed a line IMO.

 Da Boss wrote:
But animals obviously don't have a right to life or freedom. Anyone who is surprised by that is disconnected from reality.

ITT angry Disney fans.

Animals have no natural rights similar to human rights. How could this be a surprise to anyone who understands what human rights are?

Oh wait.

 Albatross wrote:
It's not so much about the animals, as it is about what a desire to be cruel to them says about us.

Yes, that's quite correct. Animal cruelty is wrong not because of any rights that animals possess but rather because doing bad things like abusing animals is a violation of human dignity.

 Manchu wrote:
ITT angry Disney fans.

Animals have no natural rights similar to human rights. How could this be a surprise to anyone who understands what human rights are?

Disney fans? Care to explain this?

What are these human rights you speak of and explain to me why an animal is undeserving of the right to good husbandry and minimal suffering?

Human rights are as much a construct as animal rights, if you allow the notion of 'inalienable human rights' you can allow the notion of 'inalienable animal rights'. As we have advanced as a society, we've enshrined more and more freedoms and protections to ourselves and others around us, extending those to protect other life forms from pain or mismanagement is a mark of our continued advancement.

Thats the point. You would have to seperatly define animal rights. You could not make a jump and say human rights apply to animals.

Human rights would also have no bearing on the definition of said animal rights. There has to be a complete disconnect.


Disney Fans obviously refers to Disney films tending to have very strong animal rights undercurrents. Ever notice how many of them have some sort of scene with all the animals being released from their nasty cramped wire cages.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Thats the point. You would have to seperatly define animal rights. You could not make a jump and say human rights apply to animals.

Human rights would also have no bearing on the definition of said animal rights. There has to be a complete disconnect.


Disney Fans obviously refers to Disney films tending to have very strong animal rights undercurrents. Ever notice how many of them have some sort of scene with all the animals being released from their nasty cramped wire cages.

No, an animal is not entitled to the same rights as a human, most human rights have no application in the life of an animal and we, as an omnivorous species still classify several species as lunch.

As I said in my earlier statement here, I've hunted and fished for 30 years, I've eaten what I killed and enjoyed it a lot. There is a great deal of satisfaction in eating something you've worked to obtain. Animals feed other animals, circle of life (there's your disney!).

But in taking animals and farming them, maintaining them, we have a moral obligation to avoid that animal's suffering or pain, because causing suffering or pain, even in something you intend to eat, is bad. Because we experience pain, suffering etc and understand that it is a very undesirable state, even for a 'condemned' lifeform. You mentioned earlier than anyone can do what they want with the animals they own, again, there is a debate there about just what the abstract concept of ownership actually is.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:


Ultimately, an animal is a posession of the person who owns it and is that person's to with as he pleases.

No, you have an obligation under the law to maintain your animals, provide suitable conditions for them, feed them and ensure they are in healthy condition and free from needless suffering.

You can and should be punished by the law when you fail in your role as custodian of those animals. They are living things, not inanimate objects, they are capable of feeling pain, suffering through neglect and contracting illness through poor husbandry.

If you are incapable of caring for an animal according to it's needs, you should not keep one, whether as a pet or as a utility animal. They are living beings. You are most certainly not free to do 'as you please' with them.

I agree with this.

I too agree. You want it? You feed and clean it.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
explain to me why an animal is undeserving of the right to good husbandry and minimal suffering

Undeserving? That's rather emotional, which is what I was getting at by suggesting anthropomorphism is behind the notion of "animal rights." Human rights are not a construct inasmuch as they do not exist simply because we posit their existence. If a human right only exists because we say it does then surely it can just as easily not exist if we say it does not. But such a thing cannot, and I would hope this is obvious, be inalienable. (Any right which is not inalienable is better understood, at least in the everyday sense, as a privilege rather than a right.) As far as I can tell, the absolute value of human dignity is the only basis for inalienable human rights. Thus -- human beings have a right to the conditions appropriate to their dignity: life, food, clothing, shelter, health care, leisure, etc.

So, now we turn to the poor animals and why they are "undeserving." I find these discussions often turn to a solipsistic conflation of humans and other animals. This is no doubt because the word "human" is often used to refer to a species of animal. But this is not the same use of the word human in the sense of human rights. Human beings are obviously animals but human rights adhere not to this aspect of our existence (that is, we do not have human rights by virtue of being animals) but rather to our personhood. The dignity we are concerned with is the dignity of persons and not just any persons (such as fictive or "legal" persons) but specifically natural persons.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Disney Fans obviously refers to Disney films tending to have very strong animal rights undercurrents. Ever notice how many of them have some sort of scene with all the animals being released from their nasty cramped wire cages.

I was referring more to the fact that Disney films often make no distinction between the characteristics of human beings and other animals, i.e., anthropomorphism. So really Disney is not advocating animal rights for the simple reason that Disney movies rarely portray animals but rather humans disguised as animals.

For what it's worth regarding my feelings for humane slaughtering of animals, I feel the same way about humans.

I know we do the while war thing, but even if we have to kill for war I want the kill to be swift and without suffering if able.

So I am all for equal rights in that regard.

"Slaughter" in the sense of war is an overblown metaphor for the sense of farms. So it's a little inapt to talk about the "humane slaughtering" of people.

 Manchu wrote:
"Slaughter" in the sense of war is an overblown metaphor for the sense of farms. So it's a little inapt to talk about the "humane slaughtering" of people.

Not in the eyes if animal activists.

But I get what you are saying.

I don't know if there is a right to humane treatment of animals or anything like that. I want my meat to be sourced humanely and killed as humanely as possible because to me it is the right thing to do.

 Manchu wrote:
ITT angry Disney fans.

You really are poor mod material.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
You really are poor mod material.

Another crushing argument from one of my favorite users.

Hrrrm. So are you guys against physical reprimands for animals in all situations?
I'm trying to wrap my head around this, because I can see a good few situations where these sorts of things can be used to teach animals lessons or to get them to behave as they are needed to behave. Hitting a cow with a stick as part of herding it, pinning a dog if it goes for sheep, all that sort of stuff.
I don't condone needless cruelty, and I agree, you have a duty to take the best possible care of your animal and to look after it as well as you can, but I don't really feel strong emotions about this sort of stuff. I also find it hypocritical that people get all excited about animal testing, unless it's on something like a nematode, which they A. mostly haven't heard of or B. can't empathise with and therefore don't care about.

 d-usa wrote:
Not in the eyes if animal activists.

I think even animal rights activists must yield the point given that "slaughter" means killing animals in preparation for consumption.

 d-usa wrote:
I want my meat to be sourced humanely and killed as humanely as possible because to me it is the right thing to do.

No argument as long as we don't confuse such niceties with a basis for rights.

Not at all, I realize there is a difference between "I feel it is right to..." and "they have a right to..."