I love it when the bull wins

[Tebonas]

You are a lawyer Tri. Aren't there laws in the USA how to slaughter animals for consumption? Because over here we sure have and those rules are written and enforced to make it quick and/or painless.

Killing Bulls ins a Bullfight in neither of these, hence no hypocrisy involved. So your argument is pure bullshit (no pun intended).

[Lantyssa]

USA

I quoted the relevant problem.

[Xuri]

I eat meat. I eat whale. I think I might have eaten the cousin of a dolphin once, too. I have no problem with animals getting killed for food, to provide leather for clothes, etc.

But I don't approve of animal torture performed for the entertainment of the masses. Fuck bullfighting. And fox hunting for that matter.

[NowhereMan]

I disagree with the thinking that there's a black and white choice between being a vegan and torturing animals for food and entertainment.

[Signe]

I can only really speak for my posts and what I was meaning to say.   I don't have a problem with eating meat.  I'm not a vegetarian.  I don't much care about the disposition of the bull or what they do with the carcass after.  I've heard they distribute the meat to the poor in some cases.  The only problem I have is with people who enjoy watching anything being tortured - bull, dog - anything.  I don't understand the comment about animals fighting each other.

[raydeen]

Did none of you watch Spartacus? That bull died an honorable death, immortalizing the name Navegante among bulls.

Heh. You want Spartacus bull? I'll give you Spartacus bull!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljT3hSuLt24

Long live Spartacus bull.

[Triforcer]

I disagree with the thinking that there's a black and white choice between being a vegan and torturing animals for food and entertainment.

If anything, eating animals for food is MORE immoral than torturing them for entertainment.  Hundreds of millions are slaughtered every year for food.  A tiny fraction of that number die for our entertainment.  There's simply no contest.


I have no problem with people disliking animals fighting if they are honest about it.  If someone here said "I am ok with eating meat but I don't like animal torture, since i can't see the food animals being slaughtered and thus I don't care about them but I can see the fluffy animal slaughtered and its cute so I hate that practice."

Instead, what people do is decry animal torturers as the scum of the earth, and those same people then walk into a supermarket and subsidize the slaughter of BILLIONS of animals.  

Its pure hypocrisy and there is no middle ground.
EDIT:  Should say I don't like animal torture on an emotional, visceral basis, but I don't think my emotional dislike is a good enough of a basis to judge those who do it.

[Lantyssa]

Humans are meat eaters.  It's not hypocrisy.  It is not the death that matters, it is the why and how of it.

Now I can understand arguments that we need more efficient processes, or people should see what it is like to do the slaughtering themselves, but your position only makes sense to me if you're a vegan.

[Tebonas]

I don't get this argument Triforcer - at all. Killing is not the same thing as torturing and killing. Its like saying a mercy killing is the same thing as reenacting Hostel (which I never saw, but I heard its THE torture movie, insert other film as appropiate).

And we are not even getting into the reasons for killing here, just the methods.

[WindupAtheist]

Our species has all the guns, we get to make the rules.

I wanna see a lion fight a polar bear. Fuck your morals. Remember that thing about forty Burmese midgets fighting a tiger or something like that, a couple years back, and it turned out to be fake? Holy shit, I wanna see that for real. Thirty baboons on PCP versus a rhino. Can a baboon learn to use a knife?

Bring it all on.

[Tebonas]

That feeling is called Psychopathy. Don't worry, its something 4% of the people have. So statstically you in the the company of 132 of your peers here.

[UnSub]

Its pure hypocrisy and there is no middle ground.

This is like saying, "You can't support the death penalty, but object when the manner of execution is whipping the subject to death with razorwire". A humane (or: as pain and distress free as possible) death in an animal for food purposes is not the same as a torturous death of an animal for entertainment.

[tgr]

If anything, eating animals for food is MORE immoral than torturing them for entertainment.  Hundreds of millions are slaughtered every year for food.  A tiny fraction of that number die for our entertainment.  There's simply no contest.

Check your teeth and your stomach configuration. Chances are you'll find they're usually in the configuration of meat-eaters. What's immoral about doing what nature has set you up to do?

[Tebonas]

So you are saying Triforcer is not human? Thats harsh!  

I think he is an Omnivore like the rest of us.

Yes, I know what you meant and it is true that without eating meat we wouldn't have a balanced diet, but arguing that what is in our nature is moral is a dangerous argument. In some cases humanity can grow out of its basic roots, as proven by the institution of monogamous marriage.

[tgr]

Yes, I know what you meant and it is true that without eating meat we wouldn't have a balanced diet, but arguing that what is in our nature is moral is a dangerous argument.

I wasn't even talking about "in our nature", but "what we're physically designed for". I'm not going to bitch at a cat for eating mice "because it's immoral/cruel", because that's what they're designed to do, any more than I'm going to bitch at some of the awesome african guys who still hunt using the age-old methods of running the quarry down for hours on end before finally killing it with a spear.

Show me someone who's rearing their cows/sheep/chickens in inhumane surroundings, and I'll happily get indignant, but just the thought of some cow being reared and executed (in what I hope is a humane/quick/painless manner) for my edification? Not a chance. I'm designed to eat meat, I'll damn well eat meat. If that causes a problem for any reason, then there are other issues at hand.

Edit: just to stay on topic for this thread, bullfighting never has been a sport I've ever even begun to understand, and never will. There are much better ways to entertain us than that.

[Tebonas]

I completely agree with you, the point in all of this is how we kill the animals we eat, not that we kill them.

[WindupAtheist]

Time to kick this thread into awesome.

This is like saying, "You can't support the death penalty, but object when the manner of execution is whipping the subject to death with razorwire".

More like you're an Auschwitz guard objecting to a few dozen convicts getting whipped to death each year. Jeez, at least the gas chambers are more humane than razorwire whipping, amirite?

 

But really, I have a hard time wrapping my head around an ethical system that views the suffering of one X as terrible but the relatively painless death of a million X as inconsequential. What the hell is the value of X in that case? Let the Spanish skewer a few bulls, who gives a crap? Sure I'd make them do it without stabbing the bull in the neck first, but that's just because I like a fair fight.

[NowhereMan]

One argument is that glorying in the pain and suffering of another creature encourages us to find enjoyment in each other's suffering. Now I'm not going to argue that watching a bullfight is like playing a violent videogame that trains killers but it certainly fosters a disdain for animal life.

As for slaughtering millions of animals every year to feed ourselves, there is more meat consumed than is really necessary in the Western world but if the animals being killed have lived pleasant lives and die painlessly I haven't got huge moral qualms about it. If there was an alternative to killing them (vat grown meat of a decent quality) then I think we should stop. However I don't think a pleasant life followed by a painless death, for an animal with no real conscious thought or understanding of the situation beyond immediate discomfort and needs, is a terrible thing. I suppose the distinction I'm drawing is based primarily on the fact that those animals are genuinely having an enjoyable life and don't really realise what's up (more importantly are incapable of realising what's up). I'm sure if there were any vegans on this board they'd make some argument about farming or just euthanising the mentally handicapped at this point, which I think is a different matter simply because humans tend to have a greater awareness of one another or even if not 'noramlly' functioning still possess greater levels of self-consciousness than animals.

[Signe]

Triforcer is making moral absolutist statements and you can't really argue with people who believe that way.  It doesn't work.  You'll just frustrate yourself.  They only makes sense to each other.  As for Windupatheist - I never know what he's on about!

[NowhereMan]

I gathered that he wants to watch midgets fight tigers and teach baboons to use knives. That's how monkey uprisings get started.

[WindupAtheist]

I just figure cows either have intrinsic value as beings or not. If they do, you should quit eating them. If they don't, then let the Spanish have their fun. Concern for the comfort of a creature combined with a lack of regard for it's continued existence is... curious to me.

It's much easier for me to just admit that my attitude toward animals is arbitrary and predicated upon how much I do or do not empathize with any particular creature on a case-by-case basis. Killing puppies is bad because I like puppies. Killing chickens in a meat factory is okay because chicken are delicious but not very cute. A guy strangling kittens to death just for fun is sick in the head, but making a lion fight a polar bear and putting it on Youtube is okay because holy shit dude that would be awesome.

Triforcer is making moral absolutist statements and you can't really argue with people who believe that way.  It doesn't work.  You'll just frustrate yourself.  They only makes sense to each other.  As for Windupatheist - I never know what he's on about!

Mostly I wanted to troll the thread by sticking up for Triforcer and doing it with a Godwin. Any actual discussion I take part in is mere happenstance.  

[tgr]

You can probably troll the thread up quicker by posting stuff like http://www.toxicjunction.com/get.asp?i=V2792 and ask who's in the wrong in that situation.

[WindupAtheist]

It's like throwing a feeder mouse to a snake. Only cooler.

[Triforcer]

I just figure cows either have intrinsic value as beings or not. If they do, you should quit eating them. If they don't, then let the Spanish have their fun. Concern for the comfort of a creature combined with a lack of regard for it's continued existence is... curious to me.

It's much easier for me to just admit that my attitude toward animals is arbitrary and predicated upon how much I do or do not empathize with any particular creature on a case-by-case basis. Killing puppies is bad because I like puppies. Killing chickens in a meat factory is okay because chicken are delicious but not very cute. A guy strangling kittens to death just for fun is sick in the head, but making a lion fight a polar bear and putting it on Youtube is okay because holy shit dude that would be awesome.

Whether or not WUA actually means this- Bingo.  This, exactly.  

And as to the "its HOW you kill them argument"- well, two main problems with that.  First, again quoting WUA, animals either have some intrinsic value or they don't.  Even if the slaughter of food animals was "painless" , there has to be SOME weight given to the numbers involved.

Second, food animals aren't treated humanely.  Or killed that painlessly.  If any of you had to choose between years dying a slow death in a cage barely bigger than your body and a few minutes of active torture, I think most of us would pick the second any day of the week.  A Spanish bull is treated better his entire life (except the last few minutes) than a food animal dying by inches in a cage.


Look, I don't have a problem with different societies, who ascribe different cultural values to animals, treating those animals differently  We don't eat horse in the USA, but there is no moral or empirical reason that must be so- we just think they are cute.  Ditto with dogs and cats.  So we outlaw eating dogs and cats- no problem here- different strokes for different folks.

What I DO object to is elevating our specific cultural animal biases to the level of moral truths, and demonizing those who don't think "insert fluffy animal here" is as cute as we think they are.  You all who love dogs are not morally "better" than people who eat them.  

I just want honesty from people on this issue.  We mostly don't care about food animals because they aren't pet-type animals, and their killing happens behinds closed doors.  Fine.  Just ADMIT that.  But don't bullshit me that the lines you draw between different animals involve anything else than justifying your personal emotional reactions to different species.


Nowhereman- Your argument is the only one that contains any truth to it.  I think there is something to what you say, but I think you'll have to admit that when people here or anywhere express outrage at animal fighting and torture, 99% of them aren't reasoning it out that way- its again back to the emotional reaction.

[Sky]

The only problem I have is with people who enjoy watching anything being tortured - bull, dog - anything. 

Except torturing terrorists for freedom and safety, amirite?

The problem with food production is corporate responsibility and the need for oversight. Go free market!

[Tebonas]

Second, food animals aren't treated humanely.  Or killed that painlessly.  If any of you had to choose between years dying a slow death in a cage barely bigger than your body and a few minutes of active torture, I think most of us would pick the second any day of the week.  A Spanish bull is treated better his entire life (except the last few minutes) than a food animal dying by inches in a cage.

Sounds to me like you people should tighten your animal protection laws.

Because that modus operandi is banned in Europe for all animals but cows (an exception that is running out by 2013, after farmers protested the original plan to abolish it by 2008). The Austrian law for example explicitely forbids it for calfs and adult cows must be able to go outside into the pasture for 90 days each year. For small farms up to 35 cows it is twice a week.

Edit: Seems I lied, its 2012 for chickens as well.

[NowhereMan]

Yeah, see while I don't have huge moral qualms about killing animals for food I find the idea of treating them like unfeeling hunks of meat to be dealt with in the most economically expedient manner horrible. A culture that feeds its population on veal meat is certainly not doing any better than one which elevates torturing a much smaller number to death into its national sport.

[Jherad]

See, I have no problem with holding the notion that animals have some intrinsic value. Enough that I'd want them to be treated humanely, and die for a good enough (to me) reason, such as for food - but not enough that I'll stop eating them.

Now as someone mentioned earlier, bring on the vats of good quality grown meat, and I'll stop eating animals altogether.

[Signe]

Mostly I wanted to troll the thread by sticking up for Triforcer and doing it with a Godwin. Any actual discussion I take part in is mere happenstance.  

I'd mock you and call you names but you're just so goddamn pretty.

[WayAbvPar]

Triforcer is making moral absolutist statements

Well knock me over with a feather.

[Cyrrex]

At least WUA's particular brand of psycho/sociopathy is highly entertaining.

Anyway, there is a clear difference to most people between not wanting to needlessly torture animals and eating meat from animals that have been responsibly slaughtered.  Problem is, and it's a good point, most people have no idea how poorly we treat food animals in this country.  It's positively shameful.  I'm trying to change my habits to support those methods that do their best to care for these animals.

I don't think it is hypocrisy to view the world in that way.  It isn't through some odd sense of shame that I want to protect those animals from needless suffering, it's because I actually really like animals.  Even the tasty ones. 

[Signe]

Triforcer is making moral absolutist statements

Well knock me over with a feather.

[Sheepherder]

More like you're an Auschwitz guard objecting to a few dozen convicts getting whipped to death each year. Jeez, at least the gas chambers are more humane than razorwire whipping, amirite?

Source: "Auschwitz Chronicle, 1939-1945 / Danuta Czech. - 1st American ed. (ISBN 0-8050-0938-8); p.199. (Ref: Ibid., pp.237-238; APMO, Ho"ss Trial, vol. 6, p.85; Julia Skowdowa, _Tri roky bez mena_ (Three Years Without a Name), Bratislava, 1962, p.35.

July 18 [1942]

With Schmauser, Himmler visits the kitchens, the woman's camp  (which then includes Blocks 1-10), the workshops, the stables, the personal effects camp (so-called  Canada), and the DAW plant as well as the butcher shop and the bakery. He sees the prisoners and makes precise inquiries about each prisoner category and the current occupancy level. In the woman's camp he is shown the effect of a whipping. Himmler must personally approve the flogging of women.

[NowhereMan]

Hoss thought of himself as a Zionist who was basically doing his best to make sure Jews were treated as well as possible. Fuck he even talks at length in his memoirs about those that he helped repatriate to Israel and elderly Jews who he gave less physical work to. The worst moral aspect of things like industrial farming, in the same sort of spirit of thinking is that it encourages thinking about the animals in purely secondary senses, in terms of cost or space or profit, rather than as animals. I know this is a Godwin and I don't want to draw any equivalencies, genocide and mass murder of human beings is far, far worse than what goes on in massive industrial farms but the approach of thinking about 'inmates' only in terms of how they fit into the system is quite similar (tricky to find any terms that can be used interchangably between the two, at best these are loose analogies). I'm okay with killing animals, I'm not ok with treating them the same way we'd treat vats of artificial meat because the two aren't the same.

The Spanish bullfighting thing is wrong because while they distort the animal for the purposes of entertainment and proceed to enjoy watching a living being brutally suffer. Glorying in suffering and totally ignoring it are horrible in very different ways but it doesn't seem like someone who goes out of their way to only eat meat from animals that were treated humanely and killed relatively painlessly is being hypocritical while someone who willfully ignores the fact that suffering goes into their shitty fast food hamburger is on a moral par. Fuck, would you say Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall is a hypocrite for campaigning against battery farming chickens but still being ok with people eating eggs?

[Triforcer]

Fuck, would you say Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall is a hypocrite for campaigning against battery farming chickens but still being ok with people eating eggs?

Yes.