Animal rights
-
@011111100010 seeing as you've asked twice, I'll try and give you my views, but first, a disclaimer. I can only speak for myself – I am not a spokesperson for PETA or the AR movement in general, though I do support most of what both stand for. So, why one animal species and not another, and why not plants? It's not some quasi-religious question of "life", but the more prosaic ones of consciousness and a sense of self and, linked to that, the ability to experience pain. Personally, the amount I care about an animal suffering is proportional to how much I think they can experience it. These are grey areas, and much argued about, but there is a generally accepted hierarchy here: primates at the top, along with creatures like whales, elephants and dolphins, then down through the likes of pigs and dogs and rats, and down we go... I don't lose too much sleep when I dig my garden and chop a worm in half, because I really don't think the poor thing knows much about it, and I certainly don't even blink when pulling a carrot from the ground. But when I see primates used in vivisection I protest, loudly – and I really don't care if those involved claim to be researching childhood cancer or anything else – find some other way to do it. Those animals are sentient, and no-one has any right to make them suffer as they do, for any reason. And when dogs are beaten and skinned alive in Chinese markets I protest too. They do not have the same level of self-awareness as humans, but they know pain, and we have no right to inflict it upon them. And the same even goes for rats in laboratories, IMO, and cows in abattoirs. We really need to start treating animals better. Anyone that owns a dog – and that includes many omnivores, and others who think the AR movement is stupid – would beat the shit out of someone that came up and started kicking their pet. Yet they daily support an industry that inflicts far worse on animals every bit as intelligent and sentient as their pooch. Go figure. And, of course, humans are at the top of this hierarchy of suffering. Contrary to stereotypes, most people that care about animals don't think that they should enjoy greater rights, or protection from pain, than people, though it is true (and understandable) that there are a lot of misanthropes amongst them. But that is not the same thing, and it is disingenuous to conflate the two.
I have found that roasting the tomatoes before you make the salsa, adds a whole new depth of flavor that you could not achieve other wise.
-
@011111100010 seeing as you've asked twice, I'll try and give you my views, but first, a disclaimer. I can only speak for myself – I am not a spokesperson for PETA or the AR movement in general, though I do support most of what both stand for. So, why one animal species and not another, and why not plants? It's not some quasi-religious question of "life", but the more prosaic ones of consciousness and a sense of self and, linked to that, the ability to experience pain. Personally, the amount I care about an animal suffering is proportional to how much I think they can experience it. These are grey areas, and much argued about, but there is a generally accepted hierarchy here: primates at the top, along with creatures like whales, elephants and dolphins, then down through the likes of pigs and dogs and rats, and down we go... I don't lose too much sleep when I dig my garden and chop a worm in half, because I really don't think the poor thing knows much about it, and I certainly don't even blink when pulling a carrot from the ground. But when I see primates used in vivisection I protest, loudly – and I really don't care if those involved claim to be researching childhood cancer or anything else – find some other way to do it. Those animals are sentient, and no-one has any right to make them suffer as they do, for any reason. And when dogs are beaten and skinned alive in Chinese markets I protest too. They do not have the same level of self-awareness as humans, but they know pain, and we have no right to inflict it upon them. And the same even goes for rats in laboratories, IMO, and cows in abattoirs. We really need to start treating animals better. Anyone that owns a dog – and that includes many omnivores, and others who think the AR movement is stupid – would beat the shit out of someone that came up and started kicking their pet. Yet they daily support an industry that inflicts far worse on animals every bit as intelligent and sentient as their pooch. Go figure. And, of course, humans are at the top of this hierarchy of suffering. Contrary to stereotypes, most people that care about animals don't think that they should enjoy greater rights, or protection from pain, than people, though it is true (and understandable) that there are a lot of misanthropes amongst them. But that is not the same thing, and it is disingenuous to conflate the two.
A_Griffin wrote:
And when dogs are beaten and skinned alive in Chinese markets I protest too.
Coming from a family with lots of dogs, I'd not just protest. OTOH, if the dogs are treated well, and are humanely killed, then I have no problem with it.
A_Griffin wrote:
Those animals are sentient, and no-one has any right to make them suffer as they do, for any reason.
Even if they weren't sentient, there is no reason to inflict suffering. As for the right; nature doesn't have a court of law. If my cat catches a mouse he'll make that animal suffer, until he looses interest. Then he lies down and watches the mouse die. It is not about rights.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
A_Griffin wrote:
And when dogs are beaten and skinned alive in Chinese markets I protest too.
Coming from a family with lots of dogs, I'd not just protest. OTOH, if the dogs are treated well, and are humanely killed, then I have no problem with it.
A_Griffin wrote:
Those animals are sentient, and no-one has any right to make them suffer as they do, for any reason.
Even if they weren't sentient, there is no reason to inflict suffering. As for the right; nature doesn't have a court of law. If my cat catches a mouse he'll make that animal suffer, until he looses interest. Then he lies down and watches the mouse die. It is not about rights.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
Well, "rights" is a just a word - there's little to be gained form arguing semantics, it's a question of how we treat animals. Your cat can only act according to its nature - it has no choice in the matter. We humans do.
A_Griffin wrote:
Your cat can only act according to its nature - it has no choice in the matter. We humans do.
Ah, yes, because we're the only ones with this superiour brain? And the cat is "just" automated instincts? Humans tend to make selfish and idiot choices, and without regulation and enforcement I do not expect much changes.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
A_Griffin wrote:
Your cat can only act according to its nature - it has no choice in the matter. We humans do.
Ah, yes, because we're the only ones with this superiour brain? And the cat is "just" automated instincts? Humans tend to make selfish and idiot choices, and without regulation and enforcement I do not expect much changes.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
When your cat decides it no longer wants to kill mice because it thinks it's cruel, I'll be thrilled to hear about it.
-
Well no - that's my point. Cruelty is causing suffering knowingly, aware of the suffering felt by the other being. It's why people with diminished mental capabilities are (often) not judged as harshly by the courts when they commit crimes as you or I might be. Your cat is just being a cat - it can't help it. But if you or I were to act in such a manner it would be cruel.
-
Well no - that's my point. Cruelty is causing suffering knowingly, aware of the suffering felt by the other being. It's why people with diminished mental capabilities are (often) not judged as harshly by the courts when they commit crimes as you or I might be. Your cat is just being a cat - it can't help it. But if you or I were to act in such a manner it would be cruel.
A_Griffin wrote:
Cruelty is causing suffering knowingly, aware of the suffering felt by the other being.
Its capable of gauging emotions and still sometimes decides to act like a jerk.
A_Griffin wrote:
But if you or I were to act in such a manner it would be cruel.
We would not understand the need to act cruel.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
@011111100010 seeing as you've asked twice, I'll try and give you my views, but first, a disclaimer. I can only speak for myself – I am not a spokesperson for PETA or the AR movement in general, though I do support most of what both stand for. So, why one animal species and not another, and why not plants? It's not some quasi-religious question of "life", but the more prosaic ones of consciousness and a sense of self and, linked to that, the ability to experience pain. Personally, the amount I care about an animal suffering is proportional to how much I think they can experience it. These are grey areas, and much argued about, but there is a generally accepted hierarchy here: primates at the top, along with creatures like whales, elephants and dolphins, then down through the likes of pigs and dogs and rats, and down we go... I don't lose too much sleep when I dig my garden and chop a worm in half, because I really don't think the poor thing knows much about it, and I certainly don't even blink when pulling a carrot from the ground. But when I see primates used in vivisection I protest, loudly – and I really don't care if those involved claim to be researching childhood cancer or anything else – find some other way to do it. Those animals are sentient, and no-one has any right to make them suffer as they do, for any reason. And when dogs are beaten and skinned alive in Chinese markets I protest too. They do not have the same level of self-awareness as humans, but they know pain, and we have no right to inflict it upon them. And the same even goes for rats in laboratories, IMO, and cows in abattoirs. We really need to start treating animals better. Anyone that owns a dog – and that includes many omnivores, and others who think the AR movement is stupid – would beat the shit out of someone that came up and started kicking their pet. Yet they daily support an industry that inflicts far worse on animals every bit as intelligent and sentient as their pooch. Go figure. And, of course, humans are at the top of this hierarchy of suffering. Contrary to stereotypes, most people that care about animals don't think that they should enjoy greater rights, or protection from pain, than people, though it is true (and understandable) that there are a lot of misanthropes amongst them. But that is not the same thing, and it is disingenuous to conflate the two.
A_Griffin wrote:
and cows
Can't really treat cows much better. If you start treating them like royalty then they are going to cost a lot more. And then people will buy a lot less. And that means that someone, somehow is going to have to kill a LOT of cows. Unless of course one just wants to let them starve to death.
-
A_Griffin wrote:
and cows
Can't really treat cows much better. If you start treating them like royalty then they are going to cost a lot more. And then people will buy a lot less. And that means that someone, somehow is going to have to kill a LOT of cows. Unless of course one just wants to let them starve to death.
-
That's a silly argument, oft repeated. If demand falls, it won't be overnight, and as demand decreases so will breeding decrease accordingly.