GrimKingGrim
The Thin Dead Line of sanity
- Apr 13, 2015
- 1,237
- 177
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Then why is it that animals don't seem to agree with that assessment?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
God created animals for man to use; all animals, in whatever way we see fit, they are Gods gift to us. God even made clothing for Adam and Eve out of animal skins to replace the PLANT based clothing that Adam and Eve fashioned in order to show us the superiority of leather and fur over plant fibers.
How do you know what they think about it? And what difference would their opinion make?Then why is it that animals don't seem to agree with that assessment?
Shooting them is apparently more common. My concern is with the massive number that are killed. Humans have a pretty bad track record when it comes to filling demand over available supply.
Being an omnivore with a decent knowledge of farm animal abuse, I am a poor judge of this ethical dilemma.
In nature the prey always has a fighting chance of getting away which is not the case in a slaughterhouse.
The survival rate of any given life form drops to 0 over time. But how does one accuse time as a victimizer?Any time any animal or plant, bacterium, whatever is killed by any other, there is a victim and a victimizer. The word "victim" is not reserved for humans.
There is nothing immoral about killing animals out of necessity, such as for food or warmth. But for looks? Please. You don't have to have a degree in ethics to know this is wrong.
Just to experience a taste would fall into luxurey the environment must be considered when choosing which animals to eat.
True, there is a possibility that the prey will escape the predator but it's flatly absurd to say that a more humane death is to be found in nature. Compared to a well run slaughter house, say one use systems designed by Temple Grandin, any death awaiting an animal in the wild is much more cruel.
I thought Catholic guilt was bad, then I found out about Vegan guilt.
There's nothing wrong with harvesting animals for luxury reasons.
As long as they're not a protected species, out of season, or being abused/tortured instead of being killed quickly and humanely, then there shouldn't be any issue.
We need to respect and treat humanely the animals we use and harvest.
I think we could do with using animals as a resource a lot less than we do now, but that's just my own opinion. I don't think there's anything wrong with using them, even if it's for "luxury" items.
You are free to become whatever you'd like.
I am fine being an omnivore and predator.
Also, I am not up to date on the hunting regulations of seals, but AFAIK killing a mother who has offspring still dependent on her is poaching. Which is greatly inhumane.
Seal clubbing is just as moral as lobster fishing except for two things: baby seals look cuter and so we think of them as though they were human babies. We don't care about lobsters. Second, clubbing anything seems barbaric, but if it's quick and effective, it's certainly no less humane than boiling the creature alive!
We're not speaking of a human killing a human. OK?
Then you are using the word in a way that doesn't shed any light on the topic here or lead us to think that any particular way of handling the matter is better than the other.
So here's my suggestion. Those people who find hunting offensive should avoid doing any hunting, just like vegans choose not to eat meat. And that's all there is to it.
How do you know what they think about it? And what difference would their opinion make?
By the way, no one has yet made the case for not cutting your lawn. When do we get to "Grass has feelings, too, and it deeply resents being victimized, etc.?"
Man is probably less brutal than nature regarding killing of critters.
I hope you eat only organic veggies.
Earthworms and other soil life, including bacteria, have no chance against the plow, disc, harrow, and acid treated fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides as the fields are prepare to grow.......vegetables!
God created animals for man to use; all animals, in whatever way we see fit, they are Gods gift to us. God even made clothing for Adam and Eve out of animal skins to replace the PLANT based clothing that Adam and Eve fashioned in order to show us the superiority of leather and fur over plant fibers.
1. You are confusing law and ethics. Whether something is in-season or not is a legal consideration, not an ethical one.
2. It isn't immoral to kill a sentient creature in order to obtain a luxury good? I saw you post once that you were opposed to the torture of humans in just about every case. Why do you value the experience of humans so much more than the experience of animals? Is being clubbed over the head until one dies so inconsequential just because one is a non-human animal?
3. Being "free to be whatever one likes" is also a legal statement, not a statement about ethics.
I really don't think you've thought this position through.
1. It's unethical to poach, which is taking animals out of season.
2. Yes, I'm against all forms of torture against humans. I'm also against all forms of torture against animals. I didn't say anything on this thread about clubbing, because I don't know anything about that method of hunting. I don't know how quick, effective, or efficient it is. If one hit can instantly kill a seal, I don't see how that's inhumane.
3. And? I don't really see your point.
When people too quickly use the word "obviously" in a debate--and also attribute ideas to other people without actually knowing what they do believe--it almost always damages their argument. The above is a good example of that.First, seals are almost certainly more conscious that lobsters. There is legitimate debate over whether lobsters are conscious at all. You obviously believe that consciousness exists on a spectrum because you believe humans are more conscious than seals (I presume).
Which of those do you think you'd like to go with?First, seals are almost certainly more conscious that lobsters. There is legitimate debate over whether lobsters are conscious at all. You obviously believe that consciousness exists on a spectrum because you believe humans are more conscious than seals (I presume).
That is ONE argument among many. Apparently it's the one you favor. But I'm willing to bet that you're also against killing animals for food if there is no suffering.Second, it's clear that you don't understand the actual argument for not killing animals for food. I'll give it to you in a nutshell. The animals we eat for food are conscious creatures. When we kill them, there is suffering. Causing the suffering of a conscious creature for no good reason is wrong
Because there is a difference?Third, you seem to draw a distinct line between humans and animals. I'm not sure why that is.
When people too quickly use the word "obviously" in a debate--and also attribute ideas to other people without actually knowing what they do believe--it almost always damages their argument. The above is a good example of that.
Which of those do you think you'd like to go with?--it's obvious or you presume?
YOU may fancy the "they're conscious" line, but most people do not make that their guide. Elsewise, they could not feel angst over the killing of baby seals but not think the same about deer hunting. IOW, your argument fails.
That is ONE argument among many. Apparently it's the one you favor. But I'm willing to bet that you're also against killing animals for food if there is no suffering.
Because there is a difference?
Clearly this is different from killing an animal, because an animal did not choose to die. However, I don't see any other predator asking permission from their prey to be allowed to eat them.
Your morals are not my morals. I didn't state the "you can be whatever" thing as something legal in the first place, just a matter of how we each can choose our own paths in terms of what we eat.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?