animal slaughter for products and over population

Discussion in 'Opinions, Beliefs, & Points of View' started by killtomorrow, Jun 15, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. killtomorrow

    killtomorrow Well-Known Member

    is there anybody reading this who opposes this bullshit??
  2. aoeu

    aoeu Well-Known Member

    Pardon? Perhaps you can explain what you mean.
  3. shades

    shades Staff Alumni

    Could you please explain further?
  4. killtomorrow

    killtomorrow Well-Known Member

    the titles is pretty explanatory,
    doesnt seem like there are many people like me who believe animal slaughter is fucked up in general..
    im just curious to see if there is anybody on this site with the same view on the matter.
  5. Random

    Random Well-Known Member

    Actually, I do believe it's fucked up but at the same time, I love to eat. I'm torn that way. I know it's a shitty thing and I feel bad for the animals but what can you do if you love hamburgers and steaks?
  6. shades

    shades Staff Alumni

    I'm more against the torture of animals in the name of science.
  7. aoeu

    aoeu Well-Known Member

    Things die whether we kill them or not. Everything is mortal... Farmed species wouldn't exist at all if we didn't breed them. Which is worse: to live a short, painful life, or to not exist at all? Evolutionarily it's worse to not exist at all. Most living things have unpleasant lives, but they keep on doing it for some insane reason.

    But again, I think that vegetarianism is a good choice, given how we're stressing our earth. Vegetarian items take up 1/10 the resources of meat.

    And torturing animals for science is very good. Better animals suffering than humans. Besides, those animals exist because we use them. They would never be born without our experimentation, and that means the death of a lineage.
  8. me1

    me1 Well-Known Member

    I would have answered 'a short, painful life' myself. Strange 'reasoning' I must say.

    'Doing' what? Being born? No-one has any choice in this. Living? All living creatures are driven by instincts geared towards surviving, firstly themselves as individuals and then subsequently through reproduction. This will be the 'insane reason' they keep doing it. Humans have the capacity to develop intellect and transcend primitive instinct-based behaviour, although many choose to waver this opportunity.

    It is also a healthier choice, providing one lives on whole foods (fruits, veggies, grains etc) instead of highly processed junk, fake this, that and next thing.

    The results of animal experiments are meaningless to humans. Most are wrong, the few that aren't are lost among the many. It is all a destructive guessing game.

    Humans suffer as a result of trying to guess things about them from 'studying' animals. Most drugs that pass animal trials fail when given to humans, often causing harm in the process or else they simply represent a waste of time, money and animal lives.

    All animals that are experimented upon existed before the idea to experiment upon them ever came about. Why would they 'not exist' ? They may exist in smaller or larger numbers but they would not necessarily cease to exist at all and if they did, so what? Only you believe that a 'short, painful life' is superior to no life at all.
  9. aoeu

    aoeu Well-Known Member

    It's natural reasoning, not my own. I'm suicidal, I'm far in favour of no life at all.
  10. killtomorrow

    killtomorrow Well-Known Member

    the fact of the matter is humanity is only making life on this planet more difficult for others to live in peace.
  11. yursomedicated

    yursomedicated Chat & Forum Buddy

    They are "humanily eithenizing" hundreds of Canada Geese in my area because someone doesn't want them "invading" they few acres.

    So ridiculous... :(
  12. ~PinkElephants~

    ~PinkElephants~ Senior member

    Everything and everyone all die sometime......

  13. MeAndYou

    MeAndYou Well-Known Member

    I dont understand this argument. Its indifference and arrogance on a level i just cant wrap my head around...

    So if our government decided to pump you full of steroids to get you nice and beefy and this created health issues, so they pumped you full of antibiotics to keep you living, and during this entire time had you standing in a room with 100 other people in the same situation defecating and stepping on each other, and then silt your throat...youd be ok with that?

    You're missing the point entirely. No one is arguing whether or not things die or are mortal...thats evident through observation.

    I dont understand how farming a species = evolution. Are the cows going to evolve to evade our agricultural trickstery and roam free in the mountain sides? I just dont see how farming a creature for food is something evolution accounts for.

    I think you're own jaded perseption of the world is writing your opinion for you. I'm not sure animals can actively gain memories of "good times" and "Bad times" that they can reminisce about with their pals during feeding time. The whole point here is whether or not the practice is humanely done. I also think whether its healthy for us, the consumer, should be part of the issue. Because its not healthy.

    I dont agree with torturing animals for science but im not exactly "informed" in that area of our lives so i really dont know another option. I do know though that the chapstick im holding was "Not tested on animals". So i'm giong to go out on a limb and state that the most obvious cause for such testing to be done in many cases is a means to maximize profit by cutting corners. Generally i think if humans are going to use a product...welll..then humans should probably test it.

    And what is natural reasoning?

    On a side note if you're actively seeking out products that are not tested on animals make sure to carefully read the label. If it says something along the lines of "this company does not test their products on animals" than thats a sneaky way of selling a product under the guise of animal friendly, when really they are just using a different company all together to test their products on animals.
  14. reefer madness

    reefer madness Account Closed

    I like eating meat. I don't really care where it comes from as long as it's tasty.
  15. Zurkhardo

    Zurkhardo Well-Known Member

    Supposedly, Earth could only sustain about 2 billion people without being drastically damaged or depleted. Having reached over 3 times that number, we have certainly reached the breaking point and we'll have to work quite hard to make it so that 6.7 billion people (and counting) live on this planet to equal a third their number.

    Everything in this planet is interconnected, as is the nature, well, nature itself. Our destruction of various enviornments, our slaughter and depletion of animals, and our growing waste will all drastically accelerate a process some of you are calling 'natural.' Most importantly, we must remember that it's taken millions of years for Earth to get to this point, and much of what we're doing will be irreversable.

    For example, it'll take about 10,000 years for fish stocks to increase to their natural levels before we began plundering them. If we continue overfishing, no amount of time will ever bring them back.
  16. bhawk

    bhawk Well-Known Member

    as a huntsman i feel you are deluded. i eat what i catch and i am proud that i am not encouraging some intensive farming methods by providing my own food. all animals i kill are done so humanely and quickly. i have the utmost respect for my quarry and preserve my quarry and look after my hunting land for the benefit of my quarry, hunting has so far been proved to be the most effective form of conservation.
    As for the "anti's" who only eat veg as they dont agree with animal slaughter they are deluded as in the UK rabbits alone cause an estimated 100 MILLION pounds worth of damage (numbers taken from DEFRA themselves) an farmers employ people to keep a check on "vermin" populations, therefore even vegetarians themselves are unwittingly involved in the death of animals as crops need to be protected. please remember crops go into everything, your bread, your salads, even clothes and sugar. life involves death, there can be no seperation from death as it is such an integral part of life. claiming animal death is unnecessary is naive as best. we ourselves are animals and you talk of overpopulation, yet would you want us controlled? if you did would that not be contradicting your other point? please people open your mind to real life, the middle-class city "anti's" are ruining the country. we had some city folk move in nearby and they actually complained to the council about the noise of cattle at the cattle market!!! we are a predatory species, we have forward facing binocular eyes, designed for predation. stop getting high and mighty with morals when your a fucking animal, as we all are!
  17. bhawk

    bhawk Well-Known Member

    what "point" is the earth at? the earth has ALWAYS had an unstable climate, it just doesnt appear so due to our lifespans being so miniscule in time. remember it was only 10,000 years ago when the last ice age ended, thats barely a spot on a gnats ass compared to the "cosmic time"
  18. ~PinkElephants~

    ~PinkElephants~ Senior member

    Frankly Meandyou if you read my signature clearly that would answer your question simply. If you'd like me to elaborate I will do so..just to appease your loving nature. I don't really give a flying fuck what people do to me. I don't care what people think of me. I don't care what people say about me. And finally I don't care if you don't like my thoughts on this topic. If you didn't want to hear it maybe you shouldnt be in this lovely area called the soap box for DEBATING. :)

    Like I said...we all die...everything dies....eventually.
  19. Hache

    Hache Well-Known Member

    its so complex i just dont know :(

    I believe in animal rights and i get very sad when i just step on a snail

    i love leather and i love milk, i just dont know what to think, what to do, especially as this is one of the worst animal rights cases in farming
  20. Zurkhardo

    Zurkhardo Well-Known Member

    At what point did I refer to climate change? Actually, perhaps I didn't make it clear but by current 'point' I was reffering to the present environment and all it's organisms. The actual depletion of resources, such as trees, fish, and entire ecosystems; is what I'm referencing as problematic. This is something that is wholly unnatural, given that most other species live at equilibrium within nature as opposed to changing or destroying it. Even the disasters that wiped out much life in the past don't justify what is an otherwise preventable process.

    Besides, that argument concerning this current climate change as being part of a natural occurrence has already been debunked. After observing previous cycles, it's been determined that this one is far different and more accelerated than all the past ones we've measured, including that ice age you mentioned (and what they call the little ice age of 400 to 800 years ago).

    Even if it were natural, its hard to argue that the 50 to 70 billion tons of carbon dioxide we're pumping into the air - concurrent with our destruction of carbon absorbing forest - will have zero detrimental impact to this planet. Granted, the point concerning our lifespans is quite valid, though I think for a slightly different: we're not quite grasping the damage done. People can't believe fish are disappearing or forests are dwindling because they still see plenty of both, as we probably still will in our lifetimes. It's the long term, generational impact that is the major concern.
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 17, 2009
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.