Animal Cruelty

[The_Boss_Giygas]

If everyone ate beans and cereals and things instead of meat, then there wouldn't be enough land to grow crops.

Some farmland, such as steep slopes, and ground that is otherwise too rough, can't be used for crops, so it has to be used for grazing. Almost any land can be used for grazing.

It's all about growing what you can on the land available. If you can't grow crops on it, you use it as grazing. And whatever comes out of it is what gets sold in the shops and then eaten.

That's true we do have a ton of dry land yet no one uses it not even for grazing we'd rather tear down already planted forests for grazing land here's some info I got from a website:

Cattle Grazing and Deforestation
Another of the more devastating forces behind deforestation is cattle grazing. With the international growth of fast food chains this seems to be an evident factor in the clearing of trees today. Large corporations looking to buy beef for hamburger and even pet food seek cheap prices and are finding them with the growth of cattle grazing (Heller 3). In the Amazon region of South America alone there are 100,000 beef ranchers (Heller 3). As the burger giants of industrialized society are making high demands for more beef, more forests are being torn down. Statistics from less than a decade ago, 1989, indicate that 15,000 km squared of forests are used expressly for the purpose of cattle grazing (Myers 32). Once the trees are gone the land is often overgrazed. In some places the government wants this to happen. Cattle grazing is big profit that can�t be turned down.

Website: http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/deforestation.htm
Sounds like we don't have enough land from grazing either.
Again I'm not against eating meat, but having hundreds of thousands of slaughter houses just to satisfy the majority of meat eating people mostly in 1st world countries is retarded. I mean really we kill way more animals each year for food than people die in Africa. People should learn to eat less meat that's it, less demand less supply just like the drug wars.

 

[The_Boss_Giygas]

Okay, I'd like to see where you end up without a government, education, a market, and the basic rights you get in your country.

Here's a hint: It's like Africa.

As far my education and basic rights I'm greatful for them you're right without them I'd end up dead or suffering.

Like I said humans have evolved to the point where our species is not a priority anymore, government cares not for the species as a whole, but for it's people in it's own country. Our species is not in any trouble (yet) our countries are thus we fight each other in the name of our country not in the name of humanity. My country helps when it's asked to help and that's fine, or when we feel like "helping" like freeing people from their evil Oil hint hint. So why can't we help Africa? Duh cause their leaders don't ask for it and they have the say not the suffering people, it sucks, but it's reality, until the leaders get their act together I don't see the need to throw away money over there. What they need are better & more teachers and not those religious goons making missions over there. Nor those dudes dropping boxes of can food, we need to teach Africa to feed & cure itself not send money & hope that it somehow gets to the people.

 

[LedZeppelin1]

I can't really see how this can be a debate at all. Hurting any living being for reasons other than survival(food, etc.) is wrong. There's not much else that can be said.

 

[ZarraWolf]

I personally think it's wrong to eat cats and dogs (and also pigs), but don't think it's wrong to kill and eat cows, sheep, deer, turkeys, chickens, etc.

I do not base my opinion upon the fact that we keep dogs and cats as pets. I myself just don't see predatory and omnivorous mammals as a source of food. It's also much more common to get diseases from eating mammals that also eat meat, then it is to get diseases from plant eating mammals. And I know I would not be capable of killing a pig or dog, unless I would die if I didn't. So I find it hypocritical to buy their meat from a store. I would not have problems with eating reptiles and some species of bird that are omnivorous. (I would not eat carrion-eating birds, or carnivorous birds).

I do care about the welfare of the animals I am comfortable with eating. And I always buy meat, eggs and cheese that comes from animals that have lived good lifes.

Of course it's all because I have the luxury to choose. I don't blame poorer countries for killing animals that I have strong emotional connections with, and wish I never have to kill. And I also don't blame other people in wealthy countries for eating pigs. Although I do think they should at least be able to witness a piglet growing up and being killed for food. If you can't handle that, then don't eat it.

 

[Corroded Arceus]

Because it's natural to care more about your own species than animals. Animals do the same thing. They value their species more than us.

Do you value your mother more than animals? Your best friend? I sure as hell HOPE SO.

Umm, I don't. Is that a bad thing?

Yes, I do. But it's not because they are of the same species as me, it's because I love them.

 

[GhostAnime]

And everybody else in the world loves their family too. What kind of message does that send?

 

[7 tyranitars]

ehm I do rather save my brother then my cat if I can't save both

 

[Slightly Insane]

For the same reason killing someone slowly is worse than killing someone quickly.

Cruelty isn't equivalent to killing. You can beat an animal up without killing it.

Also, senselessly beating an animal serves no purpose towards a person's survival, whereas eating one does.

We can survive without animals.

Some say that chickens which are bred for just eating is animal cruelty. No, it is not. These animals have been raised to die. Horrible fact, but if we raise them with love and care, people would not be able to kill them and eat them.

Say you were born into a life such as the humans in the movie Daybreakers. Your soul purpose was to feed the main population. Isn't that cruel? And aren't you an animal? Sounds like animal cruelty.

Also, would somebody explain why it is wrong to be cruel to animals? An actual debate could occur if we had a solid understanding of "wrong".

 

[GhostAnime]

Cruelty isn't equivalent to killing. You can beat an animal up without killing it.

But you can lessen the pain .. which is what he's saying.

An actual debate could occur if we had a solid understanding of "wrong".

I'm surprised this is coming from you considering your opinion on the Bible. Are you implying wrong is relative now?

 

[Shiny hunter Reece]

We can survive without animals.

No we cannot survive without animals.
Animals feed us. We need to eat their meat for things like iron and other nutrients.

And, their manure fertilises our crops, which we cannot live without. Without their manure, it would be incredibly difficult to fertilise crops and get enough food.

So no we cannot live without animals.

Your soul purpose was to feed the main population. Isn't that cruel?

That's irrelevant. It's the way the food chain goes. We kill certain animals for food because that's just the way the food chain is.

And it isn't cruel if the killing is done quickly and painlessly.

 

[Electricbluewolf]

Say you were born into a life such as the humans in the movie Daybreakers. Your soul purpose was to feed the main population. Isn't that cruel? And aren't you an animal? Sounds like animal cruelty.

But Daybreakers isn't real life.

No.

But I'm not the one being eaten, am I? Chickens are raised as food. For the majority, thats their destiny. It is not cruel. Kicking a puppy in the face is cruel. Killing animals for food and a purpose is not cruel.

 

[Slightly Insane]

I'm surprised this is coming from you considering your opinion on the Bible. Are you implying wrong is relative now?

If by "relative" you mean "situational", then not at all. However, everybody has different beliefs about what's right and wrong. For example, I believe abortion is wrong no matter what. You, however, do not. My morals are based off the Bible. A Muslim's morals would be based off the Qur'an. Both Christian and Muslim morals would differ greatly from Buddhist and Atheist morals.

The reason I brought this up is because we're debating whether death is more wrong than cruelty-with-life (and vise versa) without a definition of what is wrong.

No we cannot survive without animals.
Animals feed us. We need to eat their meat for things like iron and other nutrients.

*We can live without killing animals. I was responding to a post concerning the slaughter of animals, so I assumed repeating that would be redundant.

And actually, commonly consumed meats (beef, chicken, lamb, etc.) don't contain all that much iron.

http://www.fatfreekitchen.com/nutrition/iron.html

That's irrelevant. It's the way the food chain goes. We kill certain animals for food because that's just the way the food chain is.

Except now in 2010 we have the technology and capability to survive without killing animals. Half a billion people do it daily.

And it isn't cruel if the killing is done quickly and painlessly.

I'm assuming you are between the age of 13 and 25. You have a bright future ahead of you. You're working hard in your studies to work towards that future. Now say tomorrow when you walk outside your house, a lunatic jumps out behind you, sticks a gun at the base of your head, and fires, killing you instantly. Bam. You're entire future is gone. Everything you worked for is gone. All of your friends and family mourn your death. I would say that is quite cruel, regardless of how much or little pain you felt; regardless of what speed the killing was done at.

But Daybreakers isn't real life.

Neither are most hypothetical situations. So what.

But I'm not the one being eaten, am I?

So nothing really matters if it doesn't affect you?

Chickens are raised as food. For the majority, thats their destiny. It is not cruel. Kicking a puppy in the face is cruel. Killing animals for food and a purpose is not cruel.

I would rather have my face slashed by a wild animal than have my body eaten by a wild animal. I'm sure most people would.

 

[Tyrant Tar]

Except now in 2010 we have the technology and capability to survive without killing animals. Half a billion people do it daily.

Out of curiosity (and anyone can answer this), would we use less land if we ditched raising animals and just grew crops? Or we'd have to clear more land in order to feed the same amount of people?

 

[ShanksD]

You'd be amazed how much land is wasted growing crops to feed the animals that people then eat.
And Shiny, meat isn't as nutritious as the farming industry would have you believe. And all nutrients, minerals and vitamins etc... can also be found in various vegetables and pulses.
I ain't saying people shouldn't eat meat. A vegetarian diet is a luxury afforded to me by our society. But people should eat less meat. It's become the staple of alot of people's diet.

 

[Rabid Jigglypuff]

Figured I'd ask this to stir something, but it'll probably end up sounding stupid-

Animals can't think. They can only react to situation with instinct, so what makes them different than bacteria?

Also, notice how the majority of the people in this thread seems to feel bad for dogs being mistreated. Although I'm assuming based on my previous experiences with people, the majority of the people in this thread wouldn't feel bad if someone killed a mosquito. Why is this okay, but a dog being killed not okay based on your stance against animal cruelty?

 

[GhostAnime]

^ I explained this before, and it's really just instinct for us to feel that way. We just like dogs more than mosquitoes.

 

[Red Charizard]

Swatting a fly = cruel.
Killing a mosquito = cruel.
Killing farm animals = cruel.
Abusing pets = cruel.

Just nobody cares enough to stop.

 

[Rabid Jigglypuff]

Swatting a fly = cruel.
Killing a mosquito = cruel.
Killing farm animals = cruel.
Abusing pets = cruel.

Just nobody cares enough to stop.

I'll quote my first argument again

Animals can't think. They can only react to situation with instinct, so what makes them different than bacteria?

If they're not thinking, can only react, and have no emotion- do you think they're actually experiencing pain? Of course, as I have no answer and can't be sure, I'm not going to be blindly killing animals, but wouldn't it make logical sense?

 

[treeco123]

We can survive without animals.

nothing on earth can survive without animals,apart from some bacteria and viruses.the soil that plants grow in is made by animals so we would have nothing to eat and before that happens plants will grow too much because nothing's eating them.and anyway,humans are animals.

one thing that is cruel is killing animals for fun(fox hunting,shooting pheasants).I think it's okay if you eat it(unless it's rats,I wouldn't eat them,but I do eat pheasants)but if you don't it's pointless and stupid.

Animals can't think. They can only react to situation with instinct, so what makes them different than bacteria?

what makes you think animals can't think?

 

[Rabid Jigglypuff]

The majority of animals can't think intelligently--most of their actions are based on instinct.