That is just completely ignorant. The number of people avoiding the consumption of meat has been rising considerably over the last few decades.
History tells a different story. Donner Pass for example. People eat less meat because they can but when food gets scarce they will eat each other.
Wow Well done sir, I didnt think your argument could get any more stupid. Of course, no one is disputing that. However this doesn't prove your claim we cannot or are not moving away from the needless consumption of meat.
My argument was simple.People will eat each other before society gives up eating meat. One reason is the simple fact that a vegetarian diet is much more labor intensive than meat and if done properly consumes less fuel.
Indeed and your only evidence was a tiny group of standard people who had nothing to eat except each other in the snow. Now that isnt "society." What's more I cited the fact the number of non-meat eaters is growing, which you clearly havent heard about. As I said your argument is ignorant and false. What do you mean? "Less fuel"? ROFL I think you miss the most important fact - you dont kill animals that want to live and can experience pain.
How do you know plants do not experience pain? And a vegetable has to be tilled, planted, cultivated, sprayed for bugs, and picked. This uses fuel and labor. A cow needs to be let loose on land that has been fenced once (and the fence lasts many years), maybe vacinated when young, and then butchered. They are much less labor intensive than vegetables. And you also get much more nutrition per pound.
Wow you are more ignorant than I thought. They dont have a nervous system or brain, this is why. Aah, so you think, again just out of pure ignorant speculation, that the food required to sustain population, if drawn entirely from non-meat sources, would require more resources generally than with animals? Well, actually, just as much labour is put into feeding animals. If the animals were not around to be fed such efforts can go directly into feeding humans, which has been shown, would actually have MORE nutritional productivity than is presently generated. Which requires a hell of a lot more work and resources than plant based food. Mate, that is just plain stupid. Another factually incorrect statement.
If you can not have a civil discussion without name calling it shows a total lack of class. I raise both animals and vegetables and and animals are not only less work but they are harvested year round from my own ground. Once the ground is fence is work is done it lasts for many years. Unlike a vegetable plot that has to be plowed, planted, tilled, cultivated, sprayed for bugs, and fertilized. not to mention the harvest. And many vegetables worth eating have to be hand picked. Cows are let loose, they eat, and then they are harvested. Sometimes a bail or two of hay is thrown to them. Pigs are a little more work. I feed mine twice a day with food you vegetarians won't buy because of bruises, non uniform shape, or whatever. So my pigs turn waste into meat. Bad food into good food. My chickens eat what the pigs will not. And where would organic growers get their manure if livestock were not raised? green manure is good but cow manure is better. If you do not want to eat meat...fine...call someone that cares.
They have no consciousness, and since we know for a fact that animals feel pain and have absolutely no reason to think they do, it certainly makes more sense to value the lives of things with, oh, I don't know, brains? This is a total lie. Meat is incredibly more resource intensive than plants. http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/40934/title/AAAS_Climate-friendly_dining_…_meats http://www.sciencenews.org/view/gen..._Public__AAAS_Climate-friendly_dining_…_meats
This thread is about animal rights and not global warming. And if cow manure is used for fuel (and it has) it is pretty close to carbon neutral. I plan to use my cow manure to heat my farrowing pens for my pigs and after doing some homework i found that you get more BTUs per turd by drying it and using it like firewood. That is the manure that is not tilled into the land and helping to make my fields carbon sinks. The methane problem can be addressed and farms can save and also make money on it.. Most vegetarians I know are kinda pale and sickly anyway. I did not say resource intensive I said labor intensive. But it is hard to imagine my cows eating grass using more fuel than plowing and tilling my fields. It does not work that way for me. you will soon see dry, pelleted manure sold for fuel...count on it.
Some of the most animal rights smile brigade I've known have been nazis, but spend their time grunting to deny the obvious. Animals provide a convenient means to dehumanise. I find them appalling
Animals don't have rights. Stating they have rights is acknowledging an ability to act upon and exercise those rights which animals do not have. Human have rights. Humans also have responsibilities which I believe are the flip side of rights, in a moral paradigm you cannot have one without the other. Animals do not need to be allocated fictitious rights, humans need to be educated of their responsibilities as steward for those who do not have rights. This would include the unborn and the process of educating children of their rights. This is of course my opinion, which I think is what you are asking for.
If you think long and hard enough on it, you will ultimately conclude that Aristotle was right when he said "might makes right" and there are no other rights. Not of men, nor of women, nor of beasts.
If you think long and hard enough on it, you will ultimately conclude that Aristotle was right when he said "might makes right" and there are no other rights. Not of men, nor of women, nor of beasts.
As someone who works with livestock on a regular basis, I can tell you that they are treated as humanely as possible by the vast majority of people who raise them. not because they are told to by the government, but because it makes common sense. But they are still animals.
I think your comment is a non-sequitur in regards to my original statement. Might or "greater power" may hold sway, but the "right" of it depends on how this greater power is wielded. My point is an animal does not have rights as it cannot exercise rights and therefore it is a romantic fallacy to allude to animal rights. Humans, with the ability to exercise rights have a responsibility to act as moral stewards to safeguard the ethical treatment of animals.
There will always be a few who abuse or mistreat their livestock. Those are the ones that make the news, which in turn stirs up the "Animal rights" activists. What is ignored are the tens of thousands of people who go out of their way to make sure their livestock is well taken care, up to risking their own lives to do so.
We're animals. So, how do we have rights if animals don't have rights? By what criteria do you determine that a being gets rights? Do children have no rights until they're educated on their rights? Can I eat babies? That doesn't make any sense. How can an animal not exercise it's rights but a human animal can? Define "exercise" and why the inability to do so negates the pain and suffering other animals feel. So, only a few people are throwing baby male chicks into garbage bags and letting them suffocate to death? Only a few workers are throwing them into alive into grinders? Only a few workers are caging chickens in cramped, disgusting conditions where they can't go outside or be comfortable? Only a few workers are raping dairy cows over and over so they keep producing milk until their body is too worn out to produce anymore? Only a few workers are stealing the calves away from their mothers after a few days and caging the male ones in small wooden crates where they will remain until slaughtered for veal? Only a few workers are caging pigs in tight little cages where they are not allowed to interact with each other? Because last time I checked, this is industry standard. This isn't even getting into the sick sociopaths that go above and beyond the standard torture, rape and brutal slaughter of these beings. I'm guessing you're immune to the pain they feel because you would find another job if you weren't, so I except someone like you to give an accurate description of their treatment.
you know little of how animals are treated I see. Sows with babies are kept separated because they will kill and eat the young of other sows. And even with out babies they fight. I've seen them kill weaker sows. I'm going to guess that you have been reading to much PETA propaganda. They are animals, they act out of instinct, not conscious thought.
You've said nothing of how cows and chickens are treated, so I'm guessing you concede that point. Pigs should do just fine if you don't cram them all in a cage in crappy conditions. I don't see people separating pigs and cramming them into separate cages on free range farms. Oh, will you look at that. Pigs not killing each other.
I work with cattle on a regular basis. They are treated as humanely as possible. Like I said, there are a very few who abuse or neglect the livestock they raise, but the overwhelming majority treat them as well as they can, even to the point of risking their own lives to do so.
I can tell by the pictures that these pigs were just put on this pasture and have not been there long. If they had been there would be some evidence of rooting and tearing up the ground. Some sows will kill newborns right after they are born because they do not recognise the new pig in their area. Some sows will take on piglets of another to raise. It just depends on the sow. The best dermination of the parental behavior of a sow is to watch the way it lays down. If it drops to its front legs first and then goes down there is less of a chance of her crushing the piglets. A sow that circles the nest and flops usually crushes piglets. The problem with free range pigs is the fact that they are escape artists. I like to pen them and bring the pasture to my pigs. They have plenty of bedding and except for the wallowing area they are kept dry and disease free. They have enough room and I have raised some very good pork. I feed them acorns, silage, allstock feed, turnips, collards, tomatoes, soybean meal, peaches and whatever else I can find. They are healthy and happy.
You're just repeating yourself like a factory farm robot sent to spam forums. You did nothing to actually address all of my points. And? And some lions kill the offspring of other lions, so I guess we should just put them all in tight little cages were we torture and slaughter them for their own "protection." Well, if you can't farm pigs without caging them like this: Then, maybe you shouldn't have pigs. Regardless of whether or not they're tough to fence it, it doesn't excuse poor treatment, as if they HAVE to be bred and turned into food. But I think that's just a week excuse to cheaply house pigs. So, you would agree that they don't need to be crammed into separate pens and kept inside to keep them from all killing each other, correct? Until you slaughter and eat them.
