The shameful Australian practice of live sheep trade.

As I understand, that is still very moot.

And chimps, whom we share most DNA with, hunt.

If you don't mind slaughtering the animals, why should you care how they are treated while they are alive?

paleo anthropology has clear evidence that , after humans began walking upright, they became scavengers. We are of the class hominoidea which includes apes , gibbons, chimps .ALl of which have dentition consistant with an omnivorous diet. Humans "big brain" was accelerated by the initial eating of bone marrow scavenged from kills. Itwas a short trip to becoming a toolmaker and most of the tools had to do with killing or cutting flesh. Weve lost more of our pointed canines since Homo Ergaster. Oyur Australopithecene great great cousins had some nifty dentition consistent with "fang and claw"

I'm going to go out and chain myself to a sheep!!!!

dlowan wrote:

As I understand, that is still very moot.

And chimps, whom we share most DNA with, hunt.

Huh, I thought you were using "moot" in a weird way, and then I went and looked it up, and it turns out what I always thought was the only definition is actually the secondary definition! learn sumpin new everyday. Just goes to show, don't question dlowan's use of language, she always knows best...


But as far as chimps hunting, I've read they mostly scavenge, I dunno bout them doing much hunting. Jane Goodall says they eat meat so rarely that it's basically negligble, and that's mostly from scavenging. . . Anyway, I'm not trying to start an argument here or anything, but everything from our teeth to our digestive system to the amount of acidity in our stomachs corresponds with herbivores (from the research I've done anyway, and from talking to people who've studied bio, anthro, etc). Now, I'm not saying we need to all be veggie, I just get tired of the old Man-as-natural-hunter thing, because it's not very accurate. . . sorry for the thread derailing, Msolga.

dlowan wrote:

As I understand, that is still very moot.

And chimps, whom we share most DNA with, hunt.

Huh, I thought you were using "moot" in a weird way, and then I went and looked it up, and it turns out what I always thought was the only definition is actually the secondary definition! learn sumpin new everyday. Just goes to show, don't question dlowan's use of language, she always knows best...


But as far as chimps hunting, I've read they mostly scavenge, I dunno bout them doing much hunting. Jane Goodall says they eat meat so rarely that it's basically negligble, and that's mostly from scavenging. . . Anyway, I'm not trying to start an argument here or anything, but everything from our teeth to our digestive system to the amount of acidity in our stomachs corresponds with herbivores (from the research I've done anyway, and from talking to people who've studied bio, anthro, etc). Now, I'm not saying we need to all be veggie, I just get tired of the old Man-as-natural-hunter thing, because it's not very accurate. . . sorry for the thread derailing, Msolga.

echi wrote:

Narrow sighted? Can you explain why?

Because you are seeing only one possible ethical system/existential position to take in the face of killing animals.

There are many, and many of them include enormous respect for, and gratitude to, the animal that has given up its life for you.

Killing has been a fact of life between prey and predator for millions of years. As humans, we kill in consciousness (unless we live in denial...which our culture prolly does, by and large, because most of have removed ourselves so far from the killing process) of the animal's suffering.

I believe that, as a sentient being, we have the responsibility to create as little suffering for other forms of life as possible.

Killing is a natural activity for we predators.

There is no need for us to cause great suffering before we do so, if it is easily preventable.

Suffering is also a natural part of life, for all of us, but we have no need to increase it. Even if others do, I have no need to join with them in this.

That we raise animals for food gives us a greater, not lesser, obligation to minimise their suffering and make theit lives as good as we can, in my view.

echi wrote:

If you don't mind slaughtering the animals, why should you care how they are treated while they are alive?

Would you like to be tortured and then killed or just killed?

Amigo wrote:

echi wrote:

If you don't mind slaughtering the animals, why should you care how they are treated while they are alive?

Would you like to be tortured and then killed or just killed?

Uh. How 'bout neither.

No point arguing, Echi...it is an ethical position, for which I have given reasons, you do not agree.

I would like to see your justification for causing more suffering than is necessary, though...with killing as a given.

echi wrote:

Amigo wrote:

echi wrote:

If you don't mind slaughtering the animals, why should you care how they are treated while they are alive?

Would you like to be tortured and then killed or just killed?

Uh. How 'bout neither.

Then do unto others.