2
   

Question for vegetarians

 
 
djbt
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Nov, 2006 03:59 pm
cjhsa wrote:
Animals = no rights.


The debate surrounding vegetarianism so often seems to come back to the question of whether or not animals have rights.

To everyone who claims either of the following:
a) Animals have rights
b) Humans have rights, but animals do not

... can you explain to me what 'rights' are, and how I find out if I have any?
0 Replies
 
Bella Dea
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Nov, 2006 04:05 pm
They may not have rights but they deserve to be treated humanely. Anything that has a complex nervous system (aka, can feel and experience pain) should be slaughtered humanely or should not be slaughtered at all. It's just cruel to slice and dice them while they are still alive.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Nov, 2006 07:08 pm
What the heck to vegetarians order when they go to a place like Buffalo Wild Wings?

On the AR issue, no, animals do not have rights under the law, and they never will. Animals have welfare, not rights. The latter is a slippery slope that would allow a cow to sue you in court for the right to continue to graze. Folks who think like that have lost touch with reality, and sadly, there are way, way too many of them. Our youth is being poisoned by these AR folks and the media, who prefers the "humane" to reality. Life sucks and then you die, hopefully if you're an animal you get cooked up in a little garlic and butter.
0 Replies
 
djbt
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Nov, 2006 03:15 am
cjhsa wrote:
On the AR issue, no, animals do not have rights under the law, and they never will. Animals have welfare, not rights.


So, cjhsa, when you say "animals do not have rights" you are taking about legal rights, rather than moral rights. It is a statement of fact, rather than a statement of principle.

I am interested in moral rights. Do you think humans have these? Do you think animals have these? If neither do, they why should we continue to grant humans legal rights? If animals do, should we not grant them legal rights? If humans do and animals do not, how have you discovered this?
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Nov, 2006 06:34 am
I have the moral obligation as a human being to kill stuff and eat it, whether it be vegetable or animal, to support myself and my family. It is my moral obligation as someone who loves wildlife and the outdoors to manage the renewable resources nature provides as humanely and deliciously as possible.

On a side note, I also freely admit I don't look at multi-use as always an option as a way to steward the outdoors. I don't want a boat launch and public swimming area where the best fishing used to be. I am biased. Tough.
0 Replies
 
djbt
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Nov, 2006 07:20 am
cjhsa wrote:
I have the moral obligation as a human being to kill stuff and eat it, whether it be vegetable or animal, to support myself and my family. It is my moral obligation as someone who loves wildlife and the outdoors to manage the renewable resources nature provides as humanely and deliciously as possible.


Why are these moral obligations, rather than, say, personal inclinations? And how do you know these are your moral obligations? How do you know you are not instead moral obliged to, for example, kill and eat your family to support yourself? Or kill yourself to feed your family? Or kill sexual rivals to increase your family's chance of long-term survival?

Has someone told you these are your moral obligations? Or have you deduced them somehow? If so, how?
0 Replies
 
Bella Dea
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Nov, 2006 07:30 am
cjhsa wrote:
Our youth is being poisoned by these AR folks and the media, who prefers the "humane" to reality. Life sucks and then you die, hopefully if you're an animal you get cooked up in a little garlic and butter.


Come on cjhsa...I have doubts that you kill for the sport of watching an animal die. I am all for hunting for food, and eating meat...a lion wouldn't hesitate to eat me...but we are the only species who tortures our food before eating it.
0 Replies
 
djbt
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Nov, 2006 07:59 am
Bella Dea wrote:
I have doubts that you kill for the sport of watching an animal die. I am all for hunting for food, and eating meat...a lion wouldn't hesitate to eat me...but we are the only species who tortures our food before eating it.


I'm not sure this is true. Cats seem to enjoy torturing their prey before they kill it. As we, like them, are predatory animals, I have little doubt that many people enjoy watching animals suffer and die, as many people enjoy watching other people suffer and die.

Incidentally, isn't saying "a lion wouldn't hesitate to eat me... therefore I have no problem with hunting and killing for food" a bit like saying "an assassin hired to kill me wouldn't hesitate to shoot, therefore I have no problem with shooting people if it profits me"?
0 Replies
 
Bella Dea
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Nov, 2006 08:01 am
djbt wrote:


Incidentally, isn't saying "a lion wouldn't hesitate to eat me... therefore I have no problem with hunting and killing for food" a bit like saying "an assassin hired to kill me wouldn't hesitate to shoot, therefore I have no problem with shooting people if it profits me"?


No it's nothing alike. Killing for food versus killing for profit? God created animals for food. It's called nature.

And as for cats torturing their prey, do they slice off it's legs while it's still alive? Skin it while it's still breathing and conscious?
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Nov, 2006 08:46 am
I always shoot to kill, never to intentionally maim or injure. The hunters goal is the quickest kill possible with whatever instrument they are using. Those that don't practice this aren't hunters by any means.

I don't eve like catch and release fishing. I just watch others do it. The only time I'll release a fish is if it's too small or an incidental catch.
0 Replies
 
Bella Dea
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Nov, 2006 08:47 am
cjhsa wrote:
I always shoot to kill, never to intentionally maim or injure. The hunters goal is the quickest kill possible with whatever instrument they are using. Those that don't practice this aren't hunters by any means.

I don't eve like catch and release fishing. I just watch others do it. The only time I'll release a fish is if it's too small or an incidental catch.


Exactly.

Which is why I said that while animals don't have rights, they do deserve to be treated humanely.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Nov, 2006 09:03 am
I should amend that last statement though for bass fishing. Bass are tough as nails and can be easily caught and released if not deep hooked. Bluegills are also super tough but they're so tasty I rarely toss them back.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Quiznos - Discussion by cjhsa
Should We Eat Our American Neighbours? - Question by mark noble
Favorite Italian Food? - Discussion by cjhsa
The Last Thing You Put In Your Mouth.... - Discussion by Dorothy Parker
Dessert suggestions, please? - Discussion by msolga
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 08/09/2020 at 12:23:57