Animal Rights(especially in meat industrial)

[Misiziri]

Why doesn't America have bongos and zebras? *baws*

Yes, I despise animal abuse. Especially the circus. I used to want to go there because everyone else had until I learned all the lies. God, I know this isn't a secret like it is with the meat industry I wonder if people really care when they pay to see the circus show.

EDIT: Not bongo like the drums, it looks like this

Spoiler: show

[FlipMode]

I do not feel guilty about eating meat, cause it tastes good. I like cooking it as well, best part about making lunch is in the preparation and cooking of it IMO =P.
I also would not care when I went to a circus or something either, how the animal is treated behind closed doors has nothing to do with me, I am just a paying customer. Pretty sure it can not be legal, but even if it is it would just come down to a moral choice. And you would think the animals would perform better if they are more well looked after anyway...

[Annie]

I've seen several horse circus's which are fine, but I think it's when "wild" animals, such as lions and tigers.

[McReptz]

But imagine if no human would eat animals anymore. Wouldn't there be way too much animals then? You have that problem with some animals already and then some or many of them needs to be killed. I think it would be better if we eat them then instead.

I totally agree! What if I never had a bacon meal ever again. There might be pigs in my backyard; nowhere to go, nowhere to live! I'd have to try bacon again just to take the pigs away.

This is not why I eat meat, but it is a good point. I eat meat mostly because animals were created for me to eat. That's another reason it doesn't make sense to not eat all the animals. If someone gives you a gift (meat gift) how can you just in my face?

Doesn't add up, to me.

[Baya]

I'm going to try something I learned in philosophy...

1. If we abuse animals, then we are cruel
2. We abuse animals

THEREFORE. We are cruel >_>

Solid, valid argument. There's no going around it. Some people don't care, some people do. It all comes down to the bottom line; do you hold your rights to survival over that of a baby cow? over that of an insect? There is no line to be drawn here my friends.

lets try this again

1. If we are against killing animals with the reasoning that they have life, then we can't kill so much as a fly for the same reason
2. We ARE against killing animals with the reasoning that they have life [and we have no right to take it away]

CONCLUSION: We can't even kill insects by that logic!

[caet]

Popping in quickly... one thing I think it's important to distinguish in this thread is the difference between animal rights and animal welfare. The two are often used interchangeably in casual discussions, but academically they're not the same beast and it's important to know the difference if you're going to seriously advocate for one or the other.

Animal rights tend to have a more extreme connotation and concerns the idea the animals be given some (or all) of the same legal rights humans enjoy under the law. These rights can range from abolition of animal ownership (animals cannot be property) to the extension of human rights to animals (honorary personhood). Some animal rightists advocate the elimination of animals as sources of food, clothing, pets, etc.

Animal welfare tends to concern protection and humane treatment of animals. Supporting animal welfare usually means that you're okay with pets, animals as food, utilitarian uses of animals, etc., but you want the animals to be treated as kindly as possible, and you want laws to be in place that ensure humane treatment.

Hope that helps and gives you guys food for thought!

[KopaLeo]

Baya had the point. (Actually there are some Hindu who don't dare to move in fear that they might kill some insect)

I think the main problem is a confusion of morality's ability to direct actions. Morality is only a set of shorthand rules for convenience. When there is a clash between rationality and morality, rationality is the correct one. And rationally, cruelty should only be curbed when the victim could retaliate or you'll get hurt in some other way, when not, then it should not affect you. These all look Machiavellian, I know, but I think these are rational.

[Baya]

To be put bluntly, there is no grey when it comes to something like animal abuse. You can't kill a fly, and say "I'm a vegetarian!". The correct method of living, is doing what needs to be done. You need to kill a cow? Go ahead. Though do so HUMANELY. One that claims they are a vegetarian because they "love all living things", should not even swat a fly or there is no point in them being vegetarian. [Reinforcing what you said Kopa]

[KopaLeo]

Yes, I think some people who believe in such a utopia of the ultimate pro-life are totally living in their head.

[FlipMode]

I'm going to try something I learned in philosophy...

1. If we abuse animals, then we are cruel
2. We abuse animals

THEREFORE. We are cruel >_>

"We"? Last I checked, I didnt abuse animals

lets try this again

1. If we are against killing animals with the reasoning that they have life, then we can't kill so much as a fly for the same reason
2. We ARE against killing animals with the reasoning that they have life [and we have no right to take it away]

CONCLUSION: We can't even kill insects by that logic!

Does not work like that, animals are able to depict their pain and feelings a lot more than insects. And are capable of a lot more than insects for various reasons. I mean if you truly believe in what you just said, then what about plants?
Comparing killing animals to insects is not much different to comparing killing insects to plants, it is a bit ridiculous of a comparison IMO. And that is why people would kill an insect, but not an animal, I think.