Animal Cruelty

A place for more serious off-topic discussion and debates.
User avatar
Posts: 13166
Joined: February 2011
DHOPW42 wrote:
February 23rd, 2021, 5:31 am
I know this wasn't the original point, but I have to point out that the domestication of certain species wasn't 100% conscious and directed only by humans. I've once read an interesting article about how dogs "domesticated" themselves in a way by realizing that humans are beneficial to their survival, and I'm sure many more examples could be found in nature for this phenomenon.

I only say this because I don't think it serves any purpose to try and solve economical and social issues of our distant past... mainly because I don't think all of that happened on a conscious level. Many species became intertwined in the pre-history of mankind, we hunted animals because we were animals, then as we became more human-like, some animals became accustomed to our company and we mutually evolved in a way that gave the basis for what is going on today. But it is such a complex system where there are a billion factors affecting certain processes that it comes down as demagogic to try to say that "this was wrong", "this was right".

I believe that the original domestication of the many species we find around ourselves (including vegetables and the like) happened on a semi-unconscious level, I would even call that the simple act of natural selection in a way, but whatever industrial apparatus has been built upon that original, natural gift is the real issue that we face nowadays, within the food, fashion and other related industries that exploit and abuse animals and other living things (including humans).

And I don't think anyone on these forums would argue that the modern food industry is completely fine and we shouldn't do anything about it. But, and I have to go back to our original argument in the Cruella topic (lol), some of us were merely pointing out that there is a reason why people are more sensitive towards the abuse of dogs than other domesticated house animals, such as cows or chicken. There are cultural reasons, and I'm pretty sure there are evolutionary reasons. This is something worth discussing, but I don't think anyone argued here that animal abuse and systematic extermination, in general, is okay...
1. Oh, this is not a discussion about the past really. The issue here is not what humans did years ago. It's about justifying the horrible things we are doing now, because of what has been the precedent. I'm talking about the slaughter of some species, somebody comes and says here's the reason for the bias. Might as well try and explain to me why racists are the way they are. How our problematic history is any excuse for what is happening in present time?

2. Mutualist co-existence relies on two species freely making the choice to benefit from the other side, without one using some advantage to manipulate the other. If there is no balance of power, it becomes parasitical.

If you temporarily force an animal without shelter who can't survive in the wild or on the streets, to live with you, until you can connect with them and either give them a home or help them adapt with a free life in a liveable habitat, that's one thing. Taking away wild animals who can perfectly survive on their own or breeding them for your own gain is quite another.

User avatar
Posts: 42908
Joined: May 2010
Vader182 wrote:
February 22nd, 2021, 8:49 am
A Borges man wrote:
February 22nd, 2021, 8:15 am
Vader182 wrote:
February 22nd, 2021, 6:15 am
As someone who largely agrees with Virgo's overall point, I have to say the way he goes about making those points is going to have the opposite of the intended effect. Confrontation and abrasiveness so seldom reaches hearts and minds.


-Vader
Which one of their points? Fucking family or eating animals?
Consuming meat and the obvious ethical (not to mention health) problems around that issue.


-Vader
Don’t you consume meat?

Posts: 25
Joined: November 2020
Master Virgo wrote:
February 23rd, 2021, 8:17 am
DHOPW42 wrote:
February 23rd, 2021, 5:31 am
I know this wasn't the original point, but I have to point out that the domestication of certain species wasn't 100% conscious and directed only by humans. I've once read an interesting article about how dogs "domesticated" themselves in a way by realizing that humans are beneficial to their survival, and I'm sure many more examples could be found in nature for this phenomenon.

I only say this because I don't think it serves any purpose to try and solve economical and social issues of our distant past... mainly because I don't think all of that happened on a conscious level. Many species became intertwined in the pre-history of mankind, we hunted animals because we were animals, then as we became more human-like, some animals became accustomed to our company and we mutually evolved in a way that gave the basis for what is going on today. But it is such a complex system where there are a billion factors affecting certain processes that it comes down as demagogic to try to say that "this was wrong", "this was right".

I believe that the original domestication of the many species we find around ourselves (including vegetables and the like) happened on a semi-unconscious level, I would even call that the simple act of natural selection in a way, but whatever industrial apparatus has been built upon that original, natural gift is the real issue that we face nowadays, within the food, fashion and other related industries that exploit and abuse animals and other living things (including humans).

And I don't think anyone on these forums would argue that the modern food industry is completely fine and we shouldn't do anything about it. But, and I have to go back to our original argument in the Cruella topic (lol), some of us were merely pointing out that there is a reason why people are more sensitive towards the abuse of dogs than other domesticated house animals, such as cows or chicken. There are cultural reasons, and I'm pretty sure there are evolutionary reasons. This is something worth discussing, but I don't think anyone argued here that animal abuse and systematic extermination, in general, is okay...
1. Oh, this is not a discussion about the past really. The issue here is not what humans did years ago. It's about justifying the horrible things we are doing now, because of what has been the precedent. I'm talking about the slaughter of some species, somebody comes and says here's the reason for the bias. Might as well try and explain to me why racists are the way they are. How our problematic history is any excuse for what is happening in present time?

2. Mutualist co-existence relies on two species freely making the choice to benefit from the other side, without one using some advantage to manipulate the other. If there is no balance of power, it becomes parasitical.

If you temporarily force an animal without shelter who can't survive in the wild or on the streets, to live with you, until you can connect with them and either give them a home or help them adapt with a free life in a liveable habitat, that's one thing. Taking away wild animals who can perfectly survive on their own or breeding them for your own gain is quite another.
That's a very difficult question. You see, if there was no demand, then there would be no point in breeding animals for selfish purposes. For example, if the whole world abandoned products made from natural fur, then fur farms would cease to make a profit. But the issue of eating meat from livestock and poultry is a complex problem. After all, if you remove meat from the diet, it must be replaced with something no less nutritious.

User avatar
Posts: 13166
Joined: February 2011
Very well. Name one nutrient that vegans can't easily and inexpensively acquire from plant and fungi based foods, the sunlight or the nearest pharmacy. You can get all the good stuff you need, without consuming the saturated and trans fats that hurt your body.

But if the problem really was vitamins and minerals that were hypothetically nowhere ever found on this planet except in animal-based nutritious substances, then what's stopping us from becoming at least vegetarians. To not participate in killing animals at least.

How many of us here can claim that we actually care, have done real research without paying attention to nonsensical myths about veganism and came to the conclusion that we can't survive without meat? How many of us eat only as much meat as we supposedly need to prevent more slaughter than we consider necessary?

Listen, nobody's a saint here. I've been an omnivore for the majority of my life. If there is blood here, my hands are deep in it. But this is not about me and you and who's morally superior to the other. It's about our actions and beliefs that by any definition are unethical and we should condemn them so we can correct them. Whatever we've done up to this point has no meaningful relationship with what we'll do from now on, unless we choose that it would be so.

Post Reply