Thoughts on this comment? - VeggieBoards
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
#1 Old 05-06-2007, 08:58 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Punk_in_Drublic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 907
From another forum i'm on... was about farming.



"more people should watch how animals are pts in my opinion. If that animal has to die for meat then you could at least eat it otherwise it's death has been for nothing. (saying that I could never ever eat horse meat.) I have also reared ducks/poultry for our table and whilst ivan and the kids have eaten it I just couldnt bring myself to eat them. Some may say hypocritical but me i say an animal lover........mind you if your dead your dead."



I don't like arguements so didn't say anything. Annoyed me though.
Punk_in_Drublic is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#2 Old 05-06-2007, 09:24 AM
Veggie Regular
 
gaya's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,112
If I'm understanding you correctly this person was saying that animal's life/death has been in vein if it isn't eaten?
gaya is offline  
#3 Old 05-06-2007, 09:40 AM
Veggie Regular
 
meatless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,670
It's a stupid comment. The animals don't "have to die anyway;" they were raised for this purpose, and all you have to do is STOP bringing them into existence solely for this purpose. It's not like they are reproducing themselves.



It's really so stupid though it doesn't even warrant an acknowledgement, imo.
meatless is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#4 Old 05-06-2007, 09:48 AM
Veggie Regular
 
vegbunny83's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 933
It seems like a really pointless statement... she's saying that if you raise an animal for meat you should eat it, but that she has raised animals for meat in the past and hasn't been able to eat them because she is an animal lover. So she pretty much called herself a hypocrite for you.

"I remember the days when we talked for hours/And we were young, we thought we had superpowers/We weren't our problems, our age or our paychecks/And we weren't taking anybody's $h*t."
vegbunny83 is offline  
#5 Old 05-06-2007, 09:53 AM
Newbie
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by vegbunny83 View Post

It seems like a really pointless statement... she's saying that if you raise an animal for meat you should eat it, but that she has raised animals for meat in the past and hasn't been able to eat them because she is an animal lover. So she pretty much called herself a hypocrite for you.



I agree with this post, 100%.
GhostUser is offline  
#6 Old 05-06-2007, 10:29 AM
Veggie Regular
 
froggythefrog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 9,260
We would not be killing animals for meat if people did not eat the meat... or I suppose when I die, I could only hope that someone will eat my corpse or my life has all been in vain. Her argument is a circular argument.



You can lead a horse to the water, but you can't make him drink.
froggythefrog is offline  
#7 Old 05-06-2007, 10:49 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Sevenseas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 25,067
Many people, even veg*ns, make the argument that if someone was killed, you should use their corpse so they wouldn't have died in vain. I've never understood that. I have no need to make an act of exploitation (killing the animal) any better or more purposeful afterwards -- I'm even not sure how by a future action you can change the nature of an earlier action. I say let the act of exploitation that occurred remain just as it was: something cruel, unjust and sick. No "atonement" for it is necessary or even preferable.



And the animal died for nothing even if I did eat the meat, because me eating meat is no kind of reason to kill someone.



And of course, then there's the point about breeding that others mentioned.



I hope that the next time the person who wrote that experiments with the weird-looking mushrooms they found, they don't log on to the net at the same time.

"and I stand

upon a mountain

made of weak and useless men"

Sevenseas is offline  
#8 Old 05-06-2007, 12:20 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Treehugger267's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,795
It's all supply and demand. If less people want meat, less animals will be raised, thus less of them being killed. Do they feel the same about road kill?
Treehugger267 is offline  
#9 Old 05-06-2007, 12:23 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Punk_in_Drublic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 907
Quote:
Originally Posted by gaya View Post

If I'm understanding you correctly this person was saying that animal's life/death has been in vein if it isn't eaten?



I believe so.



Thanks all, i'm glad to hear i'm not the only one who thought it was stupid. It annoyed me because she's believing something that's hypocritical. Makes me wonder how many people make up these things as an "excuse" to eat meat.



This part: "more people should watch how animals are pts in my opinion." also got me thinking.. she was trying to say that animals are killed humanly and after they are dead it doesn't matter what happens to them. But in my opinion no death is humane (apart from maybe euthansia, i can't spell that), as it's still taking away the only thing that animal really has... life.
Punk_in_Drublic is offline  
#10 Old 05-06-2007, 12:44 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Treehugger267's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,795
It also sounds like that person thinks that animals have no other purpose on this planet other than to be eaten. They are mothers and fathers with babies, who love and play....isn't that enough reason to let them be?
Treehugger267 is offline  
#11 Old 05-06-2007, 12:54 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Shantih's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 963
A boy in my 6th Form who likes to annoy me tried that argument on me the other day. My reply was "I cannot believe you want to be a doctor but can't understand the simple concept of supply and demand. Remind me to get private healthcare ASAP when you graduate."



He hasn't said anything since then, aside from looking mildly bemused.
Shantih is offline  
#12 Old 05-06-2007, 01:15 PM
Veggie Regular
 
gaya's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,112
Humans can be so self-absorbed. As if people are so important and special that their use of an animal gives it intrinsic value/meaning.
gaya is offline  
#13 Old 05-06-2007, 03:02 PM
Veggie Regular
 
meatless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by gaya View Post

Humans can be so self-absorbed. As if people are so important and special that their use of an animal gives it intrinsic value/meaning.





meatless is offline  
#14 Old 05-06-2007, 08:10 PM
Veggie Regular
 
lunatilian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 572
Quote:
Originally Posted by Punk_in_Drublic View Post

I believe so.

This part: "more people should watch how animals are pts in my opinion." also got me thinking.. she was trying to say that animals are killed humanly and after they are dead it doesn't matter what happens to them. But in my opinion no death is humane (apart from maybe euthansia, i can't spell that), as it's still taking away the only thing that animal really has... life.

this person is obviously misinformed about how animals for the food supply are killed. the drug used to perform euthanasias would kill or seriously sicken anyone if they were to eat the dead animal which is why it is illegal in most places to bury an animal that has been euthanized.
lunatilian is offline  
#15 Old 05-07-2007, 04:27 AM
Newbie
 
lachry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 98
It's a circular argument, of course: the practice (eating meat) comes before the rationalisastion.



This seems to me to be its tenets:



1. Animals are raised to be eaten

2. It is good, and right, to eat animals.



Therefore:



3. It is wrong to not eat animals who have been raised to be eaten.



Of course, the argument would require agreement on its premises (1,2). The person you quoted, doesn't even acknowledge these premises, he/she just assumes them to be shared: the position qouted isn't anything more than a conclusion, 3, it has no building blocks. If we accept this, we also have the problem of roadkill, or animals dying natural deaths, etc, of animals discarded from labs, of cats and dogs (why not eat fido?).



Really, the argument (as stated) is as weak as this:



1. I like breaking windows, glass is designed to break down

2. I think it is right to break windows



Therefore



3. If a window is there, it is right for me to break it.



You might kind of allow me momentarily to hold 3, but you would want to debate its conditions (1,2) and probably disagree with them. The farmer doesn't allow any debate of his assumptions because he irons them out if the argument.
lachry is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the VeggieBoards forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off