Eating Cats - Page 5 - VeggieBoards
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#121 Old 02-19-2012, 01:27 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Irizary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 8,749
why eat cats and not unwanted or terminally injured humans?

"If you want to know where you would have stood on slavery before the civil war, don't look at where you stand on slavery today, look at where you stand on animal rights." - Paul Watson.

 

Every animal you eat
was running for her life

Irizary is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#122 Old 02-19-2012, 04:03 PM
Veggie Regular
 
delicioso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,945
[QUOTE=Sevenseas;3105798]
Quote:
*reminds oneself that 'suffering' here means 'any amount of inconvenience different from zero'*

For all you know, I might cry myself to sleep every night.

Quote:
No. As someone said earlier in the thread, 1) veg*ns have a consumer effect collectively 2) veganism has a social/political/cultural dimension beyond consumer influence.

Well, anyone who isn't eating factory farmed animals (or as many) would also be part of that collective consumer effect, right?
delicioso is offline  
#123 Old 02-19-2012, 04:05 PM
Veggie Regular
 
delicioso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irizary View Post

why eat cats and not unwanted or terminally injured humans?

I'm not advocating people eat their pets, but if people want to eat other people after they die, I don't really care.
delicioso is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#124 Old 02-19-2012, 04:19 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Sevenseas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 25,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by delicioso View Post

Well, anyone who isn't eating factory farmed animals (or as many) would also be part of that collective consumer effect, right?

Yes, but
1) you have no knowledge about whether that guy eats less factory farm animals or not, as a result of his actions. The OP might have assumed this to be the case -- too lazy now to check -- but if he did, he speculated it out of his own derriere.
2) when it's a choice between only having consumer influence as a part of a collective vs. actually having a tragic, real consequence to one animal right now, the latter will always be more morally significant to me.

"and I stand

upon a mountain

made of weak and useless men"

Sevenseas is offline  
#125 Old 02-19-2012, 05:03 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Irizary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 8,749
Quote:
Originally Posted by delicioso View Post

I'm not advocating people eat their pets, but if people want to eat other people after they die, I don't really care.

then are you saying it's o.k. that he killed them? Because they he didn't eat them after they already died of natural causes or accidents or something. And if so, why not valueless humans too?

"If you want to know where you would have stood on slavery before the civil war, don't look at where you stand on slavery today, look at where you stand on animal rights." - Paul Watson.

 

Every animal you eat
was running for her life

Irizary is offline  
#126 Old 02-19-2012, 06:04 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,013
Please, people. Can't we eat cats/not eat cats in harmony? There's a thread, "An Important Note from the Mods **Please Read**", that I suggests you should. You should take it very seriously.
paperhanger is offline  
#127 Old 02-19-2012, 06:35 PM
Veggie Regular
 
delicioso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irizary View Post

then are you saying it's o.k. that he killed them? Because they he didn't eat them after they already died of natural causes or accidents or something. And if so, why not valueless humans too?

I don't think anyone should kill cats. I think we should offer free sterilization and fine people for not sterilizing their animals. Maybe make them work at an animal shelter.

Same goes for humans.
delicioso is offline  
#128 Old 02-20-2012, 04:14 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 10,763
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irizary View Post

soilman - So why then are you trying to argue that he should be able to treat these cats as if their only value is to feed his sadistic torturing ass?

I'd think that if you want progress in how animals are treated, you might be arguing for their protection - even if you don't like that it is because they fall under the category "pet" - since it already exists in law. You're arguing for less protection for these animals.


I already answered that: because its speciesism. We have consistantly been arguing against speciesism, saying why should we eat cows but not cats. If we argue for speciesism, people will see the hyporcracy. If they see hypocracy among veg*ns, they will be less likely to join the ranks of veg*ns. No-one wants to think of themselves as being a hypocrite.

Of course, I do think that if someone is going to take animals normally used as pets (note I used the word used), and use them as food, they should have to obey the same regulations that they have to obey when slaughtering any food animals. No skinning alive. Etcetera. And I do agree with legislation that would force bird-slaughterers to use the same humane methods as mammal slaughterers. For example no more tossing baby chicks into a pile and letting them become compost while alive, or into a shredder while still alive. Probably regulations regarding how fish and shell fish are treated, are also needed. No more gutting without first rapidly removing the head.

No matter how legal it may be to eat cats, we are not going to see a significant increase in cat-eating. People just don't want to take advantage of their freedom to eat cats. So giving them that freedom is not going to result in more cats being eaten. But even if it did, it would be balanced out by less of other animals. And if we value their lives equally, then why give one species of animal special priveleges. Even if not balanced out, it is hypocritical, people will see it, and feel disdain for veg*ns.

And by the way, historically, the same animals, either the same species, or the very same animal, has been treated as either a pet, or a food animal, at the whim of its owner. Often the same owner, and even the very same animal. The fact that he is slaughtering and eating cats in no way implies that, as you said, their only value, to him, is to feed him. It may, or it may not. We don't know. Mr cat-consumer may well own some cats that he uses as pets, and treats like people commonly treat a pet, and other cats that he eats. Or treat the same cat as first a pet, and then a food animal. This is precisely what people have been doing for ages, in regard to animals, and women, and in fact to other people of the same sex, based on no particular distinguishing feature for deciding who to enslave, and who to allow freedom, just arbitrary decisions of those in power.

Finally, comparing speciesism to racism, imagine there were a handful of nationalities that were commonly being eaten in Australia: Poles, Frenchmen, and Canadians, and Nigerians. No-one else was commonly being eaten. Except for one person who picked up Argentinians and ate them. Now imagine how well received by everyone else, a law would be, that did not address slaughtering and eating of Poles, Frenchmen, Canadians, and Nigerians, but said that Argentinians could not be eaten. Also, let's continue the analogy so as to say that Argentinians were commonly being kept as pets in Australia, as well as Hungarians. And the law is written so as to say that nationalities commonly kept as pets, could not be eaten. Argentinians, and Hungarians, could not be eaten, but still could be kept as pets. Anyone else, you could slaughter and eat. You could still slaughter and eat Poles, Frenchmen, Canadians, and Nigerian. Or keep them as pets if you really wanted to. But you couldn't slaughter and eat Argentinians or Hungarians. What would you think of such a law?
soilman is offline  
#129 Old 02-20-2012, 09:40 AM
Veggie Regular
 
RedLotus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 807
Quote:
Originally Posted by soilman View Post

Finally, comparing speciesism to racism, imagine there were a handful of nationalities that were commonly being eaten in Australia: Poles, Frenchmen, and Canadians, and Nigerians. No-one else was commonly being eaten. Except for one person who picked up Argentinians and ate them. Now imagine how well received by everyone else, a law would be, that did not address slaughtering and eating of Poles, Frenchmen, Canadians, and Nigerians, but said that Argentinians could not be eaten. Also, let's continue the analogy so as to say that Argentinians were commonly being kept as pets in Australia, as well as Hungarians. And the law is written so as to say that nationalities commonly kept as pets, could not be eaten. Argentinians, and Hungarians, could not be eaten, but still could be kept as pets. Anyone else, you could slaughter and eat. You could still slaughter and eat Poles, Frenchmen, Canadians, and Nigerian. Or keep them as pets if you really wanted to. But you couldn't slaughter and eat Argentinians or Hungarians. What would you think of such a law?

A better analogy to your take on this situation would be this: Right now, cows, chickens, fish, lambs/sheep, ducks, and other "food" animals are in a burning building. Cats, dogs, parrots, and other "pets" are safely outside the building with us humans. Even though it's not "fair" that the animals inside the building are in danger and the ones outside of it are safe, most vegans want to evacuate those inside the building and save them from death. We want the bring them OUT of the burning building with the animals that are currently safe, because we see ANY animal being harmed as unfair. You, on the other hand, seem to want to start tossing the cats and dogs INTO the burning building just so you can say "gee, now the cows and chickens aren't alone in being immolated. Everyone's in the same amount of danger as everyone else! See how fair and moral that is? I'm not a hypocrite!"

Morally, this solution is flawed because rather than decreasing the number of people at risk to be slaughtered, you increase the number of potential victims. Is is fair that we treat different species differently depending on our fondness for them? No, of course not. But killing all animals just to say "hey, we're treating them the SAME!" is not an ethical solution. The solution is to bring more and more animals over to the list of animals people cannot legally kill, not to step backward and start adding animals to the list of acceptable food. It might mean that the current treatment of different species is not equal, but the end result is equal treatment and NO killing, whereas the end result of YOUR solution is equal treatment, and killing ALL the animals.
RedLotus is offline  
#130 Old 02-20-2012, 11:23 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Sevenseas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 25,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by soilman View Post

You could still slaughter and eat Poles, Frenchmen, Canadians, and Nigerian. Or keep them as pets if you really wanted to. But you couldn't slaughter and eat Argentinians or Hungarians. What would you think of such a law?

That it would make things worse to add even more groups into the "can be exploited without thought" list.

Since we're using random analogies:

if a law existed that only banned the murdering of kids from houses painted red, but not from houses painted yellow, that would be an arbitrary, inconsistent law, but I would rather work for extending that law to protect kids from yellow houses as well, rather than desire a more consistent law that allowed all children to be murdered. Advocating that kids from red houses become victims as well would make me feel like a pretty ****ty person towards those children, and I would have a hard time explaining my position to them.

I am in favor of consistency, when it's the consistency of consistently doing right by everyone. I am not in favor of consistently ****ing things up, consistently being cruel, consistently being violent. That's a fool's consistency and I want none of it.

"and I stand

upon a mountain

made of weak and useless men"

Sevenseas is offline  
#131 Old 02-20-2012, 12:43 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 10,763
Quote:
A better analogy to your take on this situation would be this: Right now, cows, chickens, fish, lambs/sheep, ducks, and other "food" animals are in a burning building. Cats, dogs, parrots, and other "pets" are safely outside the building with us humans. Even though it's not "fair" that the animals inside the building are in danger and the ones outside of it are safe, most vegans want to evacuate those inside the building and save them from death. We want the bring them OUT of the burning building with the animals that are currently safe, because we see ANY animal being harmed as unfair. You, on the other hand, seem to want to start tossing the cats and dogs INTO the burning building just so you can say "gee, now the cows and chickens aren't alone in being immolated. Everyone's in the same amount of danger as everyone else! See how fair and moral that is? I'm not a hypocrite!"

Morally, this solution is flawed because rather than decreasing the number of people at risk to be slaughtered, you increase the number of potential victims. Is is fair that we treat different species differently depending on our fondness for them? No, of course not. But killing all animals just to say "hey, we're treating them the SAME!" is not an ethical solution. The solution is to bring more and more animals over to the list of animals people cannot legally kill, not to step backward and start adding animals to the list of acceptable food. It might mean that the current treatment of different species is not equal, but the end result is equal treatment and NO killing, whereas the end result of YOUR solution is equal treatment, and killing ALL the animals.

You seemed to miss the 3 times that I said that making the law fair does not increase the number of victims.

In my view, the animals being slaughtered are not "in" a burning building. They are constantly being [I]tossed into[/I
soilman is offline  
#132 Old 02-20-2012, 12:52 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Sevenseas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 25,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by soilman View Post

instead of tossing a few chickens into the building.

The 'instead' is, once again, entirely your speculation.

"and I stand

upon a mountain

made of weak and useless men"

Sevenseas is offline  
#133 Old 02-20-2012, 01:47 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 10,763
My msg above got messed up. I'm trying to retrieve it from the "post edit history" page but I'm confused as to how to use it.
soilman is offline  
#134 Old 02-20-2012, 01:56 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 10,763
Let's try this

Red Lotus
Quote:
A better analogy to your take on this situation would be this: Right now, cows, chickens, fish, lambs/sheep, ducks, and other "food" animals are in a burning building. Cats, dogs, parrots, and other "pets" are safely outside the building with us humans. Even though it's not "fair" that the animals inside the building are in danger and the ones outside of it are safe, most vegans want to evacuate those inside the building and save them from death. We want the bring them OUT of the burning building with the animals that are currently safe, because we see ANY animal being harmed as unfair. You, on the other hand, seem to want to start tossing the cats and dogs INTO the burning building just so you can say "gee, now the cows and chickens aren't alone in being immolated. Everyone's in the same amount of danger as everyone else! See how fair and moral that is? I'm not a hypocrite!"

Morally, this solution is flawed because rather than decreasing the number of people at risk to be slaughtered, you increase the number of potential victims. Is is fair that we treat different species differently depending on our fondness for them? No, of course not. But killing all animals just to say "hey, we're treating them the SAME!" is not an ethical solution. The solution is to bring more and more animals over to the list of animals people cannot legally kill, not to step backward and start adding animals to the list of acceptable food. It might mean that the current treatment of different species is not equal, but the end result is equal treatment and NO killing, whereas the end result of YOUR solution is equal treatment, and killing ALL the animals.

You seemed to have missed the 3 times that I said that making the law fair does not increase the number of victims.

In my view, the animals being slaughtered are not "in" a burning building. They are constantly being tossed into a burning building, by humans. By having a law that says you can't toss certain species of animals commonly used as pets, into the burning building, it just means that the very small minority of humans who eat cats (or other animals commonly used as pets) will toss a few cats into the building, instead of tossing a few chickens into the building. The same number of individuals will be tossed in. What's the difference what the species is, of the animals that they toss into the building - unless you are a speciesist?

It isn't like there just happened to be a building on fire, and there just happened to be animals locked up in it, and we stumbled upon this situation, and now we have to decide what to do, whether to throw more species of animals into a pre-existing fire with species of animals that somehow got into the fire by themselves. No. All the animals in it, are there, because humans threw them in there. The fire is there, because humans started a fire.
soilman is offline  
#135 Old 02-20-2012, 03:44 PM
Veggie Regular
 
RedLotus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenseas View Post

That it would make things worse to add even more groups into the "can be exploited without thought" list.

Since we're using random analogies:

if a law existed that only banned the murdering of kids from houses painted red, but not from houses painted yellow, that would be an arbitrary, inconsistent law, but I would rather work for extending that law to protect kids from yellow houses as well, rather than desire a more consistent law that allowed all children to be murdered. Advocating that kids from red houses become victims as well would make me feel like a pretty ****ty person towards those children, and I would have a hard time explaining my position to them.

I am in favor of consistency, when it's the consistency of consistently doing right by everyone. I am not in favor of consistently ****ing things up, consistently being cruel, consistently being violent. That's a fool's consistency and I want none of it.

Pretty much what I was trying to say with the burning house analogy, only more eloquently-put.
RedLotus is offline  
#136 Old 02-20-2012, 03:51 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Envy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Heaven
Posts: 6,548
This feels like an argument between AR and AW.

Well, to condense my view into a sentence would be "It's preferable to stop supporting the factory farming in lieu for more "humane" meat, but ultimately, the goal should be to eliminate the possibility of using other animals as a common source of food completely"

"Hell exists not to punish sinners, but to ensure that nobody sins in the first place."
Envy is offline  
#137 Old 02-20-2012, 03:51 PM
Veggie Regular
 
RedLotus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 807
Quote:
Originally Posted by soilman View Post

Let's try this

Red Lotus

You seemed to have missed the 3 times that I said that making the law fair does not increase the number of victims.

In my view, the animals being slaughtered are not "in" a burning building. They are constantly being tossed into a burning building, by humans. By having a law that says you can't toss certain species of animals commonly used as pets, into the burning building, it just means that the very small minority of humans who eat cats (or other animals commonly used as pets) will toss a few cats into the building, instead of tossing a few chickens into the building. The same number of individuals will be tossed in. What's the difference what the species is, of the animals that they toss into the building - unless you are a speciesist?

It isn't like there just happened to be a building on fire, and there just happened to be animals locked up in it, and we stumbled upon this situation, and now we have to decide what to do, whether to throw more species of animals into a pre-existing fire with species of animals that somehow got into the fire by themselves. No. All the animals in it, are there, because humans threw them in there. The fire is there, because humans started a fire.

As SS points out, that's your speculation. You have no evidence that people wouldn't still buy just as much chicken and simply add cat to their diet, increasing the amount of meat consumed because now they can do it for free. There are plenty of people who would eat a lot more meat if they could afford to do so.

The fact remains that you are arguing in favor of UNDOING legislation that protects animals from being killed and eaten, even if that legislation is limited to a few species, when you should be arguing for EXTENDING it. That's the bottom line here. Why chip away at the very little legislation in place that actually keeps people from eating animals?
RedLotus is offline  
#138 Old 02-20-2012, 04:20 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 10,763
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedLotus View Post

As SS points out, that's your speculation. You have no evidence that people wouldn't still buy just as much chicken and simply add cat to their diet, increasing the amount of meat consumed because now they can do it for free. There are plenty of people who would eat a lot more meat if they could afford to do so.

The fact remains that you are arguing in favor of UNDOING legislation that protects animals from being killed and eaten, even if that legislation is limited to a few species, when you should be arguing for EXTENDING it. That's the bottom line here. Why chip away at the very little legislation in place that actually keeps people from eating animals?

You have no evidence that people would buy just as much chicken, and just add cat to their diet. We are both just doing conjecture.

I don't think there are many people in Bakersfield who would eat more meat if they could afford to do so. Maybe more expensive types of meat, but they can always afford spam or corned beef hash or other cheap meat. And cat is considered cheap meat, a cheap alternative to preferable cuts of meat. Maybe in a place where there is a food shortage, where many people simply don't get enough to eat, then outlawing eating cats would cause them to eat cats in addition to the animals they are already eating, which would be few and far between. But not in Bakersfield. And do we really want to deprive people of protein, who live somewhere where they can't afford enough protein, or enough food at all, unless they can eat freely available feral cats? Then it would come down to cats dying verses people dying, not cats verses chickens or other animals.

I don't believe such a law actually does keep people from eating any cats, anywhere, lower the number of cats that are eaten, and I think you can agree that preventing people from eating cats certainly doesn't lower the number of chickens or other animals that people may eat. Though you may not agree, if it does do anything, it increases eating of other animals, rather than reduces it. I can't imagine police officers with a search warrant breaking into someone's house, to see if they can find evidence of cat slaughter, because a neighbor told them he saw a cat go in, and never saw it again. It is only this kind of person who has screaming cats in his backyard, in view of his neighbors, who is going to feel the effect of enforcement.

And I am sure the law is intended more for its theatrical effect, rather than in the hopes that police will actually be spending time and money on enforcing it, and reducing the number of cat-killings. I'm having difficulty imagining police setting up stake outs, night after night, in front of someone's house, in the hopes of seeing a cat go in and not come out, and then barging in with guns drawn, and going through refrigerators and freezers looking for cat meat, and then taking in meat samples as evidence, for DNA testing. Cats are not slaughtered commercially to begin with. The few people that slaughter a few cats, could easily do it so that others don't notice. The real reason people want this law is so that they can say "look, we like cats and we don't want you to hurt them, and we want to to force you not to hurt them because we have power and you don't, you cat killer." It isn't meant to have any real effect. The number of cats slaughtered is not going to change. It is already almost nill. What is going to make a change is changing people's hearts regarding whether they want to kill cats or not. This kind of law is more about animosity toward certain kinds of people, than love of cats.

We already have too much legislation. It seems like everyone with a special interest is working on adding a law that supports their particular interest, and that they are trying to tell everyone else what to do, down to the smallest detail. People need some room to breathe. It isn't like we have an epidemic of cat-eating that needs to be addressed lest it gets out of hand and people start eating hamsters, and then parakeets.

And what about rabbits? Here is an animal that has long been used both as a pet, and for food, and for fur. Are we going to legally define and identify the particular cultivars that are used for food, and the cultivars that are used for pets, and make sure people use the right cultivar for each? Maybe we can have frequent inspections of the facilities of rabbit breeders, and make sure they are segregating the pet rabbits from the food rabbits, and making sure that the pet rabbits have a space at least 4 feet by 20 feet to run around in, and the food rabbits have a cage at least large enough to turn around in. And that whenever they sell a rabbit, they make sure that the people that say they want a pet, are going to keep the rabbit as a pet. For that, they'll need to check identification, and then they'll need to check the on-line database of all the people that have a conviction for eating a pet.
soilman is offline  
#139 Old 02-20-2012, 05:15 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 10,763
Same goes for frogs. No eating pet frogs; no petting food frogs. Every restaurant that serves frogs legs, they'll need a chain of custody document for every frog they serve, a complete history, from egg to pot, to make sure it hasn't been in a 9-year old boy's pocket, or Ellie Mae's pocket, at any time in the past. You get about a dozen chain of custody documents with your plate of frogs legs. One for each frog. Each document is 20 pages long.
soilman is offline  
#140 Old 02-21-2012, 06:05 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Sevenseas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 25,067
*joins Irizary in wondering if someone rambling that much, and that nonsensically, against an animal cruelty law, has recently gotten in trouble with the law*

"and I stand

upon a mountain

made of weak and useless men"

Sevenseas 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