PETA kills animals

[wazzickle]

I also really cannot deal with your multiquote style and find you fairly annoying to argue with so I too will cede to you.

[Ttaskmaster]

I also really cannot deal with your multiquote style and find you fairly annoying to argue with so I too will cede to you.

OK, whatever...
Sorry for finding so many good points of discussion in your argument.

[Bonebreaker777]

OK, whatever...
Sorry for finding so many good points of discussion in your argument.

You're just hoping for another thread to be closed :-P

[Ttaskmaster]

You're just hoping for another thread to be closed :-P

Don't be stupid. Why the [censored] would I want to do that??!!

[Bonebreaker777]

Don't be stupid. Why the [censored] would I want to do that??!!

If your post could carry that little more sarcasm, you'll be drowning in it xD

[philehidiot]

I've skimmed this thread as frankly, I've had a helluva day (even my ride home ended up in me stopping to provide medical assistance at a car accident.... and I really needed a poo) and I'm a little bit innebriated.

To go back to the initial topic, PETA is indeed an utterly abhorrent organisation. It is well covered by the mainstream media and there are court documents. I advise watching this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_16SLBCl6i0

Never, ever deal with PETA. If you have an animal welfare problem, the RSPCA isn't perfect at all but I do at least trust them to not kill the animals they're "saving".

As for going vege or vegan, well that's a problem as well. You need a lot of stuff to replace the full range of amino acids you get from meat. I've tried it and, due to my health issues which require a lot of protein to repair constant, widespread skin damage, I just couldn't do it. The problem is the volume of plant food you require as a vegan. Why do you think crows and so on follow ploughing machines / combines? It isn't just for the seeds, it's mostly the pick at the dismembered / shredded animals left in it's wake. Then on top of that, farmers don't want anything eating their crops and as a result they'll kill anything and everything that might gnaw on their crops. Farming is mass murder on an epic scale and the only way you can avoid it is to perhaps live in a cave and eat moss. But you'd still die of a deficiency of vital nutrients.

Having a large human population that requires feeding is a problem if you're not the apex predator. That's how life and nature works. There isn't a way around it at the moment although if they managed to start mass producing artificial meat that gave me what I need, I'd be right there. I'm trialling Huel at the moment but still struggling to get it right.... also had a slight incident where I got ill after seeing a patient with a vomiting bug and threw it all up and landed up in hospital. Y'know when you drink a load of Aftershock, throw it up and you struggle to go back to it?

Yeh, that.

EDIT: Oh and there's some evidence that shows it was the transition to eating meat that caused huamns to evolve our brains and therefore get really upset about eating meat. If we hadn't started, we'd probably still be chimps. And oh so very cuddly.

[wazzickle]

EDIT: Oh and there's some evidence that shows it was the transition to eating meat that caused huamns to evolve our brains and therefore get really upset about eating meat. If we hadn't started, we'd probably still be chimps. And oh so very cuddly.

This is true, as far as what I've read. We didn't quite have the dexterity or intelligence to make and use tools without bigger brains as our diet was small animals and fruit and nuts etc; in order to get big old brains, big animals were required, so we first started 'persistence hunting' which basically means running after your larger prey for ages and ages until they overheat and either collapse and die or just sit there waiting for us to take them out. We would have been stuck at roughly homo erectus, I believe, were it not for persistence hunting.

[opel80uk]

I never claimed that all or even most animal rights activists are terrorists. I was equating PETA with a sort of soft version of terrorism. There are certainly plenty of actual animal rights terrorists who firebomb animal testing labs.

I'm sorry, but you certainly did claim most, assuming 'on the whole' encompasses most:

If you didn't know, PETA are utter scum. Animal rights activists on the whole are delusional and tend to value animal life above human life to the extent they're willing to kill humans to get their message across: they are basically terrorists.

Whilst there are some animal rights activists who are indeed actual terrorists, the overwhelming majority of animal rights activists are not, and if they were, we would be in serious trouble, given their number.

Eating anything is immoral, as I explained above. There's lots of vegetarian food that requires a large amount of land and water, which cuts down on the liveable habitat for wild animals. Avocados are nice and veggie but need to be flown over from south america. There are probably a good few people who go vegan overnight and without thinking about it actually do more harm to the environment.

It is entirely plausible to eat meat within a society that has a healthy relationship with meat.

I don't see any cognitive dissonance with the attitude of lamb = ok, dog = not ok. Again, as I said above, this is not just down to cultural attitudes. Someone eating my dog would be akin to someone eating my child. You could develop some sort of relationship to a sheep but they're not going to develop the same relationship back. There's lots of animal psychology studies and evolutionary psychological theory about how dogs are highly different to livestock.

Why do you eat lots of meat? There's nothing wrong with being a hypocrite, in particular, we all are in different ways, but why wouldn't you act on a thing if you believe it? Going veggie or even reducing your meat intake really isn't difficult at all.

Eating anything is not, IMO, immoral (although I accept morality is subjective, so it may be to you). For example, I have an apple tree in my garden. I don't tend to it, it was there before I had the house, and when the apples fall I sometimes eat them. The idea that that is in someway comparable to a living animal being killed so it could be eaten it almost laughable. And again, I say that as a meat eater.

As for the Dog/Lamb scenario, I don't think anyone was talking about your dog, but rather the idea of eating dog in general.
That said, the idea that someone eating your dog would be anywhere remotely like someone eating your child is, for me, ridiculous. But that's because for me personally, and as a dog owner and a parent, there is simply no comparison whatsoever. Again though, I accept that peoples relationships with their children and animals are going to differ from mine. However, I stand by what I said: it is simply cognitive dissonance to differentiate between a Lamb or a Dog - To suggest you wouldn't eat dog because you have a relationship with another, unrelated dog seems rather strange.

As to why I eat meat - there's lots of reasons. Mainly because of how much food I eat. I have to try and get a lot of calories and a lot of protein in everyday, and meat is one of the most convenient and readily available ways to do it. Also, I grew up in a meat eating household, and most of my favourite dishes include meat, and I like the taste. My wife is not going to give up meat, and she isn't going to cook me a separate dinner when it's her turn, so it would make more work for me also.

[peterb]

Looking at this biologically...

Put me out in sunlight, and apart from synthesising vitamin D, I can do nothing and I will die because I cannot use sunlight to synthesise carbohydrates from oxygen and carbon dioxide. So I cannot make my own food.

Therefore to survive I need an alternative food source, which means exploiting organisms that can.

So plants can, and there are parts of plants that I can eat which will provide some of the nutrients I need. Those parts are some fruit, seeds, and tubers - mainly sugar/starch storage organs, with some amino acids from seeds. But thpse contain very little protein, and synthesising the amino acids to make proteins takes a lot of energy, so I need to eat a lot of plant material.

But the majority of the plant (and especially the parts of the most common plants the grasses) is comprised of cellulose, which I cannot digest - unlike ruminants and some other animals like rabbits.

And those animals produce a food stuff that does contain amino acids and proteins that I can utilise, either in their milk or in their meat. Various parts of the animal concentrate other nutrients that are essential for my health, and also my gut bacteria, which also contribute to my nutrition.

My dentiotion contains teeth for both incising and chewing meat and grinding teeth (molars) for vegetable matter and so I can reasonably conclude that I have evolved to be an omnivore - like many other animals, such as hens and pigs.

My view is that our relationship with animals is symbiotic - they feed us in return for protection and good husbandry. Sadly that symbiotic relationship does not exist in all parts of the world, but that is the ideal.

But before castigating the human species for cruelty, perhaps you should talk to some lions, tigers, foxes, cats, wolves etc who will chase their prey until it is exhausted and they can bring it down by sheer weight of numbers, and then tell me which is 'crueller'.

[Ttaskmaster]

If your post could carry that little more sarcasm, you'll be drowning in it xD

Troll effort 2/10. Try harder... and learn the meaning of 'sarcasm' before you try and use it in public.

That said, the idea that someone eating your dog would be anywhere remotely like someone eating your child is, for me, ridiculous. But that's because for me personally, and as a dog owner and a parent, there is simply no comparison whatsoever. Again though, I accept that peoples relationships with their children and animals are going to differ from mine.

There are many childless owners for whom their dogs are surrogate kids and, although far fewer, other animals as well. Given how far we often take these animals into our lives, I don't think it's quite as ridiculous as you suggest.

However, I stand by what I said: it is simply cognitive dissonance to differentiate between a Lamb or a Dog - To suggest you wouldn't eat dog because you have a relationship with another, unrelated dog seems rather strange.

It would also seem cognitive dissonance to not eat some humans, just because you have relationships with others. I expect things like racism are based on a similar dissonance. And yet we're irrational, emotional creatures driven by our feelings and experiences more than scientific reasoning. Dogs in general are more helpful to humans when alive and at our sides than on the plate.

My dentiotion contains teeth for both incising and chewing meat and grinding teeth (molars) for vegetable matter and so I can reasonably conclude that I have evolved to be an omnivore - like many other animals, such as hens and pigs.

We also have eyes in front for hunting and the like.

But before castigating the human species for cruelty, perhaps you should talk to some lions, tigers, foxes, cats, wolves etc who will chase their prey until it is exhausted

That is often argued as the way humans used to hunt, too. Of all the animals, humans are among the best at consistent long-distance pursuit of large wounded prey, until it stops from exhaustion, whereupon we have an easy finishing kill and a meal for a tribe of fifty.
But the difference in the hunt is that fight or flight element that gives prey a choice of action, a chance to get away and full knowledge of the danger it's in. Teaching a porpoise fun retrieval games without it understanding it might get blown up sounds more unnaturally cruel.

[opel80uk]

There are many childless owners for whom their dogs are surrogate kids and, although far fewer, other animals as well. Given how far we often take these animals into our lives, I don't think it's quite as ridiculous as you suggest.

It may be more common for others to think that way than I implied, but IMO it’s definitely as ridiculous as I suggested. I will even double down on what I said – I would worry for anyone who thinks someone eating their pet dog is anywhere near akin to someone eating their child. Although each to their own and all that.

It would also seem cognitive dissonance to not eat some humans, just because you have relationships with others. I expect things like racism are based on a similar dissonance. And yet we're irrational, emotional creatures driven by our feelings and experiences more than scientific reasoning.

I agree with all of that, but it doesn’t mean it’s not cognitive dissonance. And I don’t even say that as an insult; I would imagine most, if not all, humans are guilty of it at times. I know I certainly am.

Dogs in general are more helpful to humans when alive and at our sides than on the plate.

That doesn’t make any difference. I have 3 dogs at home, 2 of them working dogs, and they would still be just as helpful to me tomorrow if I go out and eat dog in a restaurant tonight.

[Ttaskmaster]

I would worry for anyone who thinks someone eating their pet dog is anywhere near akin to someone eating their child. Although each to their own and all that.

Someone you've known pretty much since birth, helped to raise and taught them everything you can about coping with the world around them, who has in turn provided companionship and possibly more, for a good 10-15 years? Also meaning no insult, but I would suggest you have perhaps underestimated how close some people can get to their dogs.

If you'd said cat, I'd be more inclined to agree, but dogs really do lend themselves well to being full-on family members. I'd go so far as to say I've heard far more casual joking about Asian countries eating cat and far more disgust about those that might eat dog, which I would assume is for these reasons.

I agree with all of that, but it doesn’t mean it’s not cognitive dissonance.

Oh, I never said it wasn't... or doesn't... isn't... Yeah, I agree!
Just that this line of reasoning usually doesn't govern human thinking in these sort of matters.

That doesn’t make any difference. I have 3 dogs at home, 2 of them working dogs, and they would still be just as helpful to me tomorrow if I go out and eat dog in a restaurant tonight.

Why go out, though, especially when you have three dogs of your own to eat? Save yourself the petrol money and the restaurant bill, surely?
That might be the rational thing to do, but I reckon most people still regard other dogs as potential pets for other people than as meals for themselves. It's even a common theme in media, like Mad Max and Fallout, where the benefits of canine companionship far outweigh their value as a food source.

[opel80uk]

Someone you've known pretty much since birth, helped to raise and taught them everything you can about coping with the world around them, who has in turn provided companionship and possibly more, for a good 10-15 years? Also meaning no insult, but I would suggest you have perhaps underestimated how close some people can get to their dogs.

I would never underestimate mans ability for the ridiculous. But I stand by what I said; if someone is as attached to their pet dog as to their child, then I think they have issues. I love my Wife, but she would know that, given a set of circumstances that meant I could only save her or my children, I would choose my children without hesitating. And I know she’d make the same choice - in a heartbeat. And, for me, you can substitute ‘Wife’ with ‘Mam’, ‘Sister’, ‘Brother’, etc, and it would be the same. The idea that someone would give anywhere near equal weighting in a scenario like that to saving their pet dog is probably indicative of modern society.

Why go out, though, especially when you have three dogs of your own to eat? Save yourself the petrol money and the restaurant bill, surely?
That might be the rational thing to do, but I reckon most people still regard other dogs as potential pets for other people than as meals for themselves. It's even a common theme in media, like Mad Max and Fallout, where the benefits of canine companionship far outweigh their value as a food source.

From the emotional POV, because they are my dogs, and I do have a relationship with them. I care for them, and enjoy their company. I like them, and would miss them if they were not around, especially when I go for a walk or a run. My kids and wife like them.

From the practical POV, they are highly trained and it would be an inconvenience to eat them and then have to go out and get new dogs, train them, and get them to the stage where my dogs are at now, an inconvenience that would, to me, be far costlier to my most precious resource of time, than the petrol and restaurant bill. Plus, I enjoy going to a restaurant now and again – I don’t do it because I don’t have food in the fridge. That said, if we were all starving to death and we had no other food source available to us, I’d kill my dogs myself to save us, no question.

I don’t care very much for the notion that most people see other dogs as potential pets for someone else. Loads of animals are potential pets for someone else, doesn’t stop meat eaters (like me) eating them, and just because dogs form closer bonds, doesn’t mean bonds with other animals can be dismissed. Canine companionship does indeed outweigh their value as a food source for me, but I won’t be hypocritical and criticise others who don’t see it that way. And I certainly wouldn’t be shrieking in horror at seeing a dog being bbq’d, but lick my lips at a lamp chop sizzling in a pan.

[Zak33]

I would never underestimate mans ability for the ridiculous. But I stand by what I said; if someone is as attached to their pet dog as to their child, then I think they have issues. I love my Wife, but she would know that, given a set of circumstances that meant I could only save her or my children, I would choose my children without hesitating. And I know she’d make the same choice - in a heartbeat. And, for me, you can substitute ‘Wife’ with ‘Mam’, ‘Sister’, ‘Brother’, etc, and it would be the same. The idea that someone would give anywhere near equal weighting in a scenario like that to saving their pet dog is probably indicative of modern society.

agreed, utterly.

[sammyc]

That is often argued as the way humans used to hunt, too. Of all the animals, humans are among the best at consistent long-distance pursuit of large wounded prey, until it stops from exhaustion, whereupon we have an easy finishing kill and a meal for a tribe of fifty.
But the difference in the hunt is that fight or flight element that gives prey a choice of action, a chance to get away and full knowledge of the danger it's in. Teaching a porpoise fun retrieval games without it understanding it might get blown up sounds more unnaturally cruel.

Exactly. To a greater or lesser degree, no animal in some sort of perilous position can be said to have a full & complicit understanding of the dangers it faces & hasn't signed off on the risks. Laboratory animals no consent at all obviously, police dogs/horses a limited understanding. Taking a police horse into a dangerous position and expecting it, the one of the team that didn't sign up for it on the dotted line, to take the brunt of an attack is morally dubious in my book, and the poor old hypothetical porpoise, entirely wrong. I'm not saying I would not make an 'immoral' choice in some circumstances, for instance I may well shove your granny under a bus to save mine, & I can't necessarily defend that action - your granny may well be the more worthwhile member of society - I would be doing it for selfish reasons, not because it was ok. Besides, these are life & death scenarios - we can survive without meat, designed to eat it or otherwise, so it's technically not live or die. What you would eat if your life depended on it is a whole other matter to what you eat by choice.

Also there are some pretty weak defences for meat-eating on here, no offence, because they could equally be used to defend other arguably unethical practices (nicking your neighbour's veg to save money or effort, for example) & haven't got a lot to do with the core topic. Thread is wandering from why eat one species over another into wider why be a vegetarian territory, which fair enough threads can wander, but the specific issue of why we eat which animals we eat is a subtopic of is it ok to eat any. I'm interested to see people's reasoning as to why we hold the attitudes we do such as dogs>sheep, whereas justifying eating meat at all is just your basic vegetarian vs carnivore argument & there isn't a lot that can be derived from turning over our carnivorous caveman roots &c &c imo.

[Ttaskmaster]

The idea that someone would give anywhere near equal weighting in a scenario like that to saving their pet dog is probably indicative of modern society.

I look more to the sort of situation - Many of those will be of our own making and humans will understand the risks a lot better, whereas pets do not understand the complexities of the human world and are usually only there because of something we did. I've known soldiers who were pinned down under heavy fire refuse resupply by dogs trained for that exact purpose, on the basis that they'd signed up to get shot at whereas the dogs hadn't.

But beyond that, when you get a dog, you sign up to a level of emotional involvement, committment to care and responsibility on a very similar level to children, albeit on a shorter time span... and the dog does the same. That's a lot of investment to suddenly dismiss. As the saying goes; The dog might only be part of your life, but for your dog, you are his whole life.
People who understand they're not up for that kind of committment tend to get cats.

That said, if we were all starving to death and we had no other food source available to us, I’d kill my dogs myself to save us, no question.

I'd set them free - You'll only continue to starve after your dog-meal anyway and likely have to eat your children if you wanted to survive, so the dogs might as well go see if they can find themselves something... they may even bring you something back that you'd been unable to obtain your own self.

I don’t care very much for the notion that most people see other dogs as potential pets for someone else.

Every dog I've ever had in my life has come to me because someone thought that way. It's what rescue centres are founded upon. I even joke about buying my dog a bunny for dinner every time we pass them in the pet shop, but I'd never actually do so.

Canine companionship does indeed outweigh their value as a food source for me, but I won’t be hypocritical and criticise others who don’t see it that way.

Logic suggests the same should be thought about humans, although being antisocial and locking yourself away to play computer games is generally considered preferable to just eating people!

And I certainly wouldn’t be shrieking in horror at seeing a dog being bbq’d, but lick my lips at a lamp chop sizzling in a pan.

Again - Humans. Irrational, illogical and emotionally driven.