Malta

[homer]

the veggies are turning on the meat eaters :icon_lol:

No worries

They won't have the strength to do anything about it


Bunch of self-righteous pasty-faced weeds......

 

[Cate Fox]

No worries

They won't have the strength to do anything about it


Bunch of self-righteous pasty-faced weeds......

:icon_lol::icon_lol: we luvs homey

 

[Boy Genius]

It takes 15 times as much land to produce protein from beef than it does from Soya beans.

If everyone became vegetarian it would have a massive effect on the environment. We could produce more food from less land, using less energy, creating less pollution and CO2.

But what about the rights of plants?

Is it OK to put millions of soya plants together in one small field? Can soya plants be grown free range?

 

[NN Fox]

Damn right.

Just imagine all that flatulence.

Flatulance from cattle is a significant contributor to greenhouse gasses and scientists are researching methods of reducing this by changing their diet.

 

[spionfox]

Then I apologise. I thought you had taken one part of the post to make it look as I thought it was wrong to eat meat.

No need NN Fox.

Whenever emotive issues are discussed, eventually there is always disagreement and worse :icon_wink

 

[MKFox]

oh ffs
I have to go through this every time i mention i'm a veggie...enough already!

Chris, have fun in Malta with your mrs mate!

 

[spionfox]

oh ffs
I have to go through this every time i mention i'm a veggie...enough already!

Would that explain why you throw snowballs like you do? :icon_bigg

 

[spionfox]

A peace offering for all the veggies out there :icon_lol:

 

[MKFox]

piece of rump please spion

 

[FryattFox]

It's wrong to treat animals as a food source, even though without having done this the human race would not exist.

Although I do think that it's wrong to treat animals as a food source (only because I couldn't kill a cow and I don't think most people could, but that's another argument), I think that if you read all of my posts you'll see that my issue has always been against the mistreatment of animals, which includes both the cruelty and inhumane living conditions that are rife in the meat industry.

It's cruel to farm animals, although FF gives the impression that he's never actually visited a working farm to assess this cruelty.

See the above point, and I've been to an abattoir - does that count? :icon_conf

A quick search online will show you the living conditions of many of the pigs in Europe (in pens so small they cannot move, sometimes resulting in their legs being so weak that they break as they are 'dragged' to slaughter) or the cages that chickens are kept in. Few people would keep animals in conditions like this at home, and it doesn't make it ok just because they are slaughtered at the end of their existences.

Nature is essentially cruel, it was this realisation that prompted much of the outcry when Darwin first published his theory. Farmed animals have a safer, though unnatural, existence than any wild animal.

Wild animals have a far, far better existence than that of a typical farmed animal. Bear in mind that around 50% of farmed animals are factory farms, which can often mean no light and squalid conditions. Safety is not a concept that animals can comprehend when they are experiencing it; suffering is.

I've never understood why some people regard keeping an animal with the ultimate intention of killing it to provide sustenance as wrong,whereas keeping an animal as a pet to provide oneself with pleasure is desirable.

If they were kept in the same conditions, then I don't think they're any different. They're not, so it's a mute argument.

Although to be fair FF does not make it clear whether or not he regards all exploitation of animals as wrong.

I think I'm following this argument from FF.

I'm not sure you are...

 

[FryattFox]

You can easily buy products that havent been tested on animals in every major supermarket/Boots store in the country. In fact I'd say that products tested on animals are very much in the minority now.

Yep, it's getting better. Everything in our house is Simple (inc me...) who don't test on animals or Original Source (all vegan), both of whom appear very ethical.

I wouldn't go as far to say that they're in the majority though. Most test on animals as far as I'm aware.

 

[Jeff]

Yep, it's getting better. Everything in our house is Simple (inc me...) who don't test on animals or Original Source (all vegan), both of whom appear very ethical.

Original Source is owned by Cussons, who test their products on animals.

 

[FryattFox]

So if farming is wrong, is killing wild creatures for food acceptable?

I actually find fishing more cruel and damaging to the environment/livestock/etc than farming.

But that's just me, I'm guessing.

I think killing wild animals is less wrong, and it's certainly more of a case of 'something that I wouldn't do' as opposed to something that I have a fundamental issue with.

Although it all depends, as fox hunting for example is a different matter entirely. And the fact that an animal could easily be maimed without being killed when hunting is unsavoury and cruel.

 

[FryattFox]

No worries

They won't have the strength to do anything about it


Bunch of self-righteous pasty-faced weeds......

:icon_lol:

 

[bocadillo]

Do you use the same logic for other products? Would you be content with a lower income family buying clothes made in a 3rd world sweat-shop just because they have less money here?

That's exactly what many such families have to do to keep their head above the water.

 

[Darth Vodka]

I think I'm following this argument from FF. It's wrong to treat animals as a food source, even though without having done this the human race would not exist. It's cruel to farm animals, although FF gives the impression that he's never actually visited a working farm to assess this cruelty.
Nature is essentially cruel, it was this realisation that prompted much of the outcry when Darwin first published his theory.

ok, you've invoked nature and evolution, this is where i stick my oar in

firstly the "humans wouldn't exist"

fair enough, but that doesn't mean we should do it now or that it is right, humans have killed each other throughout history, that doesn't sanction murder, specious reasoning

this smacks of the whole "but it's natural argument" invoked by people who ironically always have a fairly bad idea of how nature works

humans are unique in that they have the intellect to act above and beyond how evolution has shaped them, this would include empathy for other living things and lessening their suffering where possible

Nature is cruel, yes, but we can do better

and what the hell is Nature anyway...are humans still part of Nature?

 

[Mawsley]

I think the rampant use of 'specious' on this forum has to stop.

It's only being used by people with specious arguments to cover up the specious nature of them anyway.

 

[Darth Vodka]

I think the rampant use of 'specious' on this forum has to stop.

It's only being used by people with specious arguments to cover up the specious nature of them anyway.

on the origin of specious?

 

[FryattFox]

That's exactly what many such families have to do to keep their head above the water.

Does that make it right?

Do you condone the sale of items manufactured at the expense of one person's human rights so that another may benefit?

Whilst I know for a fact that there are families who wouldn't even be able to afford these clothes or similarly cheap meat, it doesn't make it acceptable in the first place. Although it is desperately sad, it's a whole other argument* to discuss poverty and the fact that so many people in this country alone live battling it constantly. But I think we should save that for another day...

*I'm not sure if it was something that you were trying to invoke, whether you were simply musing, or if you were just playing Devil's advocate.

 

[FryattFox]

Original Source is owned by Cussons, who test their products on animals.

Hmmm...I genuinely did not know this. :icon_conf

Thanks for pointing it out, Jeff.