godisdead

Please give me a reason why torturing animals is wrong. That's all I was asking for. All I got was "You're a murderer, moron, etc." and now "People outlawed it once, so it must be right" again combined with the moron- "argument".

There are terrific arguments for human rights. But I haven't found one for animals. Please enlighten me.

__________________

dig420

It would be fun. You get to torture an animal and we can test your painful death = humane death theory at the same time.

dig420

If I have to do that, you're not worth the keystrokes it would take to explain it. Go fucking die.

godisdead

So you can't explain it. Damnit. I hoped someone could.

__________________

dig420

It's more like this: If you don't know already, you're not capable of learning it. It's called simple compassion and decency. If your daddy didn't teach it to you, it's too late for me to help you.

Frankly, I would consider shooting myself in your place. Your life must be a cold and empty thing.

Libertine

No, we don't do "the best we can". Ever heard of factory farming? Do some research, and you'll likely find out some rather disconcerting information. It isn't all as clean and humane and nice as you imagine it to be.

Factory farming is deliberate cruelty that is "necessary" for large profits. Force-feeding geese for foie gras is exactly the same. It's just that foie gras is not a mainstream food, and while people would riot if the pork at Walmart suddenly became thrice as expensive, they do not particularly care if foie gras is banned.

Since you went through the trouble of looking up the meaning of my nickname in the dictionary, here's another word you might want to look up: hypocrisy

__________________
/(bb|[^b]{2})/

godisdead

Oh, I can assure you that it's not. But I just like to have reasons for things.

I'm not for torturing animals. I don't like to see them hurt. It hurts me just like you to see that pic of the force-fed duck. Shit, I even have a dog that I care for. Torturing animals for the very "fun of doing it" is wrong and sick. I agree with you completely there. But if it happens in the process of the creation of food or medicine, I don't see an argument against it. That's all. If you have one, I'm all ears.

__________________

damonx

Vive la France! Vive le Foie Gras!

__________________

dig420

And your point is that because animals get hurt during slaughter, we should legalize all cruelty to animals? I bet you're a republican who calls himself a libertarian or some shit like that. I also bet you don't need to look up the meaning of hypocrisy, as it's ingrained in all of you.

Let me use small words, read them very slowly to help your comprehension - I mean 'to help you know what they mean'.. sorry for the big word.

We have laws concerning slaughter practices. We follow them the best we can. The fact that we are carnivores does not give us a license to torture for frivolous reasons. The fact that some pigs don't get knocked out as quickly as they should does not make beating animals to make the meat tender, for example, ok.

Get it? Because if you don't, you're not smart enough to participate in this discussion. Drop the slaughtering argument. It's no good.

dig420

like I said bro.. if you need someone to explain why torturing animals is wrong, you're past help. Just shoot yourself.

There's a difference between KILLING an animal for food or medicine, and TORTURING one for your dining pleasure. Are you really so slow witted that you don't understand this very basic difference, or are you just pretending to be because you feel like being an asshole?

godisdead

Oh, be certain that animals are tortured to a high degree for medicine and food, too. But both animal food and new medicine are a convenience and not a necessity, right? Where do you draw the line? Do we need eggs for breakfast? No. So let's stop torturing the chickens for them.
Do we need a juicy T-bone steak? No. So let's stop torturing the cattle.
As far as I can see, this would simply be a matter of degree, not of principle. If I'm wrong, tell me. Where would you draw the line, and most importantly: Why?

__________________

dig420

Now you're trying to compare eating eggs with eating Foie Gras. Your arguments are stupid to the point of parody.

Like I said - it's already too late for you. I hope the next animal you torture bites your throat out.

godisdead

Oh come on! We're almost there. Where is the difference? I've seen how these chickens are treated. It may not be as bad as the Foie Grad treatment, but it sure is like hell to the chicken. If you have the reason, why are you hiding it?

__________________

Mike AI

Cavemen did not have foie gras!

Only morons extend human traits to animals. The birds are going to be eaten one way or another.

Foie Gras is tasty. Looking foward to eating some this weekend in New Orleans.

__________________


Make big money on your Domains! Why wait 40 days to get paid with the other guys? Parked.com pays the most for your traffic, and cuts checks twice a month!

dig420

There are laws concerning the treatment of chickens. Eggs are a staple of our diet. Omelets are not foie gras. A chicken laying eggs is not a goose with a metal tube down it's throat being force fed twice it's body weight in grain.

Now how much simpler can I make it before you understand?

Animal cruelty and stupidity go hand in hand. It's easy to make you look like an idiot, but you're too dumb to realize it when it's happening, so you just refuse to shut up and lord knows you'll never make a change in your own opinion after consideration.

I'm done with you, ok? You're a dumbass degenerate, you're satisfied with that, and all I can really say about people like you is that I hope our society reaches a point one day where we can identify you before birth and just weed you out of the gene pool.

dig420

maybe you can answer this for me Mike: Why are conservatives always arguing for the right to torture animals?

Libertine

Let me start of by saying that I am in fact not a republican (I'm actually in favour of a form of social liberalism somewhat similar to that of John Rawls, as described in A Theory of Justice, but I doubt you have any idea what that even means). I am also, at present, a vegetarian. (And no, I don't need to look up the meaning of hypocrisy, but that's just because, unlike you, I did finish high school.)

Now, it seems clear you didn't quite understand my argument, so let me reiterate it in a form that may be easier to understand for the likes of you. The laws we currently have concerning animal welfare are inadequate, and perpetuate a system which thrives on animal suffering. The bulk of this suffering is caused by mainstream, large scale factory farming, which is a fundamental part of contemporary meat production. Yet, in terms of animal cruelty, it is on par with such practices as force-feeding geese and clubbing baby seals to death for their fur.
For some odd reason, however, the bulk of public attention goes to these relatively uncommon practices, rather than the much more widespread animal suffering caused by factory farming. So, instead of focusing on the obvious huge problems to which people contribute directly through their own actions, they focus on the much smaller problems caused by the actions of a few.

That, my mentally challenged friend, is hypocrisy. An army of pots rioting over the blackness of a dozen kettles.

__________________
/(bb|[^b]{2})/

PMdave

I was with you thru all your posts... untill this pic. What's with that collar with the spikes turned inwards? That is unneeded cruelty aswell (can't control a pitbull with a normal collar? Buy a chiuaua)

dig420

I have a BA in poli sci you fucking retard, so flaunt your pseudo intelligence elsewhere.

It is NOT 'on a par' with force feeding geese. We are omnivores, it's natural for us to eat meat. It's our responsibility as empathetic creatures to accomplish our dietary chore as humanely as possible. I salute you for your vegetarianism, I think it's admirable, but I don't feel guilty for eating meat. I just want it killed and brought to the table as painlessly as possible.

Of course MikeAI and most conservatives take a perverted joy in flaunting how much they don't care how much the animal is hurt. They think it's pretty funny and it makes them feel like real men. YOU, on the other hand, should know better.

dig420

the spikes are blunt, and they're the only way he can be controlled if another dog gets too close to him. Believe me, he barely even feels it.

If you have a Pit Bull or any other large dog with the potential to be aggressive, your FIRST responsibility is to make sure he's under control in public at all times.

Pleasurepays

although i personally dont have a soft spot for animals, i can easily see a distinction between what most would be considered "cruel and inhumane" in producing food for mass consumption and "cuel and inhumane" in producing a delicacy.

dig420

It's a simple distinction, and most of these guys are pretending not to get it. At least I hope they're pretending. Otherwise they're pretty fucking stupid.

69pornlinks

with that being said..this thread is closed

__________________

dig420

no it's not. The fact that we eat animals doesn't mean we can torture them all we like, and that's basically what he's saying here.

godisdead

Okay. I would explain it to you, but you certainly have issues here. If you don't want to listen, I can't help you. I'm sorry I wasted my time here.

And if you think that hurting animals to provide for human well-being is bad even though you can't explain why, yet believe in eugenics to enforce your views, I'm done too.

Radicals who can't back their views with a reason always have to resort to force.

oh, and here's a picture of a chicken from a laying battery. It must have been like paradise for the chicken. And every person with an egg-allergy can testify that eggs are a necessary staple of our diet.

__________________

69pornlinks

i think he was saying how factory farming of animals goes under the radar but how this cause an outcry (foie gras)...i could be wrong..

__________________

dig420

This makes no sense at all.

Cochran: Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, Chef's attorney would certainly want you to believe that his client wrote "Stinky Britches" ten years ago. And they make a good case. Hell, I almost felt pity myself! But, ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense!
Gerald Broflovski: Dammit!
Chef: What?
Gerald: He's using the Chewbacca Defense!
Cochran: Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, [approaches and softens] does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.

Pleasurepays

it doesn't go under the radar. animal rights people constantly protest against how chickens, cows and other animals are raised and slaughtered about furs and other issues they are concerned with. but again... whether anyone agrees with it or not, whether anyone cares about the feelings of the chicken or not or the comfort of each chicken as they wait to become food... people need chicken. the world needs chicken. the world needs countless metric tons of chicken meat. the world does not need foie gras.

dig420

This is really something your mother should have taught you a long time ago, but I'll give it a shot:

'you don't like it when people hurt YOU, do you? Now, how do you think it makes little Susie feel when you pull her hair? Not very good right? You don't want anyone to pull YOUR hair like that right? Well Susie feels the same way!'

slightly more advanced: Animals have consciousness, nerve endings, five senses, the capacity for suffering etc. As a human being with supposedly evolved thought processes, it should be a simple matter for you to understand that you don't make other creatures suffer unnecessarily. If you have the basic and necessary trait of empathy, you can see that being force-fed your own body weight several times daily is extremely unpleasant, therefore you do not subject another creature to that, especially for bullshit and self-indulgent reasons. We eat meat, therefore animals have to die to provide it. We DON'T require foie gras for a balanced diet, and animals suffer horribly to provide it. Can't see the problem with this equation? Too bad for you, because it means you're missing something in your basic make-up, and it's probably genetic. The GOOD thing is that most people don't have this problem, therefore we're on the verge of outlawing foie gras permanently just like we did bullbaiting.

PMdave

yeah sure there are alot more things awfully wrong in the way we threat farmaninamals (the battery-chickens, the way veal is kept white, etc etc) but atleast the is some progress. It's not because there are millions of women being beat almost to deadth every day that you don't need to interfere when you neighbour is beating his wife.

dig420

Not to mention there is a plethora of laws regarding the treatment of stock animals. Just because the law gets broken from time to time doesn't mean you can do whatever the fuck you want.

I mean really.. this is such a weak fucking argument. Why are you people still trying SO HARD to make it work? It's ignorant, simplistic and it doesn't take a genius to see where it goes wrong.

polster

Its a good ban as Foie Gras production is banned in most modern Countries around the world accept for France and few others.

I love when rich elitest argue that they should have the right to eat or do whatever they want. Stuffing a pipe down a birds throat for 2 weeks till it dies from Liver Disease is not humane by any means. The practice should be banned everywhere.

If human skin tasted good, would rich elitist people say ohh let us eat whatever we want...fuck those poor people that nobody cares about in society... They make a tasty bbq!

__________________
~CUTE GIRLS~

polster

edit.. double post

__________________
~CUTE GIRLS~

dig420

Sure they would, and then they'd chuckle about how soft hearted and liberal us non skin eating people are.

Right Mike?

http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html

?I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled ...?

Libertine

A BA in political sciences? How impressive

And yes, it is on par with force-feeding geese, at least, in terms of animal suffering. The fact that we "are omnivores"(1) does not change anything about that, since eating meat does not necessitate factory farming. Factory farming is needed for low prices and high profit margins, but if people were willing to pay a bit more and paid more attention to the sources of their food, livestock living conditions could be improved vastly.

My point is not that factory farming makes force-feeding defensible, but that it is an indefensible form of hypocrisy for a society to let itself be guided by ignorance and irrationality. If you care about animal welfare, care about animal welfare as a whole, not just about animal welfare in a few cases that manage to get public attention. If we have moral duties towards animals, then it goes without saying that these duties have to be applicable in all cases, not just those that randomly catch our fancy. Irrational laws that are the product of contingent emotional attachments have no moral force, and do not make any structural difference - they only serve to give a false sense of righteousness, as we turn a blind eye to the effects of our other actions.



(1) Of course, what is "natural" and what is not is of no consequence whatsoever in moral debates. For example, violence is quite natural, while using a fork to eat is not. At the risk of stating the obvious, I have to point out that it is impossible to derive an "ought" from an "is" without the help of another moral statement.

__________________
/(bb|[^b]{2})/

dig420

listen dumbshit: your point, if you have one, seems to be that since we eat animals and have factory farms we should throw up our hands and allow foie gras, clubbing baby seals, bull baiting and baby eating. In other words, either everyone treats animals well and humanely and stops eating them or it's anything goes, any depravity must be acceptable.

You're not really as smart as you think you are, ummkay?

69pornlinks

yes, there are millions of battered women and all this time i've been eating the plain ones

__________________

dig420

Libertine

I find it amusing how you accuse me of being dumb, yet fail to understand a very, very simple argument yourself.

My point is that we need to get our priorities in order. We fight numerous huge battles against something that is quite uncommon, and thereby prevent a few animals from suffering, yet at the same time, we not only ignore but actively contribute to an industry which causes billions upon billions of animals to suffer.

Imagine a plantation owner with a thousand slaves who goes through tremendous efforts to ban his neighbour from keeping a single slave, then goes on to pat himself on the back for being such a friend to the freedom of mankind. That plantation owner is our society.

What I oppose is not the banning of foie gras, it is the hypocrisy that has become a structural part of western society. Rather than taking responsibility for their own actions, exercising self-control and changing the world through making the right choices, people seek to restrict and control the actions of others to create a facade of morality, while at the same time their own actions undermine any possible true morality.

Law after law is drafted to take away freedoms, but all these laws are only gestures with no real content. Foie gras is banned, so the next time John X goes to a restaurant, he will order chicken instead. The same amount of animal suffering is caused, but suddenly it's socially acceptable.

If you want to support something, support something that makes a difference. It probably won't sound quite as glorious (after all, a law that requires pigs to have an extra square foot of space is not the stuff headlines are made of), but it will have a much larger impact (on animal suffering, that is, not on headlines).

In other words: stop being a sheep, and focus on the things that actually matter, rather than the ones that manage to get the most press coverage.

And if my point still eludes you, please go and shoot yourself. The gene pool does not need you.

__________________
/(bb|[^b]{2})/

Mike AI

Dig, real Conservatives support torturing of terrorists as well.

__________________


Make big money on your Domains! Why wait 40 days to get paid with the other guys? Parked.com pays the most for your traffic, and cuts checks twice a month!

godisdead

You think rights come from the fact that a being has feelings? Jesus, you don't even know where rights come from. And you've got a BA in political sciences? There are very good reasons for humans to accept human rights, namely that it's a contract among humans to respect each others life and property. I can only claim my right to my own life by allowing the same for all other humans.

How an animal can enter such an agreement is beyond me. Animals can't care about rights. They don't even know what that is. Only humans can. With rights comes the necessity to respect those of others. Animals can't do that. It's nonsense.

Instead of rambling on about how everyone that doesn't agree with your unsubstantiated views should be executed (which shows quite a lot of human decency ), just answer this question:

Why should humans care for the well-being of animals who can't give a fuck about rights to begin with? Why? Just give one simple reason.

All you're saying boils down to: I don't want to see the cute animals suffering.

This doesn't give you the foundation to claim animal rights which should be enforced by humans. In fact, it gives you no foundation for anything at all, because it's not an argument, just an expression of your feelings.

And it doesn't turn into an argument if you scream it louder or make threats.

__________________

Gunni

I make my own Foie Gras

godisdead

He hasn't made any point. He has so far completely failed to provide a reason why humans should care about the suffering of animals.

All he says is that it's "basic human decency", which is something he just feels applies to animals, too. It's not an argument, so I can't take it as one. His "well thought out posts" consisted of cursing me for asking questions instead of providing answers, wild ramblings and a generally lousy attitude for a reasonable discussion. I endured his bullshit in hope of a final answer. I did not get one.

__________________

Cassie

hmmm, some sick porn which people can CHOOSE to not view OR force feed a HELPLESS animal. where are the rights of the animal that person is TORTURING?

dont even try to compare the two for it is a very lame argument.

__________________
ICQ: 309756847
]

godisdead

Ask dig420 for that. He claims these animals have rights. I don't.

__________________

[Dan]

Alright do people have rights then? If they do, and animals don't, what's the difference? Don't tell me it's because they're lower in the food chain, cause we can eat humans too..

XMaster

Foie Gras + chateau d yquem = amazing.

__________________
iStripper 50% revshare since 1998

You missed out on Bitcoin! Don't miss DOLZ.

godisdead

Yes, people have rights.

My argument goes like this:

The difference between other animals and man is reason. If we found an animal that was capable of understanding what a right is and could therefore respect other people's rights, it would get rights, too. Having rights implies accepting rights of others. It's an agreement between rational beings to make civilized life among one another possible.

This can't possibly work if you include animals in the picture. Animals can't possibly have a clue what the concept of having and respecting rights implies. If a stray dog attacks you and bites you, it can't possibly know that it violated your rights. If rats eat your food, they don't know that it was your property. The very idea of rights is way beyond animal cognition.

You need to be able to understand and respect rights to have them. That's why we restrict certain rights for kids because they lack the capacity to understand them and therefore to respect the corresponding rights of others.

Also, animals can't possibly excercise their rights, because they don't even know that they have them. Animal rights, as far as I see it, are a political means for radicals to enforce their subjective views about what's right upon people. They claim to be "the spokesperson of the animal kingdom" (on which basis?) to ensure that their rights (which they don't even understand).

Another thing to consider (but this isn't essential) is that rights need to be enforced by someone if they are to be more than just a pipedream. This cost time, money and effort that has to be made by someone. If you allow rights to animals, then you have the strange situation that humans have to work (pay taxes for police, courts, etc.) to ensure the rights of animals.

I don't like the thought of seeing animals tortured either. People who enjoy seeing animals tortured should really seek counsel. But that is not a reason to grant animals rights. It's not a reason to make something legal that makes no sense at all simply on the basis of a gut feeling.

You can condemn people who hurt animals unneccessarily. But you can't make a law against it. It would lack a reasonable basis. And laws shouldn't be based on feelings.

I'm not here to promote the irrational torture of animals. I find this as sick as anyone else. I share the feeling-part of it. But I just don't think that's enough to make a law about it. My point was that there is no reasonable basis to grant animals rights.

__________________

dig420

Not because it is cute and defenseless. Because it is another creature which should not be made to suffer needlessly. I would make the same defense for an alligator or a cockroach.


Not for him, he's an idiot and obviously not intellectually capable of making fine distinctions. He's also far more concerned with 'winning' an argument than he is in actually discussing an issue and perhaps, with the assimilation of new information and different viewpoints, modifying his opinion.[/QUOTE]

I'd choke him til he laid me an eggie for my breakfast, then I'd fry him up for my dinner.

BONEPRONE, when are we finish our discussion about my new project? ;) Don't you wanna be famous again?

dig420

let me rephrase that, I left out something important:

Not for him, he's an idiot and obviously not intellectually capable of making fine distinctions. He's also far more concerned with 'winning' an argument than he is in actually discussing an issue and perhaps, with the assimilation of new information and different viewpoints, modifying his opinion. It's for anybody else reading this thread who may have a second thought before ordering the Foie Gras or veal next time they go out to eat.

A few moments of your pleasure is not worth a lifetime of pain to some other creature. Not because they have rights under the US Constitution, but because no creature should suffer without cause. We're all made of the same stuff underneath it all, and you'll reap what you sow one of these days. Who knows, maybe God is a duck?