Pets - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-16-2002, 05:45 AM   #21
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Song of the week "sentimental" by Porcupine Tree
Posts: 3,854
Local Time: 09:22 PM
Ok Acrobat is back again..Heard a lot of praises of animals ..Howmany of you animal (dog/cat/whatever) lovers dont actually eat some another animal as your food at some point or another... Think over that .... And if you do eat meat, how do you love animals.. I think I am probably making no sense now ...
__________________

AcrobatMan is offline  
Old 07-16-2002, 06:30 AM   #22
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 09:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AcrobatMan
Ok Acrobat is back again..Heard a lot of praises of animals ..Howmany of you animal (dog/cat/whatever) lovers dont actually eat some another animal as your food at some point or another... Think over that .... And if you do eat meat, how do you love animals.. I think I am probably making no sense now ...
You're making plenty of sense
I'm vegetarian so I can't really answer the question, but I would guess people who keep pets but still eat meat would rationalise it by saying that they know their pets individually, but they didn't know the animals they eat, they don't have to watch them while they're alive, or see them being slaughtered, so it doesn't feel wrong to eat them.
__________________

FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 07-16-2002, 06:42 AM   #23
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Saracene's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia, some time after tea
Posts: 6,325
Local Time: 09:22 PM
<shrug> I guess when I see a steak on my plate it just doesn't make me think of an actual living animal. It's just a piece of meat. Even the whole smoked chicken doesn't make me think of live chickens with feathers and all. Even if I saw the same animal while it was alive, it just feels like a totally separate object, with no association to the living thing, even though I can make the link intellectually.

And it's a question of cultural conditioning, of course, with people being brought up to think of some animals as only pets and others as food. In some cultures it's perfectly normal to eat dogs, while in others most people would probably have a lot of emotional problems with this idea.
Saracene is offline  
Old 07-16-2002, 07:15 AM   #24
Blue Crack Addict
 
Laura M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 18,934
Local Time: 11:22 PM
Its a man eat man world

Humans eat meat as part of a balanced diet, animals eat other animals for their diet. It's just nature- I dont see the problem really except I think the way we kill the animals isn't humane from time to time if we cause them pain- I dont agree with hurting an animal!
Laura M is offline  
Old 07-16-2002, 08:05 AM   #25
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Rono's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: the Netherlands
Posts: 6,163
Local Time: 10:22 PM
They shoulld kill all cats without a neckless. All those cats that run wild are a real danger to the native fauna. Esp. in Australia.

Maybe castration of male cats would help dissolve the problem,...
Rono is offline  
Old 07-16-2002, 08:52 AM   #26
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Basstrap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 10,726
Local Time: 06:52 PM
ACROBATMAN:
Quote:
Ok Acrobat is back again..Heard a lot of praises of animals ..Howmany of you animal (dog/cat/whatever) lovers dont actually eat some another animal as your food at some point or another... Think over that .... And if you do eat meat, how do you love animals.. I think I am probably making no sense now ...

This is ridiculous

I grew up in small town newfoundland where it is tradition to "live off the land". And I have hunted in the past. But at the same time my father taught me a love and respect for nature and I love it like its my home.

Nothing makes me more at peace then going in the woods and just relaxing, watching squirrels scurry about, and birds chirp, and fish jump. I LOVE it all and I have a termendous respect for it.

I also have 2 dogs back home and I love them to death(figuratively speaking). They are always happy to see me, they are loyal and loving and they give me peace and comfort when I'm having shitty days. My dogs are my friends.

And I'll have to fuck off implying my whole family and my grandfathers and their fathers somehow don't love nature and animals just because they've hunted.
I have more love for animals and nature then most people I've met who have never killed an animal for food. Its nature....animals kill animals.

Look at indians. I don't think you have as dense a native indian population as us here in Canada but I think most people realise that they almost worship nature...they hold it in very high regard and they love all animals. Yet they've always speared animals as well.

Never have I heard such an ignorant implication as the one you just made.
Basstrap is offline  
Old 07-16-2002, 01:56 PM   #27
Paper Gods
Forum Administrator
 
KhanadaRhodes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: a vampire in the limousine
Posts: 60,683
Local Time: 03:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AcrobatMan
Ok Acrobat is back again..Heard a lot of praises of animals ..Howmany of you animal (dog/cat/whatever) lovers dont actually eat some another animal as your food at some point or another... Think over that .... And if you do eat meat, how do you love animals.. I think I am probably making no sense now ...
this makes sense, but i don't think it's a very good argument. to keep the circle of life going, animals (including humans) have to die every day. it sucks, yes, but if animals didn't die for whatever reason, the world would be overpopulated. however, i do NOT agree with killing animals for sport. not to get off topic in a debate about hunting, i don't like people who kill a deer for a trophy. i do however, think it's great that someone out in the boonies kills a deer to feed his family. regardless of whether or not the people could afford to buy meat from a store (like the famous pro-hunting people) isn't really fair.

anyway, to get back on topic, i don't think vegetarianism and pet loving are really that similar. vegetarians are that way because they either think it's a better way of living, or because their doctor made them do it for health reasons. however, an animal lover gets a dog or cat or whatever because they want the company, are bored and need something to do (like care after an animal), or love animals. at the very least, look at it this way: all pets eat meat. when i feed my cats every morning, their cat food and cat treats has meat in it. when my grandmother feeds her dog, he gets leftovers from dinner (it's sweet, when we go out to eat everyone has to leave some of their food for him), dog bones, and dog food, all containing meat. the only animals off the top of my head, petwise, who don't eat meat are birds and rodents (mice, rats, hamsters, gerbils, etc.). i could be wrong with that, but for the most part, all animals eat meat. i don't see how eating meat means you don't like animals.
__________________
KhanadaRhodes is offline  
Old 07-16-2002, 04:13 PM   #28
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: dallas,tx,usa
Posts: 199
Local Time: 09:22 PM
I am a vegetarian and an pet lover, BUT I don't think that it's morally wrong to kill or eat animals for food as long as its done humanely. What I do think is morally wrong is the mass farming and harvesting of meat to provide for today's massive world population. I believe that switching to meatless or much less meat-filled diet is the best way to efficiently manage our resources while at the same time providing more food for more people.

Our habitual consumption of meat today is devastating our planet.

I also think that killing animals for sport when other sources of food are avaliable is also wrong. But someone taking the occasional one to provide for the family is not.

The main difference that I see between us and those hunters from the past is population. Our numbers make it impossible to continue the ancient practice of eating meat for much longer because we can't maintain the balance with the land that our forefathers had due to their much smaller numbers.

Does that seem sensible?
whiteflag is offline  
Old 07-16-2002, 04:41 PM   #29
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Rono's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: the Netherlands
Posts: 6,163
Local Time: 10:22 PM

Rono is offline  
Old 07-17-2002, 05:10 AM   #30
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Saracene's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia, some time after tea
Posts: 6,325
Local Time: 09:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by whiteflag
The main difference that I see between us and those hunters from the past is population. Our numbers make it impossible to continue the ancient practice of eating meat for much longer because we can't maintain the balance with the land that our forefathers had due to their much smaller numbers.
Actually, in America several equine species were wiped out completely by the natives some 13,000 years before the Spanish came and brought the horses with them. So much for the balance with the land.

And I've read in the recent TIME article that more animals are killed during the harvesting of fields than there are animals killed for their meat.
Saracene is offline  
Old 07-17-2002, 06:01 AM   #31
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Rono's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: the Netherlands
Posts: 6,163
Local Time: 10:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Saracene


Actually, in America several equine species were wiped out completely by the natives some 13,000 years before the Spanish came and brought the horses with them. So much for the balance with the land.

Where did you read that ?
Rono is offline  
Old 07-17-2002, 08:28 AM   #32
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
doctorwho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: My TARDIS - currently located in Valparaiso, IN
Posts: 6,361
Local Time: 01:22 PM
I'm going to go a step further... and challenge AcrobatMan.

I firmly believe that people who own pets are also the ones most likely to donate to charity each week/month. These are the people who help out the most when tragedy strikes. These are the people who give the most when they can. Because people who own pets have learned to value ALL forms of life.

In contrast, those who do not, I believe, are often too self-centered. They focus more on themselves. They make inane comments like "why feed a dog when people are starving" as they are unable to grasp the true definition of generosity.

I realize that many people live in places where pets are not allowed. But those who love animals are usually more kind to humans. They are the ones that find ways to care for all, not just a select few.

People love pets because the love is unconditional. They love pets because of the joy they bring to a family. They offer a type of comfort that is often impossible from humans.

I do not believe in this notion that humans are "top." I believe we are only intelligent because our off-spring would immediately perish if we were not. In the animal world, newborns might be walking within hours of their births. Instinct takes over and they can feed themselves. In contrast, human babies are utterly helpless. If we did not have the intelligence to care for them, the human race would not exist. Instead of horns, claws, tails or giant teeth, we were given intelligence to survive. Therefore, I feel it is wrong to then assume we are the "top" creatures because of our evolutionary gifts. I feel that all species have a right to survive - a dog or cat as much as a human. The problems in this world, for the most part, are human caused. Therefore, to "sacrifice" an animal (in terms of starvation) to save yet another human seems barbaric.

As one person eloquently stated, a person loving/feeding a dog or cat will not take away food from a human. I feel both can be done. And those who own pets see this and have approached the problem in that fashion. Those who hate pets, cannot comprehend the notion of saving everyone, not just a select few.
__________________
https://u2.interference.com/attachments/forums/signaturepics/sigpic11661_2.gifI always wanted to be somebody, but I should have been more specific.
doctorwho is offline  
Old 07-17-2002, 12:32 PM   #33
Halloweenhead
Forum Moderator
 
Bonochick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cherry Lane
Posts: 40,819
Local Time: 05:22 PM
Very nice post, doctorwho.
Bonochick is offline  
Old 07-17-2002, 04:38 PM   #34
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: dallas,tx,usa
Posts: 199
Local Time: 09:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Saracene


Actually, in America several equine species were wiped out completely by the natives some 13,000 years before the Spanish came and brought the horses with them. So much for the balance with the land.

And I've read in the recent TIME article that more animals are killed during the harvesting of fields than there are animals killed for their meat.
I seriously find that last statement hard to believe.

Are we supposed to accept that the deliberate killing of animals by 24 hour meat harvesting/processing operations results in less animals killed than the number of animals killed incidentally in the harvesting of plant crops? We are talking about deliberate killing of food animals as opposed to the incidental killing of prized helper animals in the course of their work. How could this be remotely possible unless the calculations are based on estimates based on all of human history.

Then there is the little thing called mechanized farming which has largely replaced the use of beasts of burden on the farms of modern nations. These countries by the way produce MOST of the world's food.

You could probably add to that fact that we nowadays also have a much greater understanding of veterinary medicine as well as better understanding of how to minimize the environmental impact of farming.

Given recent trends in food plant farming, I just can't imagine how the constant slaughter of animals for meat results in less animal death. Switching from a diet heavy in meat in favor of food produced without the aid of animals can only decrease the number animal deaths over time.

But the number of animal deaths would not even be the most important result of switching. Raising enough meat to provide the meat needs of just our nation alone causes incredible strain on the environment and feeds only those who can afford to purchase it. Given the same amount of land, way more food can be produced by raising crops than can be produced by raising animals. Animals also produce green house gases while plants produce oxygen, something we are going to need as the rainforests disappear at a faster rate than we can preserve them. Crops are also much easier to export to the starving people of the world. I mean how many cuts of fresh beef do you see being handed out in refugee camps and how much do you see being thrown away in our nations grocery stores? (I can attest to the enormous waste of meat that occurs daily in grocery stores.

There are even more reasons than this but I won't go into all of them. Fact is, the evidence is overwhelming that mass crop production is far better than mass meat production. It is far more humane as well. Animals suffer horribly on factory farms where most of our meat, eggs and dairy are produced. They are confined in samll spaces and are also pumped full of hormones and antibiotics to prevent diseases caused by the conditions found on these farms. Those added ingredients in turn are passed on to us when we eat these animals.

I am not saying that eating animals for meat needs to entirely disappear. But I am saying that we need to drastically scale back our consumption of meat. That is the only way to acheive the maximum benefit for ourselves, our animals, and our environment all at the same time in the most effecient way possible.

I might add that we especially need to pay attention to the meats we eat that come from the ocean. The focus of vegetarians is most often on cuddly animals like cows and lambs etc. but the real crisis, the looming disaster we face is actually the over fishing of our oceans. In many parts of the ocean whole ecosystems are on the brink of collapse because of the HUGE demand for such luxury meats as shrimp, lobster, salmon, swordfish and for such staples as tuna.
whiteflag is offline  
Old 07-17-2002, 09:35 PM   #35
Kid A
 
The Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Holy Roman Empire
Posts: 5,271
Local Time: 04:22 PM
great post, docwho
The Wanderer is offline  
Old 07-18-2002, 11:10 AM   #36
War Child
 
samralf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Dayton, OH
Posts: 999
Local Time: 05:22 PM
well said Dr. Who...
samralf is offline  
Old 07-18-2002, 11:56 AM   #37
Refugee
 
RavenStar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Purgatory
Posts: 1,101
Local Time: 04:22 PM
I totally agree with Basstrap.
BTW, what town did you grow up in?

Besides, why should we spend our money on other countries? What we do with our money is our business. Thats why Bono doesnt make donations to Ethiopia every year.
RavenStar is offline  
Old 07-18-2002, 01:51 PM   #38
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 09:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by RavenStar
Besides, why should we spend our money on other countries? What we do with our money is our business. Thats why Bono doesnt make donations to Ethiopia every year.
I know I can't tell people how to spend their money (nor would I want to) but personally the reason I think *I* should spend money on other countries (via donations to charities which work in those countries) is that I think somoene being able to get medical treatment, or being able to find food or shelter for the night is more important than me buying a CD I might listen to once or twice and then decide I don't like. Not that you can do any of those things with the money it costs to buy a CD, but hopefully if other people feel the same way then we make a little difference together.

Like I said, I'm not telling anyone they're right/wrong to donate money/not donate money and you can debate whether it should be up to individuals to do what some people think should be work done by governments, but it's just my opinion

*Fizz
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 07-19-2002, 05:39 AM   #39
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Saracene's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia, some time after tea
Posts: 6,325
Local Time: 09:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Rono


Where did you read that ?
In "The Science of Discworld: The Globe" by Terry Pratchett and science writers Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen. It's part fantasy, part scientific commentary on the evolution of the humans and human mind, science, culture, language, art and myths. It's full of interesting stuff.
Saracene is offline  
Old 07-19-2002, 05:52 AM   #40
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Saracene's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia, some time after tea
Posts: 6,325
Local Time: 09:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by whiteflag


I seriously find that last statement hard to believe.

Are we supposed to accept that the deliberate killing of animals by 24 hour meat harvesting/processing operations results in less animals killed than the number of animals killed incidentally in the harvesting of plant crops? We are talking about deliberate killing of food animals as opposed to the incidental killing of prized helper animals in the course of their work. How could this be remotely possible unless the calculations are based on estimates based on all of human history.

Then there is the little thing called mechanized farming which has largely replaced the use of beasts of burden on the farms of modern nations. These countries by the way produce MOST of the world's food.
Actually, the article wasn't talking about the deaths of helper animals at all. It was about field animals such as rabbits, mice and pheasants, who are killed in huge numbers during crop production and harvesting. One study showed that simply mowing an alfalfa field caused a 50% reduction in the gray-tailed vole population, and mortality rates increase with each pass of the tractor to plow, plant and harvest.
__________________

Saracene is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not 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 Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×