5 ms·

we should ban any form of animal captivity

by jlebrech 9y ago

tuna-piano 9y ago
So no more cows on farms?
- jlebrech 9y ago
  yes
  - 6stringmerc 9y ago
    Oh, they fight back when they feel like it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_O%27Leary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_O%27Leary
  - kakarot 9y ago
    And why is that? To me it sounds like this is largely an emotional and not logical decision for you.
    - jlebrech 9y ago
      https://richarddawkins.net/2013/01/the-argument-for-veganism-from-a-scientific-and-moral-perspective-rather-than-from-beliefs/ https://richarddawkins.net/2013/01/the-argument-for-veganism...
      - kakarot 9y ago
        I respect Richard and I wanted to read this, but in his very first point... He claims we are not adapted for eating meat, then backpedals by saying we have adapted for eating meat since the Ice Age, then pretends like this trend can't continue He claims we aren't adapted for hunting meat, relying solely on physical features to back this claim and ignoring our mental capacity, specifically the capacity for organization and tool use. His 2nd point is "We don't need it to survive". No shit. We're omnivores. I couldn't continue because the first two points were clearly conjecture and one-sided and render the likelihood of the validity of the rest to be approaching zero. Would you like to explain your reasoning in your own words?
        jlebrech 9y ago
        we oppress animals, and it's ok because it's a tradition?
        kakarot 9y ago
        Say my neighboorhood had a farm and each member of the community benefited from this farm, a few cows to provide milk, and dozens and dozens of chickens to provide eggs and occasional meat. There is ample space for the animals to roam, and they are shielded from the elements and predators. As a result of sustainable rationing, a family doesn't eat meat each night but maybe once a week or month. Do you truly consider this scenario oppressive?
        animal_dude 9y ago
        > Do you truly consider this scenario oppressive? Yes, because you have violated the free agency of animals and their own right to exist unmolested by humans. It's the treatment of sentient creatures as mere commodities, justifying the means for an end, that's the source of great calamity and suffering. Non-human persons aren't on this planet for the satisfaction of humans. To think so is to basically be stuck in Christian-inspired attitudes which are old and deprecated.
        kakarot 9y ago
        Animals violate the free agency of animals every single day when they eat them for food. The concept that using animals for any form of resource is oppressive, even if a fair bargain is struck and the animal's needs are met, is highly idealistic in it's own ways, even if they aren't related to Christian values. People have been cooperating with other animals for much, much longer than Christianity has been around. So yes, that notion is very, very old. I wouldn't say it is depreciated, however.
        animal_dude 9y ago
        > Animals violate the free agency of animals every single day when they eat them for food. Animals also commit infanticide and lick their own buttholes. What we do to animals is not cooperation. It's a holocaust.
watter 9y ago
yeah let's make fences and borders illegal!
abandonliberty 9y ago
You would likely be well served by watching Penn and Teller's PETA episode. And perhaps some wildlife documentaries - there's nothing quite like getting eaten alive. Most captive animals exist because we tend to them. Are you suggesting that we let them die of starvation or simply eliminate them (as PETA does with many of their 'rescued' animals)?
- animal_dude 9y ago
  > Are you suggesting that we let them die of starvation or simply eliminate them A reasonable person might suggest we not purposefully birth 150 billion+ animals every year just so they can be killed. The "let them starve" argument is a strawman, since the whole world would not eschew animal products overnight, but rather as a gradual progress.
  - abandonliberty 9y ago
    Interesting. Wouldn't it be much more appropriate to argue a false dilemma in this situation? You suggested gradual elimination, which is an elimination process. I would argue that neither fallacy apply. I wonder what proportion of animals would chose non-existence over existence if they could understand such concepts. That's quite the decision to make for them.
    - animal_dude 9y ago
      > I wonder what proportion of animals would chose non-existence over existence if they could understand such concepts. May I suggest you look at some footage from slaughterhouses to make that determination for yourself? Or, if you're particularly stoic, I dare you to watch Earthlings.
  - jlebrech 9y ago
    it's a cause and effect reversal, no need to birth so many animals if you can't eat them.

we should ban any form of animal captivity

tuna-piano 9y ago

So no more cows on farms?

jlebrech 9y ago
yes
- 6stringmerc 9y ago
  Oh, they fight back when they feel like it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_O%27Leary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_O%27Leary
- kakarot 9y ago
  And why is that? To me it sounds like this is largely an emotional and not logical decision for you.
  - jlebrech 9y ago
    https://richarddawkins.net/2013/01/the-argument-for-veganism-from-a-scientific-and-moral-perspective-rather-than-from-beliefs/ https://richarddawkins.net/2013/01/the-argument-for-veganism...
    - kakarot 9y ago
      I respect Richard and I wanted to read this, but in his very first point... He claims we are not adapted for eating meat, then backpedals by saying we have adapted for eating meat since the Ice Age, then pretends like this trend can't continue He claims we aren't adapted for hunting meat, relying solely on physical features to back this claim and ignoring our mental capacity, specifically the capacity for organization and tool use. His 2nd point is "We don't need it to survive". No shit. We're omnivores. I couldn't continue because the first two points were clearly conjecture and one-sided and render the likelihood of the validity of the rest to be approaching zero. Would you like to explain your reasoning in your own words?
      - jlebrech 9y ago
        we oppress animals, and it's ok because it's a tradition?
        kakarot 9y ago
        Say my neighboorhood had a farm and each member of the community benefited from this farm, a few cows to provide milk, and dozens and dozens of chickens to provide eggs and occasional meat. There is ample space for the animals to roam, and they are shielded from the elements and predators. As a result of sustainable rationing, a family doesn't eat meat each night but maybe once a week or month. Do you truly consider this scenario oppressive?
        animal_dude 9y ago
        > Do you truly consider this scenario oppressive? Yes, because you have violated the free agency of animals and their own right to exist unmolested by humans. It's the treatment of sentient creatures as mere commodities, justifying the means for an end, that's the source of great calamity and suffering. Non-human persons aren't on this planet for the satisfaction of humans. To think so is to basically be stuck in Christian-inspired attitudes which are old and deprecated.
        kakarot 9y ago
        Animals violate the free agency of animals every single day when they eat them for food. The concept that using animals for any form of resource is oppressive, even if a fair bargain is struck and the animal's needs are met, is highly idealistic in it's own ways, even if they aren't related to Christian values. People have been cooperating with other animals for much, much longer than Christianity has been around. So yes, that notion is very, very old. I wouldn't say it is depreciated, however.
        animal_dude 9y ago
        > Animals violate the free agency of animals every single day when they eat them for food. Animals also commit infanticide and lick their own buttholes. What we do to animals is not cooperation. It's a holocaust.

watter 9y ago

yeah let's make fences and borders illegal!

abandonliberty 9y ago

You would likely be well served by watching Penn and Teller's PETA episode. And perhaps some wildlife documentaries - there's nothing quite like getting eaten alive. Most captive animals exist because we tend to them. Are you suggesting that we let them die of starvation or simply eliminate them (as PETA does with many of their 'rescued' animals)?

animal_dude 9y ago
> Are you suggesting that we let them die of starvation or simply eliminate them A reasonable person might suggest we not purposefully birth 150 billion+ animals every year just so they can be killed. The "let them starve" argument is a strawman, since the whole world would not eschew animal products overnight, but rather as a gradual progress.
- abandonliberty 9y ago
  Interesting. Wouldn't it be much more appropriate to argue a false dilemma in this situation? You suggested gradual elimination, which is an elimination process. I would argue that neither fallacy apply. I wonder what proportion of animals would chose non-existence over existence if they could understand such concepts. That's quite the decision to make for them.
  - animal_dude 9y ago
    > I wonder what proportion of animals would chose non-existence over existence if they could understand such concepts. May I suggest you look at some footage from slaughterhouses to make that determination for yourself? Or, if you're particularly stoic, I dare you to watch Earthlings.
- jlebrech 9y ago
  it's a cause and effect reversal, no need to birth so many animals if you can't eat them.