6 ms·
New Rules Against Animal Cruelty Raise the Stake for India's Beef Wars
- weeksie 9y agoI find it laughable that rules against animal slaughter in India are being made based on cruelty. This is in a country where cows (though supposedly holy) are treated horribly. Cows in every part of that country can be found: * Grazing on garbage heaps * Tied up on short ropes through their noses on hot days * Malnourished, covered in sores * Deformed * Dripping snot And so on.
- naravara 9y agoIndia has plenty of human beings who live like that. It doesn't mean they shouldn't be legally recognized as being entitled to decent treatment though.
- weeksie 9y agoSure! But if you're going to make animal cruelty laws, at least make it illegal to be cruel to animals. I'd rather be butchered and eaten than spend my entire life in the hot sun, tied to a post through my nose, eating garbage.
- justlearning123 9y agoAll of which arise from poverty, the same reason affecting humans as well.
- jff 9y ago> "I see a monitoring and surveillance system on farmers and traders," says Ramdas. "It's very Orwellian, our Animal Farm." Mr. Ramdas may be confusing his Orwell stories a bit :) Although I gave it a shot, it's difficult to draw many parallels between the Soviet allegory of Animal Farm and post-independence India. (I'm commenting on this inconsequential line because I don't have much to say about the larger article beyond "religious extremism sucks")
- sillysaurus3 9y agoCould someone counter this morality argument? If the world stopped eating meat, animals would no longer be bred for this purpose. Since animals are bred for meat, I'm not bothered by eating them. Their treatment is generally poor, but again their purpose is to be food. They wouldn't have existed otherwise. This is a genuine good-faith question, so hopefully the replies will be similar. Is it a matter of opinion, or is there something closer to an objective truth to be found in this?
- noir-york 9y ago> Their treatment is generally poor, but again their purpose is to be food. That smells like a non-sequitar to me: their purpose is indeed to be food, but that neither justifies poor treatment or cruelty, nor does poor treatment necessarily follow simply because animals are bred as food. I am not overly familiar with the subject but I do know that there are rules and regulations both at the national and EU level to protect animals from mistreatment.
- kyleschiller 9y agoI don't know, that's kind of like saying we shouldn't be bothered by slavery if the slaves in question were "bred" for that purpose and wouldn't have existed otherwise. Of course, the fact that line of reasoning is analogous to a line of reasoning with an intuitively repugnant conclusion doesn't necessary help us understand the original line, where our intuitions are generated, or if they're appropriate in the original example. You might be interested in Parfit's Nonidentity Problem [0]. "The nonidentity problem focuses on the obligations we think we have in respect of people who, by our own acts, are caused both to exist and to have existences that are, though worth having, unavoidably flawed – existences, that is, that are flawed if those people are ever to have them at all. " [0] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nonidentity-problem/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nonidentity-problem/
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- s73ver 9y agoThe measure of a society is how it treats those lesser than them. That includes animals who are beasts of burden or food. Quite simply, just because they are meant to be food does not mean they should suffer during their existence.
- revmoo 9y ago*Steak