Animal cruelty

[Steve_TPF]

Whether the fat, stupid birds can fly is not the issue.

Originally Posted by FerretBone

Honestly, why do some people feel so guilty for being succesful humans? Where does it stop?

I don't feel guilty about being human, successful, or being on top of the food chain. I simply don't see any justification for the needless suffering of animals. Give them a comfortable life and kill them quickly. Pretty simple.

[FerretBone]

Originally Posted by Steve_TPF

Whether the fat, stupid birds can fly is not the issue.

Its not, I'm just laughing at what people spend their time defending these days.

Originally Posted by Steve_TPF

I simply don't see any justification for the needless suffering of animals. Give them a comfortable life and kill them quickly. Pretty simple.

OK cool steve,
I don't see any justification for the needless pampering of product about to be killed for food. So how do we meet in the middle?

The current "suffering" or nature of processing is the fastest, cheapest ,most effictive way to rasie a chicken, sort it, and transform it into cheap food.

To pamper the product, would un-arguably raise the cost of processing. And you should admitt, would be an even more needless means to produce what we currently get with our present methods.

Time to be honest,
I DO NOT agree with some angry redneck slapping little birds around like it was his job.

[jrly]

Originally Posted by FerretBone

Time to be honest,
I DO NOT agree with some angry redneck slapping little birds around like it was his job.

How is it different than being in a tiny cage?

[Steve_TPF]

Originally Posted by FerretBone

The current "suffering" or nature of processing is the fastest, cheapest ,most effictive way to rasie a chicken, sort it, and transform it into cheap food.

Having all our goods made by slave labour would be cheaper too, but for some reason that's frowned upon.

I buy free-range poultry products, and I eat pretty well. I didn't say chickens should be "needlessly pampered," but it's not that hard to make them comfortable. Space to move, adequate food and water, not being hurt or abused. Why not? Unless you get a kick out of seeing animals suffer...

BTW, would you feel differently if we were talking about dogs?

[FerretBone]

Originally Posted by Steve_TPF

Having all our goods made by slave labour would be cheaper too, but for some reason that's frowned upon.

1. I don't eat slaves. 2. slaves are humans that have rights, and have the ablity to fight for their rights. Having rights and the ablity to fight for rights are corresponding. If you can not fight for rights, then you do not have any.

Originally Posted by Steve_TPF

I didn't say chickens should be "needlessly pampered," but it's not that hard to make them comfortable. Space to move, adequate food and water, not being hurt or abused. Why not? Unless you get a kick out of seeing animals suffer...

Anyone who is causing any aniaml to suffer out of kicks is sick. I'm saying we should not go out of our way in either case. Whether were making them comfortable, or causing them to suffer.
Definitely do not go out of the way to make them feel comfortable. And do not purposely cause them harm while processing.

Originally Posted by Steve_TPF

BTW, would you feel differently if we were talking about dogs

I don't eat dogs either.

[FerretBone]

Originally Posted by jrly

How is it different than being in a tiny cage?

You are confussed again, and this time it's not my fault.
Take your heart and feelings, set them aside for a minute. Now listen to your head.

Picture in your head a chicken getting the shit slapped out of it, then picture a chicken laying eggs in a small cage. Then tell me which event is more positively productive for a dinner table?
I do not agree for the first picture, I do not always agree with the second. But I understand the second. I see you are not willing to understand the second because of your emotions.

I am not asking you to not have a big heart. Just learn when to turn it off. Your whole view point is coming from an emotional perceptive.

[headcase]

I'd side with FerretBone on this one. Although I think there's a little confusion about what he's suggesting.

I despise animal cruelty. Causing them unnecessary pain and suffering should be severely punished. For some reason in my city there are always stories about animals being set on fire around Halloween. I don't know why or when it started but you know how these things catch on (like egging houses I guess). If I caught these guys I'd inflict more pain on them then they did the dogs and cats they kill. They have, after all, earned it.

That said, providing comfortable lives to livestock is expensive and inefficient. I don't live in poverty yet the only reason I ate well over the summer (living as a student) was because of Tesco supermarkets and their "Value" range. Mass and battery produced to reduce costs, with the savings passed onto me, meant I was eating quiche Lorraine and chicken Kiev frequently, instead of the clichéd student staples like baked beans and noodles. Without the cheaper range I wouldn't be living in such luxury and if it's a choice between me or the chicken, I'm choosing myself.

So yes, do what you can to make the chicken's life comfortable and happy (which, of course, included a painless and stress-free a death as possible) without losing out on value for money. Morally, I think that does enough.

__

I've used chicken as the generic animal here but the idea is universal.

[Steve_TPF]

Originally Posted by FerretBone

If you can not fight for rights, then you do not have any.

So children have no rights?

Originally Posted by FerretBone

Definitely do not go out of the way to make them feel comfortable.

Giving them space to move is hardly going out of the way. And to you and headcase, putting them in cramped, crowded conditions is inflicting needless suffering.

Originally Posted by FerretBone

I don't eat dogs either.

Some cultures do. Would it be alright by you if they treated dogs the same way?

[Mauler3050]

Although this may not be my personal opinion, i really want to argue the opposing side of this for sport.

The fact of the matter is we have to get right down to it. Is torture wrong. Of course we all nod our heads like the robots we are because we have been told our whole lives that torture is bad and evil. But then we have to boil this argument down to a complete digression of the topic, how do we define good and evil.

Consider for a moment that you grow up with out any outside influence of what is right and wrong. Now of course this is impossible but bear with me hypothetically for a minute. Is our conscience an instinct, or is it something hardwired into us from the moment minds allow it to be. Not trying to convince you one way or another, just something to speculate upon.

Well with that in mind lets right good and bad out of the picture, and assume for a minute that as humans we find staying alive to be beneficial. So therefor eating animals in someway would prove to be beneficial. Torture would expend some for of energy in my opinion and therefor it would not be beneficial.

In my true opinion, I believe that we live in a world where absolute morality exists and cannot be known, we all must rely on reason and faith. And honestly my reason tells me that torture is not good, and I have faith that I am right in that.

So i know i didn't make a concrete stance, just presented some ideas to ponder upon

[headcase]

Cramped conditions are neither needless nor torture. They reduce cost and improce production, meaning they are not needless. Torture is intentionally inflicting pain or suffering, and the suffering is not intentionally inflicted. If improving conditions did not decrease efficiency and increase cost then conditions would improve. But it does so they're not.

Mauler, I think you're looking for the morality thread. I appreciate your enthusiasm but if we boil down every argument we have to a sort of Taoist nihilism then we'll never get anywhere. I have the same problem when I consider things too deeply though.

[Steve_TPF]

It is needless. Mistreating chickens is not necessary for production, it just makes it slightly cheaper. Besides, you don't need the chicken. It's a luxury food, not an essential for your survival.

Mod Edit; despite what it says below, I didn't Steve's comment. The "Quote" and "Edit" buttons are beside each other and I hit the wrong one. Just to clear that up...

[headcase]

Battery producing chickens is necessary to decrease cost and increase my standard of living. Should I decrease my standard of living to improve that of the chickens'? Then I'm suffering more. There's no "net gain" in comfort, especially since I value mine far more.

Originally Posted by Steve_TPF

Besides, you don't need the chicken. It's a luxury food, not an essential for your survival.

Extra space for the chicken is a luxury. It's not essential for its survival.

[FerretBone]

Originally Posted by Steve_TPF

So children have no rights?

I meant, humans as a whole earn and keep rights by being able to fight for them. Humans also have reciprocity from one person to another, not just recognizing their own freedoms.
Animals are unable to reciprocate respect, liberties, or fight for them, not to mention recognize other aniamls “rights“, and as such we are in no way obliged to afford them.

Originally Posted by Steve_TPF

Giving them space to move is hardly going out of the way. And to you and headcase, putting them in cramped, crowded conditions is inflicting needless suffering.

Just because it does not seem good for the chicken does not mean it’s needless.
Egg farmers point to studies showing that cage free chickens have a higher rate of injuries and death. They also say chickens will not necessarily take advantage of the opportunity. Many "free-range" chickens do little actual ranging and cost considerably more than standard chickens to raise, and in the markets. Small cages are necessary for the farmers time, cost, and space. They put the maximum amount of product in the minimum space. Free range chicken may be a luxury foods, but standard chicken are considered anything but luxury.

You call chicken a luxury food, but its known for its versatility and convenience. Chicken is convenient to prepare and less likely to be ruined by overcooking than other meats. As well as convenient for cooks who are pressed for time and some what inexperience at cooking.

Also a hen will produce from 100 to 250 eggs per year, a remarkable output for the size of the animal, so chickens egg laying capabilitys and production far passes most non luxury foods for cost, time, and output.

Originally Posted by Steve_TPF

Some cultures do. Would it be alright by you if they treated dogs the same way?

If they were raising dogs for food.

[headcase]

I wouldn't consider the animal's ability to fight for their rights to be relevant to the argument at all. Wider application of that logic (say to poor or uneducated people) makes it seem foolish and deeper consideration makes it seem groundless (ever try to take the right to life away from a tiger?).

[MasterOdin]

I believe that animals should have at least some rights i see the point of raising to kill but if its all done in a Humane manner then i think it should be alright. As to the Chickens living in the Cramped Conditions more space also means more comfortability for small amounts of animals but i also means that u can store more animals to be eaten in a Time of need

[bloodlusta]

Trust me a chicken up a tree does look funny but it does happen.

[FerretBone]

Originally Posted by headcase

I wouldn't consider the animal's ability to fight for their rights to be relevant to the argument at all. Wider application of that logic (say to poor or uneducated people) makes it seem foolish and deeper consideration makes it seem groundless (ever try to take the right to life away from a tiger?).

I sort of defind down this concept so much, i've rendered it totally meaningless.

I didn't necessarily mean to fight literally.
In nature if something can not forcefully demand and collect what it needs from something else then it will not get it. And certainly will not able to keep it long.

Bottom line, "rights" are for people, just like religion.

[Random]

I know this is something of a tangent, but it does have relevance.

I believe that animals are entitled to some rights - the right to not be intentionally tortured or abused, for example. However, I don't believe they have the same rights as any human.

Why? Humans have carers. Animals have owners. I say this without specific references at hand, but I am confident that these terms are dictated in many areas by law - "owners" are responsible for their animals. So, by law, domestic and farm animals are possessions and not creatures of equal standing with humans.

I like steak. I also like the idea of free range meat and eggs and whatever else. But one must remember these animals were brought into this world with the intended end of slaughter - so if these creatures can fulfill their destinies to as high a quality in structured environments as they could in a free range environment, then I have no concerns as to how they are handled, if handled appropriately.

Does the concept of "animals as possessions" impact on anybody's argument?