Don't the hen and chicks look so happy in their picture? Isn't it blissful?
So when confronted with the real thing;
One of the tactics that vegetarian extremists often employ to raise the meat production issue is to graphically display the real, industrialized process of raising and slaughtering animals to the general public, who has been misled by peaceful images created by the industry.
Couldn't agree more. Reminds me of when I saw rabbit skin handbags in a shop in Harajuku, adorned with cartoons of bouncy, happy bunnies obviously enchanted with the idea of being cooped up in a small cage all their lives, killed and then skinned for the sake of fashion.
Vegetarian extremists? Mmmn... nothing extreme about showing the truth. I think not being able to, or resisting making the connection between, say, a tasty slice of bacon and an unanaethsetized young piglet screaming in agony while being castrated with wire cutters is a form of extremism.
This is a good point - I believe this is true, that everywhere people are in different phases of development, including their views on animals, but we're all moving toward the same end (gradually realizing that animals have feelings like humans and treating them accordingly).
"This is a good point - I believe this is true, that everywhere people are in different phases of development, including their views on animals. . ."
This does sound a bit condescending. Are Westerners in the most advanced state of development?
It seems to me that animal-rightist beliefs are just a kind of religion. There is no scientific or rational proof, just beliefs that are taken as a matter of faith. I was glad to read, however, that at least you're not ready to push your religion on anyone else.
This kind of view is highly unlikely to gain ground in countries where the Buddhist thought of reincarnation is deeply grounded in culture.
Your point that animals are treated as something "cute" makes sense. But, this also seems to present here in the US. One of the tactics that vegetarian extremists often employ to raise the meat production issue is to graphically display the real, industrialized process of raising and slaughtering animals to the general public, who has been misled by peaceful images created by the industry.
Mysteriously though, many Japanese can have the cute image of fish but at the same time feel comfortable seeing signs of fish while eating it. The head, bones, and tail do not appear to frighten them.
This does sound a bit condescending. Are Westerners in the most advanced state of development?
What evidence is there that animals have "feelings like humans"?
I've never heard of an animal having a depth and complexity of feelings to approach humans. Ever see a pack of wolves eat the guts out of a living caribou, while the caribou cries for maybe twenty minutes before the wolves sever a main artery and accidentally put it out of its misery? The wolves show no remorse or empathy for the caribou.
In his book Animal Liberation, Peter Singer states that the basic principle of equality does not require equal or identical treatment; it requires equal consideration. This is an important distinction when talking about animal rights. People often ask if animals should have rights, and quite simply, the answer is ツ"Yes!ツ" Animals surely deserve to live their lives free from suffering and exploitation. Jeremy Bentham, the founder of the reforming utilitarian school of moral philosophy, stated that when deciding on a being's rights, ツ"The question is not ツ'Can they reason?' nor ツ'Can they talk?' but ツ'Can they suffer?'ツ" In that passage, Bentham points to the capacity for suffering as the vital characteristic that gives a being the right to equal consideration. The capacity for suffering is not just another characteristic like the capacity for language or higher mathematics. All animals have the ability to suffer in the same way and to the same degree that humans do. They feel pain, pleasure, fear, frustration, loneliness, and motherly love. Whenever we consider doing something that would interfere with their needs, we are morally obligated to take them into account.
Couldn't agree more. Reminds me of when I saw rabbit skin handbags in a shop in Harajuku, adorned with cartoons of bouncy, happy bunnies obviously enchanted with the idea of being cooped up in a small cage all their lives, killed and then skinned for the sake of fashion.
Vegetarian extremists? Mmmn... nothing extreme about showing the truth. I think not being able to, or resisting making the connection between, say, a tasty slice of bacon and an unanaethsetized young piglet screaming in agony while being castrated with wire cutters is a form of extremism.
it requires equal consideration.
http://www.fao.org/statistics/yearbook/vol_1_1/pdf/d01.pdf
D.1 Dietary energy, protein and fat consumption
Get Bikini-Ready With a FREE Weight-Loss Kit!
http://www.peta.org/feat_weight-loss_kit.asp?c=weekly_enews
This i agree and disagree with ("animals have feelings like humans").
And so chickens aren't like us- they do have some emotions/feeling in common with us, but often at times they seem to positively lack important emotions/feelings that we have, and this is why it would not be correct to treat chickens like humans. All animals are like this to some extent and this is why they are animals and below us.
BUT, this doesn't mean that we should treat them uncaringly or with disdain- they are intelligent animals, and most importantly of all, they are visibly able to suffer or experience joy (for example when chickens are happy and healthy, their comb upon their head appears full of color and is stuck on end- unhappy/unhealthy chickens combs are often dull in color and droopy etc. This is also not to mention the fact that they also have different noises/clucks for different feelings/emotions).
And this is why we should look after them well.
All animals are like this to some extent and this is why they are animals and below us.
Its not as ingrained as it used to be and i'm sure the thought of reincarnation is probably not thought off by most people when they eat their meat or farm their animals. The decline in business of Buddhist temples points to an increasingly less-religiously concerned population in Japan;
BBC NEWS | Programmes | From Our Own Correspondent | Hard times for Japan's temples
Can anybody enlighten me on the rational behind the issue of emotions/feelings and intelligence? To me this appears key to the "Western" animal rights movement.
As an Asian brought up under the influence of mixed Buddhism and Shinto shamanism, my personal understanding of feeling bad about cruelly treating animals is that all living things do not want to die, get hurt, or suffer so that we, human, need to avoid causing pain in animals. I feel awkward to hear that one should not hurt animals because they have emotions and intelligence. Does that mean one does not feel anything when killing creatures that do not appear to have emotions or intelligence like mosquitoes, ants, or frogs? I am uncertain if my analysis is representative of Japanese behavior, but when I kill insects, I feel bad. I have not killed animals with my own hands so I don't no how my reaction would be on such occasions, but as far as killing insects are concerned, size or type does not affect my feeling.
Given this, my rational on eating meat and seeing dead insects on the windshield might stem from the same reasoning. I need to eat meat because that is what everybody else does. I drive my car because that is what everybody else does. I am aware of the pains that I cause to these creatures but I cannot live the life that I am accustomed to. What I learned from school makes me believe that in nature all creatures are in competition so that killing of creatures take place anyway. I will not intentionally cause pain to animals but on things that are related to my survival, I have to close my eyes.
What I learned from school makes me believe that in nature all creatures are in competition so that killing of creatures take place anyway.
This startled me. I don't think Asians (at least Japanese and Chinese) have this type of logic.
Can anybody enlighten me on the rational behind the issue of emotions/feelings and intelligence? To me this appears key to the "Western" animal rights movement.
As an Asian brought up under the influence of mixed Buddhism and Shinto shamanism, my personal understanding of feeling bad about cruelly treating animals is that all living things do not want to die, get hurt, or suffer so that we, human, need to avoid causing pain in animals. I feel awkward to hear that one should not hurt animals because they have emotions and intelligence.
The rational behind the feelings/emotions issue is this: if an animal can feel these things (emotions/feelings etc), then it could be aware of its suffering (just like how we have the ability to be aware of our own suffering). If the animal can suffer just like we can, then for us to make the animal suffer it would be rather immoral. If the animal cannot suffer, feel emotions/feelings, nor pain and is not intelligent etc, then you could argue that because of this it doesn't matter how you treat the animal because its not going to be really aware of your treatment either way etc.
My point of the argument is that regardless of the animals capability to be intelligent or feel emotions, all animals can suffer and so this is why you should treat all animals well. Animals vary a great deal with intelligence and emotions (i do believe most animals are relatively intelligent and can feel a certain degree of emotions though), but one thing is certain is that they can all suffer (and this is shown through stress/distress).
Insects/bugs are a gray area, but generally speaking, if you don't have to be cruel to such creatures then why would you want to be so?
You don't actually need to eat meat to lead a healthy diet/lifestyle.
Also everybody is completely capable of changing the way they live/are, even if you are accustomed to living you life in the same sort of regime every day.
We are animals. Our behavior is constrained by animal instincts. By the way, animals have codes of conduct too.Yes animals kill each other all the time but that doesn't mean we have to act like animals.
At the end of the day we are animals (we're the intelligent ape), but we have built a society based on morality/ethics, justice, fairness, partnership etc- we are above the rest of the animals in the animal kingdom in these respects, and if we are to sustain a positive and productive (rather than hypocritical) image of our society then we need to extend our morality/ethics to everyone and everything, and not just to what is convenient or beneficial to us etc.
So does it mean it is OK to kill human beings (or the fetus?) if they do not suffer or feel pain? It seems it is dangerous to base the decision purely on the suffering, emotions/feelings, and pain factor. There must be more to it.
The intelligent factor totally puzzles me. Does it mean you feel less empathetic about a dumb person being killed? Most of people will be outraged by such an opinion. So, it means the degree of intelligence should be irrelevant.
If all animals should be treated well regardless of the animals capability to be intelligent or feel emotions, then why do you consider insects/bugs constitute a gray area? Is it because the insects/bugs show less capability to be intelligent or feel emotions? It seems the notion of "we must save animals" exist before thinking about the issues of intelligence and emotions.
We are animals. Our behavior is constrained by animal instincts. By the way, animals have codes of conduct too.
What I meant was that the expression "above the rest of the animals" startles me. Why are we "above" any other animals? There is no "above" or "below". Such a notion implies that if a society incorporates more strong morality/ethics, justice, fairness, partnership etc- foundations, the society is "above" the rest.
So it isn't immoral at all when obese people eating safe and morally killed Tokis' chicken much more than the average Japanese.
I don't know English, but we call it gizen, hypocrisy in Japanese.
Sorry about our generalization, "Europeans have been eating meat for ages".
It is just wrong, but your history goes...
when their economy was not good, they ate less meat; and
when their economy was good, they ate more meat.
The eel pie in your country is a good example. People, esp., in London, ate the eel pie about 100 years ago as a meat substitute, but now, many moral Londoners think it as yucky.
Even from the point of an immoral eel loving Japanese, the recipe below should be refined.
cookitsimply.com is coming soon
(´д`)<not uma
Just wondering what would have happened if they had introduced a special eel cooking knife from Japan then.
(Who are you talking to specifically Pipokun or are you just making general points here?)
Of course it isn't really morally/ethically good/preferable to overeat when you are obese, however what can you do about people who do this either way? Do you suggest living in an ultra fascist state where our diets are completely regulated by the state and those who over or under eat are taken to special "reforming" centers and punished etc?
...
It is true, but I don't know why the EU nations are proud of their food sufficiency and safety?We don't kill people for food, we don't farm people
What if the aviation would hit your farm?battery farmed eggs or free range eggs
From around 9:17, you can see the machine working.
Just because we have laws and ethics, it does not mean we are above animals. As far as I know, human beings are a deviant in the animal kingdom who kill their own kind for various reasons. What do you think of war? We killed millions of people. What do you think of atrocity?Humans are above animals and different laws and ethics apply to people than animals (and when i talk of animals i mean creatures which are not human). We don't kill people for food, we don't farm people, we don't keep people as pets etc- an animal like a dog, cat, dolphin, mouse etc is not on the same level as a human being.
So, I'm curious how YOU feel when you squash bugs. Do you honestly feel nothing because science proves that? Or you feel a tinge of guilt because you have killed a creature. Have you observed how ants appear to suffer if you spray one of those insecticides for ants? They struggle and curl up and look as if they are suffering.Insects/bugs are a gray area, because so far research has found that they have no intelligence, no feelings, no emotions, no pain etc. These creatures function on a robotic level.
IMHO the reason why you should avoid being cruel to these creatures though is because cruelty is not something that should be encouraged in human nature towards anything.so, you do agree that it is cruel to squash bugs, yet insist that human beings can keep doing this to bugs because we are superior to them? That sounds awful.
I wonder how monkeys would feel when they witnessed their babies and human babies being killed. I bet they would respond more to their own monkey babies.We are above animals because a human life is worth more (or at least should be worth more) than an animals life.
You might argue that all living creatures are equal, but you tell me, if you found your house on fire and a child and a dog screaming/barking for help inside and you could only save one of them, who would you save? Would you honestly say "I would say the dog if it was easier to rescue than the child or vice versa" or would you say "I certainly save the child's life over the dogs in any scenario"?
So this is motivated by self-interest.We put ourselves, our family, our friends, our species first because we are human- if we don't look after ourselves and our own kind first and foremost, then we can hardly expect to stay evolutionarily successful.
The fact that the notion is man-made should be irrelevant to the argument of human's ethical and moral superiority to animals.I disagree with you strongly that there is no above or below when it comes to humans and other animals- this notion in itself is a man-made concept. If you can't see why a humans life is worth more than an animals then i think you need to look a lot deeper.
I did not know that. Thanks."As far as I know, human beings are a deviant in the animal kingdom who kill their own kind for various reasons."
Then you should go educate yourself more on the animal kingdom (and no, I don't mean watching more Disney films). Plenty of animals kill their own kind. Bears will eat other bear cubs wherever they find them. Wolves kill wolves, for pack dominance or territory. Chimps fight wars with other chimp bands.
"why do we still keep dogs as pets?"
The point was not limited to keeping dogs. Any type of animals including those that are not domesticated.The dog is a wolf that's evolved to depend on humans. It's a DOMESTICATED species, meaning it only thrives under care of humans. Do dogs like this deal? I'd say yes. As a human pet, a dog might live 15 years or more. But you'll never find a wolf more than half that age.
"I wonder how monkeys would feel when they witnessed their babies and human babies being killed."
They'd probably prefer to save their own kind, just like us. The difference is, they probably don't hold debates about whether it's ethical to do so.
This rational that human life is worth more than those of animals was argued from the fact that we tend to save our children. I gave the example of monkeys to prove that that type of reasoning does not verify human life is worth more. It simply displays our self-centered view and disregard to animals' point of view.We are above animals because a human life is worth more (or at least should be worth more) than an animals life.
You might argue that all living creatures are equal, but you tell me, if you found your house on fire and a child and a dog screaming/barking for help inside and you could only save one of them, who would you save? Would you honestly say "I would say the dog if it was easier to rescue than the child or vice versa" or would you say "I certainly save the child's life over the dogs in any scenario"?
Then, how come only targeting on whaling? how come not voicing against killing all animals? If you are choosing only one species, it sounds culturally biased.I could not agree more, along with gaining intelligent it is important to learn compassion and care about all creatures of this world. Currently we are a vicious breed of people who slaughter as well as rape, hurt and murder humankind. The whole world want to end the fighting, the wars, the pain we cause to other people. And the whole world wants to put an end to this mindless violence against our own fellow creatures of the world.
Japanese people are not being shown in a good light here. The uncivilised actions of these animal abusers are tainting your country and tainting our world. Japan has a duty to its country to stop these atrocities, laws need to be put in place, and THESE LAWS NEED TO BE FOLLOWED. If this can be done, then you can regain respect, honor and pride. Seriuosly enough is enough.
Long live the Whales and Dolphins and all innocent creatures.
"Plenty of animals kill their own kind. Bears will eat other bear cubs wherever they find them. Wolves kill wolves, for pack dominance or territory. Chimps fight wars with other chimp bands.