The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Animal rights and wrongs > Comments

Animal rights and wrongs : Comments

By John Humphreys, published 11/6/2011

For the meat-eating population to say that they believe in the inalienable right of cows not to be punched is absurd. What did you have for lunch?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
I haven't checked lately, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think our human rights (as itemised by the UN) include an exemption from our natural place in the food chain. Last time a human was taken as a tasty morsel by a shark or a crocodile, I don't think those creatures were brought before any human rights tribunal, and I don't think there were too many people crying about that person's rights being violated.

Cattle are part of our food chain. They are primary consumers and we are secondary consumers. In short, we eat cattle because that's what humans do. Snakes eat mice, eagles eat rabbits, spiders eat flies and we eat cattle. I'm sure if it occurred to other creatures to act in a humane way, and if other creatures were blessed with that sense of guilt (perhaps you're right - squeamishness) that we feel, they would despatch their meals in as kind a manner as possible. Perhaps they actually do. What we do know is that humans are equipped with consciences and also with the capacity to kill creatures as humanely as possible. The combination of the two allows us to retain our place in the food chain without needing to feel guilty about it. It also allows us to press for animal rights without being hypocrites (though some of us still have a way to go on that count).
Posted by Otokonoko, Sunday, 12 June 2011 1:24:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, when you look at all of where we evolved from, meat was the primary score for any hunter......so tell me again why its all changed?
Hypocrites are best served with gravy and spuds:)

LEAP
Posted by Quantumleap, Sunday, 12 June 2011 1:37:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Is the author's argument that because we eat animals it gives us the right to treat them cruelly?

Humans consume animals but we have a conscience and can choose to inflict minimal suffering and pain in pursuit of food.

As for the choice of hitting or killing a human and which is worse. We don't eat humans. The choice will not arise as far as whether it is better to punch a human or kill him for food.

I am unsure of the author's argument - it does not make sense.
Posted by pelican, Sunday, 12 June 2011 11:32:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You know, I could probably explain the threshhold most meat-eaters hold in that they have no qualms about eating an animal that only exists as a food item if it were killed by stunning, bleeding and decapitation in that order, with comparatively less pain, than eating something that was probably tortured or had lived in squalid, painful conditions during its life- against a free-range animal that got tricked into walking into an abattoir and got a surprise crack over the head.

Similarly, some people are happy to eat farmed meats, but do not want to eat whale because whales are endangered and it upsets the ecosystem.

Or even culturally, some people prefer to only eat certain animals (nobody growing up in Australia would want to eat a dog or cat, but nobody has a qualm if people in east-asia do breed them for food.
Naturally of course we wouldn't want to export our kitties and puppies over there, because it's against our beliefs, so we simply don't.

Or then again, I could not waste my time explaining people's personal thresholds to someone who really doesn't actually want me to tell them
Posted by King Hazza, Sunday, 12 June 2011 11:48:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*There are only two intellectually honest and consistent positions to take on animal rights*

Not really John, this is where I think that you are confused. If
you are dead, you don't know that you are dead, so it hardly matters.
But if you are alive and suffering, then you are aware of it and
suffering clearly does matter to you.

So it is a quite moral and intellectually honest position to take,
to minimise suffering of both people and other species.

In fact those who we torture most, much to our shame, is our very
own species. We keep them alive, as they gasp for their last
breath. We deny them the right to euthanasia, even when they reckon
that all that suffering does not make life worth living.

Fact is, there is no good reason to make animals suffer, so what
moral position makes you think that you should?

Perhaps you need to rethink your philosophies.
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 12 June 2011 8:45:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Human societies are at different levels in different parts of the world. There are cultures in India that are pure vegetarians and their history shows they have always been that way. There are cultures that practice dog eating and cannibalism even today. These cultures slowly change and people move from one culture to another. It is not all one consciousness in the world.

This argument that cattle are bred to be eaten makes no more sense than the southern farmers in the USA in 1860 saying that nigers were bred to be slaves. Yes, they were bred for that purpose but that does not mean it is a correct purpose.

The Australian society is at a level where the majority will not remain silent about the animals that are born here being sent overseas to be tortured to death in the name of profit. Those people being paid to secure markets for the cattle breeders did a poor job of securing the markets and now they are lost. The cattle will still be sold domestically. If the price goes down just add a tax and use the proceeds to help those poor cattle breeders find a new industry to work in.
Posted by lilasuka, Sunday, 12 June 2011 8:48:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
With all due respect, lilasuka, I don't think your slavery analogy is working out in this case. Whether cattle are bred for eating or run wild and are hunted down, our anatomy indicates that it is 'correct' for us to eat animals. Take a look at the human teeth as compared to, say, the teeth of a rabbit or a cow. Our teeth match other omnivores - we have some teeth for cutting (consider our rabbit-like front teeth), others for chewing (like our particularly bovine molars) and others that are seen elsewhere in carnivores (consider the naming of the 'canines'). We have no reason to be ashamed of eating animals - including cattle. We should, however, be ashamed of torturing them.
Posted by Otokonoko, Sunday, 12 June 2011 9:35:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Otokonoko

Well I think the vote is in concerning the rights of some of our yummy friends, and one thing Sue online said got me thinking. The problem lays with the knowings of how live-stock are processed, and you know the old saying, "what you do see, you'll be none the wiser" and that's pretty will right across the board in a large proportion of anything that humans kill for consumption. True the footage was unacceptably inappropriate, but that's how Indonesian practices have been for 1000's of years.

The omnivore vs vegan argument as to who is right and who is wrong can be argued from a number of different platforms. There is the ethical issue of whether we should eat other animal life, and also the argument as which is 'better for you', based on arguments such as vitamin B12 is not available from a vegan diet. There is even the 'lifestyle' argument: does our lifestyle define our diet?

Read more: http://www.disabled-world.com/fitness/vegetarian/omnivore-vegan.php#ixzz1P4AtPGo7


LEA
Posted by Quantumleap, Sunday, 12 June 2011 11:04:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It wouldn't bother me if all meat was banned from now. Years ago I stopped eating red meat due to a program I saw on ABC TV about the trial of a 'new' method of killing cattle. It was appalling. It didn't get off the ground(as far as I know?) I don't eat pork as I hate the way pregnant sows are treated. I was appalled and disgusted over the scenes on the 4 Corners program. The sound was chilling also!

If the majority insist on eating meat, then we should abide by the correct procedures and make it as painless as possible. This includes not subjecting an animal to watch other tortures prior to his turn - that was stomach churning too.

We have strong laws about cruelty to domestic pets for example; we should adopt the same principles for animals to be slaughtered. Animals should be stunned, so they don't feel any pain. The pain inflicted was just due to unnecessary cruelty - who knows why?

I'd like to see the end of live exports, full stop. It'll only be a matter of time until another situation arises. All those involved, from the farmers onwards must share some responsibility for this situation. And I include all govts involved also! If farmers don't bother to ask questions, that doesn't remove responsibility from their shoulders.

The Indonesian Minister admitted, that the banning is their fault, not ours. They have strong Laws about humane slaughtering - they just didn't bother to ensure that they were carried out. Hopefully, now they will be forced to do this. I understand, that there are 3 months worth of (Aust.)cattle in Indonesia now anyway, so these animals will either be slaughtered or kept in the feed lot areas.

The MLA should have to contribute to the feed for cows awaiting transport now. They were negligent in not enforcing the Laws, and took almost $5 for each animal that was exported. They should all be sacked in my view, and new people employed to do the job properly.
Posted by Liz45, Monday, 13 June 2011 2:56:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
...So over on this thread we have the morality issue in focus. What I conclude from the opposing camp is a morality based on “This goes with that at Susanne’s”. On the one hand, “this” states that (some!) animals in Indonesian abattoirs were killed inhumanly; (and the definition of universally acceptable slaughtering standards are also under debate by the RSPCA I notice). On the other hand, Cattle producers supplying the live trade, trusting the system in place would attend to the details outside the arena of production, and thus outside their expected knowledge, are to be victimised by the power of an elite minority of vegetarians disguised as animal welfare activists, and be singled out for the “goes with that at Susanne’s” side of the morality argument; and can now have their rights to a fair judgement and reasonable consideration shredded in the face of hysterical overreaction and opportunism by the group least effected.

...I was interested to read an article on the subject in last weekends Australian newspaper in which it was alleged that three of the four abattoirs in question were not actually slaughtering Australian cattle at the time the report on four corners was being filmed. So, even the facts presented are to be questioned. But, as they say, don’t let the facts stand in the way of a good story!

...What is at stake here is a whole industry comprising cattle producers and a periphery of associated support industries and individuals who are the immediate losers. An industry valued at 330 million dollars a year to Australia, which now stands idle awaiting a judgement whether their future will be thrown to the wolves by the actions of just another “idiot” fringe element running rampant through the halls of Parliament in Canberra.
Posted by diver dan, Monday, 13 June 2011 11:22:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pelican -- nope. I am saying that if animals don't have the right to life it is hypocritical, dishonest and absurd to say they have the right not to be punched. All honest people know that "not being killed" is more important that "not being punched". I agree we can choose how we treat animals, and I agree it is nice to treat them nicely. But dressing this up in "animal rights" is dishonest.

King Hazza -- I could try to explain to you the difference between animal rights and human preferences... but I won't burden you with those concepts.

Yabby -- I agree that dead people don't mind being dead, but you can't use that as a justification for murder. You are not allowed to kill people because we recognise that humans have a "right to life". Clearly, animals have no such right. Saying that animals have secondary rights (ie "not to be punched") but they don't have fundamental rights (ie "right to life") is hypocritical and absurd.

I agree it is perfectly appropriate to *prefer* to minimise animal suffering. That is a natural human preference that I share, and that's why I don't want to see animal suffering. But it is a personal preference, and not an "animal right". It is appropriate to promote your personal preferences (using voluntary means), but it is not appropriate to enforce you personal preferences on others (using government bans).

(P.S. I agree with you about voluntary euthanasia.)
Posted by John Humphreys, Tuesday, 14 June 2011 6:09:46 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*You are not allowed to kill people because we recognise that humans have a "right to life".*

Yes, John, its a great idea to stop us killing each other. But on
the other hand its fine if we go and kill the other tribe and call
it war. We even get medals if we do.It tends to happen when the
place becomes a little overcrowded with too many people.

So our right to life is limited to certain circumstances.

Animals in fact have a similar problem. Given that herbivores etc
breed far quicker then we do, we could in fact give them the right
to life, which we do to many, but they would soon die from overpopulation. As they are often in our care and their wellbeing
is our responsibility, we don't really like to see them suffering
from starvation, as suffering is far worse then death.

Humans in the short term, have solved the population problem by
simply stealing resources from other species, because we can
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 14 June 2011 6:35:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
lilasuka, "The cattle will still be sold domestically." - there are two issues with this. The first is that these cattle are surplus to Australian market requirements. Most of the cattle bred for export are in northern Australia, and hence are bos indicus. Northern cattlemen might disagree with me, but these tend to make terrible eating by our standards. They are good for hamburgers and thats about it. This means that the market for them here is quite restricted, and a significant price impact will be felt.

The second point is that this price impact will have an effect on not just the exporters but all those in the cattle industry. Farmers who have not connection to export will suffer along with the exporters.

These are the issues that the knee-jerk reaction ignores. I agree that this is far from pleasant (and being an ex-farm girl I am a little more attuned to the laws of nature than those that have grown-up thinking milk comes out of a carton), but over-reacting and damaging not only a sector of an industry but the entire industry is not warranted. There is nothing inherently wrong with the export of animals provided that it is done in a way to minimise animal harm, and all efforts should be directed at ensuring that this is the case.
Posted by Country Gal, Tuesday, 14 June 2011 7:18:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Please, read this link if you are truly interested in both sides of the story.

http://sl.farmonline.com.au/blogs/farmonline-opinion/a-letter-to-four-corners-from-wellard-rural-exports/2193028.aspx
Posted by Country Gal, Wednesday, 15 June 2011 8:56:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy