Kurt Zouma and animal abuse

Discuss anything interesting but not remotely Countdown-related here.

Moderator: Jon O'Neill

Marc Meakin
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 6240
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Kurt Zouma and animal abuse

Post by Marc Meakin »

Callum Todd wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 5:34 pm
Marc Meakin wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 5:21 pm
Callum Todd wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 6:29 am

How about anyone leaving a pig in a gas chamber?

Or, what if the person leaving the dog in the hot car was doing so because they were planning to then butcher the dog's corpse and sell it for meat?


Easy tiger.

Hope you wasn't talking about The Holocaust.
Disclaimer, I'm Jewish so I am allowed to joke about it
No, I was talking about what actually happens to pigs in UK agriculture today. And I wasn't joking.
You did go off topic a bit.
I thought this was a thread about cruelty to pets
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
User avatar
Callum Todd
Series 69 Champion
Posts: 1123
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:38 pm
Location: Leeds

Re: Kurt Zouma and animal abuse

Post by Callum Todd »

It's a thread about cruelty to animals. Specifically it is about the difference in attitude towards cruelty to "pet" animals and cruelty to farmed animals. If you hadn't noticed that then I fear you've missed the point of very nearly all of this thread! So how about it then, if it's wrong to lock a dog in a hot car isn't it wrong to do the same (and worse) to a pig?
Mark Deeks wrote:Callum Todd looks like a young Ted Bundy.
Marc Meakin
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 6240
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Kurt Zouma and animal abuse

Post by Marc Meakin »

Callum Todd wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 5:42 pm It's a thread about cruelty to animals. Specifically it is about w difference in attitude towards cruelty to "pet" animals and cruelty to farmed animals. If you hadn't noticed that then I fear you've missed the point of very nearly all of this thread! So how about it then, if it's wrong to lock a dog in a hot car isn't it wrong to do the same (and worse) to a pig?
I assume that animals are not slaughtered cruelly in this country, outside of Kosher and Halal.
Bottom line is Man is an omnivorous mammal that eats meat, therefore an animal has to die.
How the animal dies is the issue not whether it should die.
Maybe your Grandchildren will grow up in a world that shuns eating meat but I doubt it
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
User avatar
Callum Todd
Series 69 Champion
Posts: 1123
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:38 pm
Location: Leeds

Re: Kurt Zouma and animal abuse

Post by Callum Todd »

Marc Meakin wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 7:12 pm I assume that animals are not slaughtered cruelly in this country, outside of Kosher and Halal.
Sorry but you assume incorrectly. Animals are treated incredibly cruelly, both during and before slaughter, in this country, and not just in Halal and Kosher.
Marc Meakin wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 7:12 pm Bottom line is Man is an omnivorous mammal that eats meat, therefore an animal has to die.
How the animal dies is the issue not whether it should die.
This is untrue. I've already covered why and don't think I need to again.

And remember the main point of this thread: why is it okay to treat traditional farm animals this way but not traditional "pet" animals? If you are okay with the imprisonment and slaughtering of animals for the reasons you have given above, even though those reasons are based on falsehoods, can I assume you'd be okay with cats and dogs joining the cows and pigs in the farms and slaughterhouses? If not, why not? What gives a cat or a dog more moral worth than a cow or a pig?
Mark Deeks wrote:Callum Todd looks like a young Ted Bundy.
User avatar
L'oisleatch McGraw
Devotee
Posts: 930
Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2015 2:46 am
Location: Waterford
Contact:

Re: Kurt Zouma and animal abuse

Post by L'oisleatch McGraw »

Callum Todd wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 8:30 pm What gives a cat or a dog more moral worth than a cow or a pig?
Fluffier & cuter! :mrgreen:
Do I win a prize for getting the right answer?
:arrow: :arrow: :arrow: S:778-ochamp
User avatar
Callum Todd
Series 69 Champion
Posts: 1123
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:38 pm
Location: Leeds

Re: Kurt Zouma and animal abuse

Post by Callum Todd »

L'oisleatch McGraw wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 11:18 pm
Callum Todd wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 8:30 pm What gives a cat or a dog more moral worth than a cow or a pig?
Fluffier & cuter! :mrgreen:
Do I win a prize for getting the right answer?
Fair enough. Enjoy your lamb chop. :(
Mark Deeks wrote:Callum Todd looks like a young Ted Bundy.
Marc Meakin
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 6240
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Kurt Zouma and animal abuse

Post by Marc Meakin »

Would you be happier if we didn't mass produce meat and just hunted for our prey?
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
User avatar
Callum Todd
Series 69 Champion
Posts: 1123
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:38 pm
Location: Leeds

Re: Kurt Zouma and animal abuse

Post by Callum Todd »

Probably as without any sophisticated model I imagine that would result in far less suffering.
Mark Deeks wrote:Callum Todd looks like a young Ted Bundy.
David Williams
Kiloposter
Posts: 1259
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:57 pm

Re: Kurt Zouma and animal abuse

Post by David Williams »

Where do you stand on rats, mosquitoes and locusts?
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13215
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Kurt Zouma and animal abuse

Post by Gavin Chipper »

Other than the obvious answer of "their heads" there is an argument that mosquitos and locusts don't have sophisticated enough nervous systems to be able to suffer much, but rats are mammals and I'd say in a different league from the other two.
Marc Meakin
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 6240
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Kurt Zouma and animal abuse

Post by Marc Meakin »

Gavin Chipper wrote: Thu Aug 18, 2022 6:34 pm Other than the obvious answer of "their heads" there is an argument that mosquitos and locusts don't have sophisticated enough nervous systems to be able to suffer much, but rats are mammals and I'd say in a different league from the other two.
Rats as pets not food.
Insects, apart from bees and butterflies, I'm not keen on insects
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
User avatar
Adam Gillard
Kiloposter
Posts: 1761
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 8:42 pm
Location: About 45 minutes south-east of Thibodaux, Louisiana

Re: Kurt Zouma and animal abuse

Post by Adam Gillard »

Callum Todd wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 8:30 pm
Marc Meakin wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 7:12 pm I assume that animals are not slaughtered cruelly in this country, outside of Kosher and Halal.
Sorry but you assume incorrectly. Animals are treated incredibly cruelly, both during and before slaughter, in this country, and not just in Halal and Kosher.
From what I understand (not first hand!) of Kosher slaughter (Shechitah), animals are often treated cruelly before slaughter but the actual act of slaughter is instantaneous and thereby less cruel than the "stun and then kill" method used elsewhere. At least that's what the propaganda in favour of Shechitah would have me believe.
Mike Brown: "Round 12: T N R S A E I G U

C1: SIGNATURE (18) ["9; not written down"]
C2: SEATING (7)
Score: 108–16 (max 113)

Another niner for Adam and yet another century. Well done, that man."
User avatar
Adam Gillard
Kiloposter
Posts: 1761
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 8:42 pm
Location: About 45 minutes south-east of Thibodaux, Louisiana

Re: Kurt Zouma and animal abuse

Post by Adam Gillard »

Also, as a meat eater I find animals being used for sport more abhorrent than animals being used for food. Especially horse (particularly jump) racing where the horses get injured and are then put down.

I suppose a racing horse does live a fuller life than an animal bred for food in battery-style living conditions though.
Mike Brown: "Round 12: T N R S A E I G U

C1: SIGNATURE (18) ["9; not written down"]
C2: SEATING (7)
Score: 108–16 (max 113)

Another niner for Adam and yet another century. Well done, that man."
User avatar
Callum Todd
Series 69 Champion
Posts: 1123
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:38 pm
Location: Leeds

Re: Kurt Zouma and animal abuse

Post by Callum Todd »

David Williams wrote: Thu Aug 18, 2022 6:14 pm Where do you stand on rats, mosquitoes and locusts?
I assume you mention these three together as they are common 'pest' animals. Otherwise, as Gavin has pointed out, they make for an odd grouping.

When it comes to issues such as pest control and ecosystem management there's a lot more nuance involved. I'll do my best to formulate my approximation of the situation but I'm not claiming to have any expertise in these logistical problems so I'm really not the best person to ask. It's also absolutely critical to note that whatever your opinion on how best to deal with rats, mosquitoes, and locusts, it is still batshit crazy and completely unethical to mass breed pigs, cows, and chickens into a tortured existence only to kill them and eat their corpses just because we can't be arsed to try lentils. So if any of my ideas on pest control sound off to you, no justification or rationale will have therefore been provided for animal agriculture.

Rats and locusts are food pests. They are drawn to human dwellings because of the abundance of food we store. See also: 'mouse plagues' in Australia. So the pest problem is man-made. I think when we find ourselves doing something that attracts pest we should first ask ourselves how we might attract fewer pests rather than just kill them all when they arrive, even if that means poisoning our own food to kill them. I don't have the answers (I don't, someone else probably does) as to how we might do that but vertical farming sounds like it will be a lot better than traditional farming.

Female anopheles mosquitos are vectors of the Plasmodium parasite, which causes malaria. I have read somewhere that there has been a study suggesting that the relationship between Anopheles and Plasmodium may have evolved into a mutually beneficial state (something like infected Anopheles have increased fertility) rather than a case of Plasmodium simply parasitising Anopheles, but if it isn't currently a parasitic relationship it certainly started as one. So the real enemy here is Plasmodium, not Anopheles. It would be great if we could wipe out Plasmodium. I believe a vaccine is at advanced stages of development.

Perhaps until a Malaria vaccine or better methods of farming and food storage that don't attract mice, rats, and locusts are developed, it might be necessary to harm or kill some of those animals in order to protect other animals (in this case mostly humans). I think people often think of veganism as a case of humans vs. animals but it's really about trying to, as far as possible, better the experience of all animals, humans included. If the net result of exterminating some mosquitos is positive once the experience of animals who would otherwise have been infected with Malaria is taken into account, maybe that's the most 'vegan' thing to do in that situation.

But again, and to tie this into the topic of this thread, if it's okay to cull mosquitoes but wrong to kick a cat, it's still wrong to imprison, torture, and kill cows, pigs, and chickens.
Mark Deeks wrote:Callum Todd looks like a young Ted Bundy.
User avatar
Callum Todd
Series 69 Champion
Posts: 1123
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:38 pm
Location: Leeds

Re: Kurt Zouma and animal abuse

Post by Callum Todd »

Adam Gillard wrote: Thu Aug 18, 2022 7:30 pm
Callum Todd wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 8:30 pm
Marc Meakin wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 7:12 pm I assume that animals are not slaughtered cruelly in this country, outside of Kosher and Halal.
Sorry but you assume incorrectly. Animals are treated incredibly cruelly, both during and before slaughter, in this country, and not just in Halal and Kosher.
From what I understand (not first hand!) of Kosher slaughter (Shechitah), animals are often treated cruelly before slaughter but the actual act of slaughter is instantaneous and thereby less cruel than the "stun and then kill" method used elsewhere. At least that's what the propaganda in favour of Shechitah would have me believe.
Thanks Adam for the info on Kosher practices. I'm mostly ignorant of the specifics of Kosher and Halal slaughter, although I hear Halal slaughter is crueller than usual. But obviously the animals live in cruel conditions prior to slaughter however that is done. It's also worth noting that having 'humane' slaughter protocols doesn't mean that animals don't frequently suffer during slaughter. Firstly the definition of 'humane' is often very lax in slaughter regulations, and secondly not all of the stunning/desensitising techniques used are as effective as made out to be, and often go wrong. I read once what proportion of animal stunnings are botched and was horrified. I can't remember the numbers off the top of my head but there is data about this sort of thing so I'm sure anyone interested can look it up.

I'm sorry that my above post appeared to conflate Kosher and Halal slaughter, and imply that they are worse than non-religious slaughter. Whilst I believe that all slaughter is wrong and frequently entails suffering, and that the worst suffering occurs before slaughter anyway, it is incorrect to suggest that all forms of slaughter are equally bad. Apologies if I gave that impression.
Mark Deeks wrote:Callum Todd looks like a young Ted Bundy.
User avatar
Callum Todd
Series 69 Champion
Posts: 1123
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:38 pm
Location: Leeds

Re: Kurt Zouma and animal abuse

Post by Callum Todd »

Adam Gillard wrote: Thu Aug 18, 2022 7:37 pm Also, as a meat eater I find animals being used for sport more abhorrent than animals being used for food. Especially horse (particularly jump) racing where the horses get injured and are then put down.

I suppose a racing horse does live a fuller life than an animal bred for food in battery-style living conditions though.
Yeah this goes back to the point I make about analysing the suffering of the animal from the perspective of the animal rather than from our own. While the apparent purpose behind our rearing of animals for food (even though we absolutely do not need to mistreat animals in order to eat well) offers an illusion of necessity, the use of animals in sport is a pretty blatant admission that we are abusing them solely for our pleasure (although I argue the same is true of food given the readily available plant foods we can have instead).

But once you think about this from the perspective of the animal it all disappears. An animal that is being hurt doesn't much care why the abuser is hurting them. The thought that the abuse is justified because once the abuser has done with the torture they're going to kill and eat the animal won't offer it much solace.
Mark Deeks wrote:Callum Todd looks like a young Ted Bundy.
Fiona T
Kiloposter
Posts: 1447
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:54 pm

Re: Kurt Zouma and animal abuse

Post by Fiona T »

Fluffy bunnies

This one seems weird to me - as a meat eater, I don't see farming rabbits for food any different to farming other animals. And I have had pet rabbits in the past.
Marc Meakin
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 6240
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Kurt Zouma and animal abuse

Post by Marc Meakin »

Have we discussed animal testing on here.
I mean, would we mind if a cure for cancer was found through experimentation?
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
User avatar
Callum Todd
Series 69 Champion
Posts: 1123
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:38 pm
Location: Leeds

Re: Kurt Zouma and animal abuse

Post by Callum Todd »

Mark Deeks wrote:Callum Todd looks like a young Ted Bundy.
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13215
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Kurt Zouma and animal abuse

Post by Gavin Chipper »

Fiona T wrote: Sat Aug 20, 2022 10:17 am Fluffy bunnies

This one seems weird to me - as a meat eater, I don't see farming rabbits for food any different to farming other animals. And I have had pet rabbits in the past.
Yeah, I mean people make exceptions for cats and dogs as well. But looking at the article, it seems there's a bit more to it. The accusation is that they're using a loophole to breed the rabbits for fur, which is illegal. They're claiming to be breeding them primarily for the meat, whereas it seems that this is disputed. Of course, you can also wonder what makes fur especially bad when compared to other animal products. But culturally we seem to have gone that way for some reason.
Marc Meakin wrote: Sat Aug 20, 2022 3:37 pm Have we discussed animal testing on here.
I mean, would we mind if a cure for cancer was found through experimentation?
This did come up briefly here (and maybe elsewhere but I stopped searching):
Gavin Chipper wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 2:01 pm
Marc Meakin wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 12:26 pm As nobody else has said it yet I will do it.
Would you be OK with an animal suffering in order to save your or a loved ones life.
Im talking about testing drugs on animals mainly.
Although i do have a mechanical heart valve, I was originally offered a pig or cows valve so I guess that too
I alluded to it above.
Gavin Chipper wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 10:29 pm But anyway, the question is - should we be allowed to exploit animals in the way we do and just put it down to personal choice? Where to draw the line is very tricky because I'm sure most vegans would even argue that it's OK to use animals to further medical research, for example.
Agreed.
Jack Neal
Rookie
Posts: 40
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2022 4:13 pm

Re: Kurt Zouma and animal abuse

Post by Jack Neal »

Callum Todd wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 7:51 am
Adam Gillard wrote: Thu Aug 18, 2022 7:30 pm
Callum Todd wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 8:30 pm

Sorry but you assume incorrectly. Animals are treated incredibly cruelly, both during and before slaughter, in this country, and not just in Halal and Kosher.
From what I understand (not first hand!) of Kosher slaughter (Shechitah), animals are often treated cruelly before slaughter but the actual act of slaughter is instantaneous and thereby less cruel than the "stun and then kill" method used elsewhere. At least that's what the propaganda in favour of Shechitah would have me believe.
Thanks Adam for the info on Kosher practices. I'm mostly ignorant of the specifics of Kosher and Halal slaughter, although I hear Halal slaughter is crueller than usual. But obviously the animals live in cruel conditions prior to slaughter however that is done. It's also worth noting that having 'humane' slaughter protocols doesn't mean that animals don't frequently suffer during slaughter. Firstly the definition of 'humane' is often very lax in slaughter regulations, and secondly not all of the stunning/desensitising techniques used are as effective as made out to be, and often go wrong. I read once what proportion of animal stunnings are botched and was horrified. I can't remember the numbers off the top of my head but there is data about this sort of thing so I'm sure anyone interested can look it up.

I'm sorry that my above post appeared to conflate Kosher and Halal slaughter, and imply that they are worse than non-religious slaughter. Whilst I believe that all slaughter is wrong and frequently entails suffering, and that the worst suffering occurs before slaughter anyway, it is incorrect to suggest that all forms of slaughter are equally bad. Apologies if I gave that impression.
Callum as a non-vegan you seem to be trying to force your rabbit food on us, you're vegan and I respect that but it is a free country (at least it was the last time I checked) but you also need to understand that some of us enjoy animal products You clearly care about the environment and so do I but you seem to be acting radicalist. So let me ask you 2 questions:

1: Fact - Methane emmisons from cow farming (farting) are proven to be less toxic/noxious than the emissions from say aeroplanes (used to import vegan products) and cars. Do you understand that your carbon footprint as a vegan is probably more than that of a non vegan, or are you a one of those freaks that block the motorways and glues themselves to planes?
2: Would you be happier if we only consumed animals that died naturally? (which wouldn't be feasible unless everyone bought 20 chickens or 4 pigs a month)

I'm sorry but you're living in cloud cookoo land with your policies. You make Kier Starmer look intelligent (and i'm a conservative).
Marc Meakin
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 6240
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Kurt Zouma and animal abuse

Post by Marc Meakin »

Grabs popcorn
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
User avatar
Callum Todd
Series 69 Champion
Posts: 1123
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:38 pm
Location: Leeds

Re: Kurt Zouma and animal abuse

Post by Callum Todd »

Sorry I don't respond to trolls. Though it's good to know that "non-vegans" never use cars or aeroplanes, or anything transported by them :)
Mark Deeks wrote:Callum Todd looks like a young Ted Bundy.
Jack Neal
Rookie
Posts: 40
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2022 4:13 pm

Re: Kurt Zouma and animal abuse

Post by Jack Neal »

It wasn't 'euthanasia' (which like abortion im 100% against in any form). Human life comes before animal welfare and this walrus provided a threat to human life.
Jack Neal
Rookie
Posts: 40
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2022 4:13 pm

Re: Kurt Zouma and animal abuse

Post by Jack Neal »

Callum Todd wrote: Mon Aug 22, 2022 5:46 am Sorry I don't respond to trolls. Though it's good to know that "non-vegans" never use cars or aeroplanes, or anything transported by them :)
I never said that we don't, we DO. It was just a figure of speech to make you understand how stupid you sound. More meat is UK reared compared to vegan products. BTW maybe I was abit wrong to call it rabbit food? but hey-ho I did :o.
Fiona T
Kiloposter
Posts: 1447
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:54 pm

Re: Kurt Zouma and animal abuse

Post by Fiona T »

Just saw stuff about Rhino IVF on telly

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-w ... e-59375030

Is impregnating surrogate rhinos (and harvesting eggs and presumably sperm) to save a species worse/better/justified than similar procedures with cows etc? To use Callum's argument, from the animal's point of view the motive doesn't matter.
User avatar
Callum Todd
Series 69 Champion
Posts: 1123
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:38 pm
Location: Leeds

Re: Kurt Zouma and animal abuse

Post by Callum Todd »

This raises a really interesting debate around conversationism. At Co:London this year a couple of people approached me to talk about this c4c thread (which appeared to have reached the attention of more people than I had realised!) and one of them made the point that endangered species get preferential treatment compared to comparable non-endangered species.

From the perspective of enhancing the experience and reducing the suffering of sentient beings, the experience of an endangered animal isn't necessarily more valuable than the experience of a non-endangered animal. We agreed, for example, that it would be better to save the lives of five brown bears rather than one giant panda, yet far more attention and resource is directed to the protection of giant pandas compared to brown bears.

I think there's a point to be made about how biodiversity benefits an ecosystem so extinction of one species can have a negative impact on the experience of other animals in that ecosystem.

Certainly the idea of a species going extinct is really sad but I think the most important thing to think about during any dilemma regarding human intervention in other animals' business is to view the problem from the animals' perspective rather than thinking of them as a human commodity.

In the case of IVF for rhinos, it's likely the rhinos having gametes collected/reinserted into them will probably be abused in the process. Do the benefits outweigh the harms? I'm not sure, it's a difficult question, but the answer will be found in thinking about the benefits and harms to the rhinos, not to humans.
Mark Deeks wrote:Callum Todd looks like a young Ted Bundy.
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13215
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Kurt Zouma and animal abuse

Post by Gavin Chipper »

Yeah, I'd largely agree with Callum. Not everything should be viewed purely from the human viewpoint. Obviously certain species are important because of their role in the ecosystem, and losing them would have knock-on effects, but simply saving a species for its own sake and not bothering about saving an equal number of animals from a non-endangered species is really only looking at things from our perspective. And it should be pointed out that the world has been short on pandas for years, so the chances are they're not essential in the general scheme of things. Having said that, our own perspective is not irrelevant. The loss of species is sad for us and that still counts for something even if it's not the single biggest thing to consider.
User avatar
L'oisleatch McGraw
Devotee
Posts: 930
Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2015 2:46 am
Location: Waterford
Contact:

Re: Kurt Zouma and animal abuse

Post by L'oisleatch McGraw »

Gavin Chipper wrote: Mon Aug 22, 2022 3:55 pm but simply saving a species for its own sake and not bothering about saving an equal number of animals from a non-endangered species is really only looking at things from our perspective.
Christ, can ye get any more tedious on this thread?
If some of the comments here were read out as part of a bit on 8 out of 10 Cats, people wouldn't believe they were real.
:arrow: :arrow: :arrow: S:778-ochamp
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13215
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Kurt Zouma and animal abuse

Post by Gavin Chipper »

L'oisleatch McGraw wrote: Mon Aug 22, 2022 4:12 pm
Gavin Chipper wrote: Mon Aug 22, 2022 3:55 pm but simply saving a species for its own sake and not bothering about saving an equal number of animals from a non-endangered species is really only looking at things from our perspective.
Christ, can ye get any more tedious on this thread?
If some of the comments here were read out as part of a bit on 8 out of 10 Cats, people wouldn't believe they were real.
Don't join in the discussion if it doesn't interest you. I was responding to a discussion with a relevant post. Do you disagree with anything or just find it tedious?
User avatar
L'oisleatch McGraw
Devotee
Posts: 930
Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2015 2:46 am
Location: Waterford
Contact:

Re: Kurt Zouma and animal abuse

Post by L'oisleatch McGraw »

Just find it tedious... but had to comment to let ye know that it had become SO tedious, it is now verging on comedy gold.
There's a fine line.
:arrow: :arrow: :arrow: S:778-ochamp
Fiona T
Kiloposter
Posts: 1447
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:54 pm

Re: Kurt Zouma and animal abuse

Post by Fiona T »

I do disagree strongly on this - I think we should be doing everything we can to save endangered species. I'd far rather one white rhino was saved than 1,000,000 rabbits.
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13215
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Kurt Zouma and animal abuse

Post by Gavin Chipper »

Fiona T wrote: Mon Aug 22, 2022 5:11 pm I do disagree strongly on this - I think we should be doing everything we can to save endangered species. I'd far rather one white rhino was saved than 1,000,000 rabbits.
I think most people would probably agree with you anyway. But can it be justified on grounds that don't concern our own interests? Is there something higher about not letting a whole species disappear?
User avatar
Callum Todd
Series 69 Champion
Posts: 1123
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:38 pm
Location: Leeds

Re: Kurt Zouma and animal abuse

Post by Callum Todd »

Basically what Gavin said. I have the same inclination as you Fiona, but when I think about it I cannot for the life of me think of any rational justification for it. Is species a relevant distinction for the moral worth of individual experience? Would we save one white rhino rather than 1,000,000 humans?
Mark Deeks wrote:Callum Todd looks like a young Ted Bundy.
Elliott Mellor
Devotee
Posts: 924
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2016 12:42 pm

Re: Kurt Zouma and animal abuse

Post by Elliott Mellor »

Callum Todd wrote: Mon Aug 22, 2022 8:15 pm Basically what Gavin said. I have the same inclination as you Fiona, but when I think about it I cannot for the life of me think of any rational justification for it. Is species a relevant distinction for the moral worth of individual experience? Would we save one white rhino rather than 1,000,000 humans?
Without trying to commit to a viewpoint one way or another, I think there's a definite factor of "overall benefit to survival". 1000000 human lives are, objectively, far more valuable than 1000000 rabbit lives (going by the metric of contribution to the earth - a rabbit isn't going to develop cures for diseases - human or animal, for instance) so I'm not sure it's an entirely parallel comparison from that angle (which I would argue is a rational angle - if you could save either a human or a rabbit from a burning building etc).

With regards to humans vs white rhinos, there are about 8 billion humans and a handful of white rhinos, so I could possibly see the viewpoint of saving the white rhino over the humans in the interests of conservationism, but it's a much less clear-cut judgment than Fiona's example. You're sort of delving in to the trolley problem with scenarios like this - how many human lives are worth one white rhino life? 1? 100? 1000000?

Raising the argument of individual experience as opposed to societal value is an interesting take, but how do you judge individual experience? Many species are entirely focused on survival, and there is no real allocation for "having a good experience" nor any evidence that they enjoy their existence, so it's hard to say that their worth on any level is comparable to that of far more sophisticated species, so I'd say that it's probably reasonable to say that the worth of an individual varies depending on species.

What's your opinion on keeping pets?
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13215
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Kurt Zouma and animal abuse

Post by Gavin Chipper »

Elliott Mellor wrote: Tue Aug 23, 2022 10:56 am
Callum Todd wrote: Mon Aug 22, 2022 8:15 pm Basically what Gavin said. I have the same inclination as you Fiona, but when I think about it I cannot for the life of me think of any rational justification for it. Is species a relevant distinction for the moral worth of individual experience? Would we save one white rhino rather than 1,000,000 humans?
Without trying to commit to a viewpoint one way or another, I think there's a definite factor of "overall benefit to survival". 1000000 human lives are, objectively, far more valuable than 1000000 rabbit lives (going by the metric of contribution to the earth - a rabbit isn't going to develop cures for diseases - human or animal, for instance) so I'm not sure it's an entirely parallel comparison from that angle (which I would argue is a rational angle - if you could save either a human or a rabbit from a burning building etc).
You could also argue the opposite and say that a rabbit isn't going to lead to death and destruction of the planet in the same way that a human might. Also valuing life in terms of how likely it is to come up with ways of saving lives seems a bit circular. I don't think the planet would suffer too much if humans (or animals generally) suddenly ceased to exist in any case.
With regards to humans vs white rhinos, there are about 8 billion humans and a handful of white rhinos, so I could possibly see the viewpoint of saving the white rhino over the humans in the interests of conservationism, but it's a much less clear-cut judgment than Fiona's example. You're sort of delving in to the trolley problem with scenarios like this - how many human lives are worth one white rhino life? 1? 100? 1000000?
This is interesting, but I think under Harambe rules, one human would trump one white rhino.
What's your opinion on keeping pets?
Personally I think it's slightly nuts, but not for any ethical reasons. Though I could also discuss that too at some point.
User avatar
Callum Todd
Series 69 Champion
Posts: 1123
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:38 pm
Location: Leeds

Re: Kurt Zouma and animal abuse

Post by Callum Todd »

Elliott Mellor wrote: Tue Aug 23, 2022 10:56 am You're sort of delving in to the trolley problem with scenarios like this - how many human lives are worth one white rhino life? 1? 100? 1000000?
I do love a good trolley problem!
Elliott Mellor wrote: Tue Aug 23, 2022 10:56 am Raising the argument of individual experience as opposed to societal value is an interesting take, but how do you judge individual experience? Many species are entirely focused on survival, and there is no real allocation for "having a good experience" nor any evidence that they enjoy their existence, so it's hard to say that their worth on any level is comparable to that of far more sophisticated species, so I'd say that it's probably reasonable to say that the worth of an individual varies depending on species.
For most recognisable animal species (certainly mammals, fish, and birds) it's pretty clear they are able to suffer, e.g. By feeling pain, and for many of them clear that they are able to have positive experience. The evidence for this is in their behaviour and also in many neurological studies. I've heard it suggested that maybe some smaller animals in particular, such as insects, might be mere 'automata' and don't really have subjective experience but I'm doubtful of this view. After all it was held until relatively recent about all non-human animals. Also certainly for pretty much all mammals and some other animals there is evidence for social and emotional intelligence, particularly in cows and pigs. It is well documented how much a mother cow and her calf suffer mentally when they are separated by dairy farmers.

So it's not complicated or controversial to say that, if one's ethics are based at all on the belief that suffering is bad, it is morally wrong to hurt an animal.
Mark Deeks wrote:Callum Todd looks like a young Ted Bundy.
User avatar
Callum Todd
Series 69 Champion
Posts: 1123
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:38 pm
Location: Leeds

Re: Kurt Zouma and animal abuse

Post by Callum Todd »

Elliott Mellor wrote: Tue Aug 23, 2022 10:56 amWhat's your opinion on keeping pets?
I've started (and will at some point finish) writing a detailed answer to this question but in the meantime, I just found when scanning through the earlier posts in this thread that I've already given a brief answer to basically the same question:
Callum Todd wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 7:13 pm
Marc Meakin wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 10:38 am Is feeding your cat or dog vegan food only tantamount to animal abuse?
Is keeping a pet also cruel?
Just keeping the conversation going, albeit going off on a Meakinesque tangent.
The issue of whether or not to keep pets, and how to treat and particularly feed them if so, while adhering to a vegan philosophy is a really fascinating one. I know most vegans who have pets prefer to call them 'animal companions' as they consider the idea of 'pets' to be linked to ownership and subordination.

Personally I don't have an 'animal companion' although the cat and dog I lived with before moving out still live at my mum's house and I enjoy spending time with them whenever I go round to visit my mum. If I ever wished to get an animal companion I would treat it as a huge responsibility, akin to having a child. I thinkl there's actually a lot of similarities between the debates on keeping pets and having children, with the 'no pets' argument being closely related to antinatalism, and there's also a pretty big debate on how vegans should feed their (human!) babies, similar to the debate on how to feed cats and dogs.

Certainly the animals that were killed to produce meaty cat/dog food suffered an awful lot, so I think this links nicely to Charlie's point about equating for pleasure, although in this case we're considering both the pleasure the human derives from animal companionship, and the pleasure the cat/dog gets from their food.

P.S. love the use of 'Meakinesque' :)
Also found I've already invoked trolley problems on this thread! (as well as the multiple times I've been tempted to do so but refrained):
Callum Todd wrote: Thu Feb 24, 2022 6:29 am [...] just because an animal might deserve less consideration than another animal, that doesn't mean it deserves no consideration, or that any cruel treatment of it is fair game. I think the Kurt Zouma case is clear evidence of 'speciesism'. His cat's suffering was deemed unacceptabe by a population that routinely pays for other (likely more sentient) animals to suffer to a greater extent.

Any fans of the 'trolley problem' might be interested to frame this question as such.That would be an interesting way of framing Marc's earlier question too:
Marc Meakin wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 12:26 pm Would you be OK with an animal suffering in order to save your or a loved ones life.
Do you pull the lever to kill one person instead of killing five? How about one cow instead of one human? Or ten cows instead of one human? Or fifty cats? Or 2000 fish?
Mark Deeks wrote:Callum Todd looks like a young Ted Bundy.
User avatar
Callum Todd
Series 69 Champion
Posts: 1123
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:38 pm
Location: Leeds

Re: Kurt Zouma and animal abuse

Post by Callum Todd »

Elliott Mellor wrote: Tue Aug 23, 2022 10:56 amWhat's your opinion on keeping pets?
This is really quite complicated. Sorry to issue the same old disclaimer again but on any of the more nuanced topics that cross into animal 'rights' rather than just animal welfare and basic morality I feel it's important to stress this: this is a nuanced topic, I am offering my opinion on it and you may disagree. I certainly have a lot of thinking and learning left to do on it. But if you disagree with me, or even if I'm flat out wrong, on these more complicated questions, that doesn't mean the basics of my philosophy with regards to animal welfare are wrong too. Maybe I'm wrong about the nuances of what one's attitude should be towards a beloved family dog. That doesn't mean it's okay to gas pigs or slit cows' throats so that we can eat their corpses instead of any of the other readily available tasty and nutritious food that doesn't entail such wanton violence. Anyway, with that said...

In most cases, 'pet' animals such as cats and dogs are very happy and live great lives full of love and joy and relative luxury. Therefore it's quite hard to make any serious ethical objection to "keeping pets" based on a philosophy of enhancing individual experience and reducing suffering, so far as that individual "pet" animal is concerned.

However, I think there are two main problems with "keeping pets", or at least with the commonly held attitude towards this practice. The first is a consequential ethical one and the second is more philosophical.

Firstly, while 'your' "pet" might be happy and have a great life, there might be other animals who have their lot in life greatly reduced as a result of your "keeping pets".

The most obvious way this happens is to the animals 'your' "pet" animal eats. I have seen meatless "pet" food out there so maybe cats and dogs, just like humans, don't need to eat other animals to be healthy but I don't know enough about this to be sure. If they do, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't as you're either paying for farm animals to be tortured and killed to feed 'your' "pet" animal, or you're being cruel to 'your' "pet" by not giving them the food they need. If cats and dogs don't need to eat animal protein to be healthy then this problem could be negated so long as you feed them exclusively plant foods. But of course most "pets" do eat other animals. People who 'keep' "pet" snakes often even feed live mice or rats to the snake. These mice and rats are bred into existence purely to be used as "pet" food, which is obviously very cruel, no matter how nicely you treat 'your' beloved "pet" snake. Also, domestic cats are notorious for causing devastation to local mice and birds. The common defence of this behaviour is that it's 'natural', which of course it is from the cat's perspective, but for the birds and mice it is not at all natural for a fearsome predator to be artificially placed in their environment, in which that predator is themself artificially safe from predation in turn.

So while we greatly care for 'our' cats and dogs (and snakes), our proliferation of these species comes at the expense of other species (birds, mice, and the animals whose corpses are contained in "pet" foods) and certainly causes a net increase in suffering, despite how pleasant things may be for the "pet" animal.

But it's not just other species that suffer from our "keeping pets"': other cats and dogs suffer as a result of this practice too. If you buy an animal from a breeder rather than adopt from a sanctuary, that creates all sorts of problems. There are more than enough cats and dogs around to meet human demand for "pet" animals. The excess animals are 'destroyed' or left to fend for themselves on the streets. Buying from a breeder causes more of these animals to be bred into existence, thus increasing - or at least failing to reduce - the number of excess animals, thus allowing more suffering to take place.

And while there are plenty of nice people out there who care for the animals they breed, animals bred for the "pet" trade are selected for their desirable traits, often to an extent that is detrimental to the health and experience of the animal. For an example, look up how the ridiculously enlarged heads of bulldogs now mean most of them cannot be born naturally and instead have to be delivered by Caesarean section, or how the foldy faces of pugs cause them severe breathing problems. These traits have been selected for by breeders because they are 'attractive' to humans, even though they cause the animals to suffer. It's not just farm animals who are bred to be profitable Frankensteins at the expense of their wellbeing, "pet" animals are too.

Which leads into the second, more philosophical, objection to "keeping pets": a sentient being is not a commodity to be traded, toy to be enjoyed, or property to be owned, by someone else. Animals (human or otherwise) are not here for your entertainment. Selective breeding is the grotesquely perfect example of how deeply we have misunderstood this principle in regards to non-human animals. Even when we claim to love them, we breed traits into them that cause them to suffer just because of the pleasure we gain from the appearance of their face or taste of their flesh.

My objection to the idea that one sentient being can be owned by, or exist for the entertainment of, another is why I have put quotation marks or inverted commas around phrases such as "pet", "your", and "keep(ing)" throughout this post. I don't believe any of our fellow animals can be 'yours' or 'mine', that we can "keep" them, and believe that the word "pet" implies a relationship defined by dominion or at least servitude. For this reason I prefer the term 'companion (animal)'.

So living with and caring for (not "keeping") a companion animal (not "pet") is to me something that requires a lot of very serious ethical and philosophical consideration. To do so without such prior consideration likely means you will be causing a significant amount of suffering, if not to your companion animal then to numerous other animals. That's why I have said before that I think the decision to acquire and care for a companion animal is to me very similar to the decision to acquire and care for a human child.

Essentially, you should treat a relationship with a non-human animal as you should treat a relationship with a human. It should be mutually beneficial to both parties within the relationship. If one party within a relationship, particularly the party that holds more influence or power, exploits the other party for pleasure at their expense, that is an abusive relationship. Similar to with young children, because of the relative lower intelligence capability of non-human animals you will naturally take on a great deal of responsibility when entering into a relationship with one. You will be responsible both for their care and wellbeing, and for not allowing the needs or behaviour of the animal to bring harm to others (e.g. through what they eat).
Mark Deeks wrote:Callum Todd looks like a young Ted Bundy.
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13215
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Kurt Zouma and animal abuse

Post by Gavin Chipper »

I largely agree with that, Callum.
Callum Todd wrote: Tue Aug 23, 2022 2:55 pm
Which leads into the second, more philosophical, objection to "keeping pets": a sentient being is not a commodity to be traded, toy to be enjoyed, or property to be owned, by someone else. Animals (human or otherwise) are not here for your entertainment. Selective breeding is the grotesquely perfect example of how deeply we have misunderstood this principle in regards to non-human animals. Even when we claim to love them, we breed traits into them that cause them to suffer just because of the pleasure we gain from the appearance of their face or taste of their flesh.
I think it's the more philosophical reasons that make people more inclined to save an animal from an endangered species, especially if the species is endangered because of human actions. It's all related to the view that we shouldn't be "messing with nature", and it looks really bad if we've made a species go extinct.

You could argue from a suffering/pleasure perspective, the best thing to do is to put all animals into futuristic zoos where their needs are all catered for (futuristic because I'm unclear exactly how all animals fare in current zoos), and have no wild animals, but I think most people would view this as an abomination against all that is good.

And of course, you could go further and just say you should wire up everyone's brains into some pleasure system and we never have to worry about anything again.

So these are all reasons why perhaps taking a wider philosophical approach rather than a pure utilitarian or indeed hedonistic one might have some merit.
User avatar
Callum Todd
Series 69 Champion
Posts: 1123
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:38 pm
Location: Leeds

Re: Kurt Zouma and animal abuse

Post by Callum Todd »

Gavin Chipper wrote: Tue Aug 23, 2022 4:24 pm You could argue from a suffering/pleasure perspective, the best thing to do is to put all animals into futuristic zoos where their needs are all catered for (futuristic because I'm unclear exactly how all animals fare in current zoos), and have no wild animals, but I think most people would view this as an abomination against all that is good.

And of course, you could go further and just say you should wire up everyone's brains into some pleasure system and we never have to worry about anything again.

So these are all reasons why perhaps taking a wider philosophical approach rather than a pure utilitarian or indeed hedonistic one might have some merit.
And now we're into real philosophical territory: what gives us purpose? what is meaning? I'm enraptured by these questions. Personally I find meaning through ethics, as alluded to in my earliest posts in this thread:
Callum Todd wrote: Wed Feb 09, 2022 6:32 pm Individual human beings can change their behaviour in a way that will reduce the suffering of their sentient cousins. Isn't this what gives our lives meaning?! We are all individuals encountering suffering in the world. Reduce it. Do you have anything better to do?! This individual doesn't.
But digging deeper into the ethics has lead us back to the philosophical question of meaning and purpose!
Last edited by Callum Todd on Tue Aug 23, 2022 5:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mark Deeks wrote:Callum Todd looks like a young Ted Bundy.
Marc Meakin
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 6240
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Kurt Zouma and animal abuse

Post by Marc Meakin »

Have we discussed the circle of life and animals that eat prey.
We can't stop that can we its nature
Man hunting prey should also be considered natural.
Ie fishing for food and shooting prey or trapping them.
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
User avatar
Callum Todd
Series 69 Champion
Posts: 1123
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:38 pm
Location: Leeds

Re: Kurt Zouma and animal abuse

Post by Callum Todd »

Marc Meakin wrote: Tue Aug 23, 2022 5:41 pm Have we discussed the circle of life and animals that eat prey.
We can't stop that can we its nature
Man hunting prey should also be considered natural.
Ie fishing for food and shooting prey or trapping them.
Modern humans have the capability to choose to not act in accordance with their "nature". There are lots of horrible violent things that it is "natural" for us to do. Many people do some of these things, and we send them to prison and call them monsters. We don't accept their behaviour just because it's natural; we condemn it because it causes harm and they are capable of choosing not to do these things. Violence towards non-human animals is another of these things.
Mark Deeks wrote:Callum Todd looks like a young Ted Bundy.
User avatar
L'oisleatch McGraw
Devotee
Posts: 930
Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2015 2:46 am
Location: Waterford
Contact:

Re: Kurt Zouma and animal abuse

Post by L'oisleatch McGraw »

Callum Todd wrote: Tue Aug 23, 2022 5:47 pm Modern humans have the capability to choose to not act in accordance with their "nature".
But why should we?
We are a just another species, with certain natural programming.
Needlessly acting against what is natural for us, may go a long way toward explaining the skyrocketing levels of anxiety & depression.

We do our best to try and be nice, and that's enough.
Many of your suggestions on this thread are not reasonable, given the limitations of the human race, and what these particular animals require in order to live happy well adjusted lives.
:arrow: :arrow: :arrow: S:778-ochamp
User avatar
Callum Todd
Series 69 Champion
Posts: 1123
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:38 pm
Location: Leeds

Re: Kurt Zouma and animal abuse

Post by Callum Todd »

L'oisleatch McGraw wrote: Tue Aug 23, 2022 5:54 pm But why should we?
We are a just another species, with certain natural programming.
Needlessly acting against what is natural for us, may go a long way toward explaining the skyrocketing levels of anxiety & depression.
Are you referring here only to our natural inclination towards interspecies violence, or would you use this reasoning to justify types of intraspecies violence also? If you think this justification only applies to interspecies and not intraspecies violence, please could you explain why?
L'oisleatch McGraw wrote: Tue Aug 23, 2022 5:54 pm We do our best to try and be nice, and that's enough.
Many of your suggestions on this thread are not reasonable, given the limitations of the human race, and what these particular animals require in order to live happy well adjusted lives.
Please could you give an example of an unreasonable suggestion I have made and explain why it is unreasonable in light of a limitation of humans?

And what is it that these animals require in order to live happy well adjusted lives, and that I am seeking to deprive them of?
Mark Deeks wrote:Callum Todd looks like a young Ted Bundy.
Marc Meakin
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 6240
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Kurt Zouma and animal abuse

Post by Marc Meakin »

You wouldn't deny a bird of prey the right to kill a rodent or a lion to kill a zebra
Why shouldnt a man be alloeed kill a wild boar in order to feed his family?
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
Elliott Mellor
Devotee
Posts: 924
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2016 12:42 pm

Re: Kurt Zouma and animal abuse

Post by Elliott Mellor »

Callum Todd wrote: Tue Aug 23, 2022 2:55 pm
Elliott Mellor wrote: Tue Aug 23, 2022 10:56 amWhat's your opinion on keeping pets?

The most obvious way this happens is to the animals 'your' "pet" animal eats. I have seen meatless "pet" food out there so maybe cats and dogs, just like humans, don't need to eat other animals to be healthy but I don't know enough about this to be sure. If they do, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't as you're either paying for farm animals to be tortured and killed to feed 'your' "pet" animal, or you're being cruel to 'your' "pet" by not giving them the food they need. If cats and dogs don't need to eat animal protein to be healthy then this problem could be negated so long as you feed them exclusively plant foods. But of course most "pets" do eat other animals. People who 'keep' "pet" snakes often even feed live mice or rats to the snake. These mice and rats are bred into existence purely to be used as "pet" food, which is obviously very cruel, no matter how nicely you treat 'your' beloved "pet" snake. Also, domestic cats are notorious for causing devastation to local mice and birds. The common defence of this behaviour is that it's 'natural', which of course it is from the cat's perspective, but for the birds and mice it is not at all natural for a fearsome predator to be artificially placed in their environment, in which that predator is themself artificially safe from predation in turn.

I'm not really sure I agree with all of this. If all pet cats were released completely in to the wild, they'd cause far, far more devastation to mice and birds. Birds and mice and simply further down the food chain than cats - it's completely natural. Stray cats live exclusively off prey that they kill, and they'd probably live in much the same habitats as that which a pet cat will prowl in. Furthering this points, what do you think of all the other things that are artificially placed in the environments of creatures - cars are responsible for a lot of animal deaths and most definitely aren't natural.

I'm quite invested in your reasoning in this thread, and I respect that you're confident enough to put your opinion out, so kudos for that. I'll respond in more detail to other parts, but I wanted to query this first.
User avatar
Callum Todd
Series 69 Champion
Posts: 1123
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:38 pm
Location: Leeds

Re: Kurt Zouma and animal abuse

Post by Callum Todd »

Marc Meakin wrote: Tue Aug 23, 2022 6:39 pm You wouldn't deny a bird of prey the right to kill a rodent or a lion to kill a zebra
Why shouldnt a man be alloeed kill a wild boar in order to feed his family?
A bird of prey or a lion doesn't have the intellectual capacity, or the societal support, to decide to do otherwise.

A man is (barring some sort of extreme circumstance that I can't even imagine off the top of my head) capable of finding a different source of food to feed his family without inflicting pain upon or killing a fellow sentient being.
Mark Deeks wrote:Callum Todd looks like a young Ted Bundy.
User avatar
Callum Todd
Series 69 Champion
Posts: 1123
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:38 pm
Location: Leeds

Re: Kurt Zouma and animal abuse

Post by Callum Todd »

Elliott Mellor wrote: Tue Aug 23, 2022 7:24 pm If all pet cats were released completely in to the wild, they'd cause far, far more devastation to mice and birds. Birds and mice and simply further down the food chain than cats - it's completely natural. Stray cats live exclusively off prey that they kill, and they'd probably live in much the same habitats as that which a pet cat will prowl in.
Two points to this:

1) Yes, if all "pet" cats currently in existence were released simultaneously tomorrow, it would be chaos. I am not arguing for this to happen. If, rather, we stopped breeding new cats purely as a source of profit/entertainment for humans, then there would be fewer cats around and therefore less devastation to mice and birds.

2) At the individual level it is perfectly natural for a cat that finds itself in an ecosystem containing mice and birds to predate upon those mice and birds. But zoom out a bit and you see the situation we have is not "completely natural". A completely natural ecosystem would contain:
The number of cats that are born by natural breeding - the number of cats that are killed by larger predators
Instead we have:
The number of cats that are born by natural breeding + the number of cats born by artificial (human-driven) breeding.
Human interference in the ecosystem has radically disrupted this food chain by introducing far more cats than would naturally be present, and removing predators that would naturally be present and potentially predate cats.
Human desire for pleasure through the exploitation of cats has led to an unnatural proliferation of cats which has led to an unnatural increase in the suffering of animals below cats in the food chain.
Elliott Mellor wrote: Tue Aug 23, 2022 7:24 pm Furthering this points, what do you think of all the other things that are artificially placed in the environments of creatures - cars are responsible for a lot of animal deaths and most definitely aren't natural.
This is a brilliant question and is something I have previously recognised as the weakest part in the chain of logic supporting my convictions. I think this is point at which if you dig deep enough you reach the philosophical quandary alluded to above. I'll try answer it when I have more time (hopefully tomorrow) as it's a big one to think about and, although I've spent plenty of time thinking about it already, it will take some time to organise those thoughts into words fit for sharing with other people. Preemptively it's enough to make me feel the need to repeat my disclaimer that we're into more nuanced territory now and there's a good chance I'm about to make a shitty argument. Nonetheless, me being wrong in the following argument doesn't mean therefore I must have been wrong about everything I said beforehand and therefore it's okay to torture and kill sentient animals so that we can eat their flesh instead of a sweet potato.

Or I could wake up tomorrow and see that Gavin has already thought of a much better answer than I can and posted that, as he has done several times already in this thread, and that'll save me the job of trying to organise my mangled thoughts into words. Come on Gavin, I'm counting on you.
Mark Deeks wrote:Callum Todd looks like a young Ted Bundy.
User avatar
L'oisleatch McGraw
Devotee
Posts: 930
Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2015 2:46 am
Location: Waterford
Contact:

Re: Kurt Zouma and animal abuse

Post by L'oisleatch McGraw »

Callum Todd wrote: Tue Aug 23, 2022 8:33 pm Nonetheless, me being wrong in the following argument doesn't mean therefore I must have been wrong about everything I said beforehand
Let's not discount the very real possibility that you are wrong in everything you said beforehand.
Gotta keep our options open here.
:arrow: :arrow: :arrow: S:778-ochamp
Elliott Mellor
Devotee
Posts: 924
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2016 12:42 pm

Re: Kurt Zouma and animal abuse

Post by Elliott Mellor »

Callum Todd wrote: Tue Aug 23, 2022 8:33 pm
Elliott Mellor wrote: Tue Aug 23, 2022 7:24 pm If all pet cats were released completely in to the wild, they'd cause far, far more devastation to mice and birds. Birds and mice and simply further down the food chain than cats - it's completely natural. Stray cats live exclusively off prey that they kill, and they'd probably live in much the same habitats as that which a pet cat will prowl in.
Two points to this:

1) Yes, if all "pet" cats currently in existence were released simultaneously tomorrow, it would be chaos. I am not arguing for this to happen. If, rather, we stopped breeding new cats purely as a source of profit/entertainment for humans, then there would be fewer cats around and therefore less devastation to mice and birds.

2) At the individual level it is perfectly natural for a cat that finds itself in an ecosystem containing mice and birds to predate upon those mice and birds. But zoom out a bit and you see the situation we have is not "completely natural". A completely natural ecosystem would contain:
The number of cats that are born by natural breeding - the number of cats that are killed by larger predators
Instead we have:
The number of cats that are born by natural breeding + the number of cats born by artificial (human-driven) breeding.
Human interference in the ecosystem has radically disrupted this food chain by introducing far more cats than would naturally be present, and removing predators that would naturally be present and potentially predate cats.
Human desire for pleasure through the exploitation of cats has led to an unnatural proliferation of cats which has led to an unnatural increase in the suffering of animals below cats in the food chain.
I'm not sure that's *quite* correct. Without the interference, you'd (in my opinion) actually have more cats being born because you'd have millions of unneutered horny cats roaming around, which would (if true, and I concede that I'm basing this on intuition) inevitably lead to far fewer mice and birds, as a result of the desperation for food. If this hypothesis is true, it leads you to having to choose between an acceptable level of meddling/neutering in order to lower the threat that cats pose naturally to birds/mice, or deciding that you're okay with letting the cats have a much freer roam at the natural prey, and thereby accepting that the predation of birds/mice doesn't matter all that much in the grand scheme of things as they are unlikely to ever be driven to extinction.
User avatar
Callum Todd
Series 69 Champion
Posts: 1123
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:38 pm
Location: Leeds

Re: Kurt Zouma and animal abuse

Post by Callum Todd »

Elliott Mellor wrote: Wed Aug 24, 2022 8:00 am I'm not sure that's *quite* correct. Without the interference, you'd (in my opinion) actually have more cats being born because you'd have millions of unneutered horny cats roaming around, which would (if true, and I concede that I'm basing this on intuition) inevitably lead to far fewer mice and birds, as a result of the desperation for food. If this hypothesis is true, [...]
Sorry but that hypothesis isn't true, unless again you're talking about a hypothetical world in which all currently domesticated cats were set free tomorrow (and the cats somehow went along with the plan - good luck getting a cat to do what you want it to do!)

Domesticated animals are all far more populous than they would be otherwise. The size of wild populations of animals has natural limits placed upon it by: 1) availability of food, 2) the threat of predators, and 3) opportunity to reproduce.

Domestication by humans completely eliminates the first two limits and manages the third (yes we can reduce reproduction by neutering, we can also increase it by artificial breeding). You say yourself that more wild cats would mean fewer wild birds and mice, and that's exactly how food chains work. Then there wouldn't be enough food for cats so cat populations would decrease and bird and mice populations could then increase again. With human interference, the cat population is being artificially sustained so that the cat's dominance over birds and mice is being sustained indefinitely rather than being cyclical in a natural food chain cycle. You might be interested to read about the dynamics of cat population and its effect on wildlife in Australia: the only continent other than Antarctica that doesn't have a native species of cat.

While we're at it the whole 'natural' thing is quite in vogue at the moment in this discussion, both to describe the violent instincts of humans and cats. It's worth remembering that this discussion is about what is ethical, and natural and ethical are not necessarily (or even frequently) equatable. Cats of course aren't judged by moral standards as they don't have the intellectual capacity to make ethical decisions. We do. It's natural for a cat to kill a bird but it isn't moral or immoral; it's amoral. It's natural for humans to be violent to animals including other humans, but we can make moral judgments about this violence because we have the capacity to choose otherwise.

And again, just because it's natural for a cat to kill a mouse or a hominid ape to hunt for food, that doesn't change the fact that if it's wrong to kick a cat or lock a dog in a hot car, it's also wrong to torture a cow or force a pig into a gas chamber.
Mark Deeks wrote:Callum Todd looks like a young Ted Bundy.
User avatar
Callum Todd
Series 69 Champion
Posts: 1123
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:38 pm
Location: Leeds

Re: Kurt Zouma and animal abuse

Post by Callum Todd »

L'oisleatch McGraw wrote: Tue Aug 23, 2022 9:08 pm
Callum Todd wrote: Tue Aug 23, 2022 8:33 pm Nonetheless, me being wrong in the following argument doesn't mean therefore I must have been wrong about everything I said beforehand
Let's not discount the very real possibility that you are wrong in everything you said beforehand.
Gotta keep our options open here.
Sure! Maybe it's fine to kick a cat after all.
Mark Deeks wrote:Callum Todd looks like a young Ted Bundy.
Elliott Mellor
Devotee
Posts: 924
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2016 12:42 pm

Re: Kurt Zouma and animal abuse

Post by Elliott Mellor »

Callum Todd wrote: Wed Aug 24, 2022 8:53 am
Elliott Mellor wrote: Wed Aug 24, 2022 8:00 am I'm not sure that's *quite* correct. Without the interference, you'd (in my opinion) actually have more cats being born because you'd have millions of unneutered horny cats roaming around, which would (if true, and I concede that I'm basing this on intuition) inevitably lead to far fewer mice and birds, as a result of the desperation for food. If this hypothesis is true, [...]
Sorry but that hypothesis isn't true, unless again you're talking about a hypothetical world in which all currently domesticated cats were set free tomorrow (and the cats somehow went along with the plan - good luck getting a cat to do what you want it to do!)

Domesticated animals are all far more populous than they would be otherwise. The size of wild populations of animals has natural limits placed upon it by: 1) availability of food, 2) the threat of predators, and 3) opportunity to reproduce.

Domestication by humans completely eliminates the first two limits and manages the third (yes we can reduce reproduction by neutering, we can also increase it by artificial breeding). You say yourself that more wild cats would mean fewer wild birds and mice, and that's exactly how food chains work. Then there wouldn't be enough food for cats so cat populations would decrease and bird and mice populations could then increase again. With human interference, the cat population is being artificially sustained so that the cat's dominance over birds and mice is being sustained indefinitely rather than being cyclical in a natural food chain cycle. You might be interested to read about the dynamics of cat population and its effect on wildlife in Australia: the only continent other than Antarctica that doesn't have a native species of cat.

While we're at it the whole 'natural' thing is quite in vogue at the moment in this discussion, both to describe the violent instincts of humans and cats. It's worth remembering that this discussion is about what is ethical, and natural and ethical are not necessarily (or even frequently) equatable. Cats of course aren't judged by moral standards as they don't have the intellectual capacity to make ethical decisions. We do. It's natural for a cat to kill a bird but it isn't moral or immoral; it's amoral. It's natural for humans to be violent to animals including other humans, but we can make moral judgments about this violence because we have the capacity to choose otherwise.

And again, just because it's natural for a cat to kill a mouse or a hominid ape to hunt for food, that doesn't change the fact that if it's wrong to kick a cat or lock a dog in a hot car, it's also wrong to torture a cow or force a pig into a gas chamber.
If your argument is that it's wrong to artificially alter a food chain, then why should we not atomise this further and stop altering it for ourselves? We're artificially increasing our population by creating safe houses, and having hospitals and medicine. Via natural conditions, a lot more humans would fall victim to predators and the environment, so at a minute ethical level you could well argue that it's speciesist to unfairly harvest advantages with regards to protection, which artificially increases our own population and reduces the resources available to other species.

If you don't agree with this, then why are we allowed the privilege of protection from predation, yet other species should have to have "natural" food chains? Why shouldn't we choose which other species get special protection, if we're affording it ourselves?
User avatar
Callum Todd
Series 69 Champion
Posts: 1123
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:38 pm
Location: Leeds

Re: Kurt Zouma and animal abuse

Post by Callum Todd »

Elliott Mellor wrote: Wed Aug 24, 2022 9:47 am If your argument is that it's wrong to artificially alter a food chain, then why should we not atomise this further and stop altering it for ourselves? We're artificially increasing our population by creating safe houses, and having hospitals and medicine. Via natural conditions, a lot more humans would fall victim to predators and the environment, so at a minute ethical level you could well argue that it's speciesist to unfairly harvest advantages with regards to protection, which artificially increases our own population and reduces the resources available to other species.
I'm not (necessarily) saying that the effects of our domestication of cats on the food chain in urban ecosystems is "wrong". This topic arose when I mentioned the effect of domesticated cats on such ecosystems here:
Callum Todd wrote: Tue Aug 23, 2022 2:55 pm
Elliott Mellor wrote: Tue Aug 23, 2022 10:56 amWhat's your opinion on keeping pets?
This is really quite complicated.
[...]
Firstly, while 'your' "pet" might be happy and have a great life, there might be other animals who have their lot in life greatly reduced as a result of your "keeping pets".

The most obvious way this happens is to the animals 'your' "pet" animal eats. I have seen meatless "pet" food out there so maybe cats and dogs, just like humans, don't need to eat other animals to be healthy but I don't know enough about this to be sure. If they do, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't as you're either paying for farm animals to be tortured and killed to feed 'your' "pet" animal, or you're being cruel to 'your' "pet" by not giving them the food they need. If cats and dogs don't need to eat animal protein to be healthy then this problem could be negated so long as you feed them exclusively plant foods. But of course most "pets" do eat other animals. People who 'keep' "pet" snakes often even feed live mice or rats to the snake. These mice and rats are bred into existence purely to be used as "pet" food, which is obviously very cruel, no matter how nicely you treat 'your' beloved "pet" snake. Also, domestic cats are notorious for causing devastation to local mice and birds. The common defence of this behaviour is that it's 'natural', which of course it is from the cat's perspective, but for the birds and mice it is not at all natural for a fearsome predator to be artificially placed in their environment, in which that predator is themself artificially safe from predation in turn.

So while we greatly care for 'our' cats and dogs (and snakes), our proliferation of these species comes at the expense of other species (birds, mice, and the animals whose corpses are contained in "pet" foods) and certainly causes a net increase in suffering, despite how pleasant things may be for the "pet" animal. [...]
as one example of one of the ways in which one type of common "pet" animal increases net suffering, which is one of the problems people should consider before making the decision to befriend a companion animal.

I didn't say that the effect caused to food chains in urban ecosystems (which are themselves products of human interference) by humans' domestication of cats is "wrong". I said it's "complicated", and something people should consider before contributing to. Then the rest of the discussion was merely arguing that the effect exists when that assertion was challenged.

As for the human side of your question, this ties in to the greater philosophical question of what humans 'should' do, which I will get round to formulating a proper response to as soon as I have time. My response to the next part of your question might serve as a snippet of that future response though:
Elliott Mellor wrote: Wed Aug 24, 2022 9:47 am If you don't agree with this, then why are we allowed the privilege of protection from predation, yet other species should have to have "natural" food chains? Why shouldn't we choose which other species get special protection, if we're affording it ourselves?
Human intelligence, and the resulting technological advances we have accrued over time, has given us an extraordinary amount of power over the planet we inhabit and the beings we share it with. We have the power to choose who lives and who dies, what is destroyed and what is preserved, who suffers and who feels pleasure.

But the mere fact that we have that power is not a moral justification for us to wield it however we like, everyone else be damned. I believe our power is a source of great responsibility, and that our position is one of stewardship, not despotism.

So if we do choose to give "special protection" to certain species that inhabit our planet, we require a moral justification for why we choose certain species and not others, for what makes them "special". You want to include cats in our circle of compassion? Good, so do I. How about pigs? Most people want to include dogs. Good, so do I. How about cows? If one, but not the other: why?

That question requires a moral answer. 'Because we can' isn't good enough. That's just 'might is right' . We don't accept that argument to defend violence against humans less powerful than ourselves. We don't accept it to defend Kurt Zouma (allegedly) kicking his cat. We don't accept it to defend people locking dogs in hot cars. We shouldn't accept it to defend keeping animals such as cows, pigs, and chickens in torturous conditions, killing them, and eating their corpses.
Mark Deeks wrote:Callum Todd looks like a young Ted Bundy.
User avatar
L'oisleatch McGraw
Devotee
Posts: 930
Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2015 2:46 am
Location: Waterford
Contact:

Re: Kurt Zouma and animal abuse

Post by L'oisleatch McGraw »

Callum Todd wrote: Wed Aug 24, 2022 9:17 am Sure! Maybe it's fine to kick a cat after all.
Well yeah, of course.
But only if the little fucker has scrawbed you or otherwise pissed you off.
:arrow: :arrow: :arrow: S:778-ochamp
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13215
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Kurt Zouma and animal abuse

Post by Gavin Chipper »

Callum Todd wrote: Tue Aug 23, 2022 8:33 pm
Elliott Mellor wrote: Tue Aug 23, 2022 7:24 pm Furthering this points, what do you think of all the other things that are artificially placed in the environments of creatures - cars are responsible for a lot of animal deaths and most definitely aren't natural.
This is a brilliant question and is something I have previously recognised as the weakest part in the chain of logic supporting my convictions. I think this is point at which if you dig deep enough you reach the philosophical quandary alluded to above. I'll try answer it when I have more time (hopefully tomorrow) as it's a big one to think about and, although I've spent plenty of time thinking about it already, it will take some time to organise those thoughts into words fit for sharing with other people. Preemptively it's enough to make me feel the need to repeat my disclaimer that we're into more nuanced territory now and there's a good chance I'm about to make a shitty argument. Nonetheless, me being wrong in the following argument doesn't mean therefore I must have been wrong about everything I said beforehand and therefore it's okay to torture and kill sentient animals so that we can eat their flesh instead of a sweet potato.

Or I could wake up tomorrow and see that Gavin has already thought of a much better answer than I can and posted that, as he has done several times already in this thread, and that'll save me the job of trying to organise my mangled thoughts into words. Come on Gavin, I'm counting on you.
Well, since you called me into existence - While people will often think that natural = good, it's not really that simple, and when you break it down it's difficult (well it becomes arbitrary) to really define natural in a way that doesn't include what humans do anyway.

Humans are part of nature. We evolved along with all other animals and it's in our nature to manipulate the environment to improve things for us. So at the most literal level, everything that happens is natural. Cars are a natural by-product from the evolution of our species.

But none of this really helps matters or helps us decide what is "right". The main problem arising from humans is the rapid and uncontrolled change to the world (including but not limited to climate change and mass extinctions) that is going on. Life on this planet lived in a far more stable state (aside from a few mass extinction events like the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs) until humans advanced enough to be able to make big changes. This has made things unstable and unpredictable.

So looking at it from a wider perspective, the problem isn't simply that we've invented cars or that we've brought more cats into existence than would have done otherwise, or generally done stuff that is "unnatural" but that our actions have created this instability in the world, which could lead to further mass extinctions, reduced biodiversity and an impoverished planet all round with a far lower capacity for sustaining life, including human life. And while this is going on, it will likely lead to greater amount of suffering in the world, if you want to view it from that perspective.

If you e.g. introduce a species somewhere where it wasn't previously, it's not simply the fact that it is unnatural that matters. If things quickly settle into a new equilibrium and life carries on as stably as before, you can argue that it doesn't necessarily matter that much. Well, if it drives any species to extinction, then you could argue that this is a great loss in itself from some objective standpoint.

Although on the natural thing, people might start getting a bit more squeamish about things if we cure ageing or if we work out how to modify humans to make them vastly more intelligent or "better" in other ways. Would you rather stay as a "natural" human or become more advanced? And then people will start asking what it really means to be "you". How much change can you go through and still be the same person? Anyway, I'm going off-topic.

But anyway, the point is that when you're doing millions of things at once and constantly inventing new ways to change the world, you have no idea how it will end. The world with us in it is not currently in a remotely stable state, and there are plenty of possibilities of how humans might set things in motion to wipe out life on this planet, whether through runaway AI, grey goo or something else. At this point, inventing cars or domesticating the cat pales into insignificance.

Kurt Zouma has a lot to answer for.
User avatar
Adam Gillard
Kiloposter
Posts: 1761
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 8:42 pm
Location: About 45 minutes south-east of Thibodaux, Louisiana

Re: Kurt Zouma and animal abuse

Post by Adam Gillard »

Gavin Chipper wrote: Wed Aug 24, 2022 4:51 pm Would you rather stay as a "natural" human or become more advanced? And then people will start asking what it really means to be "you". How much change can you go through and still be the same person?
You should write a book on this stuff (and consciousness).
Mike Brown: "Round 12: T N R S A E I G U

C1: SIGNATURE (18) ["9; not written down"]
C2: SEATING (7)
Score: 108–16 (max 113)

Another niner for Adam and yet another century. Well done, that man."
Fiona T
Kiloposter
Posts: 1447
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:54 pm

Re: Kurt Zouma and animal abuse

Post by Fiona T »

Callum Todd wrote: Wed Aug 24, 2022 5:14 pm
L'oisleatch McGraw wrote: Wed Aug 24, 2022 4:14 pm I'd be tempted to include "people who refer to meat as 'animal corpse'"
but I know one of those, and he seems pretty trustworthy in general, so perhaps not.
:D tell me it's not accurate. 'Meat' is a euphemism. See also: 'beef', 'pork'.
Replying here cos we've got enough vegan threads :)

It's hard to disagree with your viewpoint that any avoidable animal suffering is wrong (and eating animal products is unnecessary and therefore avoidable) and it has certainly given me and others food for thought (a truly excellent track by UB40 - co-incidentally about famine and hypocrisy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOBZ6ygWk7I )

But you start to lose your audience when you use emotive language - instead of listening to your argument, you're in danger of being viewed as the sort of extremist loony that ends up in the "People you shouldn't trust" thread!
User avatar
Callum Todd
Series 69 Champion
Posts: 1123
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:38 pm
Location: Leeds

Re: Kurt Zouma and animal abuse

Post by Callum Todd »

Ha I did think oh no not another thread taken over by the veganism talk! I get your point and that's why I try not to talk about the specifics of the cruelty that happens to animals too often, and I never really force the issue home by showing images or videos of it, for example. But when I'm trying to address the very real problem of animal cruelty in agriculture, and how buying 'meat' supports that cruelty, I think it's really important to honestly portray what that cruelty is and what the products we buy really are. And 'meat' really is the corpse of an animal.

I don't think it's a fair description to say that I "use emotive language" to talk about what we do to animals, and what 'meat' really is. The truth of we do to animals, and what 'meat' really is, is emotive. My language reflects that emotion because my language accurately reflects what I am describing. I am not adding emotion to this topic. This topic is emotional and I am reflecting that emotion honestly. Euphemisms like 'meat' actively remove emotion from the topic, but in doing so they obscure the truth.

I could use euphemisms like 'farmed', 'processed', 'harvested', 'reared', 'passed away', 'meat', 'beef', 'pork' in order to decrease the emotion that is naturally there by ensuring my language less accurately reflects the truth. I won't do that. The victims of this cruelty aren't able to speak in their own defence, so those of us that do so on their behalf owe it to them to speak honestly and uncompromisingly about the reality of their suffering, not obscure it behind misleading euphemistic language.

So if my language makes you feel uncomfortable, I invite you to first identify if the emotive thing I said was incorrect. If you find it is perfectly correct, maybe you should examine your emotional response to the unpolished facts you have been presented with and consider what that means about the reality of what I am describing. My language when talking about animal cruelty isn't the problem, or the source of the emotion; the cruelty is.
Mark Deeks wrote:Callum Todd looks like a young Ted Bundy.
Post Reply