Dog burning - some hypocrisy?

fergalr

Slightly different subject from the other thread on the poor dog that was killed.
People are getting really worked up over it - but it seems a little hypocritical to me.

The life and death of a battery chicken or pig is worse than that of the dog mentioned. Really, its done on your behalf. You fund it. You directly cause it. But you probably just choose not to think about that.

One poster said:

The difference is that when we eat meat, the animals were not killed by sadists who take disgusting pleasure in gratuitous violence

Do you think the animal that is suffering cares about such motivational distinctions?


Sure, to me, there is something worse about inflicting unnecessary pain on the animal for fun/pleasure.
But its also bad to have unnecessary pain inflicted on an animal just for the pleasure of eating meat..?


It seems most people don't seem to care about all that much about animal welfare, really, as long as the abuses are done discretely, away from where they can see?

I'm not trying to pass judgement on anyone here - none of us are perfect.
Just saying, lets not be too hypocritical when drawing up plans to nuke finglas over this, right?


I expect I'll come in for a bit of mealy mouthed rage over saying something like this... again, I'm not judging people, just asking people to think whether there's a little inconsistency in their reactions to this story, and their normal stance on animal welfare...

soundsham

too long amd boring to read

anyway........I love chicken :pac:-

genericguy

that's a ridiculous post, nobody sets chickens on fire to torture them before they become dinner. and the mice used for research tend to have better lives than bertie ahern. your post is shit.

fergalr

genericguy wrote: »

that's a ridiculous post, nobody sets chickens on fire to torture them before they become dinner. and the mice used for research tend to have better lives than bertie ahern. your post is shit.

Its true that the chickens and pigs don't suffer *in the exact same way* as the dog did.
But they still suffer, really badly, en masse, for their whole lives, so that people have the pleasure of eating meat.

In other words:
The animals suffer, so humans have pleasure.


I didn't mention lab mice. If the intensively farmed animals had good quality of life like a lot of lab animals, and like that poor dog that was killed, then I wouldn't think thats near as bad.

Prof.Badass

genericguy wrote: »

that's a ridiculous post, nobody sets chickens on fire to torture them before they become dinner. and the mice used for research tend to have better lives than bertie ahern. your post is shit.

They have the tips of their beaks burnt with a laser, they routinely get scalded/crushed by equipment and male chicks are killed by falling into a grinder alive. Not to mention the horrific conditions those that survive spend the rest of their lives enduring. What happens to chickens on a regular basis is worse imo than what happened to that dog.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/01/chicks-being-ground-up-al_n_273652.html

ScumLord

I live near an intensive chicken farm, the smell that comes out of the place would turn you off chicken for life, I've seen the chickens that they have in there in real life and their horrible looking monsters, I really feel sorry for them. I avoid chicken as much as possible. I've also had to round up normal chickens and them bastards deserve to be eaten the cheeky little feckers.

I have no problem eating meat, I see nothing wrong with it. For the most part in Ireland live stock are treated extremely well. Cattle love their farmer master and run to him whenever he enters the field.

Smallish farmers take good care or their animals and do care about their wellfare that's always been the case but big business just doesn't, it doesn't see or interact with the animals their just a product to be sold.

jd007

Chickens run on batteries???? Seriously though i dont know what can be more cruel than burning a dog to death.

pierrot

jd007 wrote: »

Chickens run on batteries???? Seriously though i dont know what can be more cruel than burning a dog to death.

Burning a human to death?

Trekker09

A very good observation, and very true in some respects. I am as guilty as the next person when it comes to burying my head in the sand about these issues, but have changed my purchasing habits very recently because of this.

fergalr

jd007 wrote: »

Chickens run on batteries???? Seriously though i dont know what can be more cruel than burning a dog to death.

Erm, how about the video two posts up?

I mean, OK, I don't want to try and establish a ranking of cruelty here, but it seems pretty bad to me.

I didn't want to try post videos etc. I don't think that appealing some someone's visceral side is the way to win this argument.

But there's lots of cruel stuff that goes on all the time in the intensive farming industry. Its not like info is hard to find - we all know it happens, it actually almost takes effort to try and ignore it.

Anyway, I think there's something wrong with cruelty on an industrial, societal, manufactured scale that makes it almost worse than a couple of people doing something awful in finglas.


Surely we are all more complicit in the industrialised cruelty?
Anyway, I think my point about there being a certain hypocrisy in the reaction to the dog stands.

TouchingVirus

fergalr wrote: »

Slightly different subject from the other thread on the poor dog that was killed.
People are getting really worked up over it - but it seems a little hypocritical to me.

The life and death of a battery chicken or pig is worse than that of the dog mentioned. Really, its done on your behalf. You fund it. You directly cause it. But you probably just choose not to think about that.

One poster said:


Do you think the animal that is suffering cares about such motivational distinctions?


Sure, to me, there is something worse about inflicting unnecessary pain on the animal for fun/pleasure.
But its also bad to have unnecessary pain inflicted on an animal just for the pleasure of eating meat..?

It seems most people don't seem to care about all that much about animal welfare, really, as long as the abuses are done discretely, away from where they can see?

A battery chicken is bred for the sole purpose of popping out a few eggs or becoming a tasty meal for us humans. Their death or ill treatment ultimately benefits society by providing that food. No, it isn't pretty. No, it's not inexcusable to treat chickens that way. But it's considerably different to the case in point of the dog being doused in petrol, set alight and left to die. The ill treatment of this dog was gratuitous, unnecessary and in the end served absolutely no purpose.

I can imagine your post being a template for a lot of other things. A person being tortured in Ireland, sure torture happens every day in country X yet we turn a blind eye to it. A famous person gets AIDS, sure people in Africa get AIDS all the time and the media says nothing about it.

There's a pattern here, humans are more comfortable when things like this are not in their face. Yeah, it's hypocritical but that's part of why we're all flawed.

InKonspikuou2

It's all just to do with the emotional attachment people have with dogs and their place in society. Dogs have been domesticated for thousands of years. So it's all pyschological that people place them as a higher standard than a pig, cow or chicken. Yeah sure people may have them animals as pets but it's not common practice and they are not domesticated. Call it hypocritical but you'll find most people are hypocritical in life about something if you dig deep enough.

Turd Ferguson

I think killing a cow or a chicken for food and setting a dog on fire for fun are slightly different. Also like above poster said its all to do with emotional attachement aswell. I bet OP you have killed spiders or flys in your time, yes? By your logic YOU are hypocritical too

kavoweb

Another bleeeding heart liberal with a self satisfying point to prove:mad: . since time began,certain animals have been bred for eating,its the way of the world. I respect your view about being a vegetarian but to compare being a meat eater to some scumbag who tortures a family pet for 'kicks' is just ridiculous.
There is a point to your claims of cruelty in some aspects of food production right across the board and i accept that completely* but you are sounding ridiculous and doing your 'cause' no good with your half cocked comparisons and assumptions.


* I just dont care

Meeja Ireland

jd007 wrote: »

Seriously though i dont know what can be more cruel than burning a dog to death.

Burning it half to death and hiding it in a child's schoolbag?

ScumLord

fergalr wrote: »

But there's lots of cruel stuff that goes on all the time in the intensive farming industry. Its not like info is hard to find - we all know it happens, it actually almost takes effort to try and ignore it.

In fairness it's nothing compared to the way prey would get treated by other animals. Wild dogs and wolfs don't bother killing their prey, they just start eating it alive. Nature is cruel and we're the only thing in it with any kind of compassion.

stovelid

I actually thought the thread would be about the fact that the dog burning thread was very respectful and had a remarkably low incidence of jokes for AH (or least it was the last time I looked at it) - far less than would have been the case for a human.

fergalr

TouchingVirus wrote: »

A battery chicken is bred for the sole purpose of popping out a few eggs or becoming a tasty meal for us humans. Their death or ill treatment ultimately benefits society by providing that food. No, it isn't pretty. No, it's not inexcusable to treat chickens that way. But it's considerably different to the case in point of the dog being doused in petrol, set alight and left to die. The ill treatment of this dog was gratuitous, unnecessary and in the end served absolutely no purpose.

We don't need to eat battery chickens to have the pleasure of a tasty meal.
And the guys burning the dog could have found something else to do to amuse themselves instead.

They had a purpose in burning the dog alright - they thought it was funny or amusing, or whatever. You might think that's not a very good purpose or that it doesn't justify their actions. I'd agree with you.

But is a 'tasty meal' a sufficiently good purpose to justify the mass cruelty to animals? Its not like there's no other way of making a tasty meal. Hell, even eat well farmed animals and you'd be better off.

You say the death of the chickens benefits society - well, its more resource efficient to farm vegetables. You just lose out on the pleasure of eating (slightly cheaper) chicken. In both cases, its people being cruel, for pleasure. One is just a little more indirect, is all.

TouchingVirus wrote: »

I can imagine your post being a template for a lot of other things. A person being tortured in Ireland, sure torture happens every day in country X yet we turn a blind eye to it. A famous person gets AIDS, sure people in Africa get AIDS all the time and the media says nothing about it.

Sure - and these would all be very valid things to say, and should be said, if there was another thread on here being hypocritical.

One thing that is different about this situation though, is that we do have intensive farming going on in this country, here. Some of its pretty cruel. Its not like torture in another country where we are somehow less responsible for it, as a nation, and can just wash our hands of it easier.

TouchingVirus wrote: »

There's a pattern here, humans are more comfortable when things like this are not in their face. Yeah, it's hypocritical but that's part of why we're all flawed.

Sure, I agree.
But I still wanted to say it, because people were getting very worked up on the other thread, and saying things like finglas should be nuked etc. Sure, they aren't fully serious, but there's a bit of rage in there too, and self righteousness about how much better than these people we are - maybe its no harm to say "wait, are we being hypocritical here?"

me_right_one

fergalr wrote: »

But they still suffer, really badly, en masse, for their whole lives, so that people have the pleasure of eating meat.

How? How is a PULLET'S, or pig's, or heifer's life full of cruellty and suffering? They are not wild anilmals. They would have a cruel life BUT for the farmers.

And THESE are chickens!!!!!!!

http://www.blessedeaster.com/screensavers/preview/7_105.jpg


Pet hate - people calling hens, chickens!

fergalr

InKonspikuou2 wrote: »

It's all just to do with the emotional attachment people have with dogs and their place in society. Dogs have been domesticated for thousands of years. So it's all pyschological that people place them as a higher standard than a pig, cow or chicken. Yeah sure people may have them animals as pets but it's not common practice and they are not domesticated. Call it hypocritical but you'll find most people are hypocritical in life about something if you dig deep enough.

Well - they eat dogs in other countries (walked by a shop window selling dog just last week in asia). They've had domesticated dogs for thousands of years too. They eat horse in france, etc.
Sure, its psychological - no disagreement there. But its still hypocritical, from a rational point of view. There's not that much thats special about a dog over a pig - its just we don't eat them by convention, other human societies do.

fergalr

Turd Ferguson wrote: »

I think killing a cow or a chicken for food and setting a dog on fire for fun are slightly different. Also like above poster said its all to do with emotional attachement aswell. I bet OP you have killed spiders or flys in your time, yes? By your logic YOU are hypocritical too

Certainly, if you need the food to survive, go for it. Killing for necessary food is very different.

But we don't need to eat battery chickens. I mean, we don't need to eat meat at all, but even if we did, we could do a much better job of ensuring the animals aren't treated so badly.

My point here isn't about eating meat.
My point is about cruelly treating animals, to enhance or dining pleasure, or provide meat a little cheaper.

Animals are treated cruelly on our behalf, so the meat is a little cheaper, so we can eat more, because we like eating meat. We don't need to do it this way.


To some extent, we've put our own gain above the wellbeing of the animals, because we just don't care about the animals.
This is very hard to argue with.
And thats not as far from what the guys burning the dog did as we should be.

Turd Ferguson wrote: »

I bet OP you have killed spiders or flys in your time, yes? By your logic YOU are hypocritical too

I did say:

I'm not trying to pass judgement on anyone here - none of us are perfect.

Hobart

Can both not be wrong? I mean, wtf is your actual argument here? One is somehow *worse* than the other, and we're all hypocrites because we'll shed a tear for a dog that's been doused in petrol, thrown over a wall, and dies in agony, and yet we'll read the paper by chomping on a McChicken burger, and not give a second thought to the animal that made the burger possible? Is that your argument? Really?

They're both wrong, ok? One is not worse than the other, but it's a bit sickening to see people like you try and use the savage cruelty of one animal to try and change peoples views about another, that's real hypocrisy.

destroyer

favourite old trafford chant

Park Park wherever you may be
You eat dogs in your own country
Could be worse could be scouse
Eating rats in your council house

TouchingVirus

I'm not a fan of splitting posts up but here..

fergalr wrote: »

We don't need to eat battery chickens to have the pleasure of a tasty meal.

I didn't say we did. Sure, there are other alternatives to a battery chicken, organic ones, farmed chickens but these come at a cost. With majority of society being quite all right abadoning thoughts of cruelty when the end result is a lower bill at the checkout there's not a whole lot of argument against eating battery chickens apart from the cruelty - which I've said is pretty easy to get around.

And the guys burning the dog could have found something else to do to amuse themselves instead.

And should have...

But is a 'tasty meal' a sufficiently good purpose to justify the mass cruelty to animals? Its not like there's no other way of making a tasty meal. Hell, even eat well farmed animals and you'd be better off.

If the shops took battery chickens off the shelves tomorrow then I would sitll eat chicken. I'd eat the other chicken that's left. Once again I do not consider the life of the animal as I put it into the trolley and make my way off to the checkout. I think about "Will that animal make a nice meal" and "How bad is the Cost vs Tastiness tradeoff, Can I Afford This Meat?".

You say the death of the chickens benefits society - well, its more resource efficient to farm vegetables. You just lose out on the pleasure of eating (slightly cheaper) chicken. In both cases, its people being cruel, for pleasure. One is just a little more indirect, is all.

I don't believe that many people out there working in a battery thnk it's pleasurable to put chickens through what they're put through.

Sure - and these would all be very valid things to say, and should be said, if there was another thread on here being hypocritical.

I know they'd be valid, but the world is a very big place, and if something isn't in your face it's pretty easy to not care about it one bit. "Out of sight, Out of mind". I don't think about battery conditions when the only bit of the chicken's life I encounter is post-death on a shelf in a supermarket and then after coming out of the oven. I like not thinking about it and just digging in.

But I still wanted to say it, because people were getting very worked up on the other thread, and saying things like finglas should be nuked etc. Sure, they aren't fully serious, but there's a bit of rage in there too, and self righteousness about how much better than these people we are - maybe its no harm to say "wait, are we being hypocritical here?"

If you spent all your time pointing out the hypocrisies of individual people, Irish people and people in general you would be a long time at it. We're hypocritical, most of us can get over it though.

The_Wobbler

Ever heard of the food chain?

ScumLord

fergalr wrote: »

But we don't need to eat battery chickens. I mean, we don't need to eat meat at all,

That's debatable, the only reason humans have the mental abilities and body we do is because we started eating meat and other high calorie foods. We could survive now with our vast food technology. We don't have a huge gut like the rest of the higher primates to process green food. It is possible as long as you're able to source food from around the planet and have it delivered to your door at the expense of planet earth.

Wossack

if god didnt want me to eat chickens, he wouldnt have made them so tasty

Stark

From a rational point of view, you're bang on when it comes to cruel farming being on the same level as burning a puppy. I think most people are ignorant as to where their food comes from though. Even if you are aware of cruel battery farming methods, you're still largely dissociated from this when picking up a piece of shrink-wrapped meat from the supermarket. It takes coming face to face with the animal to trigger the human sense of empathy.

As for whether we should all be vegetarians, well you could debate that till the cows come home (no pun intended). It's just as cruel to eat eggs from battery chickens as it is to eat meat from battery chickens. Personally, I'm of the view that we should be focussing on high standards in farming rather than idealogical view points like eating meat vs not eating meat. Because, really it's a case of being a strict vegan vs being an indiscriminate meat eater with shades of grey in between.

Cianos

TouchingVirus wrote: »

If the shops took battery chickens off the shelves tomorrow then I would sitll eat chicken. I'd eat the other chicken that's left. Once again I do not consider the life of the animal as I put it into the trolley and make my way off to the checkout. I think about "Will that animal make a nice meal" and "How bad is the Cost vs Tastiness tradeoff, Can I Afford This Meat?".

I think the point is that maybe people should think a bit more about what cruel effects the commercial demand for meat has on the animals that are reared to feed that demand.

I don't think it's unethical to eat animals, but I don't think it's ethical that mass cruelty is tolerated for the sake of providing everyone with a cheap chicken nugget.

faceman

Ah give us a break. Are you are trying to create an analogy between animals bread for consumption with scumbags setting a puppy on fire for fun? Are you suggesting that the scummers should have eaten the dog afterward to justify what they did?

Consumers have a choice anyway when it comes to meat products. There are organic options and free range options.

Also the laws government animal handling in the US are very different than that in Europe & Ireland.

me_right_one

Its cruel to eat eggs? Ah come on. There's absolutely no comparason between setting a family pet alight, farming and humanely killing hens/pigs/cattle in under 3 seconds for vital food, and eating the egg of a hen. This thread is decending rapidly. There's no hypocricy at all. Humans need food, they do not need to set puppy's alight.

Where's all these allegations or animal cruelty on farms coming from anyway? Not on any I've ever been on! Links?

TouchingVirus

fergalr wrote: »

To some extent, we've put our own gain above the wellbeing of the animals, because we just don't care about the animals.
This is very hard to argue with.
And thats not as far from what the guys burning the dog did as we should be.

And once again is the nature of this gain that causes us to react differently. The gain in mistreatment of battery chickens is that we have a chicken to cook cheaper than other forms of chicken.

What is the gain of the lads who burned the dog - amusement? lulz? - Those are not good reasons by society's standards, hence the outrage.

Somebody who killed another person in self defence (albeit with a hammer to the head, not pretty at all) - pretty all right. Somebody who killed another person for fun - not all right.

The fact is your standards differ from us, you don't think it's ok to mistreat chickens like that. Fair enough, but those are your standards. I can see your point, and you can see mine. If everybody thought like you and were outraged at the dog and not the chickens then yes they are being hypocritical. But they don't.

Stark wrote: »

It takes coming face to face with the animal to trigger the human sense of empathy.

I agree that we are largely disassociated with the goings on of a battery when we pick up that meat, but I disagree that it takes coming face to face with the animal to trigger empathy. I don't require first hand experience of the conditions of war to know I'm opposed to it. It's just that I see war as a pointless waste of human life, but I see battery chicken as a way to get chicken cheaper. I value human life more than a chicken's life.

BraziliaNZ

no one cares about stupid chickens, they're ugly stupid little things. Dogs give us affection and we treat them like their almost our children. That's the difference.

Adiboo

me_right_one wrote: »

And THESE are chickens!!!!!!!

http://www.blessedeaster.com/screensavers/preview/7_105.jpg


Pet hate - people calling hens, chickens!

So when you go to McDonald's, you would order a McHen sandwich?? FFS


On topic: I was vegetarian for 5 years for these very reasons. Factory farming is a very cruel industry indeed, and I could no loger justify supporting it. I plan to go vegetarian again in the near future for these reasons also.

Stark

TouchingVirus wrote: »

I agree that we are largely disassociated with the goings on of a battery when we pick up that meat, but I disagree that it takes coming face to face with the animal to trigger empathy. I don't require first hand experience of the conditions of war to know I'm opposed to it. It's just that I see war as a pointless waste of human life, but I see battery chicken as a way to get chicken cheaper. I value human life more than a chicken's life.

Ah yes, but would you feel as strongly about buying something that indirectly contributed towards wars in other countries as you would about setting a human being on fire so you could have a laugh as he/she burns to death? Wars often have some justification as well. Millions died in WWII but it was somewhat justified by not having the Nazis take over Europe and sentencing millions more to crueller deaths. Killing people because it gives you pleasure isn't justifiable.

fergalr

ScumLord wrote: »

In fairness it's nothing compared to the way prey would get treated by other animals. Wild dogs and wolfs don't bother killing their prey, they just start eating it alive. Nature is cruel and we're the only thing in it with any kind of compassion.

That's irrelevant. You can't use the fact that nature is cruel as a justification for cruelty.
Ever see a cat torture a rabbit for sport? Is that a justification of torture for sport?
We don't have to be cruel just because nature is.

Wazdakka

fergalr wrote: »

Dog burning...

Look.. Burning a poor defenceless little doggy is just plain wrong.

They taste much better medium rare.

TouchingVirus

Stark wrote: »

Ah yes, but would you feel as strongly about buying something that indirectly contributed towards wars in other countries as you would about setting a human being on fire so you could have a laugh as he/she burns to death? Wars often have some justification as well. Millions died in WWII but it was somewhat justified by not having the Nazis take over Europe and sentencing millions more to crueller deaths. Killing people because it gives you pleasure isn't justifiable.

Not as strongly no, but it would be a very rare instance where I would buy something that supported wars indirectly when there was a similar product that served the same function but doesn't contribute to wars. In most cases I'd go without if it were the only option. Once again I appear to be a sheep because I fully agree with the ends justifying the means in WWII as does most of society.

mikom

Adiboo wrote: »

I plan to go vegetarian again in the near future for these reasons also.

Yeah, and i used to be a werewolf, but I'm alright nooooooow.

fergalr

me_right_one wrote: »

How? How is a PULLET'S, or pig's, or heifer's life full of cruellty and suffering?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensive_pig_farming
There you go - not a site designed to be sensational.

There's plenty of info on that page though that I think would lead you to decide an intensively farmed (not all farmed) pigs life is pretty tough.

me_right_one wrote: »

They are not wild anilmals. They would have a cruel life BUT for the farmers.

care to explain this? The pigs could be farmed in a much less cruel way. The farmers farming them in this way are at least partly responsible for the cruelty to them.

Canis Lupus

We're humans. We're top of the food chain. Except vegetarians. If it was up to me I'd breed and eat them as well.

destroyer

yeah but bacon tastes goood
pork chops taste gooood

fergalr

Hobart wrote: »

Can both not be wrong?

Yes, both are wrong.

Hobart wrote: »

I mean, wtf is your actual argument here?

My argument is that its hypocritical to condemn so loudly the mistreatment of animals while being partly responsible for, and complicit in, the mistreating of animals.

I don't think its particularly hard to follow.

Hobart wrote: »

One is somehow *worse* than the other, and we're all hypocrites because we'll shed a tear for a dog that's been doused in petrol, thrown over a wall, and dies in agony, and yet we'll read the paper by chomping on a McChicken burger, and not give a second thought to the animal that made the burger possible? Is that your argument? Really?

People that condemn loudly and seek to hunt down and kill the people that tortured the dog (check out the other thread) while still "chomping down on a mcchicken burger and not give a second thought to the animal that made the burger possible" as you put it, are being hypocritical.
That's my point.

Hobart wrote: »

They're both wrong, ok?

Erm, its quite obvious I think they are both wrong from what I wrote. Are you trying to score points here or something?

Hobart wrote: »

One is not worse than the other, but it's a bit sickening to see people like you try and use the savage cruelty of one animal to try and change peoples views about another, that's real hypocrisy.

Because I point out that people are being hypocritical about something, with a view to making apparent a contradiction in what's being said, on a discussion board, I'm somehow bad?


Its a fair point to make, and there's nothing wrong with saying it. If that happens to change peoples views (I'm not really so naive as to think it will) then fine - thats their business. But this is a discussion board, and I'm discussing something :-)

Professey Chin

Theres always one of these preaching threads everytime an animal cruelty thread appears in AH. I feel like im in a PETA meeting.

TouchingVirus

fergalr wrote: »

Because I point out that people are being hypocritical about something, with a view to making apparent a contradiction in what's being said, on a discussion board, I'm somehow bad?

I think Hobart was on about your point be rather redundant. We know we're hypocritical

fergalr

TouchingVirus wrote: »

If the shops took battery chickens off the shelves tomorrow then I would sitll eat chicken. I'd eat the other chicken that's left. Once again I do not consider the life of the animal as I put it into the trolley and make my way off to the checkout. I think about "Will that animal make a nice meal" and "How bad is the Cost vs Tastiness tradeoff, Can I Afford This Meat?".

Fine - that's your personal choice.

I do think that if your attitude to animal welfare is that you don't care about it, as long as you get to eat something tasty, it puts you in a poor position to criticise the guys who didn't care about how the dog felt, as long as they weren't bored.

TouchingVirus wrote: »

I don't believe that many people out there working in a battery thnk it's pleasurable to put chickens through what they're put through.

I'm sure they don't, and I never said otherwise. The people who get the pleasure in this situation are those who eat the tasty cheap chicken that they buy in the supermarket.

TouchingVirus wrote: »

I know they'd be valid, but the world is a very big place, and if something isn't in your face it's pretty easy to not care about it one bit. "Out of sight, Out of mind". I don't think about battery conditions when the only bit of the chicken's life I encounter is post-death on a shelf in a supermarket and then after coming out of the oven. I like not thinking about it and just digging in.

Well - you are very honest about it.

I think that we've a responsibility to care though. I don't think its right that we just wash our hands of what happened the animal before we eat it, to just ignore it and dig in.

That doesn't mean I'm saying anyone's a bad person or anything, just that I don't agree with it.

TouchingVirus wrote: »

If you spent all your time pointing out the hypocrisies of individual people, Irish people and people in general you would be a long time at it. We're hypocritical, most of us can get over it though.

Well, if you are resigned to just being hypocritical, and don't care, then thats fair enough.
I think sometimes though, people don't realise they are being hypocritical, and when its pointed out to them, maybe it helps. But really, I'd say this is very naive, and rare. Still, I think its a reasonable thing to mention on a discussion forum.

If we just resigned ourselves to the idea that we were all hypocritical and didn't care, it'd be a tough place.

fergalr

ScumLord wrote: »

That's debatable, the only reason humans have the mental abilities and body we do is because we started eating meat and other high calorie foods. We could survive now with our vast food technology. We don't have a huge gut like the rest of the higher primates to process green food. It is possible as long as you're able to source food from around the planet and have it delivered to your door at the expense of planet earth.

We probably couldn't have survived without meat in the past.
But we can now, which is all I said.

Porkpie

I just saw a google ad at the bottom of the page for a website called 'shootmydog.ie'.

fergalr

Stark wrote: »

From a rational point of view, you're bang on when it comes to cruel farming being on the same level as burning a puppy. I think most people are ignorant as to where their food comes from though. Even if you are aware of cruel battery farming methods, you're still largely dissociated from this when picking up a piece of shrink-wrapped meat from the supermarket. It takes coming face to face with the animal to trigger the human sense of empathy.

As for whether we should all be vegetarians, well you could debate that till the cows come home (no pun intended). It's just as cruel to eat eggs from battery chickens as it is to eat meat from battery chickens. Personally, I'm of the view that we should be focussing on high standards in farming rather than idealogical view points like eating meat vs not eating meat. Because, really it's a case of being a strict vegan vs being an indiscriminate meat eater with shades of grey in between.

I didn't actually mention being a vegetarian at all in my initial few posts.
I didn't ever say it was wrong to eat meat, I've just said that intensive farming that was cruel to animals is wrong, and that we don't need to do it.

So, I pretty agree with what you say here.

fergalr

faceman wrote: »

Ah give us a break. Are you are trying to create an analogy between animals bread for consumption with scumbags setting a puppy on fire for fun? Are you suggesting that the scummers should have eaten the dog afterward to justify what they did?

I don't know where you got that from!
I think I've explained things as well as I can, but no, I wasn't saying that.

faceman wrote: »

Consumers have a choice anyway when it comes to meat products. There are organic options and free range options.

They do. I'm just saying that its bad that they frequently don't care and eat the badly farmed stuff. Its hypocritical :-)

faceman wrote: »

Also the laws government animal handling in the US are very different than that in Europe & Ireland.

Are you saying that no nasty intensive farming goes on in Europe and Ireland?

TouchingVirus

fergalr wrote: »

I do think that if your attitude to animal welfare is that you don't care about it, as long as you get to eat something tasty, it puts you in a poor position to criticise the guys who didn't care about how the dog felt, as long as they weren't bored.

Once again I believe you're simplifying it. I don't choose the battery chicken because it's tasty, I choose it because it's cheaper and I'm completely disassociated from it's life/cruel treatment which may be the only thing that'd sway me from buying the cheaper choice. In fact even knowing the animal suffered may not sway me from buying the cheaper ill-treated chicken if the price difference between the ill-treated and well-treated animal is too high. I like meat, I have limited money, I choose the cheaper options most of the time.

I do not agree that buying a battery chicken for economical reasons diminishes my position on thugs burning a dog for fun/because they were bored.

Well, if you are resigned to just being hypocritical, and don't care, then thats fair enough.
I think sometimes though, people don't realise they are being hypocritical, and when its pointed out to them, maybe it helps. But really, I'd say this is very naive, and rare. Still, I think its a reasonable thing to mention on a discussion forum.

If we just resigned ourselves to the idea that we were all hypocritical and didn't care, it'd be a tough place.

I have bigger things in life to worry about than being hypocritical. I can live with most of my hypocrisy. Sure, the odd time when it's pointed out to me I'll wake up and smell the roses. This isn't one of these times because I disagree I'm being hypocritical.