Do we ignore animal cruelty to suit us?

Amber Lamps

Seachmall wrote: »

It could do more damage than good, it could do more good than damage or it could be essentially neutral. We don't know.

So maintaining a culture of slaughter is the best solution here. Good to see the inherited big brains are firing on all cylinders.

Cú Giobach

Seachmall wrote: »

An untouched patch of land is irrelevant.

The presence of manure and grazing in certain areas obviously caused a change in the otherwise natural habitat.

Other bacteria, animals and plant life may have flourished in the new habitat.

Those new organisms have found niches. Other organisms have found niches in the presence of those organisms and so on.

Reversing the original changes and removing manure and grazing is no guarantee that the habitat will go back to the way it was. We don't know how the changes have affected the wider ecosystem, nor do we know how removing the initial causes for change will affect it.

Nothing in an ecosystem is independent of anything else. Everything plays it's role and if you remove it it will have a knock on effect. We can't calculate the extent of that knock-on. It could do more damage than good, it could do more good than damage or it could be essentially neutral. We don't know

.
One thing we do know is that forest will be the ultimate result of untouched land over most of this island, not because of what was here before but due to our climate and latitude, very basic biology really.

And it could result in the extinction of certain species of plant in certain areas. Anything "could" happen. Your claims are all "possibilities" which are irrelevant, "probabilities" are what matter. "Probabilities" require evidence.

Nothing wrong with what I stated earlier about rivers, if slurry can pollute rivers, then the removal of the stuff could result in cleaner rivers, quite a simple deduction really.

I'm claiming that you're making claims about how the environment would be affected. Which you did.

You made specific claims about me which were incorrect, hence your waffling now above.

If you are so naive about the environment as to be unaware how forest would overtake this island very quickly (even the cities if they were abandoned), there is little point in continuing this discussion.

ItsAWindUp

bbam wrote: »

Right, I see your powers of reasoning are in top tune :rolleyes:
Grow up.. I'm not saying your choice is wrong, am I not entitled to make an informed decision to eat meat..

I don't believe your entitled to decide that an animal dies because you can't think of anything else to eat.

bbam

ItsAWindUp wrote: »

I don't believe your entitled to decide that an animal dies because you can't think of anything else to eat.

I do beleive I'm entitled to make that decision... As was argued earlier we are just more developed more inteligent versions of our animal cousins or our forefathers.. Meat is a natural part of our diet, thankfully we have developed humane ways of slaughter.. I'm not saying the process can't be improved..

Wasn't it the eating of animals that brought forward our increase in inteligence?

CruelCoin

ItsAWindUp wrote: »

I don't believe your entitled to decide that an animal dies because you can't think of anything else to eat.

If you'd rather eat tofu, chickpeas and cous-cous, then so be it.

If i want to eat steak and chops, then so be it.

Stop being such a ****ing busy body.

ItsAWindUp

bbam wrote: »

I do beleive I'm entitled to make that decision... As was argued earlier we are just more developed more inteligent versions of our animal cousins or our forefathers.. Meat is a natural part of our diet, thankfully we have developed humane ways of slaughter.. I'm not saying the process can't be improved..

Wasn't it the eating of animals that brought forward our increase in inteligence?

Perhaps it was, and I'm not arguing that in times gone by it was necessary, but not now.

Cú Giobach

CruelCoin wrote: »

If you'd rather eat tofu, chickpeas and cous-cous, then so be it.

If i want to eat steak and chops, then so be it.

Stop being such a ****ing busy body.

Indeed, each to their own.

Just curious about something. --Kaiser-- why did you thank the above quoted post when in every one of your posts you are vehemently (and insultingly) against people who make the former decision and describe them as "loony bins" and claim they have "twisted morals" are "deluded" and "not living in the real world", being this opposed to something and then thanking someone who says (to paraphrase) "each to their own" is a touch hypocritical, don't you think?

Pherekydes

softmee wrote: »

-you are a bloody animal too and not much more evolved! :mad:

So what's the issue with us acting like animals? We are, naturally speaking, omnivores.

Why don't you go take up your argument with the pride of lions, or the pack of hyenas, or the sharks?

Dravokivich

Pherekydes wrote: »

So what's the issue with us acting like animals? We are, naturally speaking, omnivores.

Why don't you go take up your argument with the pride of lions, or the pack of hyenas, or the sharks?

Or more importantly, what do righteous vegetarians feed their pet dogs / cats? (or any other pet they may have that's a carnivore)

:pac:

Zulu

Pherekydes wrote: »

So what's the issue with us acting like animals? We are, naturally speaking, omnivores.

Why don't you go take up your argument with the pride of lions, or the pack of hyenas, or the sharks?

Exactly, I enjoy nothing more than sinking my evolved canines into a rib section.

http://www.bowlingbsi.com/webrunner/meatpoint/commom/images/navigation/Beef-Cuts-Color.gif

--Kaiser--

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Indeed, each to their own.

Just curious about something. --Kaiser-- why did you thank the above quoted post when in every one of your posts you are vehemently (and insultingly) against people who make the former decision and describe them as "loony bins" and claim they have "twisted morals" are "deluded" and "not living in the real world", being this opposed to something and then thanking someone who says (to paraphrase) "each to their own" is a touch hypocritical, don't you think?

I don't think. In real life, I don't go about my day criticising people's choice of diet. However, if a vegetarian tells me that it's or immoral or unhealthy to eat meat, well, I'm not going to take that lying down

Birdnuts

Nothing wrong with eating meat so long as the following conditions are met

1) the animal is not an endangered species

2) it was killed humanly

3)it was reared in good welfare standards

4)the production of the animal was sustaineble from an environmental point of view

Cú Giobach

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

I don't think. In real life, I don't go about my day criticising people's choice of diet. However, if a vegetarian tells me that it's or immoral or unhealthy to eat meat, well, I'm not going to take that lying down

Interesting.

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

I called vegetarians 'loony-bins' as in my opinion they have twisted morals and live in a deluded fantasy world.

Are these the words of someone who subscribes to the ideal of "each to their own"?

Seachmall

Amber Lamps wrote: »

So maintaining a culture of slaughter is the best solution here. Good to see the inherited big brains are firing on all cylinders.

A) I never said anything like that.
Understand what you're replying to before trying to be condescending, it makes you look like an idiot otherwise.

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Nothing wrong with what I stated earlier about rivers, if slurry can pollute rivers, then the removal of the stuff could result in cleaner rivers, quite a simple deduction really.

Except I never commented on anything you said about rivers. I'm commenting on your claims.

You made specific claims about me which were incorrect, hence your waffling now above.

I haven't made a single claim in this thread, you're the one waffling. I've questioned the validity of your claims. Claims you stand by as you believe them to be self-evident when they are not, they ignore changes in habitat and the environmental and economical consequences of blindly and naively trying to reverse that change.

Would dumping all cattle and manure eventually lead to reforestation? Probably, but to assume that change would happen relatively smoothly or would ultimately be a good thing is wrong.

If you are so naive about the environment as to be unaware how forest would overtake this island very quickly (even the cities if they were abandoned), there is little point in continuing this discussion.

Once again, I never said anything different.

Stop arguing points I never made.

Cú Giobach

Seachmall wrote: »

Except I never commented on anything you said about rivers. I'm commenting on your claims.

Yes you did, you said a point I made about rivers/clean water was irrelevant due to the use of the word "could".

I haven't made a single claim in this thread, you're the one waffling.

Yes you did, you stated (numerous times) that I said removing cattle would have no impact. That was an incorrect claim about me.

I've questioned the validity of your claims. Claims you stand by as you believe them to be self-evident when they are not, they ignore changes in habitat and the environmental and economical consequences of blindly and naively trying to reverse that change.

Would dumping all cattle and manure eventually lead to reforestation? Probably, but to assume that change would happen relatively smoothly or would ultimately be a good thing is wrong.

No probably about it, it would happen and very quickly, in different manners depending on how the land has been used.
You seem to be ignoring one little thing, I never advocated total reforestation or claimed it would be positive thing for this country.

Once again, I never said anything different.

Yes you did.

Cú Giobach wrote: »

what I am stating is that here, land left to its own devices would turn for the most part into Broadleaf forest with the resultant eco-systems,

Seachmall wrote: »

The problem is this is not necessarily the case. The environment has changed, by removing the changing factor you're assuming it would go back to it's original form. There's no guarantee of that. We forced a change on the ecosystem and undoing that change isn't as simple as eliminating cattle.

Seachmall

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Yes you did, you said a point I made about rivers/clean water was irrelevant due to the use of the word "could".

I wasn't commenting on your point on rivers I was commenting on the relevance of that point. Although maybe a pedantic difference.

Yes you did, you stated (numerous times) that I said removing cattle would have no impact. That was an incorrect claim about me.

No I didn't, I stated the consequences were unpredictable and no assumptions about the probable consequences
could be made (broadly speaking).

No probably about it, it would happen and very quickly, in different manners depending on how the land has been used.

These are the absolute claims about immeasurable consequences I'm questioning.

You seem to be ignoring one little thing, I never advocated total reforestation or claimed it would be positive thing for this country.

I don't think you are talking about total reforestation, I think you're talking about partial reforestation and making generic assumptions about it.

Yes you did.

Ya, I did.



Let me just make sure I have your position right:
The removal of cattle and manure from some areas would be beneficial as it would revert to it's former glory.

If that's correct (and apologies if it's not) then my position is:
You can't know nor assume that.

Cú Giobach

Seachmall wrote: »

Let me just make sure I have your position right:
The removal of cattle and manure from some areas would be beneficial as it would revert to it's former glory.

No.
The removal of cattle from areas (that are then left untouched) would result in forest with the resultant eco-systems. I'm not advocating it (you have picked that up wrong, just mentioning that something would happen doesn't mean someone actively wants it to happen) nor do I think it would revert back to what was here previously (that would take many centuries).
That land here reverts to Broadleaf Forest is a scientific fact, as I mentioned earlier it has nothing to do with what was here earlier, it is due to our climate and latitude, there is nothing in cow sh*t that by its removal would interfere with this process, it would be inevitable.

You are replying to my posts as if I am advocating such a change I am not, nor have I anywhere in this thread said I am.
Ok.

Zulu

Cú Giobach wrote: »

That land here reverts to Broadleaf Forest is a scientific fact

Please provide a (link to) published scientific paper detailing the arguments supporting this "fact". If you can't provide the same, please don't peddle your opinion as "scientific fact".

Cú Giobach

Zulu wrote: »

Please provide a (link to) published scientific paper detailing the arguments supporting this "fact". If you can't provide the same, please don't peddle your opinion as "scientific fact".

If I stated that the Earth revolving around the Sun is a scientific fact without providing links to scientific papers, would you claim I was merely "peddling my opinions as scientific fact"?
Because of your attitude I'm not going to bother looking for something that is a well established biological fact just to satisfy you. I am sure you could find it yourself if you really need it.

Seachmall

Cú Giobach wrote: »

That land here reverts to Broadleaf Forest is a scientific fact, as I mentioned earlier it has nothing to do with what was here earlier, it is due to our climate and latitude, there is nothing in cow sh*t that by its removal would interfere with this process, it would be inevitable.

I'm still having issue with this point.

There are more factors than climate and latitude that dictate what can grow. Soil composition, competition, and predators are just a few. All 3 of these examples would have changed in areas where we've cut down forests over the years, grazed cattle and fertilized with manure. There is no guarantee that those 3 factors would return to a state allowing a Broadleaf forest to grows.

Nor is there any guarantee that reducing or reversing our initial changes would not have negative impacts on the area or surrounding environment.

If I stated that the Earth revolving around the Sun is a scientific fact without providing links to scientific papers, would you claim I was merely "peddling my opinions as scientific fact"?

This is why in a previous post I put "truistic" in quotes. It seems self-evident to you but it's not self-evident nor common knowledge. It is a claim that requires evidence for the reasons mentioned above.

--Kaiser--

Cú Giobach wrote: »

If I stated that the Earth revolving around the Sun is a scientific fact without providing links to scientific papers, would you claim I was merely "peddling my opinions as scientific fact"?
Because of your attitude I'm not going to bother looking for something that is a well established biological fact just to satisfy you. I am sure you could find it yourself if you really need it.

If it's is such an established fact then surely you'll be able to find some arguments, evidence or studies to support you statement.

Or you can just throw your toys out of the pram. Always a good strategy in discussions

Zulu

Cú Giobach wrote: »

If I stated that the Earth revolving around the Sun is a scientific fact without providing links to scientific papers, would you claim I was merely "peddling my opinions as scientific fact"?

Nobody here is disputing that the Earth is revolving around the sun.

Because of your attitude I'm not going to bother looking

More like you know you won't be able to find proof to support your position.

-Trek-

What was this thread about again?

Cú Giobach

Seachmall wrote: »

I'm still having issue with this point.

There are more factors than climate and latitude that dictate what can grow. Soil composition, competition, and predators are just a few. All 3 of these examples would have changed in areas where we've cut down forests over the years, grazed cattle and fertilized with manure. There is no guarantee that those 3 factors would return to a state allowing a Broadleaf forest to grows.
This is why in a previous post I put "truistic" in quotes. It seems self-evident to you but it's not self-evident nor common knowledge. It is a claim that requires evidence for the reasons mentioned above.

Bogs won't suddenly turn into forests nor will wild windswept upland or coastal areas, but in areas where trees can grow (which by its very nature is verdant farmland) they will, because the one major competition factor regarding all plants irrespective of their differing soil needs is sunlight, this is why forest is the end result of the "plant arms race", the resultant height determined by when it is no longer beneficial to put energy into growing higher versus the gaining of sunlight.

The proof is out there in hedgerows, areas farmers have put aside, abandoned plots eg old mills, farms etc basically any areas of untouched land over huge areas of this island. It's actually amusing people calling for proof of what the result of not touching land here is, as it can be seen quite easily. These areas would just gradually expand and fill the land, what grows will then be determined by what was there with this lessening gradually over time until nature does what nature does and wipe out all traces of us under a new blanket of soil.
Yes it is common knowledge, anyone who does not "keep the wilderness back" knows full well what the results are.

Nor is there any guarantee that reducing or reversing our initial changes would not have negative impacts on the area or surrounding environment.

what part of I AM NOT ADVOCATING THIS do you not understand? Why should I care about the negative impacts of something that won't happen and that I am not calling for.

Cú Giobach

Zulu wrote: »

Nobody here is disputing that the Earth is revolving around the sun.

More like you know you won't be able to find proof to support your position.

You must have very limited experience if this little fact is beyond you.

Zulu

Cú Giobach wrote: »

You must have very limited experience if this little fact is beyond you.

...you mean the opinion you consider fact?

Good man: first spit the dummy, then get personal. :rolleyes:

Cú Giobach

Zulu wrote: »

...you mean the opinion you consider fact?

Good man: first spit the dummy, then get personal. :rolleyes:

Well it's true, if you don't know what happens to untouched land you must be living in some sort of bubble as it can be seen all around, in the country and in the cities.
Just because you yourself don't know something (I find it amazing there are people who wouldn't know this basic fact about our biosphere) doesn't mean it is not widely known and understood, it has been known since man was first able to understand such things what happens to land that is left go wild, especially in their own environment, you only have to go outside your door and take a walk to see the process.

Zulu

...so no proof then.

Seachmall

Cú Giobach wrote: »

but in areas where trees can grow they will

But the point is the changes made in these areas may have resulted in trees not being able to grow there.

The proof is out there in hedgerows, areas farmers have put aside, abandoned plots eg old mills, farms etc basically any areas of untouched land over huge areas of this island. It's actually amusing people calling for proof of what the result of not touching land here is, as it can be seen quite easily.

None of this is proof.

Cú Giobach

Zulu wrote: »

...so no proof then.

The proof is all around you. You really must be far far removed from reality and the natural world if you need proof of this.