Social contradiction on how we treat animals

After discussion with Gozunda his/her ban has been lifted, please continue.

davidjtaylor

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Genuine question, what is the purpose of this thread?

Hitman3000, at a guess, I'd say it's more-or-less summed up in the first post, in particular these paragraphs:

Deleted User wrote: »

It seems people will go to extraordinary financial and physical efforts to help animals in stress but don’t think twice about the animals that provide their food.

Is this simply because of social norms/conditioning ?

Do the people who get enraged by a woman throwing a cat into a bin - https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2010/oct/19/cat-bin-woman-mary-bale - not understand what happens to animals for the provision of their meat and dairy ?

I can remember reading articles on the rescue of horses in ‘quicksand’, dogs or cats stuck in walls and usually with great financial cost involved.

There’s also the people who intervene during wild fires or extreme weather conditions to help wildlife.

and what I personally take from this is that klopparama is attempting to understand an all-too-commonly-exhibited cognitive dissonance (what others might call it hypocrisy).

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Humans are unreal. These birds - are "particularly intelligent" and "like to communicate with humans and establish a relationship through play".
But other birds like chicken are just food. When will people see it as it is.
French theme park deploys crows to collect litter http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45155818

All animals are by definition 'intelligent' in that they have the ability to ability to acquire and / or apply knowledge and skills for purposes of survival and reproduction. Humans are fairly normal animals in this regard.

For example see: https://www.quora.com/Do-animals-have-intelligence

Many animal species are also predated and eaten by other animals. So yes animals can be 'intelligent' and also 'food'. There is no contradiction or 'hypocrisy' by humans or any other animal

Just because an organism has certain level of inteligence or otherwise - does not mean it is excluded from the recycling of nutrients (entrophy) within ecological proceses. Even humans although at the top of the global food chain and intelligent sometimes get eaten by other animals.

The only place that this doesn't usually happen is Disneyworld ...

davidjtaylor

gozunda wrote: »

Even humans although at the top of the global food chain and intelligent sometimes get eaten by other animals.

And look at the outcry at that! And the response!

Ganmo post like that again and it is a ban, also a ban for those thanking things that are not welcome here.

Actually talk about the "Social contradiction on how we treat animals" or do not talk at all, make other threads about other things. I'm growing more impatient with this and will start banning for going off topic, including the OP. This is not a place to post links with no discussion on the topic or for people to randomly use Appeal to Nature.

gormdubhgorm

I don't want to be eaten alive by the mod so I am firmly sticking to the topic.
I don't view the meat eaters as a contradiction to how we treat animals.

People do not want to be cruel to animals as it is sadism cruelty for cruelties sake for amusement, tying a firework to a dog's tail for example.
Most people including meat eaters would view this as abhorrent.

But for a meat eater eating meat is natural is not done to be cruel to animals it is done for a purpose to eat meat providing nutrition.

I find the main contraction is the vegetarians and vegans who espouse nature.
Yet by going on a vegetarian/vegan diet they have to artificially find nutrition elsewhere which is against nature and is unnatural.

I used to have a pet dog when I was younger.
It would not stop me from eating dog if it was the culture of the country I was in Asia etc.
Likewise I would have no problem eating horse if I was in France or Belgium.

It is all meat and nutrition at the end of the day.
Meat is always the first thing I go for on a plate and it always will be.

seamus

The short answer to the OP is that we are conditioned to believe that animals killed for food are done so painlessly and humanely, or to simply not think about it at all.

So when we see a suffering animal, we save it. Many people then would have no issue packing the same animal off into a truck to food and then just not thinking about what happens next.

In an ideal world animals eaten for food would live a comfortable and stress-free life just like a pet, and when they die it would be lights-out without warning and without suffering. Unfortunately none of that is reality.

Yes, I'm aware previous posts were deleted for being off topic so I'll try to stay on track.

ganmo wrote: »

em the goat farmer is part of the human race
the western world eats too much of everything, cut everyones meat intake by half and calories by 25% and we'd be a much healthier section of the world

We don't usually organise our society according to how those with entirely different circumstances do on the other side of the planet. And if we did, you would see the contradiction as there are or were places where it is acceptable to eat dogs or kill elephants for their tusks or Rhino's for their horns. Most of us in Ireland would find these acts abominable now.

I don't know about you but my caloric intake is just fine. No doubt we'd all be a lot healthier for cutting meat consumption in half but also even more healthy again for getting rid of it entirely and replacing it with plants of equal and greater nutrition.

gozunda wrote: »

Hang on - are we not getting a bit away from the whole 'social contradiction' angle here again?

I can repeat exactly what I said about eating meat and that it is a perfectly normal part of human culture and nutrition again, and how all food production is detrimental to the planet however I don't wish to get cautioned etc for doing so.

Perhaps you could reframe your points etc so that we stick with the thread topic and I'll try and reply ...

And some food production is far far less damaging. However it is necessary so we aught to do the least damage without sacrificing our well being.

My point is that there's no reason to treat dog, cow, cat or pig differently. These are all friendly and intelligent animals capable of great compassion and each capable of suffering in equal amounts by our hands. As there is objectively, scientifically, economically and nutritionally no good reason to bring harm to these animals then you should indeed see the ingrained social contradiction in people's perceptions of how these animals should be treated and what ends they meet.

That's me done in this thread. I don't really think more needs to be said without going off topic here. Thanks.

Lady Haywire

Deleted User wrote: »

Another story that has captured global attention

Killer whale still carrying dead baby after 16 days http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45133855

Yet not much thought seems to be given for cows separated from their calves.

Not much talk about saving the whales here.
Contains scenes of dead whales so don't blame me if you open it and say you weren't warned.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6066735/Faroe-Islands-whale-hunt-Sea-turns-red-blood-entire-village-butcher-180-animals.html

It's all to do with how we're brought up and what we perceive as normal. Sure cows/pigs/chickens have characters but majority of the world is brought up to see them as livestock & food, whereas cats/dogs & smaller animals are commonly seen as companions.

Eathrin wrote: »

Yes, I'm aware previous posts were deleted for being off topic so I'll try to stay on track.

We don't usually organise our society according to how those with entirely different circumstances do on the other side of the planet. And if we did, you would see the contradiction as there are or were places where it is acceptable to eat dogs or kill elephants for their tusks or Rhino's for their horns. Most of us in Ireland would find these acts abominable now.

Yes I agree - we do not "usually organise our society according to how those with entirely different circumstances do on the other side of the planet." Afaik it's not acceptable to "eat dogs or kill elephants" here. That is how it is. There is no contradiction to say there are cultures where such practices do happen.

Eathrin wrote:

I don't know about you but my caloric intake is just fine. No doubt we'd all be a lot healthier for cutting meat consumption in half but also even more healthy again for getting rid of it entirely and replacing it with plants of equal and greater nutrition.

And that is your opinion which you are of course entitled to hold. Without being a medical or nutrional professional - imo it is dangerous and misleading to make suchvwide sweeping statements regarding a diet that you have selected for yourself mainly because I gather from your comments you are against animal based agriculture. That does not constitute any 'social contradiction' btw.

"Eathrin wrote:

And some food production is far far less damaging. However it is necessary so we aught to do the least damage without sacrificing our well being.

Think you are going wayyy of topic again there eathrin but suffice to say that is at best a fallacy. You may choose to see it that way. The real facts and figures show otherwise.There is no 'social contradiction there.

Eathrin wrote:

My point is that there's no reason to treat dog, cow, cat or pig differently. These are all friendly and intelligent animals capable of great compassion and each capable of suffering in equal amounts by our hands. As there is objectively, scientifically, economically and nutritionally no good reason to bring harm to these animals then you should indeed see the ingrained social contradiction in people's perceptions of how these animals should be treated and what ends they meet.

Again eathrin that's an opinion. The majority of people do not need to have a one size fits all philosophy for the world. Intelligence and being part of the food chain are not mutually exclusive. The eating of meat etc is part and parcel of entrophy and the recycling of nutrients on this planet. We can choose to ignore it - however it does not make it a social contradiction.

When I was young, I might have either eaten my dog or some meat I bought at the supermarket to get what are probably similar nutrients. (Well, almost the same, people here seem to conveniently forget that farm animals are pumped full of vitamins and supplements, but then call me weird for taking them straight)

I didn't eat my dog, because of the societal contradiction on how we treat different animals.

Now, I don't harm either.

Eathrin wrote: »

When I was young, I might have either eaten my dog or some meat I bought at the supermarket to get what are probably similar nutrients. (Well, almost the same, people here seem to conveniently forget that farm animals are pumped full of vitamins and supplements, but then call me weird for taking them straight)
I didn't eat my dog, because of the societal contradiction on how we treat different animals.
Now, I don't harm either.

Do they really? Please explain how farm animals here are pumped full of "vitamins and supplements" (sic)

As explained for the majority of the population there is no 'societal contradiction' in not eating certain animals. That particular idea is something that is presumed by a small minority that choose not to eat animal products.

Look at this way - do you eat all vegetables and plants? Do you eat ornamental flowers? Do you eat cactus or grass? If so why not? Is there a 'societal contradiction when you don't? How do you reconcile that?

[Deleted User]

This is the reality of where your bacon comes from

The contradiction being that these pigs are probably more intelligent than your pet dog that you’d spend thousands on to keep alive.

Animals are sentient and not just your pets.

https://youtu.be/L_vqIGTKuQE

A lot of posts deleted again, if you want to talk about something else make a thread about it. Infractions and warnings handed out to some posters.

Deleted User wrote:

This is the reality of where your bacon comes from

What relevance is this video to animal welfare in the EU?

davidjtaylor

CiniO wrote: »

Animals in a need of help should and often are helped by human. That's a normal decent thing to do for a human being.

Same as killing animals for food.

There's a huge difference in throwing a cat into a bin to make it suffer comparing to killing a pig for a bacon that you're gonna eat.

Deleted User wrote: »

I suppose this is what I’m talking about.

I see both as acts of great cruelty yet you don’t.

Why do we see it differently ?

I can only speak for myself of course but one reason (there are many) is that life's a long journey - I was vegetarian by 1992 but it took me until 2005 to become vegan. Life gets in the way. I simply hadn't put enough thought into it, I was too busy and didn't take the time to educate myself.

It was selfish of me but I'm not the first, nor the last...

That's just me though; I regret not seeing the light sooner.

davidjtaylor wrote:

That's just me though; I regret not seeing the light sooner.

Seeing the light? So anyone who does not subscribe to your way of life is wrong? Is that the inference here?

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Seeing the light? So anyone who does not subscribe to your way of life is wrong? Is that the inference here?

Yes. If we can almost universally agree that things like slavery, rape, murder, child abuse etc etc are wrong then why not this.

There is no blame or hatred of those who don't yet subscribe to these views because we know that most of us were once meat eaters who were brought up believing something that was unjust. It's can be difficult and long drawn out to change a belief that has stuck with you so long. Beliefs that you don't question because they've been with you so long, any alternative view just seems totally alien and uncomfortable.

This thread is about a social contradiction and is one thing you might think about when considering what is truly just. Many of these contradictions in how we behave versus what we believe should help lead you to your own conclusions.

Eathrin wrote:

Yes. If we can almost universally agree that things like slavery, rape, murder, child abuse etc etc are wrong then why not this.

That's some jump.

Eathrin wrote:

This thread is about a social contradiction and is one thing you might think about when considering what is truly just. Many of these contradictions in how we behave versus what we believe should help lead you to your own conclusions.

I answered the question about a precieved contradiction but the mod seems to be on a deletion spree.

Eathrin wrote: »

Yes. If we can almost universally agree that things like slavery, rape, murder, child abuse etc etc are wrong then why not this.

There is no blame or hatred of those who don't yet subscribe to these views because we know that most of us were once meat eaters who were brought up believing something that was unjust. It's can be difficult and long drawn out to change a belief that has stuck with you so long. Beliefs that you don't question because they've been with you so long, any alternative view just seems totally alien and uncomfortable.

This thread is about a social contradiction and is one thing you might think about when considering what is truly just. Many of these contradictions in how we behave versus what we believe should help lead you to your own conclusions.

Because that is a much debunked and very tired simplistic vegan argument. I see it trotted out on a regular basis as if it makes some kind of sense. It doesn't.

Because simply "slavery, rape, murder, child abuse" are legaly defined offences against other humans. Now if you are proposing that we arrest and charge all who eat meat with such crimes then your logic does not hold.

Eating meat is not and will never be a universal criminal act. if it was prisons would have to be full of foxes, hyenas and tigers and other meat eaters. Unlike those human based laws - the eating of meat is a part of the law of entrophy or the recycling of nutrients in ecology. You may not like that but those facts don't change no matter what your opinion is on meat eating.

Not everyone does or will ever describe to that particular world view.

There is no social contradiction in the eating of meat except in the mind of those who dont.

standardg60

Op i'll try to answer your original question..for me this whole 'social contradiction' is basically down to one thing, namely that some of us are controlled by emotion and others by logic and that is just human nature. I find that people who are against the killing of animals for food are unable to remove themselves from the 'what if I was in their shoes' thought process.
Animals have no concept of the future, the cow next in line in the slaughterhouse has no concept that the fate of the one in front is about to befall them, it's only us who have this. You're simply projecting how you'd feel.

In relation to why we treat cats and dogs differently, if you think about it they are kept as pets because of how they make us feel, not the other way round. It's only our emotional attachment to them which makes us feel differently. Do you think that the much loved pet about to be euthanized feels differently to the cow?

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Seeing the light? So anyone who does not subscribe to your way of life is wrong? Is that the inference here?

Tbh I see that as one of main problems with the whole concept of 'social contradiction'

I agree with you that 'seeing the light' and similar declarations indicate some type of absolute belief. Unfortunately like other belief systems - it suggests that the behaviours and / or beliefs of non believers are somehow 'wrong' even where that does not follow or where such beliefs do not stand up to the scrutiny of others.

Of course everyone is entitled to their beliefs with the provisio - that is so as long as those beliefs do not infringe on the beliefs or legal rights of others.

gozunda wrote: »

Of course everyone is entitled to their beliefs with the provisio - that is so as long as those beliefs do not infringe on the beliefs or rights of others.

That's probably part of the difference in views and the crux of some of the social contradiction points. An animal such as a dog has certain laws and rights in various countries associated with them so that people can not infringe upon their rights. Then a similar animal does not have the same laws protecting them. Even cats in Britain don't have as good laws protecting them as dogs, let alone traditional western-centric farmed animals. Traditionally because cats were seen as worse than dogs by society. Simply put, you can get charged with animal cruelty or not, depending on what type of animal an animal is. It is not because of morality, attributes or absolute worth, it is because of current or past societal opinion which makes laws and changes over time.

gozunda wrote: »

Because simply "slavery, rape, murder, child abuse" are legaly defined offences against other humans. Now if you are proposing that we arrest and charge all who eat meat with such crimes then your logic does not hold.

Eating meat is not and will never be a universal criminal act. if it was prisons would have to be full of foxes, hyenas and tigers and other meat eaters. Unlike those human based laws - the eating of meat is a part of the law of entrophy or the recycling of nutrients in ecology. You may not like that but those facts don't change no matter what your opinion is on meat eating.

Wild animals rape and murder each other all the time. I wouldn't be putting them in prison for it. I hold myself to higher standards than wild animals though. I'm not suggesting making eating meat illegal either, you do draw out some pretty insane conclusions. Again, I can act morally outside of the law. You don't need to look very far back in history to see where the law was quite obviously morally flawed. The law isn't necessarily just there for human on human offences either. Animal cruelty can carry quite a sentence depending on where you are in the world. However, again due to this "contradiction", the abuse of some animals is perceived to be worthy of greater sentencing than others. I don't support animal abuse at all.

standardg60 wrote: »

Animals have no concept of the future, the cow next in line in the slaughterhouse has no concept that the fate of the one in front is about to befall them, it's only us who have this. You're simply projecting how you'd feel.

Have you ever seen a cow in a slaughterhouse? Because I've seen lots of footage of cows absolutely terrified for their lives in these final moments. How could you not when you hear the screams of those who went before you and smell their blood?