Kurt Zouma thinks it's funny to use a cat as a football

If we were to all just eat rabbit food economy's around the world would collapse with so many people out of jobs, saying meat is not necessary is quite naive

I've already said that subsidies should be put in place to aid in the transition to plant based food production. The whole world isn't just going to stop eating animals, it will be a gradual transition and industries and economies will adapt. This is currently happening. Animal agriculture is having a devastating impact on the environment. This is already destroying jobs, livelihoods and economies and it's really jus tip of the iceberg as to what's to come. So eating animals is not only unnecessary, but it's in the best interest for all life (including the trillions slaughtered annually of course) to transition to plant based food production with incentives such as rewilding land etc in place and subsidies and supports for transition.

Yeah it is depressing alright, we just don't see it. Classic out of sight out of mind. Certainly gives people a lot to think about regarding their meat consumption.

I don't because it is illogical. The subject of the thread here is a multi millionaire public figure, who filmed himself or let himself be filmed kicking his cat. Those are the facts

The word for what you are talking about is called 'Anthropomorphism'. You are putting human emotions on the rest of the cows. You use the line the cows could 'smell death'. They could not. What happened was you imagined that the rest of the cows smelt death. Putting yourself in the place of the cows as if they were human. Kicking a cat for fun and eating meat for fuel and well being are two entirely separate issues. It is only natural for the those higher up in the food chain to eat those lower down the food chain. What is not natural is teasing/bullying an animal for pleasure. That serves no practical purpose as an abattoir does.

I think these animals are smarter than you give them credit for.

@cormie

Are you? Tbh I have no idea why you have persistently asked me that particular inquiry. What your own personal philosophy is on what you chose to eat, is honestly not my concern.

Imho the thread has already been railroaded enough times down blind allies into vague philosophical asides which have nothing whatsoever to do with Zouma sadisticly kicking a cat and filming it.

But to your query. I'm being civil when I say I've absolutely no idea. I did look it up and I now know that the theory of 'least harm' is often viewed sceptically as being problematic for a whole host of reasons. I also understand it was used in the Pro life / Abortion debate not that long ago to support the idea that legislation allowing for women to have certain necessary gynecological services be denied.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/askaphilosopher.org/2017/10/09/problems-with-j-s-mills-harm-principle/amp/

In relation to your own notions about only eating plants. I believe that has already been dealt by someone who is qualified to answer such philosophical quanderies. This is a selected extract from that answer.

"If half of the total harvested land in the US was used to produce plant products for human consumption and half was used for pasture-forage production, how many animals would die annually so that humans may eat?

60 million ha, plant production × 15 animals/ha = 0.9 billion

60 million ha, forage production × 7.5 animals/ha = 0.45 billion

Total: 1.35 billion animals

According to this model then, fewer animals (1.35 billion) would die than in the vegan model (1.8 billion). As a result, if we apply the LHP as Regan did for his vegan conclusion, it would seem that humans are morally obligated to consume a diet of vegetables and ruminant animal products.

But what of the ruminant animals that would need to die to feed people in the pasture-forage model? According to USDA numbers quoted by Francione (2000), of the 8.4 billion farm animals killed each year for food in the US, approximately 8 billion of those are poultry and only 37 million are ruminants (cows, calves) the remainder includes pigs and other species.

Even if the numbers of cows and calves killed for food each year was doubled to 74 million to replace the 8 billion poultry, the total number of animals that would need to be killed under this alternative method wouldstill be only 1.424 billion, still clearly less than in the vegan model.

1. Another alternative, suggested recently by PETA (2001), recommends that if we are going to eat meat, we should kill the largest animalspossible, thereby reducing the number of animals that would need to die to feed humans (LHP). In fact, they have suggested that blue whales, the largest known living animal would be the ideal choice.

This suggestion strikes me as unsustainable, because it would be impossible to find adequate numbers of adult animals to harvest without totally depleting the population.

2. A third alternative, suggested by Peter Cheeke (personal communica- tion), would be to eliminate intensive agriculture altogether and have everyone produce their own vegan diet on small plots of land using no-till production systems to reduce killing/harm to animals of the field. Ibelieve that this system would also be unpractical and not viable. The human populations are too large, land is concentrated in the hands of the few rather than many, and social systems would need to revert to those of primitive cultures.

3. But if herbivores are used, wouldn’t it cause least harm if we used the fewest possible, therefore, the largest herbivores? Elephants might be used, but in practical terms, I believe that the majority of people would object to eating elephants. Large draft horse breeds developed previously as working horses, may be up to twice the size of a cow. Perhaps they could be used to harvest or convert forages into meat and dairy products. Again, I don’t believe many humans would support this option; otherwise there would already be more people willing to consume horsemeat.

4. Kerasote (1993) proposed that least harm would be done if humans were to hunt locally, particularly large animals like elk for their own food. But his least harm concept appears to be related as much to least harm to the environment (less fossil fuel consumption) as least harm to animals. Furthermore, this doesn’t seem to be a practical idea, because there are too few animals and there would be too many hunters. As Taylor (1999) said, one “issue that arises from Kerasote’s argument is whether hunting for one’s food is practical on a large scale.” ...

INTENDED VS. UNINTENDED DEATHS

Taylor (1999) says that another issue arises from Karasote’s argument, and that is the matter of intentional infliction of harm versus harm that is the unintentional, but a foreseeable side effect of one’s actions. The animals of the field die not intentionally, but incidentally as a consequence of producing food for humans. On the other hand, farm animals (chickens, pigs, cows, and sheep) are killed intentionally to provide food for humans.

Perhaps I don’t fully understand the nuances or moral significance of this difference, but it seems to me that the harm done to the animal is the same – dead is dead. Furthermore, many farmers do intentionally kill some animals of the field because their presence causes reduced yields. Taylor (1999) says about the questions of intent, “A utilitarian is likely to see no moral difference between the two, since utilitarianism holds that it is consequences that count and not intentions.”

CONCLUSION

1. Vegan diets are not bloodless diets. Millions of animals of the field die every year to provide products used in vegan diets.

2. Several alternative food production models exist that may kill fewer animals than the vegan model.

3. More research is needed to obtain accurate estimations of the number of field animals killed in different crop production systems.

4. Humans may be morally obligated to consume a diet from plant based plus pasture-forage-ruminant systems."

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://fewd.univie.ac.at/fileadmin/user_upload/inst_ethik_wiss_dialog/Davis__S._2003_The_least_Harm_-_Anti_Veg_in_J._Agric._Ethics.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiepKjz3_31AhUVQEEAHRtaBDUQFnoECCsQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1GCk0Z0V2rC1r_j7FrLprn"

Edit:

Btw I found the above when I looked it up. Hope it helps. I don't have any further "answers" for you based on that, as Philosophy is really not my area of expertise. Therefore I would be obliged if you didn't direct any more of those questions eitherway.

Nah it is simply Anthropomorphism.

Which is a big problem in such discussions IMO.

"New account defending scumbag"

Just a phenomenal putdown there, so well articulated. You must have been a hell of a debater in your day. I would have thought, given that you're such an old hat on this site, you'd be able to string a sentence together.

"Both sides nonsense?"Im sorry that i offended your sensibilities by looking at the proportionality of the punishment being meated out. You made it clear that you couldn't care less if he did away with himself, I thought that that is ott.

In those circumstances, I don't really see a whole lot difference between you and Zouma, just a case of your hatred being channeled in different directions.

So are carnivores inherently evil and bad? Is Zouma's cat the real villain here?

no messing around on a farm, if the animal no longer serves a purpose it's killed, hung up and bled out and butchered. It's a different mindset to that of sheltered city folk who only see meat packed in plastic in a shop

Carnivores kill out of necessity and instinct. Tigers will also kill and eat their own babies. They however don't have the same moral compass most humans possess and with that should come responsibility and a will not to cause unnecessary harm and suffering to others.

I'm not asking you to debate my personal philosophy. I'm asking you simply, if you think it's wrong to cause harm where harm isn't necessary and you're failing to answer. I have stated I believe most people here would agree that it's wrong to cause harm where harm isn't necessary but they may not be aligning their actions with that principle. It can take a long time for people to come around and realise this and make changes to minimise their harm to others, but questioning your own principles and how your actions align to those principles is a start at least.

The use of the word perpetrator was in relation to Zouma.

Anyone speaking of least harm in relation to specific gynecological services to women should be against sending millions of sperm to an early grave and avoid any activity that may result in ejaculation in that case so 😂

It's not a rebuttal from some random website, it was literally in the same publication you have lauded above, The Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics as a rebuttal to what they had previously published, contributed to by multiple professors. The one you linked to was clearly peer reviewed as the rebuttal wouldn't have come from peers had they not first reviewed Davis' paper.

Ok -that is fear a basic animalistic emotion. It is not ‘smelling death’ as the poster claims. That phrase was like someone who was reading too much Orwell - ‘Animal Farm’ .

Cows are terrified of a lot of things at the best of times. But needs must. There is no need for kicking a cat just for the fun of it - in contrast.

But like Kay Burley reporting on the Paris terror attacks. I assume there are people who believe there are dogs ‘with sadness in their eyes’ upon hearing about what Kurt Zouma did to that cat.

The theory you're promoting of "least harm" is a philosophical one and as I've clearly detailed Philosophy is not my area of expertise. What I do know from looking it up is that theory is widely criticised both in its approach and application.

Therefore I would be obliged if you didn't direct any more of those questions eitherway.

Btw the discussion article in response to Professor Harris's paper seems to be in support of the case for vegetarianism and not "veganism" as you have incorrectly suggested in your previous comment

Note: the radom website referred to was the other somewhat dodgy website linked