Social contradiction on how we treat animals

[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 ...

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

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 or absolute worth, it is because of current or past societal opinion which makes laws and changes over time.

Well let's look at Ireland for example where all animals recieve specific protections. These 'rights' as you describe them as far as I understand are not vested the way human laws are because such animals are under the care of their human minders. The Animal Welfare Act (2013) details that people must provide the "five freedoms" to animals under their care: freedom from hunger and thirst, freedom from discomfort (by providing adequate living conditions), freedom from pain, injury and disease, freedom to express normal behaviour, and freedom from fear and distress. 

These laws do not stop those minders from either euthanising domestic animals or sending farm animals to the factory as again it is recognised that is part of a controlled and regulated processes which provide for health management and food production. Fail to provide any of those five freedoms to any domestic or farmed animal will likley result in a conviction or other penalty.

And yes where they may be differences - it holds that like the 2013 Animal Welfare Act there is always scope for improving animal welfare laws. So no I don't see that that constitutes any social contradiction.

Eathrin wrote: »

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.

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

You named out things which were all illegal & specified that this could also be put into the same spectrum. So yea, forgive myself & others for thinking you meant to make it illegal.

Eathrin wrote: »

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?

I have actually, I worked in one, I was the livestock manager so I took all the cattle in. Most were calm, drank water, licked away at molasses. Went up the chute with no screams (Cattle can't scream btw)
Cattle cannot process what's in the future, they only think of the here and now so no they would have had a basic instinct that something wasn't normal but they wouldnt be fearing for their lives.

Traditionally cattle were for ploughing, leather, milk & meat as they were grazers who needed little care. Sheep provided milk, wool, hides & live in harsher climates. Cats & dogs are regarded as companion animals for a few factors. They are easy to share room with, & show devotion & thuse we form this emotional bond with them. But they are small, have uses like rodent protection & guarding. They require more upkeep by actually eating meat themselves so the cattle would have to be reared to feed them anyway.
Now of course you could choose have a pet cow or pig. And…in the same way, you are not required to eat them.