Mort, I didn't want to do this but here goes...

wasnt sure if to add to this topic or not, as i am still a butcher (part-time). Also my mum and sister are veggies too. My opinion is thus (for what it is worth).
As i sell and butcher animals, it doesn't mean i endorse in any way cruelty and suffering to animals. I have had it levelled at me that that is a paradox, but that is from people with agendas.

You may not encourage or agree with animal cruelty but you certainly create or are a part of animal suffering. Everyone has an agenda. You saying it’s not paradoxical is part of your meat eating agenda. I have an agenda, I believe that people should treat all living things with compassion. That begins with humans but it includes animals. If you oppose animal cruelty and you eat meat it is very difficult not to be ‘paradoxical’. I’m going to go a bit further and say it’s hypocritical.

I dont approve of judgemental people telling others what to do and what lifestyles to follow (in all aspects of life), but people should be able to define their own lifestyles with morals and some level of intelligence.

I agree. I am not intentionally judging you but I struggle to see how someone who defines their lifestyle by your proposed directives can honestly justify eating meat. I am not telling you how to live your life but I do wonder how seriously you have considered animal rights. I did not consider it much at all but when I did I could not justify my lifestyle choice when it came to food. I think I related the example before but I will happily post it again.

Eating meat DOESN'T have to involve suffering to animals, no matter what some people say, as if the right laws on husbandry and processing are adhered to, suffering is not part of the process.

I think you have capitalised the wrong bit. HAVE TO is more significant. Somewhere in South Eastern Asia, Vietnam I think, you can get the most expensive steak in the world. The cow is massaged everyday, fed the finest grains and lives a life of luxury. That cow lives a very happy life and then is killed to make the best quality steaks ever. However, to force an animal to die is suffering. Especially if it is happy. Most laws where animals are concerned do not sufficiently offer them a good life.

Buy british!!!! We actually adhere to the best animal conditions in the world and even other eec member states flaunt laws blatantly that we adhere to. Cheaper foreign meats may seem better value, but thats because the rearing of these animals is more profitable to the detriment of welfare.

Yes! Indeed! Foot and Mouth! BSE! Fantastic. Battery farms and horrific, cramp conditions are part of our farming industry. There are ‘good’ farmers but they are few and far between because it is hard to make a profit that way. The fact is that meat rearing does not offer animals a good quality of life.

Some of these pro-active animal rights groups are just fronts for people to justify and express outlets for their penchant for violence and terrorism. What is wrong with measured and peaceful argument? It wasnt digging up dead relatives and letter bombs that brought changes to the laws on vivesection, cattle crates or even halal slaughtering in this country.

Say what you want about digging up dead relatives, it did close the place down. The animals there were bred to die and to be tortured in experiments. At the end of the day, digging up a corpse is insensitive and disrespectful. It is not violent in a physical sense. While I agree with you that ‘terrorist’ actions did not change laws I don’t think any form of animal rights pressure did. What did in your opinion, Mort?

Yes, i live a few miles away from that guinea pig farm where the dead corpse of that owners mother was stolen ( i even know a couple of members of the family), but the animals were reared here in conditions not detrimental to them, and the experiments they were used in were in british laboritories, which again, adhere to stricter laws that do ones in south america or asia. Can these people not see that now it has shut, the demand for these animals hasnt gone away, but the rearing and research is being done in other countries where the welfare of the animals is less important, therefore by their own actions they have increased the suffering to animals!!!!!

British labs may be better but our duty is to make all conditions good. Or even make the labs excusable. This means improving them everywhere. Just because fascist Germany was worse than fascist Italy, does not mean we should be satisfied with fascist Italy. Animal rights is a global issue, improving it where it exists, developing it where it doesn’t.

This is the same argument i made a few years back when all the live export calf protests were going on. A simple chain really,
we drink milk
it comes from a cow
to continue producing milk a cow needs to give birth to a calf
male caves have little worth to a dairy farmer
that calf is used for meat - we eat little calf meat in this country (although more than you would think and i bet nearly all of you have had a kebab recently)
calf meat is eaten more on the continent
they rear calves in worse conditions that we do (crates etc)
if we stop supplying them with calves, the demand WONT go away
the continental farmer rear more calves and start supplying us with our milk as our farmers have gone bankrupt!!!!

Is that so hard to understand??????

My argument above slightly covers this. Also, you have just highlighted a way in which animal suffering inevitably occurs in the British farming industry.

Also, if someone who rears an animal withthe intention of selling it, then it is in their interest to ensure that the animal is in prime condition to get the best price, so why would they mistreat, beat and harm that animal???

Not so. Quantity not quality is the name of the game.

STD_Caps wrote:Mort, I didn't want to do this but here goes...

wasnt sure if to add to this topic or not, as i am still a butcher (part-time). Also my mum and sister are veggies too. My opinion is thus (for what it is worth).
As i sell and butcher animals, it doesn't mean i endorse in any way cruelty and suffering to animals. I have had it levelled at me that that is a paradox, but that is from people with agendas.

You may not encourage or agree with animal cruelty but you certainly create or are a part of animal suffering. Everyone has an agenda. You saying it’s not paradoxical is part of your meat eating agenda. I have an agenda, I believe that people should treat all living things with compassion. That begins with humans but it includes animals. If you oppose animal cruelty and you eat meat it is very difficult not to be ‘paradoxical’. I’m going to go a bit further and say it’s hypocritical.

I dont approve of judgemental people telling others what to do and what lifestyles to follow (in all aspects of life), but people should be able to define their own lifestyles with morals and some level of intelligence.

I agree. I am not intentionally judging you but I struggle to see how someone who defines their lifestyle by your proposed directives can honestly justify eating meat. I am not telling you how to live your life but I do wonder how seriously you have considered animal rights. I did not consider it much at all but when I did I could not justify my lifestyle choice when it came to food. I think I related the example before but I will happily post it again.

Eating meat DOESN'T have to involve suffering to animals, no matter what some people say, as if the right laws on husbandry and processing are adhered to, suffering is not part of the process.

I think you have capitalised the wrong bit. HAVE TO is more significant. Somewhere in South Eastern Asia, Vietnam I think, you can get the most expensive steak in the world. The cow is massaged everyday, fed the finest grains and lives a life of luxury. That cow lives a very happy life and then is killed to make the best quality steaks ever. However, to force an animal to die is suffering. Especially if it is happy. Most laws where animals are concerned do not sufficiently offer them a good life.

Buy british!!!! We actually adhere to the best animal conditions in the world and even other eec member states flaunt laws blatantly that we adhere to. Cheaper foreign meats may seem better value, but thats because the rearing of these animals is more profitable to the detriment of welfare.

Yes! Indeed! Foot and Mouth! BSE! Fantastic. Battery farms and horrific, cramp conditions are part of our farming industry. There are ‘good’ farmers but they are few and far between because it is hard to make a profit that way. The fact is that meat rearing does not offer animals a good quality of life.

Some of these pro-active animal rights groups are just fronts for people to justify and express outlets for their penchant for violence and terrorism. What is wrong with measured and peaceful argument? It wasnt digging up dead relatives and letter bombs that brought changes to the laws on vivesection, cattle crates or even halal slaughtering in this country.

Say what you want about digging up dead relatives, it did close the place down. The animals there were bred to die and to be tortured in experiments. At the end of the day, digging up a corpse is insensitive and disrespectful. It is not violent in a physical sense. While I agree with you that ‘terrorist’ actions did not change laws I don’t think any form of animal rights pressure did. What did in your opinion, Mort?

Yes, i live a few miles away from that guinea pig farm where the dead corpse of that owners mother was stolen ( i even know a couple of members of the family), but the animals were reared here in conditions not detrimental to them, and the experiments they were used in were in british laboritories, which again, adhere to stricter laws that do ones in south america or asia. Can these people not see that now it has shut, the demand for these animals hasnt gone away, but the rearing and research is being done in other countries where the welfare of the animals is less important, therefore by their own actions they have increased the suffering to animals!!!!!

British labs may be better but our duty is to make all conditions good. Or even make the labs excusable. This means improving them everywhere. Just because fascist Germany was worse than fascist Italy, does not mean we should be satisfied with fascist Italy. Animal rights is a global issue, improving it where it exists, developing it where it doesn’t.

This is the same argument i made a few years back when all the live export calf protests were going on. A simple chain really,
we drink milk
it comes from a cow
to continue producing milk a cow needs to give birth to a calf
male caves have little worth to a dairy farmer
that calf is used for meat - we eat little calf meat in this country (although more than you would think and i bet nearly all of you have had a kebab recently)
calf meat is eaten more on the continent
they rear calves in worse conditions that we do (crates etc)
if we stop supplying them with calves, the demand WONT go away
the continental farmer rear more calves and start supplying us with our milk as our farmers have gone bankrupt!!!!

Is that so hard to understand??????

My argument above slightly covers this. Also, you have just highlighted a way in which animal suffering inevitably occurs in the British farming industry.

Also, if someone who rears an animal withthe intention of selling it, then it is in their interest to ensure that the animal is in prime condition to get the best price, so why would they mistreat, beat and harm that animal???

Not so. Quantity not quality is the name of the game.

Like i said, everyone has a right to their own opinion if it is based on fact, experience and rationale. Your comments about the labs is very very just, and i agree that all rules for animal cruelty should be raised worlwide, but that isnt going to happen is it? In an ideal world things would be different but we dont live in anything near an ideal world.

"Say what you want about digging up dead relatives, it did close the place down."
Yes but as i said, the demand for thos animals has not gone, they are now bred in south america under more liberal laws than they were at rangemore, so the animals now being used endure more suffering than they did before. I mean, they even once let the animals from rangemore out to free them, and most of them died or were killed by the indiginous carnivore population as they had no ability to survive in the wild!!!

Foot and mouth and BSE are awful diseases i agree, and yes BSE was brought about by a farming process that has now been banned and no longer valid. Intensive farming isnt the ideal way forward , and public pressure has somewhat turned the tide on farming methods, yet it is the same public whos demand for cheap and cheerful produce that caused it in the first place!!!

In a nutshell, i think we agree on a lot of the issues, but i think some of your argument is based on the immotive propaganda that some of these organisations like to send out, relating to out of date and untruthful points of view. Have you ever visited a slaughterhouse? while they are unpleasant places, they are not torture chambers and places of suffering!!

wasn't the animal testing for medicine anyway? If that's the case it's entirely justified. Better a few hamsters suffer than people.

All I know is, i'm sick of people hurting poor defenseless Vegetables. WHY MUST THE CARROTS SUFFER?! I'm going to go dig up some corpses to prove my point.

Also, i'm drinking delicious minute maid orange juice.

Erm... Weetabix. And a strawberry & banana smoothie. Lovely. What a fun way to eat fruit.

Drink, its soup that you eat that's a liquid.

pizza

Now eating curried garlic lentils and chipatis from my local take away. MMMMM

now eating bourbon biscuits dipped in coffee

Weetaflakes with banana. Reasonable.

Dian Wei wrote:Drink, its soup that you eat that's a liquid.

How did you cunts not get this? You fuckers practically speak quotes constantly!

Forget eating and quotes, Blue Peter's scaring me with it's global warning shenanigans..

STD_Caps wrote:Eating meat DOESN'T have to involve suffering to animals, no matter what some people say, as if the right laws on husbandry and processing are adhered to, suffering is not part of the process.

However, to force an animal to die is suffering. Especially if it is happy. Most laws where animals are concerned do not sufficiently offer them a good life.

Killing an animal humanely doesn't have anything to do with suffering. Calling an animal 'happy' is a bit of a stretch too, although the issue of animal consciousness is somewhat contentious.

animals food badness goodness, whatever...

now eating - a raspberry yoghurt with chocolate cake mixed in fucking great, almost as good as cake with ice cream!