Exactly...

I'm not arguing the issue of people crying over a dog. When my dog dies, I'm gonna be a mess for weeks.

I'm arguing the petition. Unless there is a petition for every dog/animal/child that dies then making one for this is kinda stupid.

Well I didn't make it . I just signed it, as it's the least I can do. And if it makes the news, there's a petition for everything.

The child abuse thing is a stupid distraction, I agree, that doesn't belong in this debate.

However, I think it's hypocritical for people to get upset about animal cruelty while buying and eating food that comes from farms where the animals are unhealthy, kept in cages where they can't turn around, are inhumanly slaughtered, and treated much worse than anything being complained of right now.

You want to stop animal cruelty? Then don't pick and choose between cute animals that can be pets and animals you want to eat.

[quote="Groucho
However, I think it's hypocritical for people to get upset about animal cruelty while buying and eating food that comes from farms where the animals are unhealthy, kept in cages where they can't turn around, are inhumanly slaughtered, and treated much worse than anything being complained of right now.

You want to stop animal cruelty? Then don't pick and choose between cute animals that can be pets and animals you want to eat.[/quote]

How exactly would this be done? I mean, I'm all for that but realistically how could someone really have say in what animal is killed for each meal every day?

I buy the organic foods, like the farm fresh eggs from chickens that each had a wonderful day at Disneyland before they died, but there's not much of a way to make sure every animal gets their day.

Here's how I see it:

Animals eat other animals in the wild. People ARE, in fact, animals. People eat other animals. Yes, people have some disgusting ways of getting the food to them and if you want to try you can avoid giving those horrible places your money.

As far as any kind of "unless you're a vegitarian you can't complain about animal cruelty" statement, that's just nonsense. Some idiot starving a dog for "art" is in no way the same thing as killing an animal for food.

Agreed, basically.

I try to buy organic and free-range meat/animal biproducts whenever possible.

But the fact that I'm a carnivore still gives me the right to be simultaneously outraged by the treatment of an animal.

Vegans/Vegetarians are no better than religious groups. Promoting a lifestyle that is "right" and "necessary" for the "well-being" of mankind.

GTFO

Being veggo is your choice. Humans are apart of the food chain. As a meat-eater i do not support the suffering of an animal at all.

I am merely pointing out hypocricy where I see it. "I am against animal cruelty unless, of course, it benefits me" isn't really the highest ethical calling.

I am not saying, like some religious people do, that the laws should be changed so that everyone has to live by what I want.

But you do -- simply by continuing to eat meat, you're supporting the cruel treatment of the animals you eat. (Unless, of course, you are hunting or raising your own meat animals.)

One of the reasons I don't eat meat (other than fish) is because of the inhumane ways the meat is raised, fed unsafe food to fatten it up (and spread e-coli), and treated as a thing instead of living being. It's much worse than having a dog starve to death.

Consider then my refusal to eat meat as a boycott against these conditions. I don't want to give money to a business that treats their animals that way. I am against animal cruelty and I am actually doing something about it, because I can.

It's the choice you make. Yes, humans are omniverous but you don't have to eat meat. I haven't had meat since before most of you were born, and there are lots of vegetarians out there who survive very nicely (and in fact are on the whole much healthier than their meat-eating cousins).

So if you really care about animal cruelty, don't do things that allow it to continue. If you do continue to eat meat, then maybe you should ask yourelf if you really do care.

YOU would be more devastated. if a family member or someone close to me died of course i would be devastated. more than i would be if some animal died. and more than i would be if some person i did not personally know died. even if it is someone who has done a tremendous amount of work to better this world. does that make the person i knew more important in the big scheme of things than the other person i didn't know? unlikely. so is it really any different with animals then?

there are many things i absolutely hate, and one of them if the egotistical view that humans somehow are more important than any other species on this planet. far from it. of course i might be a hypocrite since im not a vegetarian or anything. i do feel guilty about it sometimes...

but anyway in this case im gonna have to agree with those defending (to an extent anyway) the "artist." i'm not exactly saying i approve of what he did...but the point that there is so much suffering out there and we are capable of at least doing a bit to help alleviate it is a valid point...

if this was being viewed by many why the fuck did they not do anything about it? where was the photographer who took the pictures shown? why are not being called the same names as the man who did this in the first place? are they not just as guilty?

i don't agree. We treat our kind just as bad, or if not worse, as we treat our animals.

two wrongs don't make a right.

a human life when saved is capable of much more.

True, but it's also true that there are much more humane ways to raise animals for food, and if people really care about the treatment of animals, they should be promoting those ways.

But, I'm a vegetarian who doesn't actually care about these things. I'm rather ambivalent and acknowledge that.

So... therefore... we should do nothing about either one????

I'm gonna have to disagree with both of you. explain what you mean when you say it is capable of "much more."

although it still doesn't matter for reasons already stated by others.

Not keeping animals in crates where they never see the light of day their whole lives. Feeding them healthy food, rather than turning them into cannibals. Not keeping so many of them in such a small space that there isn't room to turn around. Stuff like that. Make the time that an animal is alive at least slightly humane.

a saved human life can help other human beings. A dog that has survived cancer can't do anymore than keep Aunt Phyllis happy for a few more years.

jujubee: more is being done to eliminate inhumane ways of farming animals for food (and clothing). More and more animal cruelty lawsuits are being filed everyday.

no, no. i agree 100% percent with that, condition under which animals are kept should be improved....

i meant getluv was arguing that a human life is more important because it is capable of achieving more than an animal life. i don't really agree with that so i was asking what you guys meant what you guys meant by a human life being capable of "much more" than an animal.

No matter how much you love animals, or how crazy PETA people are (I don't know if you are a member, and not accusing you of being crazy if you are), the fact is that humans have the potential to contribute more to the world than animals.

it's a case of us and them.

imagine if the world was on a level playing field. Everyone is educated, healthy and well-fed. Imagine all the available resources we would have to try and find an "alternative" ways to get our meat, either thru better farming practices or thru genetically modified material.

Unfortunately, we live in a world where barely a billion people live above the poverty line.

I support the work these animal organisations do, but until we get us right, how can we get them right.

but you keep going back to the same argument. you say a human life is more important because it is capable of doing more...more things that will benefit our own species. which implies you give us more importance because you already think we are more important to begin with. why does what a dog can do have to be measured in terms of what they can do for humans, and not their own kind or the planet as a whole?

Humans have achieved many amazing things that have made our lives easier. There's no denying that. But has it improved the planet as a whole? The human condition as a whole? I'd argue against that. And at the same time something as small as ant shows an equal amount of sophistication in the way they build their homes, or the way in which they cooperate to survive. We of course don't think about that because we don't think such things benefit us in any way, but it does not make them any less remarkable in their own way. And actually of course other species do a lot for humans and the planet as a whole. Preventing the spread of malaria, for example....and we take all these things for granted. Frankly I think humans could be wiped off the planet and the planet would actually benefit (overall) from it. Yet if something as small as some species of insects were to die off the planet would suffer devastating consequences.

see what i just posted.

i don't know if i'd say i'm an animal lover. definitely not a member of PETA. in fact i'd say i'm just as selfish as any other human being on this planet, thinking first of what is best for our own kind. but i'm also not under some kind of delusion that we human beings have made a bigger contribution to the planet than other species. or that we somehow should have more rights to it.

Yeah, even I agree with that, and I can't stand those self-righteous asses at PETA.

No sentient being deserves to be treated cruelly, and I don't differentiate between cuddly kittens and ugly cows. But there is a bit of a hierarchy here between animals and humans.

For instance, if animal testing can help us find a cure for cancer, then I'm in favor of it. (I am not in favor of animal testing for shampoos and deoderants.)

The key is that you don't have to eat meat. Just by refusing to eat meat, you can do something about animal cruelty. And it's something that will also in the long run save you money and make you healthier.

The only reason not to so is that you just don't really care that much about animal cruelty.

(EDIT: I just thought of my own semi-hypocricy, but I'm not sure what the solution is. You see, I buy meat for my cats, who are, of course carnivores and would not be healthy if I tried to feed them a vegetarian diet. Much of that meat in cans is probably just as badly treated as any meat that becomes a McDonald's hamburger. I guess in the long run it comes down to "you do as much as you can to help the problem, but there are no absolutes in the world...")

You make a good point. But who do we hold responsible for these extinct or endangered species? Us or a few of us. I'm sure i didn't order a thai white tiger fur rug for my living room.

Microorganisms dominate this planet, and the ones that cause us to sicken and die are referred to as germs and viruses. A lot of these diseases live inside of other animals. Many people use to die from a lot of these diseases. But now we have all sorts of cures for diseases. We have vaccinations now not only in our respective countries but also in poorer nations.

The reason why humans supersede animals is our brains are more powerful. There are a few animals who have more powerful brains but they are limited. An art farm, is a best an ant could do.

Over the last few years, humans have done just as much "good" for animals as they have done "harm". In fact, animal rights did not exist until only recently. People who encourage the use of fur as a fashion statement are now looked down upon. Animals actually have certain "rights" now. You could argue dogs in the Western World have more "rights" than human beings in China.

I hate dogs for lots of reasons. I also hate human for numerous reasons as well. Why on earth people pay thousands of dollars to send their pets on a weekend retreat instead of giving that money to the poor is beyond me. I think a lot of people agree with me here.