Total Posts:5|Showing Posts:1-5
Jump to topic:

Animal Protection Is The Most Meaningful Caus

Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2015 9:40:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I have had much compassion for animals since I was a child. When I was growing up, my faith and values changed several times, but my love and compassion for animals never changed. Now I finally realize that animal protection is the really meaningful cause.

Below are my answers to some questions, and a rough description of my animal protection concept.

Why must we protect animals?

Like we human beings, animals have consciousness and feeling, and can experience suffering and happiness.

No one wants suffering, and neither do animals. This is the enough reason why we must protect animals.

Why do we not advocate "protecting plants"?

Plants do not have brain or nerve, so that they do not have any consciousness at all, including any suffering or happiness.

Therefore, in terms of morality, there is no need to protect plants.

Why do we not advocate "protecting mosquitoes"?

All vertebrate animals, including human beings, have advanced nervous systems, and have strong feeling and consciousness. However, most invertebrates, such as insects, only have very simple nervous systems, so that most invertebrates' feeling and consciousness are very weak.

We do not say "protect mosquitoes" or "protect mites", because their feeling and consciousness are very weak.

Why we must not kill animals, although animals keep killing each other?

Animals should not be condemned for killing others, because animals have low intelligence, and cannot understand that their behaviors bring suffering to other individuals. It is just as you cannot condemn a child who is three or four years old for killing someone, because it knows nothing; in fact, many animals have the same intelligence level as a child at that age does.

However, adults' intelligence level is high enough for them to know that their behaviors may bring suffering to other individuals. Under the circumstance of knowing that, doing such behaviors is an obvious atrocity.

Why do we not obey the natural law which lets the strong ones prey upon the weak ones?

The natural law that allows the strong ones to prey upon the weak ones runs counter to the human ethics. If not, there would be no need to protect the disadvantaged groups.

The weak ones should be protected. The laws of nature are brutal, but the human ethics are compassionate. We human beings must fight against the brutality and stop the killing, not perform the killing.

Why should we be concerned about animals, rather than people?

People live really well nowadays. Most of the so-call disadvantaged groups and poor people are just have rough or less good living conditions. In addition, the human societies keep offering helps and opportunities to those disadvantaged people; with the development of societies, the helps and opportunities keep increasing.

In comparison, animals" situations make me feel sorrier " at least those poor people will not be mistreated or killed. However, there is not even any relevant law to punish the murderers who killed animals cruelly. Now there is nothing more urgent than protecting animals.

Moreover, there is a distinction of good and evil in humans, but animals are all innocent and lovely " just as children (many animals have the same intelligence as children do); every single child is lovely.

Nowadays the rich and powerful people, have strong power, but always squander the power and capital on luxurious lives and meaningless faiths. I will be the owner of power, and use the power to make the greatest contribution to animal protection.

Strive for it!
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2015 2:37:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I agree with taking measures to prevent the unnecessary pain and suffering of animals, and to prosecute those who are intentionally cruel or who participate in animal torture or abuse.

However, I stand firmly behind the idea that it is okay to kill animals under certain circumstances.

1) For food. If you eat what you kill, it was an ethical kill. (Protected and endangered species excluded.) We are a part of the food chain on this planet. Meat is a part of our diet. In the right quantities it is very healthy for us. It is a prime source for fats and protein. Although most of us eat too much of it and I am an advocate for reducing the amount of meat we eat. I despise waste and cruelty in the procurement of meat and support any action taken to reduce these. But there is nothing wrong with killing an animal for food.

2) For conservation. Regulated hunting can have positive impacts on ecosystems as a whole. In areas where the dominant predators have been lost, game animals tend to become overpopulated. This overpopulation can cause a number of problems. The animals may eat much of the available food, driving other species to starvation. They may also develop serious disease and parasite problems. As the only species capable of intelligent management of our remaining wild places it is our responsibility to keep them healthy, even if that means getting our hands dirty sometimes. Also regulated hunting and fishing generates millions and millions in conservation revenue which puts a financial value on our wild spaces. This value helps protect them from the real threats to their continued existence like habitat destruction. Remember I am talking about government regulated hunting here. Not poaching, and not just open season.

3) For self defence. This is obvious. Any animal posing an immediate threat to people
must be killed. Human life is more valuable than animal life. This category also includes pest extermination. Many pests pose a threat to the health and safety of people. It is sometimes necessary to kill animals in order to maintain a healthy household or workplace.

Unlike the majority here (I suspect) I have killed, processed and eaten a number of different animals including farm animals and wild animals. I take no joy in the kill and I experience a moment of sadness every single time I take something's life.
But I thoroughly enjoy the meat they provide and I love the hunt and time spent outdoors. I can tell you that there is no feeling quite like walking through the woods on a game trail with a bow and arrow made from your own two hands. Knowing you are taking part in a tradition that is thousands of years old is a humbling experience. You can't truly respect the skill of ancient hunters until you've tried it yourself.

Taking a life is not something you should ever do lightly, but there is a time and a place for it, and there is certainly a proper way to do it.
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2015 7:08:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
All of it.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Posts: 378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2015 3:31:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I agree that animals have feelings. I have seen that for myself. However, I do not believe that it is morally wrong to kill an animal humanely, nor do I think it is wrong to use animals for the advancement of human beings.

Sometimes people use feelings to think with, without examining what really goes on in the true world. We can watch videos from Africa and watch a beautiful gazelle being horrifically eaten by a tiger. The gazelle will ba in pain, hoping for rescue, but none comes. This is just part of life, and the circle of life. This doesn't just happen in Africa, but all over the world. Spiders eating flies. Bears eating deer. Bacteria eating people. Bigger birds eating eggs from smaller birds. ETC..... It goes on and on like this. It is how we evolved. It's called the circle of life, and is a fact. When you say that you want to protect animals, what you are really saying is that you want to protect certain animals, namely the ones that humans kill, as if we are somehow evil in what we do. In your way of thinking other animals aren't evil for killing other animals.

We evolved into meat eaters and would not have survived without that meat. It has only been the last 60 years that there has been enough food from farming that we don't really have to eat meat, although for our health it is important that we eat some meat. My question is, when did killing animals become wrong? Before the 1940s when agriculture didn't produce enough food? Or after the 1940's? What you are saying about killing animals is more of an emotional plea because you love animals. Most people do not feel that emotional about animals. Some people are emotional about people dying in car wrecks, but to try to stop people from driving and saying that it's immoral to drive would be nonsense because we need cars to work and live.

There will always be death as part of the circle of life. This is what nature has brought to our table. It is neither right nor wrong, but just is. It is how we evolved and will continue to evolve. But we believe that killing an animal for meat in a humane way so that it doesn't feel a lot of pain is the most humane way. I think we instinctively know that pain and suffering is not a good thing, and that when we do kill an animal it should be quick and painless.